Questions on Increasing Standardization of C 603 Vocations in the Future

[[Good morning Sr. Laurel, I have a couple of questions that I hope you can answer. First, how serious do you think local bishops actually take the eremitical vocation? In light of the recent temporary consecration of a transgender person, who by his own account doesn’t live the vocation, by a bishop I’ve begun to question just how knowledgeable some bishops are in regard to consecration as a hermit in the Church or how serious they take said consecration. It’s almost like the hermit vocation is seen as a dumping ground for people who desire a religious life but don’t “fit” in more typical expression.

Secondly, do you anticipate a time when diocesan/canonical hermits will become more standardized in regard to elements of the Rule of Life each individual writes? I understand each hermit is a solitary who lives their approved Rule in solitude but am curious as to the possibility of some aspects of the vocation be more standardized or at least perhaps clearer guidelines installed. I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for all you do and for your blog. ]]

Thanks for these questions. Let me say at this point that they are important (as events during the Spring indicated emphatically); I completely agree that we sometimes see bishops implementing c 603 in ways that are both disedifying and irresponsible given the source and value of the vocation. Even so, I don't believe the answer lies in the direction of standardization precisely, but in the direction of educating bishops and their chanceries regarding the nature, charism, and significance of the vocation as a gift of God to the Church. Standardization, especially in terms of the hermit's Rule of Life, penalizes both solitary hermits living the vocation as the Holy Spirit calls them to, and those who take appropriate time and care for discernment and formation of such vocations. Where standardization will not work, however, appropriate guidelines and some critical expectations (which may be what you are envisioning) will. For instance, I recently wrote about the things a liveable Rule of Life should contain and the way that should be contextualized. You may have read this:

[[Each diocesan hermit's Rule of Life will capture 1) something of the hermit's experience of God as God has been at work in her life over the years, 2) her understanding of and commitment to the foundational elements of c 603, and 3) especially her experience of and faithfulness to redemption in Christ known and celebrated in the Gospel. These three are then contextualized within a public and ecclesial vocation lived for the sake of God, his Church, and all that is precious to God. [The hermit must show an understanding and commitment to these two foundational elements as well as to numbers 1-3!!] Together these constitute a personally integrated program of solitary eremitical living as a disciple, and too, as a spouse of Christ who truly is the hermit's Beloved. In other words, every facet of the c 603 hermit's Rule is transparent to and reflects the Gospel of God in Christ and is lived in the name of the Church.]]

People working to assist a hermit candidate for c 603 profession and consecration will expect a Rule of Life to meet these guidelines, and they will give the hermit candidate time to write such a Rule -- a very weighty project indeed! In the process I am currently working on and proposing to the Church, the writing of a truly liveable Rule combines these five elements and provides the framework for a substantial formation period and process. The diocesan team, along with a consulting c 603 hermit, learns as the hermit does what constitutes such a vocation and a liveable Rule under c 603, and they will discern whether this specific candidate is truly called to such a public and ecclesial vocation through the way they work on and complete this critical project. In other words, the writing of one's Rule, given the guidelines mentioned above, serves as the framework for both discernment and formation of a c 603 vocation. It will take time to do well,  and it will also provide for the basis of conversations between the candidate and diocesan team and consultants, as well as help assure that the candidate and the diocese understand and have embraced the c 603 vocation as a God-given gift before any profession of vows.

My main complaint about standardization is that one can get a person desiring to be professed to jump through any hoops provided in canon law (or in a diocese's particular approach), but this does not mean the person has a vocation. This is especially true when we are speaking of the addition of canonical stages and time frames. In community life, these kinds of requirements are helpful and appropriate, but in solitary eremitical life, there is no community to help assess the way the hermit is proceeding or maturing in their eremitical life. Moving through stages and time frames can be done so long as one is sufficiently motivated (or desperate enough) to do that. This does not ensure one has a vocation. As one of my Directors reminded me about her time as Vicar for Religious and Assistant Vocation Director of the Diocese of Oakland, "discernment is an art;" formation is very much the same. So, while standardization can assure good hoop jumpers, your suggestion of guidelines along with clear expectations allowing for flexibility are very much more workable for solitary hermits. These begin with the single concrete requirement of the canon, namely the writing of a (liveable) Rule of life because the Rule must include every element of the canon and demonstrate an experiential understanding of and commitment to these. 

I don't know that we will ever get every bishop to understand the nature of solitary eremitical vocations, much less to regard them as a gift of God to the Church we must adequately esteem and protect, but I am convinced that is the direction we must take to prevent more situations like the one you mentioned. While in general, I tend to believe most bishops take c 603 seriously, particularly when they are clued in regarding the importance of the vocation -- hence my surprise with Bp Stowe's actions in Cole Matson's regard -- I think we really must take the time to educate them and their staff regarding the charism of the vocation. We must especially do this in a way that helps them understand why the vocation is critical to the life of the Church, and why we expect the Church to admit to profession only those who are prepared for that, are truly called by God, and who believe whole-heartedly in the vocation they propose to become publicly and ecclesially responsible for.

On Assisting Others to Write Liveable Rules of Life

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, do you assist people in writing their Rule for c 603?]]

Great question!! The answer is, "yes and no" or maybe,"not quite". Let me explain. I believe that writing a liveable Rule requires experience of living as a hermit and, more and more, defining one's life in terms of Canon 603. As I have written in the past, the aim is to help engage the candidate for profession under c 603 in a process of discernment and formation that allows them to eventually write a livable Rule reflecting the way they live and will continue to live c 603 for the rest of their lives. I envision the person becoming increasingly capable of embodying the terms and spirit of consecrated solitary eremitical life lived in the name of the Church, and writing a Rule reflecting all of that within it.

Because, despite profound similarities, each person will embody these terms differently than any other hermit, the process is a flexible one allowing for the candidate's exploration of all of the dimensions of canon 603, and providing the experience and guidance needed to write the Rule the canon requires. Thus, the assistance I provide often has nothing to do directly with the writing of the Rule itself; it is focused on a broader process which allows all participants to discern the presence and quality of a solitary eremitical vocation as well which includes providing space and time for the formation necessary to be admitted to profession and eventual consecration under c 603. At the same time, the writing of the various drafts (or draft portions) of the Rule, is part of what allows me (and any diocesan personnel I might work with) to assess the candidate's vocation and readiness for commitment over time.

When I first began envisioning this process I had a couple of thoughts. First, such a process which draws directly from the essential elements of the canon itself was a wiser and more effective approach than the increasing establishment of canonical hoops for those approaching their dioceses to jump through. Such canonical approaches tend to be arbitrary and provide no assurance that the person meeting such requirements develops the heart of a hermit or even truly lives the life. What Rule the person writes might or might not reflect adequate experience of living eremitism nor the wisdom needed to continue with ongoing formation. Secondly, I saw that using the canon's requirement that the hermit write a Rule of life was meant to reflect the person's readiness to live the canon in fullness. This, along with the formative nature of my own writing of my Rule, in turn led me to consider the process of writing as driving a process of both discernment and formation. Thirdly, I understood that this process could assist diocesan personnel in their work with candidates/petitioners so decisions re admission to profession and/or consecration would not be arbitrary. It would provide an effective path for both hermit and diocese to work together for as long as necessary without being onerous for either.

More recently I have come to see that my own accompaniment of those seeking formation as a c 603 hermit needs to include more frequent meetings than might be necessary for the entire diocesan team (though they will need to be apprised of how things progress), and that has also meant that the writing of the Rule itself, while the goal we keep in mind,  is not the direct topic of most meetings. It becomes more the direct topic as the person nears readiness for profession and the diocese approaches admission to this commitment. However, I do get requests to assist folks in writing their Rules and nothing more. I will certainly do what I can if the person is truly living as a hermit and has done for some time (say a couple of years). Otherwise, however, the attempt to write a Rule will be premature and fail to serve in the incredibly creative ways it can do in terms of the vocation's discernment and formation. 

I hope this is helpful. I received a request for help in writing a Rule in just the last couple of days, so I need to be clear that while I am happy to do that, it needs to be part of a larger process of discernment and formation and too, requires experience on the part of the candidate (petitioner) to even begin. Too often in the past dioceses have sent folks off to write a Rule as though it was simply a discrete item on a list of things to cover or get done. The writing of a liveable Rule is much more critical and integral to the entire eremitical project of one's life. It requires expertise and wisdom, and writing it teaches or inculcates some of the skills the hermit will need throughout her life. For these reasons I should underscore here that the hermit herself needs to write the Rule, not her bishop, her spiritual director, et al!! I can assist in this, but it is the hermit's own responsibility. Your question gives me the chance to explain some of that, so thank you.

More on the Process of Discernment and Formation of c 603 Hermits

 [[Hi Sister Laurel, I have read some of the things you have written about the discernment and formation of eremitical vocations. You seem to disagree with dioceses that establish time schemata associated with the canonical stages of religious life. Is that accurate and if it is, why do you disagree with it? You stress an approach which depends upon a candidate or hermit writing several different versions of their Rule of Life over time. How does this differ from a set period of candidacy, novitiate, and juniorate? What happens if someone using your approach decides they want to keep on writing new Rules and never come to the place where they need to leave the idea of eremitical life behind?]]

Happy New Year to you, and thanks for your questions. To clarify one point for accuracy, what I disagree with is not dioceses but canonists who write about approaches to implementing c 603 which are strong on canonical time frames, and formal stages, even as they are woefully short on an understanding of eremitical life or the central elements of canon 603 and the ways a person grows in these. As a corollary, I also disagree with the application of time frames which work well in a communal context but are insensitive to how fluid time can and often needs to be in a solitary eremitical context. Finally, I am amazed at canonists who write in ways meant to codify time frames for growth in solitude but show no sense at all that there are different kinds of solitude --- some transitional, some geared toward growth, others fostering a kind of personal decompensation, some escapist, others individualistic, some assisting life in community, and so forth. 

Eremitical solitude is not transitional, nor is it escapist or individualistic. One may need a period of transitional solitude when one leaves a given context or situation (like active ministry or religious life) just as one will need some times of transitional solitude during bereavement, for instance, but whether these will ever grow into eremitical solitude is unlikely or at least uncertain given the rarity of eremitical life itself. One needs to take care with the type of solitude one is dealing with in a candidate and since types or forms can and do overlap and confuse, it can take time to determine what one is dealing with --- more than it takes in community, for example. 

A Process NOT a Program:

What I have written about on this blog is not a program of discernment and formation (which, I think, is what time frames are meant to define) but a process. In the process I have tried to describe, the diocese provides sufficient support for the person discerning a c 603 vocation --- a small discernment and formation team, for instance, composed of the Vicar for Religious, and someone with expertise in formation in contemplative and/or eremitical life along with input from the person's spiritual director, and/or delegate. The process is driven by the "candidate's" own growth and needs. 

These will be reflected by the Rule she writes for herself at any given stage of discernment and formation, and the Rule will serve as a guide for discussions re the presence of an eremitical vocation, readiness for profession, resources required (extended time in monastic silence, lessons in praying the Divine Office or other forms of prayer, assistance with establishing cottage industries, classes in theology, Scripture, instruction in the vows,  etc). There should be a clear difference in the first Rule a would-be-hermit writes and the second, or third, or seventh, or tenth!! The formation team should be able to see progress in the person's lived experience and understanding of canon 603 and its constitutive elements. More, they should see signs that the person is growing in personal wholeness and holiness, that she is thriving in (and toward!) the silence of solitude even in the midst of the struggles it will also bring or involve.

In such a process the canonical stages appropriate to cenobitic life (life in community) simply have less meaning and are less quantifiable or even distinguishable. In any case such "stages" would need to be applied not according to a specific timetable, but according to one's readiness for the responsibilities associated with each stage of the life per se --- and these are not the same as those in coenobitical life. (A hermit is not being prepared to take on varying degrees of canonical responsibility within a congregation, but instead is being prepared to take a representative place in a living eremitical tradition.) It seems to me that the marker of such readiness is the capacity to write a liveable Rule of life after having written several experimental and less adequate Rules reflecting the would-be-hermit's growth in the life. 

On mistaking the inability to write a liveable Rule as a sign of no vocation: 

I have known people desiring to be c 603 hermits who spent several years trying and failing to put together a Rule. This did NOT necessarily mean they were not called to the life, but rather that they had a good deal to learn and especially, a lot to become consciously aware of before they could articulate it in the way a liveable Rule requires. For instance, to write a liveable Rule which concretely reflects a commitment to be open and responsive to God at work in one's life, one needs to cultivate all of those skills which are part and parcel of truly listening to/for God. One needs to know something of Who God is and who they themselves are, how God has been at work in their lives and the ways they have responded most fruitfully or refused to do so and why. Until one reaches some real degree of this level of awareness, they may be a lone individual, but they have not entered into eremitical solitude --- even as a novice hermit --- and they are certainly not ready to write a liveable Rule of Life.

This means the first several years of beginning to live as a hermit may be full of learning entirely new things, developing new skills, becoming aware in ways one was not aware before, and essentially undergoing a unique kind of conversion of mind and heart which is necessary to being a hermit in some "essential way". The process cannot be rushed, nor should it be shoehorned into the canonical time frame that works for religious living in community. And yet, this shoehorn approach is the one most canonists take, and so too, most dioceses that decide to implement c 603. If a person has not written a liveable Rule in the first couple of years after approaching a diocese with a petition for profession under c 603, dioceses are apt to dismiss them as unsuitable candidates for such a profession. 

Partly, I believe this occurs because the diocesan personnel don't have the first clue about how to accompany a budding solitary hermit on their own journey of discernment and formation, and partly it is due to the more fundamental failure to understand the distinction between lone individual and hermit in the first place. Equally foundationally problematical is the fact that diocesan staff, never having tried to do this themselves, often seem to believe writing a liveable Rule is a simple task that anyone should be able to do without assistance or significant preparation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes candidates are dismissed as unsuitable because the diocese doesn't actually believe in the hermit vocation at all --- though this lack of belief is rarely explicitly admitted; in such instances dioceses will not be able to accompany a candidate in the way needed. After all, if one does not esteem the vocation, one will hardly take the time needed to appropriately regard the process it requires for a candidate to embrace and be able to represent such a vocation! The process I have outlined on this blog serves to assist both the candidate and the diocese in taking solitary eremitical vocations seriously in a way which is organic to the vocation, to canon 603 itself, and therefore, is not unnecessarily onerous to either the candidate or the diocese.

Necessary Time Limits:

Your question about what is equivalent to the "perpetual doctoral student" problem where someone keeps writing and writing on their dissertation but never concludes it is well taken. There must be some time limits --- or at least there must be signs the hermit candidate is moving towards perpetual profession and the wholeness/holiness of an authentic vocation --- if the formation team is to continue working with them effectively. Otherwise, the process breaks down and everyone's time and energy are wasted. On the other end of the scale, there must be minimum time limits as well. A diocese must be clear that formation in religious life, while helpful, is not identical to that of the solitary hermit, nor in the Roman Catholic Church is canon 603 meant to define a "solitary religious" as the Episcopal Church allows in their canon law, but rather a true and solitary hermit (who is also, therefore, a religious). 

For someone leaving religious life in community (especially in active ministry), time for transition from life in community and active ministry, to adult life in a parish environment  (presuming they entered relatively soon after college), to contemplative life (if one really feels called to this), then to contemplative life in solitude (again, if one continues to feel called to this), and then to eremitical life per se must be given and required. This is so because each of these steps (especially in the beginning) can take various vocational forms, and these too must be discerned and established. Again, asking the candidate to write a Rule of Life which reflects her growing (or shifting) sense of these realities in her life can serve as a focus for ongoing discussion, direction, formation, and discernment of readiness to move in a somewhat more formal way from step to step toward profession as a canon 603 hermit. Time frames can serve as guidelines in all of this and for a lot of it, one needs only a good spiritual director. 

It is only once one is transitioning from contemplative life to even greater solitude that one begins discerning eremitical life per se and may reasonably consider and discern consecrated eremitical life under c 603. At this point approaching a diocese is meaningful, but not truly before this. When one approaches a diocese prematurely (especially before one is a hermit in the essential sense I mentioned above) one may merely ensure that one's true vocation is not realized, much less recognized.

On the Problem of Shoehorning "Vocations" into more usual Canonical Timeframes:

While there are a number of benefits to the process I have outlined, one of its real strengths is the fact that it does not ask a person to approach a diocese prematurely but allows a person to work carefully with her director until it is relatively clear that she really has an eremitical calling. At that point the person has already undertaken a significant personal discernment process which she can then share with the diocese and should be relatively ready to discern with her diocese whether or not she is ultimately called to a canon 603 (a solitary diocesan hermit) vocation. If a person approaches the diocese before this (before, that is, the various transitional forms of solitude, etc., have been worked through, for instance), everyone involved may mistake being a lone pious individual, for being a person with a vocation to eremitical solitude. Professing a lone individual who then calls herself a hermit is destructive to the vocation per se and will make canon 603 itself apparently incredible. On the other hand, if one approaches a diocese prematurely, a diocese can err in the opposite direction, and may decide the process is taking too long and simply dismiss the person as unsuitable for c 603 profession. 

The tendency to shoehorn c 603 vocations into the canonical time frames associated with canonical religious life in community makes either of these mistakes likely. In the first instance, the eremitical vocation is demeaned or trivialized, and the diocese may decide not to risk professing anyone under c 603 in the future. In the latter instance, a specific public (canonical) eremitical vocation which is a unique gift of the Holy Spirit, may be lost to the Church even though the individual can continue to live fruitfully as a privately dedicated (non-canonical) hermit. Remember that canon 603 was originally written because a number of vocations to eremitism with long preparation in monastic life had no way to be recognized canonically or lived according to the monastic house's proper law. 

As a result, years lived in solemn vows had to be relinquished, the monastics secularized, and ways to live as hermits explored apart from publicly vowed religious life. The long preparation for such a call was not accidental to discovering a vocation to eremitical solitude, but essential to it. For this reason, canon 603 also requires long preparation even though the diocese is not directly involved in most of it. This cannot and must not be forgotten; it is part of the canon's own history and nature.

On the Beauty and Depth of Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, I wondered why you write about canon 603 now, so many years after you have been professed. It sounds to me like you believe it is important to hermits even after they have been consecrated. I realize that the canon describes what is necessary to be admitted to canonical standing, and I get you might want to be writing for those interested in becoming diocesan hermits, but is there something more to it than that? Once you're admitted under a law, why concern yourself with the law? I wondered if you could explain that. By the way, your anniversary of profession is coming up isn't it? Congratulations!]]

Good to hear from you; it has been a while!! Interesting observations and question!  Yes, I continue to write about canon 603 for one particular reason; namely, as I have come to perceive it, it is not merely a canon allowing for admission to profession and consecration (as historically and ecclesially important as this is); instead, the canon prescribes a profound and often unimagined way of life constituted by the central elements named therein. Many mistakenly treat these elements as though their meaning is obvious and easily understood and lived. For instance, poverty, chastity, and obedience seem clear enough. So do "Stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance" and "the silence of solitude". That one is required to write a Rule of life may seem a requirement anyone can easily accomplish, and dioceses routinely send folks off to do this without instructions or assistance -- fully expecting they will be able to succeed at the task, but this is not so easy really. 

Beneath the words of the canon in this element and in all the others, however, there are worlds the hermit is called and will need to explore, embrace, and embody if they are to truly be a canon 603 hermit. The canon supplies, in significant ways, the windows to these worlds. Because I petitioned to be admitted to profession under this canon and because the Church professed, consecrated, and commissioned me to do so, I am living and exploring this particular eremitical life; gradually I have come to know or at least glimpse the depths of the life prescribed by the canon --- even when I have not lived into them as fully as I am yet called to. 

 As a corollary, I have come to know many of the depths of the canon itself. I write about canon 603 now 14 years after perpetual profession and consecration because, from within this life, I continue to see new things in the canon --- things Diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious (who often know very little about such a life or canon 603 itself) need to see, things candidates need to have a sense of as they approach mutual discernment and formation in this call, and things those professed under canon 603 are also committed to exploring. Especially, I continue to write about canon 603 because, from within this life, I have always perceived a beauty about it and the way it blends non-negotiable elements with the freedom and flexibility of a solitary life lived for the sake of others in response to the Holy Spirit. It both demands and allows for profound eremitical experience before profession and it both calls for and empowers even greater depth and breadth in living this life thereafter. You see, it is not just the single elements of the canon nor their apparently "obvious" meanings that are important -- though of course they are crucial. It is what is implicit and profound in them and in the fabric they weave together that is also critical to appreciating canon 603. 

This kind of appreciation is important not just for the hermit herself, but also for dioceses seeking to use the canon appropriately and for canonists whose tendency is to want to add additional requirements and legislative elements to the canon before admitting anyone to profession. More and more I have come to see that these added elements are unnecessary, not only because eremitical life itself doesn't need them, but because canon 603 itself does not. Of course, in coming to appreciate the beauty I referred to above, and the surprising adequacy or sufficiency of the canon, one must be open to seeing there what is more than superficial or even more than significantly explicit.

 Let me give you an example. The canon requires the solitary hermit to write her own Rule. However, it doesn't explicitly define the nature of the Rule and whether it will function as law, Gospel, law and Gospel (or Gospel and law); will it be primarily or wholly a list of do's and don'ts, limitations and permissions, or will it provide a vision of the life the hermit is committing to live with whatever that requires? Nor does c 603 explicitly require that it be a liveable Rule which may only come to be after the hermit has written at least several drafts. And yet both of these, rooted in the hermit's lived-experience and long-reflection, must be understood as called for by canon 603. Another example is the central element, "stricter separation from the world." What does it really mean? What does it call for from the hermit? I have written a lot about this element of the canon over the past decade and more, so I won't repeat all that here, but where in the canon does it speak of freedom from enmeshment with falsity, freedom for truth and honest engagement with and on behalf of God's good creation? These words are never used and yet, these are part, perhaps even the heart of what this element of ''stricter separation'' refers to.

Nor is it just a matter of getting under the superficial or common usage of the terms involved. One needs to begin to see the way they are related to one another and help in the weaving of a single reality. Both of the elements just noted, the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule and stricter separation from the world, demand the hermit engage in a process of growth and maturation in Christ specifically as a canon 603 or diocesan hermit. Moreover, the canon provides a vision of consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Church. Each element contributes to this vision, including those in both 603.1 and 603.2. At the same time, in service to the incarnation of this vision in an individual's life, canon 603 provides the means for a process of discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, even though this process is not explicit in the text of the canon. 

The requirement that a hermit write a liveable Rule confronts everyone with the needs for adequate discernment and formation. But how is this achieved? Do we need more canons? Must we borrow from canonical norms established (wisely and appropriately) for other and less individual forms of religious life? Again, I find canon 603 beautiful and perhaps surprising in its sufficiency here: what is implicit in the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule is the fact that an adequate process of discernment and formation can be structured according to the hermit's growing abilities and capacities to write a liveable Rule of life that is true to canon 603's vision of solitary eremitical life.  Writing a liveable Rule of Life is not simply one element of the canon among others; it is the culmination of a process of reflection, prayer, study, and personal growth in Christ (and thus, in all the other elements of the canon) it itself guides and crystalizes. 

A hermit engaging in the writing of a liveable Rule will require accompaniment and assistance (a very small formation team, for instance), but the process envisioned here can be relatively simple and effective in guiding the diocese working with a candidate for profession, and certainly it is respectful of the freedom required by both the hermit and the Holy Spirit in shaping and deepening this specific vocation. Best, it grows organically from (or is implicit in) the requirements of canon 603 itself.

To return more directly to your questions. Canon 603 is certainly a norm by which the Church recognizes, governs, and thus perpetuates solitary consecrated hermits. It is associated with canonical (legal) rights and obligations which bind the hermit. It defines the nature of the diocesan hermit's life and so, provides the central elements which mark this definition. It is here, however, that canon 603 becomes something more than most canons because it is associated with a vision of the solitary eremitical life and a vision is not only about what is seen, but about the underlying mystery which grounds, inspires, and is to be manifested in the lives of those living under this canon. 

I believe that the authors of c 603 wrote something rich, perhaps richer than they knew. Canon 603 is a window opening onto Mystery; the mystery of eremitical life, of God and the way human beings are verified (made true) in communion with God, the mystery of the way even the most isolated life can be redeemed in solitude, and the mystery of the way even human and Divine solitude always imply community. Because all of this and more is true, because canon 603 is not a once-used now-essentially-irrelevant law (unless of course, one transgresses it!) but something far more, I continue to reflect on, pray with, and write about c 603.

Postscript: Yes, it's a big week for me. I mark my birthday on September 1st, and celebrate the anniversary of my perpetual profession under c 603, the next day, 2nd Sept. Thanks for asking!

When Diocesan Personnel Don't Understand What A Rule is or How it Functions

[[Sister Laurel, if a diocese is going to use the process of writing a Rule as a key to discernment and formation of a solitary hermit it will make a difference in the way they understand what a Rule is, right? You wrote that there are two ways of approaching a Rule, that of law and that of Gospel. You also say that a Rule has to embody one's vision of eremitical life and its significance in the 21st century. But what happens when a diocese does not appreciate or maybe understand things in the same way you do? Does every diocesan official who works with hermits know what it means to write a Rule? Do they even know what a Rule should be and do? You see what I am getting at I bet: what if a diocese doesn't understand the Rule or the way a Rule should function as you do? What happens then?]]

Really terrific questions, thank you! Yes, your point is well-taken. Because many dioceses have never had the experience of discerning a vocation with a diocesan hermit (one who has lived the life for some years and actually makes it to perpetual profession), they may not know what a Rule actually is or how it works. The problem is exacerbated when the persons working with the candidate are priests or others who have never lived according to a Rule --- much less ever having written one for themselves --- and who think it can simply be a list of do's and don'ts. Similarly, such persons may not appreciate the degree of introspection, reflection, and experience required to write such a Rule. Again, when this is the case there is a much greater tendency to allow the Rule to devolve into a mere list of things one may or may not do. The problem, of course, is that such a Rule does not encourage growth or motivate adherence. Dioceses that allow the hermits they profess to write such Rules and are satisfied with them really set up both themselves and those they profess for failure.

So yes, I have to agree that this is a real problem. Canon 603 legislates a Rule written by the hermit herself, but like many terms or elements in this canon, it presumes a degree of knowledge that many diocesan officials may have no acquaintance with. When dioceses tell a candidate whom they have not worked with for any real length of time to go and write a Rule and offer no assistance, resources, contact people, or concrete suggestions or guidelines, I think there is a problem which will only become more complicated as the diocese and candidate move forward toward and with (temporary) profession. But writing a Rule is an incredibly intense and challenging piece of work (though this is accompanied by a sense of joy and freedom at many points), especially if one expects that same Rule to serve as the basis for a vocation that is canonical (ecclesial) and marked by appropriate rights, obligations, and expectations.

It is one thing to believe one is called to be a hermit, another to try living as a hermit for a few months or a couple of years and to do so successfully. But it is entirely another thing to try and synthesize what one has learned about God, oneself, silence, solitude, and eremitical life lived according to the evangelical counsels during this brief time and to create a Rule which will govern one's life for the foreseeable future for years and years!! This is especially true when that Rule needs to say essentially (and in some ways, explicitly): here is my vision of this life; here is what I am called to live and why; here is how I will embody the central elements of Canon 603, and here is why this vocation and my own living out of it is a gift to the People of God and the whole world in the 21st Century!

A diocese that fails to understand what a Rule is and how it is to function in the hermit's life does neither the would-be hermit, the eremitical vocation, nor the Church any favors in turning a candidate loose to "write a Rule" as the easiest requirement of Canon 603. Not only will good candidates often not be able to create a Rule at all, but the Rules created will not be liveable; they will not be able to inspire and support the hermit in living out her vocation throughout the coming years in ways that support greater growth, wholeness, and holiness in response to the Holy Spirit. The results will mean the diocese has failed the individual, the c 603 vocation more generally,  and in concrete terms may lead to the rejection of a candidate with a real vocation or profess someone who simply does not because they can compose a "Rule" consisting of a series of do's and don'ts divorced from reality and the hermit's lived-experience.

Let me add that dioceses and others are in the midst of a rather steep learning curve with regard to canon 603, and that some dioceses with religious in the offices overseeing the profession of c 603 hermits will do very much better in this process because they know what living according to a Rule means and requires. They may not have written one but they do have a sense of what they look like and how they function. This dimension of the diocese's own education on the implementation of c 603 is critically important for the well-being of c 603 vocations now and into the future. Meanwhile, hermits will do their best to find resources supporting their growth in this vocation. Additionally, it is likely that those who are faithful in this way will continue to redact their Rules as needed with the assistance and approval of those supervising them.

On Time Frames in Discerning and Forming Solitary Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sr Laurel, your post on chronic illness stressed the mutual nature of the discernment process between the diocese and candidate for canon 603 profession. You said something about time frames not being fixed under Canon 603. What did you mean here?.... Then can dioceses take as long as they want in making a decision about admitting someone to profession? How about the candidates, can they draw out the process as long as they want? (I don't mean there's any sneaky motives going on here. I hope you understand my meaning.) . . .What is a reasonable time frame and does this differ with someone with a chronic illness or disability than with someone who is entirely well?]]

Thanks for the follow up. With religious life canon law specifies the amount of time given to candidacy (a formal period in initial formation unlike the way I use the term with regard to c 603), novitiate, temporary profession, and the outside limits beyond which one must either be perpetually (or solemnly) professed or dismissed from the institute. Because of the nature of formation in community and the degree of oversight and direct supervision involved, these time frames are pretty well fixed and well-recognized as prudent and also as charitable. The eremitical life differs both in kind and in the nature of its formation and degree of oversight and direct supervision allowed. As a result the time frames for discernment and formation mainly do and must also differ. While it is possible to read even very current works by canonists today who affirm that one can simply borrow the canonical regulations for life-in-community and apply them without customization to eremitical life, such an application is naïve at best and dangerously destructive at worst. Eremitical life is neither discerned nor formed in the same way cenobitical life is; to expect it to conform to the same temporal parameters is wrong-headed.

I believe this is especially true when one is trying to discern and evaluate the vocation, formation, and even readiness for profession of the chronically ill or disabled hermit precisely because one must take the time to distinguish between isolation and solitude, and also, even within this distinction, one must understand the various kinds of isolation and solitude which may be (and are likely) involved. Chronic illness always isolates in varying ways and to varying degrees. Some of these are pathological; some are not. Some may predispose to eremitical solitude, some to temporary or transitional solitude; some speak clearly of personal disintegration or decompensation while for some this very decompensation occurs as part of a radical conversion process involving self-emptying and if given appropriate spiritual direction and support in accepting the grace of God, eventual healing and reintegration of the person's core identity. But this type of process is messy and time-consuming. It does not fit in the neat canonical boxes associated with socialization and formation in community of someone in fine physical health.

Moreover, the process being discerned is about hidden dynamics because it occurs in the silence of solitude. One must look specifically for the grace of God at work in this person's life and that means looking for the paradoxical presence of grace --- wholeness revealed in brokenness, power in weakness, strength in helplessness, and independence in dependence, for instance. One must learn to look for the Life of God within the imperfect life of one whom those in non-eremitical religious life (life in community) might well reject as "unsuitable". This takes time, courage, imagination, and a well-tempered faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the hiddenness of the eremitical life. The authors did not merely mean it all happens alone (with God) behind closed doors --- though of course it mainly does this; they knew that the real fruit and processes of eremitical life (and thus, of eremitical formation and discernment) have to do with the processes of the human heart being redeemed and transfigured (made whole and holy) by the invisible God within the context of silence and personal solitude in an intimate relationship which is mainly invisible and ineffable.

Imagine this!! Read the sentence ending in "ineffable" again! THIS IS what hermits witness to. THIS is the Gospel they proclaim with their lives and very much less so with any limited ministry they may also do. Assessing this is the key to discerning an eremitical life so it is no wonder some dioceses eschew accepting anyone for a process of mutual discernment leading to admission to canonical commitment. On the other hand maybe this is better than what often happens: it is scandalous, I think, that dioceses demand hermits live this kind of hiddenness while also expecting to discern or form such vocations on the basis of criteria culled from canon law geared to the dynamics of active religious lives which are mainly not particularly hidden.

In the Letter to the Hebrews we read that Abraham trusted the promises, no matter how unbelievable they seemed, because the One who made them was trustworthy. Vicars for Religious must be open to trusting that God is at work in the individuals that come to them and allow him the time to do the kinds of miracles only he can do. After all, God is the trustworthy one here, not the time frames culled from centuries of dealing with cenobitical religious formation. Of course this also leads directly to your questions about reasonable time frames and the drawing out of processes of discernment and formation. If the usual parameters (6-12 months candidacy, 1 year pastoral novitiate and 1 year canonical novitiate, followed by temporary profession for no more than 6 years and then perpetual profession and consecration) don't work well for hermits (and especially those who are chronically ill), then what time frames are reasonable and how does one proceed in truly discerning what is happening with the hermit's formation or growth? Is canon 603 itself helpful here or, if other canonical requirements are not helpful, are we left with nothing at all to go on?

While canon 603 does not specify time frames for discernment and formation leading to profession and consecration in the ways Canon Law does for cenobitical vocations, I believe canon 603 includes the key to both quality and flexibility here in its reference to a Rule of Life the hermit will write herself. It takes time and genuine formation in the eremitical life to be able to write a liveable Rule which is authentically eremitical and faithful to one's experience of God in the silence of solitude. This is because such a Rule involves not just a statement of ways one will live the central elements of canon 603, but also relies on and articulates the hermit's own sense of the vision and spirit which drives such a life in the 21st century. 

Thus, it is also possible to use the Rule a hermit writes (and conversations about the process of writing such a Rule) as a key to discerning the quality of the vocation standing before the diocese with a petition for profession and consecration. For this reason, after a hermit has lived eremitical solitude for several years I have proposed that only then do dioceses ask the hermit to begin constructing a liveable and normative Rule. They will then allow for the project to take several years (this is much more likely than not)! Subsequently, diocesan staff may meet with the hermit and discuss the project a couple of times a year or so to help with matters of both discernment and formation, using the Rule in its various incarnations (expect several!!) to help determine readiness for profession and consecration. Remember, the task is to write a liveable Rule rooted in the hermit's experience of the solitary eremitical life, not simply to churn out a list of do’s and don’ts

In this way, the discernment and formation process can be individually tailored and freed from the arbitrary constraints of cenobitical canonical time frames. I believe this would be particularly workable for solitary hermits, but especially for those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Time frames would not be extended arbitrarily nor shortened in a similar way. (The period and process of discernment would need to show signs of ongoing growth in eremitical life and increasing readiness for a real and lifegiving commitment; so long as it does this the process allows for prudent patience.) Using the developing capacity to write a personal Rule in this way would mean that personnel discerning the vocation would have something objective to consider; moreover, conversations with candidates could be much more fruitful and free of bias (or the perception of bias). Meanwhile careful and judicious consideration of the work of spiritual directors, delegates, and others (including physicians and psychological screening -- if seen as helpful because of real concerns) could be used to inform a diocese's decisions in conjunction with the diocese's conversations with the hermit herself.

Jumping Through Needless Hoops? More on Writing a Rule of Life

[[Hi Sister, maybe you have already answered this, but isn't it unreasonable to expect a person to write several different Rules over a period of 6-9 years? It does seem like a lot of needless hoops to make someone jump through. I can't believe that a first Rule would differ from a third or fourth Rule so much as all that. I mean it covers the basics or fundamentals of one's life. These don't change so dramatically in the life of a hermit do they? Isn't this really just busy work to give the diocese something to look at? So what do they look at if nothing really changes from one Rule to another? And what do they do if the hermit is not a writer? I am certainly not one so the whole prospect of my diocese asking me to do this would completely turn me off from pursuing profession under c 603!]]

Thanks for your questions. For those who are relatively new to this blog, and because I have not written about this recently, let me say that they refer to a suggestion I have made which allows a diocese and a hermit to engage in a process of formation and mutual discernment which 1) protects the freedom and solitude of the hermit, 2) provides a meaningful way the diocese can gauge the growth of the individual vocation before them and discern the suitability for and timing of eremitical profession and consecration, and 3) allows the hermit to take the initiative in working at both discernment and formation but in a significantly accountable way. Specifcally, over a period of about 6-9 years a candidate for consecration under c 603 will move through various natural stages in her formation and discernment as a hermit; as she does this she will mark --- as well as signal to those discerning with her --- her readiness to enter the next stage of the process by writing a Rule which, depending on the stage involved, will serve either relatively casually or more strictly and even canonically to structure and govern her life. The posts introducing this idea can mainly be found at Why Several Rules over a Period of Time? and under the labels, "Formation Programs?" and "Discernment" as well as, "Writing a Rule of Life".

Do Rules Change Much in the Life of a Hermit? 

Yes and no. The central elements of the Rule are unlikely to change significantly but the person's understanding of and relation to these elements will change significantly over time. The Rule this person writes at different points in her formation will reflect these changes especially as the person's life comes to embody them in more and more integral ways. Similarly then the elements of the Rule will cease to be merely external constraints as the person comes to explore and understand the depths of the realities to which they point. So, for instance, a Rule might speak of the silence of solitude in the beginning of a person's formative process and reflect a sense of external silence and solitude. While this sense will always remain, always be presupposed in any maturation in the silence of solitude, it will become less important than the deeper reality it expresses. Later on in her formation then, her Rule will reflect a sense that this element (the silence of solitude) is the goal of her life; for the hermit it will involve an essential quies which results from union with God and reflect a sense of being comfortable in her own skin --- possessing a wholeness without noisy striving or self-centeredness. In other words, the Rule's central elements begin more and more to define not only what the hermit does but who she is!

Similarly one might begin their approach to 'stricter separation from the world' by focusing on the things and people she cannot do or see but in time this element of the canon will reflect more the remaking of the hermit's heart into one that loves with a singleness and purity of focus. The physical separation remains and is presupposed in all else that happens in this solitary life, but it is the vision of the Kingdom and the claim the God of Jesus Christ has on her heart that will come to drive her understanding of this element or aspect of her eremitical life. The same kinds of changes tend to occur with the other non-negotiable elements of canon 603: poverty, chastity, obedience; there will be a deepening and broadening of experience and understanding which will be reflected in the subsequent Rule one writes.

As this process of internalization and integration occurs, the way the hermit comes to envision these elements changes and the emphasis in the Rule itself will also change to reflect this. In some cases an emphasis that was entirely absent will emerge as will a vision of eremitical life that was not present in one's first and/or second Rule. In this process the Rule's central or defining elements cease to be disparate requirements governing different parts of the hermit's life and instead come to express related emphases in a life reflecting the Gospel of God lived in solitude with God. A Rule written just prior to perpetual profession, for instance, is more likely to represent a vision of eremitical life lived in the 21st century with specific essential emphases than it is to be simply a list of things one contracts to do. Again, the Rule will often shift to define who the hermit is and her sense of mission and charism than it is merely a list of things she covenants to observe.

If one were to look at the various Rules a hermit writes over time this is the pattern one is likely to find. Even when the Rule itself does not explicitly reflect such changes through various versions, conversations with the hermit or hermit candidate is apt to elicit a clear sense of such change and growth. (If these conversations do not reflect such changes one has good reason to suspect either, 1) there is no eremitical vocation here, 2) the candidate is not living her Rule well (faithfully or wholeheartedly), or 3) something else is going on that is stunting or short-circuiting the formation process --- whether that centers on the failure of her (relationship with her) director, medical problems of one sort or another, or other difficulties. In such instances there need to be conversations with the candidate, her delegate, et al, to ascertain and resolve the problem.)

Jumping Through Needless Hoops?

As you can tell, I believe this process is not mere "busy work". It is important for discernment (both the hermit's AND the diocese's) and for formation. Likewise, it assures accountability on both the hermit's part and on the diocese's while it provides an objective focus for evaluating a life lived in solitary hiddenness. I have already discussed the major aspects of these things so I won't repeat them here. It is important that dioceses give hermits sufficient time to discern suitability and, when determined, achieve readiness for profession. It is similarly important that candidates allow themselves sufficient time while negotiating a process that is not marked by somewhat arbitrary time frames like those associated in canon law with postulancy and novitiate. The writing of appropriate Rules to focus and mark the hermit's personal stages of formation can substitute in a vocation that does not lend itself so well to such arbitrary time frames --- 9 mos for candidacy and 1-2 years novitiate, etc; while these work well for communal or coenobitical vocations, they work less well for the solitary eremitical call. At the same time, the process I have outlined does not allow the process to go on forever and especially not without accountability on both sides, diocese and candidate.

Further, while it is true that the use of this process does give the diocese something to "look at" this is not objectionable; it is part of what they require as part of their own call to discern, encourage, assist in the formation of, and protect ecclesial vocations. The process I have outlined eliminates some of the guesswork and complete subjectivity from the entire discernment and formation process, and I believe it does so while protecting the hermit's freedom to respond to God as she hears God in solitude.

What if the Hermit/Candidate is not a Writer?

I don't think this is really an insurmountable problem. After all, I am not speaking of writing a dissertation or book or something similar on eremitical life. I am talking about writing a Rule of life which is actually required by the Canon itself. It is a document which reflect the hermit's experience and codifies her own wisdom about how God calls her to live her life. On the whole it is less about writing per se than it is about attending to and reflecting on the vocation one is called to live. The Rule codifies what is necessary for a person to do that. In my own experience, in writing the Rule I submitted to my diocese prior to perpetual profession, I spent about one full month writing (at least a few hours a day) but months and even years were given to reflecting on canon 603 itself and how its elements related to the way God was working in my own life.  It seems to me that one needs far less to be a writer than one needs to truly be a contemplative who has come to know herself in light of God through an experiential knowledge of the constitutive elements of canon 603. I think that is by far the harder task, and probably the real obstacle to being able to write a Rule.

At the same time writing is an important way of becoming clear about who one is and why one is doing something. It is one of the ways we come to be articulate about what is most life giving for us and what is indispensable and normative in our lives. We shouldn't really expect to be able to write a liveable Rule unless and until we have spent time writing really unlivable and inadequate Rules or at least practice Rules we are comfortable using to "walk around in" for a time in order to learn more about ourselves and the way God is working in our lives. In the beginning hermit candidates ordinarily write Rules which are really little more than lists of "Thou shalts" and "Thou shalt nots".  In time they come to see these are wholly insufficient to describe or govern lives marked by the power of the Holy Spirit,  much less to challenge and even to inspire them adequately. That is why I say over time one will come to write a Rule which is more a vision of eremitical life as God inspires one to see and live it than it is a list of do's and don'ts --- even when it includes these, as it inevitably must. In any case, one comes to learn what being a hermit is by living the life; likewise one comes to learn to write a Rule which serves as c. 603 requires and envisions by writing several of them over time.

In a genuine eremitical life, none of this time and effort will be wasted. One is, after all, growing in, exploring, and learning to articulate who one is in light of one's solitary relationship with God. If one is never professed as a canon 603 hermit one has still benefited by the canon's requirement that one write a Rule because it has been a formative experience, not merely a sterile requirement to "get professed". Meanwhile, if one's diocese admits one to profession and then consecration as a diocesan hermit one will only be grateful for all the work it took to get there and will benefit from it in a more direct way every day for the rest of her life. In either case it is something like last Friday's Gospel passage: when the labor is accomplished and the child born, one forgets the pain it all took and feels only joy at the new life which has been brought forth.