Dioceses and c 603 Vocations: Minimizing Uncertainty and Risk in the Process of Discernment and Formation

In The Long Journey, I wrote about the journey to Union with God and something of the universality of that call. With c 603, it has sometimes been difficult for dioceses to adequately discern and assist in the formation of diocesan hermits. This prompted the following questions, which I promised I would return to: [[It seems to me that either a diocese has to be really patient and willing to take a risk with someone, or the person has to have made a long journey before contacting their diocese to request profession and consecration. The first problem with this is, what diocese has the patience to wait as long as needed to discern a solitary eremitical vocation with someone?]]

In my initial post, I quoted you, [[It seems to me that either a diocese has to be really patient and willing to take a risk with someone, or the person has to have made a long journey before contacting their diocese to request profession and consecration.]] and I responded: [[I believe both things are true. The person must have made a relatively long journey before contacting a diocese with the request to be professed under c 603 AND the diocese must be patient in a process of mutual discernment and formation that assists the person making their petition to truly know the way God is calling them, and to prepare for the necessary stages of commitment if they (both) find the person is called to c 603 eremitical life.]] Let me point out further that dioceses always take risks with vocations. No one comes in with a certified letter from God saying, "Consecrate her. She is called to be a c 603 hermit"! When I was consecrated, my diocese supplied a "Bishop's Decree of Approval of (my) Rule of Life". That decree expressed thanks to God for the gift of this vocation. At the same time, it included the following sentence. "I pray that this Rule of Life proves advantageous in living the eremitical life." So yes, there is always risk because vocations come from the Mystery we know as God, and discerning vocations is, as Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF, once noted, difficult and something of an art.

The risk that dioceses take in admitting someone to the profession and then to consecration as a diocesan hermit, however, can be minimized in ways that make the process less onerous for the diocese or its staff. In this blog, I have referenced a process of discernment and formation that focuses on the requirement that the hermit write a Rule of Life. This requirement, as I have explained a number of times, can be used to guide the formators and other diocesan staff in discerning the nature and quality of the vocation in front of them. Writing a Rule of Life is itself a formative process. To write about all of the elements of c 603, to describe a healthy eremitical life that embodies these elements and the whole spirit of c 603 in a contemporary setting, requires significant experience and reflection on that experience. Dioceses can schedule conversations at different points throughout this process, both to hear how God is working in this candidate's life and to determine if there are resources the hermit candidate could benefit from in her process of formation. 

At the same time, through this process, though no vow of obedience is involved, the candidate learns to work with diocesan personnel in ways that will help develop her sense of what such a vow might entail and what it may not. It can assist the candidate to develop a deeper sense of the ecclesial nature of this vocation. Contacts may be made with those special individuals who may accompany her in her vocation for many years to come. And of course, both the hermit and the diocese in question will come to understand c 603 much more fully and fruitfully, not simply as a law allowing the profession and consecration of solitary hermits, but as a rich, fertile template of solitary eremitical life, a source of guidance and inspiration for personal exploration in the hermit's lifelong journey** to union with God. The underlying focus in all of this work is the idea of this specific journey and the assurance that the hermit/candidate is committed to (or clearly moving toward) this above all things. (In the beginning years of a hermit's eremitical life, this commitment exists, but it may not yet be articulable in terms like "union with God".) None of this takes away all risk in professing and consecrating a diocesan hermit, but all of it can minimize risk and, down the line, allow for similar work and better discernment and formation with other candidates for c 603 profession and consecration.

The process referred to here can take some time, yes. There are different reasons for this. Sometimes candidates don't have sufficient experience of living in solitude, some are not contemplatives, some may find reflecting on c 603 and the way God calls them to embody it in their lives an extremely challenging task, while others may simply find writing this out in a Rule of Life very difficult. All of this takes time, and dioceses must understand that writing a Rule of Life is formative, challenging, and critical to the discernment of such a vocation. It is not the easiest, most concrete element of c 603, and therefore easily dispensed with via the instructions, "Now, all you need to do is go write a Rule of Life!" The diocese must allow the writing of a truly liveable Rule to take the time necessary for each candidate; they must also allow the task of writing the Rule to assist them (Diocesan personnel) with conversations regarding the discernment, formation, and writing processes at periodic points along the way. 

Mentors (other c 603 hermits with appropriate backgrounds) can assist the diocese and work with the diocesan team and candidate with the Rule and c 603, or, if there are insufficient diocesan staff to follow a candidate in the way that is needed, she may work with the candidate on the diocese's behalf. (In such cases, the mentor will report to diocesan personnel occasionally regarding how the process is proceeding.) What I am describing here is not onerous for either candidate or diocese, but it is critically important in discerning and forming such vocations. While such discerning and appropriately forming (or ensuring the formation of) such vocations takes time, I am not suggesting this process can or should be stretched out interminably. In my experience, it tends to become clear within two or three years (sometimes, though rarely, fewer) whether  or not one is working with someone with an authentic eremitical vocation. In other cases, uncertainty will be cleared up as the person engages or fails to engage with the process of formation. (This requires a significant degree of initiative and self-knowledge; it will be evident to formators.)

Often, the question of time is arbitrarily determined by reference to canon laws that fit religious living in community rather than solitude. Sometimes the addition of such time frames is meant to supplement what are perceived as deficiencies of c 603. Personally, I believe this is a significant mistake, especially in its misperception of the depth and breadth of c 603, but also in its complete failure to understand the uniqueness and flexibility of solitary eremitical life. The composition of a liveable Rule of Life truly rooted in the candidate's lived experience will take time. Of course it will!! The diocesan conversations accompanying such a process and contributing to its fruitfulness will allow discernment to take place without arbitrary time limits or time frames. Dioceses need to trust this! 

At the same time, should a candidate fail to adequately engage in the process, a diocese might well decide to suspend it for the time being. If the candidate had been doing well, the diocesan staff will want to understand what has happened. Depending on the circumstances, dioceses may or may not be open to restarting the process once the hermit candidate is in a better position to truly engage the discernment/formation process. Yes, all of this takes patience, skill, wisdom, prayer, and courage. It does not, however, ask for anything diocesan formation, vocation, or similar personnel should not have in abundance, particularly when dealing with such a significant and individual vocation!!

**Sister Rachel Denton, Er Dio, prefers the term pilgrimage here, and I understand her preference, not only because of her own specific experience with pilgrimage, but especially in light of Vatican II and its reflection on the People of God as a pilgrim people. I am just not yet personally comfortable enough with the term to use it easily myself, so, for the time being, I will continue to use the less specific "journey" here as I read about and reflect more on "pilgrimage" and all it implies. Readers, of course, should feel free to change the language and think of the c 603 vocation in terms of lifelong pilgrimage if that is more helpful!!

More on Discernment and the Long Journey to Union with God

[[Sister Laurel, if the eremitical vocation is about the journey to union with God, how is it that someone can know they are called to this when they are relatively young? Did you know this was what you were called to when you read c 603 for the first time? It seems to me that either a diocese has to be really patient and willing to take a risk with someone, or the person has to have made a long journey before contacting their diocese to request profession and consecration. The first problem with this is, what diocese has the patience to wait as long as needed to discern a solitary eremitical vocation with someone? The second problem is how does a person subordinate everything else in their life for the journey you have described?. . . ]]

Thanks for your questions and for the comments I have not included above. There are several bits of wisdom that speak to these, so let me mention them here. The first is that eremitical life, but especially solitary eremitical life, I think, is generally seen as a second half of life vocation. In the history of the vocation, whether Christian hermits or those from other traditions (those is China or other parts of Asia, for instance), the hermit life is embraced after one has lived a full life, and often, raised families, had a career, perhaps struggled in a variety of ways, and come to know themselves and their own deepest yearnings and potentials more clearly. A specific (and privileged) form of this kind of pattern involves the movement from active ministry to contemplative life, and then to a life of even greater solitude as one comes to be aware that God is calling them to union with Godself. There is a sense in such lives that one has met life head-on and lived each stage of it as fully and as well as one could, and now, there is both the freedom and the yearning for an adventure into even greater love and wisdom as one says yes to a more direct and demanding relationship with the greatest Mystery that is God.

Some, I think, will discover this call earlier than most, and among these will be those who suffer from chronic illness or, perhaps, forms of trauma that raise the questions of the possibility of meaningful existence and personal wholeness and holiness with existential urgency. Karl Jung once noted that some people with certain kinds of experiences -- like the ones mentioned -- are wiser than their years and become suited to ask the profound questions some folks only ask at the end of their lives. I do believe that the urgency with which I encountered and posed the questions of being and meaning in my own life was a sign that I was called, first, to do theology and then, to solitary eremitical life earlier than most. I believe one of the reasons many c 603 hermits I know or know of have chronic illnesses is precisely because these conditions raise certain existential questions and longings with a particular vividness and urgency. The result can be a serious existential search for the Face of God and all that a relationship with God promises in terms of fullness of life, holiness, and meaningfulness. In either situation, the eremitical journey towards union with God requires a "long" and profound background of solitary seeking, struggle, discernment, and formation.  The general insight that this vocation is a "second half of life" vocation holds true in either situation.

The second bit of wisdom that must be recognized is that solitude in eremitical life is never merely, or even mostly, about physical isolation. In fact, eremitical (and monastic) solitude is the redemption of isolation that is achieved in deep relationship, first with God, then with oneself, and finally with others. Eremitical solitude is about being alone with and for the sake of God, one's truest self, and the needs of the Church and God's entire creation. The Camaldolese identify this vocation with "the privilege of love," and recognize that at the heart of all human life, longing, and struggle, what is most profoundly true and meant to be fully realized in any life is the following motto re life with God: "Ego vobis, vos mihi". I am yours, and you are mine. Once one comes to understand the truth of this saying, eremitical solitude can never be defined in terms of isolation, misanthropy, or a selfish and individualistic quest for personal piety and an alienating "holiness". (Real holiness is, of course, something vastly different!) And of course, the journey to this awareness also takes time.

If dioceses take these two bits of traditional wisdom seriously, it will help in truly discerning c 603 vocations and their stages of readiness for profession and consecration. However, yes, you are entirely correct that more is needed from dioceses that wish to implement c 603 wisely.  You said, [[It seems to me that either a diocese has to be really patient and willing to take a risk with someone, or the person has to have made a long journey before contacting their diocese to request profession and consecration.]] I believe both things are true. The person must have made a relatively long journey before contacting a diocese with the request to be professed under c 603 AND the diocese must be patient in a process of mutual discernment and formation that assists the person making their petition to truly know the way God is calling them, and to prepare for the necessary stages of commitment if they (both) find the person is called to c 603 eremitical life.

C 603 provides no timelines. Nor does it need to. What it does provide is a list of constituent elements the person must be living and the requirement that they write a Rule of Life rooted in their own experience and sense of the way God is working in their life. The process of writing such a Rule demonstrating one's understanding and existential knowledge of these constituent elements, a Rule that is in touch with and reflects the Holy Spirit and the way she speaks to the person each and every day, and the way the person lives her life as part of a long and diverse eremitical tradition and now proposes and petitions to be allowed to do so in an ecclesial vocation, takes time, experience, research, conversations with mentors and diocesan staff, and so forth. Dioceses, as I have written before, often treat the writing of the Rule as the simplest requirement in the canon. Not so. It is a formative process from which the maturing hermit and the diocese will learn about this vocation and the candidate for profession. It is a process which can guide discernment and formation both, and, so long as it is clear the candidate is growing and maturing in this vocation, it takes as long as it takes. There is no need for arbitrary canonical time frames, limits, or requirements. This is one place the wisdom that life, in this case eremitical life, is about the journey, not the destination, carries real weight.

Now, for your other questions. Because of what I have already written, I don't know if a young person can truly know they are called to be a hermit. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I doubt young people can be clearly aware of such a calling. The journey requires a certain kind of foundation if it is to be truly discerned. Thus, again, it is generally understood to be a second half of life vocation. When I first read c 603 (a few months after the new Code had been published), I had a sense that my entire life could make sense within the framework outlined in the canon. That meant giftedness, limitations, illness, education, background in theology and religious life, etc., etc. Over time, this translated into a sense that I could live the truth of my deepest self in communion with God in this specific way, but that awareness and an ability to articulate what had begun as a relatively vague sense of meaningfulness took time to develop. 

It also took the assistance of my spiritual director, delegate, and vocation personnel. Mutual discernment is not only important because this vocation is an ecclesial one that belongs to the Church before it belongs to the individual whom God (through God's Church) calls to profession and consecration, but because it is only over time that one can see more clearly what begins as a more or less inchoate sense that one might well be called, for example, to be a hermit. Conversations, mutual prayer, the way experienced formators can and do challenge us to grow as human beings and thus, too, to come to greater and deeper clarity regarding the way God is working in our life, are absolutely essential in one's coming to clarity about something so profoundly mysterious as a divine vocation.  I don't know anyone who simply receives the equivalent of a text message out of the blue from God saying, "I want you to be a hermit"!! I should also say that I would be unlikely to trust the person's sense of self or vocation if that were the way it supposedly came to them anyway!

Your last question is a challenging one, and it also underscores the reason eremitical vocations require time for discernment and formation. You asked, [[how does a person subordinate everything else in their life for the journey you have described?]] I am struck, because of your question, both by the extraordinary nature of the journey to union with God I have described, and also how completely ordinary and normal it is. You see, I am aware that in describing a call to active ministry (and this could certainly include marriage and raising a family) which can develop into a call to contemplative life with greater degrees of solitude, and finally, to a call to even greater solitude and union with God, I might also be describing what happens with some people as they move from serving God and others in the more usual ways this happens in every life, to what happens once the children are grown, or perhaps after retirement from  a career when there is greater leisure to pursue one's relationship with God and to live greater solitude, and then too, when one reaches old age and not only begins losing friends and loved ones to death, but is marked with increasing frailty and illness and the questions of being and meaning are very urgent indeed!!

Every person God has created is called to union with God. Every single person is called to develop a contemplative prayer life where one can, in Christ, truly rest in God and, as a result, can witness to the Risen Christ and God's merciful, loving will to be Emmanuel. From a Christian perspective, this intimacy with God is the heart of what it means to be truly human. Some relatively few persons will live the dynamics of this call to authentic humanity in paradigmatic ways as contemplative religious, and even fewer will do so as hermits, but it would be a critical error to believe that only some are called to divine intimacy and union with God. Here is where it becomes absolutely critical that we understand that every calling, every sphere or dimension of human life, every circumstance, can reveal God to us and provide ways of relating to God. We are used to divvying reality up into the sacred and the profane, as though God can be found in the sacred but not the secular or profane. This way of dividing reality and limiting God is precisely what God overcame in the Christ Event and the incarnation of the Word.

So, while I accept that a vocation focused on the journey to union with God is an extraordinary thing, I also recognize that it is the most profoundly human journey every person is called to make. Wherever human beings seek out love or express and extend love to others, whenever they seek to know and express or act in truth, or do something similar with beauty or meaning or existence, whenever they attempt to explore and even push the limits of these things, they are involved in the journey monastics identify as "seeking God".  What contemplatives, including hermits, say to others is that there is a ground and source of all of this seeking and sharing and celebrating we human beings do in the arts, sciences, relationships, and human activity of every sort, which we know as God. We try to say "feel free to seek as deeply and expansively as you feel called to, because the existence of God makes that possible as the very essence of what it means to be human." When this is the case, subordinating everything to make the journey to union with God in whatever way God speaks most clearly to one is the most natural thing in the world!

I hope you will accept this as the beginning of a response to your questions, especially the latter two. I need to think about them a bit more and try to pull together my thoughts in a way that might be more helpful. I still need to respond to your questions regarding dioceses taking risks and requiring patience. As always, if this response raises more questions or is unclear in some way, please get back to me, and I will try to improve upon things!!

On Composing One's Intended Vows under Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, have you put up your vows on this site? If not, would you consider doing that? I have been asked to write a Rule of Life and I know part of that includes the vows. I was wondering what these look like, not so I could copy them, but just to understand what goes into them.]]

Thanks for your questions. Over the years I have put up this vow or that one, yes, but I don't know if these will be helpful to you. You see, each vow was an expression of my understanding of the way God was calling me to live the Evangelical Counsels, especially as a consecrated solitary hermit, and each of these understandings was covered in my Rule before I included the vows themselves. This means I wrote about the values and praxis involved in such a vow in a way that made sense of each one before I made these vows as a hermit. Each vow presupposes a whole theology, and it may not be a theology you and I share or that you are even necessarily familiar with. For instance, the vow of obedience I just put up and that you have read, presupposes a theology of human beings as language events with the Creator God as author. Yes, the vow of obedience involves attentive listening, which is true of obedience in the New Testament and Benedictine senses, but my own vow formula contextualizes that in a way that might not be helpful to you and may not speak to your own lived experience. The same is true with my other vows.

With that in mind, I encourage you to begin writing about your own understanding of what such a vow means. Write about that, whether it is from what you read, previous vows you have lived, or the way you live in and from God's presence every day in the present. Also write about how you have experienced God in terms of each vow or Gospel value, and especially what it means to truly live that today in our contemporary world. I say this because each vow reflects a foundational Gospel value that Jesus encourages us to live with him and in him. If your diocese admits you to profession and eventual consecration, you are called upon to let all of this be true in whatever vows you compose or propose to live.  Much of what you write may work in your Rule as you spell out the way a particular vow calls you to live within the context of c 603; most of it will never find its way into your vows in any explicit sense. However, it will all shape and qualify the way your vows are written and lived in your own life. You will return to your Rule again and again in prayer and reflection over the years, and hopefully will be inspired to move ever more deeply into the vows themselves by what your Rule captures of that sacred story.

What I want you to hear from all of this is that writing a Rule, a liveable Rule that reflects the will of God in your life is not an easy thing to do. In the work I do with candidates, the writing of such a Rule guides the discernment and formation process. (It also guides conversations with the diocesan formation team.) Especially, it is not just one thing in a finite list of things the diocese or you need to check off on the way to being professed and consecrated. It is meant to be something each c 603 hermit commits to living for the rest of his/her life because it reflects the unique way God has called this person throughout all of the years preceding this moment and calls them now into the future in this specific desert life and ecclesial context. 

One's sense of being called is a promise that God has been at work and will continue, now in ever more intimate ways, to be at work in one's life from this point forward. Together, the c 603 hermit and God will chart this course, not only through the context provided by c 603, but through the framework, call, and challenge of the Evangelical Counsels. One's vows will proclaim the intended and necessary Christ-bearing shape of one's response to that promise. What I also hope you will hear in what I wrote here is the degree of self-knowledge required along with knowledge of the Gospel "counsels", before one ever proposes to make or write explicit vows of the Evangelical Counsels. Most of the work that goes into writing a Rule will also help prepare one to compose and make vows under c 603.

I sincerely hope this is helpful!

On the Beauty and Depth of c 603 (Reprise)

[[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? Why concern yourself with the law once you're admitted under a law? I wondered if you could explain that. . . .]]

Good to hear from you; it has been a while!! Interesting observations and questions!  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 to (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, in some ways, I have come to know the depths of the canon itself. I write about canon 603 now 14 [now 17] 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. Canonists tend also to look at c 603 simply in terms of its legal dimensions, particularly seizing on (or sussing out) legal loopholes rather than reflecting on the vocation itself, [as happened in the Diocese of Lexington this last Pentecost. (2024)] 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. One must be able to see the implicit depths and Mystery below the surface.

 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 writes a liveable Rule confronts everyone participating in the process with the need 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 c 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). Still, the process envisioned here can be relatively simple and effective in guiding the diocese working with a candidate for profession. 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 the vocations of 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 that mark this definition. It is here, however, that c 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 that 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 that opens onto the Divine, I continue to reflect on, pray with, and write about c 603.

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.