Isn't Being a Hermit Individualistic in and of Itself?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, your references to individualism recently make me wonder if the hermit vocation isn't individualistic in and of itself. Yet, you say it is the antithesis of individualism. At the same time, you are critical of would-be "hermits" who are individualistic and "eremitically speaking, have lost their way" (quote from your recent post on "Individualism. . ."). I admit, I always thought hermits were people who wanted to do their own thing and went off to do that! What is it then that makes the difference between someone you would recognize as a hermit and someone you consider a lone individual and individualist?]]

This is a great question, and I am grateful for your frankness regarding the way you have seen hermits in the past. The post I put up last week deals with the essential characteristics of a hermit, whether canonical or non-canonical, so I don't want to repeat all that here. 

Even so, I can summarize most of it by saying the hermit is one who chooses to live a radical life of prayer and penance in the silence of solitude for God's sake (i.e., that God might be Emmanuel), the sake of the Church and her proclamation, and for the salvation of others (or "the world"), as well as for the sake of the hermit's own authentic humanity. The hermit is called by God to live at the heart of the Church in that place of intercession where God and God's creation come together in Christ. To occupy this place does not allow a life of self-centeredness or individualism. Neither does it allow one to distance oneself from the Church and her liturgical and sacramental life, nor to simply reject the suffering and sinful world that is still made for God. (This world might well reject the hermit, but the "stricter separation from the world" called for in the hermit by c 603, is, it seems to me, more about rejecting enmeshment in and definition by that world and its values precisely so one can love it more objectively and single-heartedly.)

All of that is incredibly demanding, but it is also the core of the eremitical vocation that prevents it from sliding (or galloping) into individualism. The central or constitutive elements of c 603 (see below**) are meant to assure that this core, which is really a commitment to love God, Church, self, and others through the mediation of Christ, is embraced and maintained. None of them is an absolute that one embraces for itself alone. What I mean is that silence and solitude, while high values, are embraced for the sake of one's commitment to be attentive and to give oneself over to love. So too with stricter separation from the world. One embraces eremitical marginality so that, once free of enmeshment, one can "see . . . more clearly and love more dearly" (as the lyrics from Godspell go). The same holds for all the elements of the canon. They are there to allow a life to be lived without affectation, impersonation, or illusion, a particular and particularly valuable life that mirrors the Church's own heart back to her. This serves, as Thomas Merton once remarked, to allow people to regain their faith in the latent possibilities of nature and grace.  In other words, hermits live their lives for others, an element that must be as strong as their marginalization because it is what makes real sense of the marginalization involved.

Though it is demanding, it is also very flexible from hermit to hermit. So, for instance, while there will be clear similarities between our lives (not least the essential elements of c 603), my own penitential life will not be identical to that of any other c 603 hermit. Neither will my prayer, some dimensions of my solitude, the way I structure my day (horarium), my work, nor my recreation. Given this flexibility, individuality (which is deeply honored by c 603's requirement of a personal Rule of life the hermit writes herself, the range of meaning contained in each element, and the absence of time frames, stages of formation, etc.) mustn't devolve into individualism. It is the hermit's relation to God, Church, and world, especially as a vision and way of life codified in a unique Rule of Life, that prevents such devolution. 

What I also need to say, though, is that not any relation to these realities will do. One can have a view of God that is profoundly individualistic, just as one can do the same with the Church. Some would-be "hermits" are the very definition of individualism. Consider what witness it gives when a Catholic decides they are "too spiritual" for the historical (spatio-temporal) Church, or who believes that they no longer ever need to go to Mass or receive the Eucharist because they are completely "one with the Mass" and don't need the "tangible host" because they are "fed mystically"**!  In such a case, it is especially problematic when one justifies this kind of individualism by calling oneself a hermit. I have heard someone do that while claiming that "God wanted her all for himself" in justifying her break with what she calls the "temporal" Church! This is a serious danger in reading c 603's constitutive elements superficially. (In any case, it certainly underscores the wisdom of c 603's strong ecclesial dimension.)

In such an instance, anyone with this kind of pseudo-spirituality is missing the very heart of what the Eucharist is about, and seems to be cultivating a notion of "the spiritual" that is dualistic and apparently allergic to the Holy Spirit, the Incarnation and its theology. It must always be remembered that the role of the Mass is not to take us out of the larger world of God's good creation, but rather, in the power of the risen Christ, to return us to it with a transformed heart and stronger bonds of love with God, with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and indeed, with the whole of God's creation! This is why every Mass reaches its climax with Communion with and in Christ with one another, and ends with a blessing and dismissal, which serve essentially as our commission to go out and love our world into wholeness! And so, we who have received the Crucified Christ and, in the process, have ourselves been broken open and poured out for one another in Mass, mark ourselves with the sign of the cross, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, we return to our larger community continuing the "broken open and poured out" dynamic of the Mass so that God might continue to transfigure this larger world as well. 

There are many less exaggerated and more common forms of individualism a hermit might fall into, of course. So, what helps prevent a c 603 hermit from sliding into individualism? There are external circumstances that help with this as well as more internal ones. They stem from our being related to the two poles (Church and World) mentioned in my earlier post and Ponam. First, there is the individual "vetting" that happens when the would-be candidate approaches a chancery to petition for admission to profession and (eventual) consecration. Secondly, one is assisted by a Rule of life one writes oneself, which is approved by the local ordinary and lived under his supervision. Thirdly, regular meetings with a delegate serving both the hermit and the diocese in this role, and/or spiritual director to discuss changes in her Rule and life, as well as ongoing growth and maturation in the vocation, are essential. Fourth, a good theology of the Church, Sacraments, Spirituality, anthropology, soteriology, etc., is essential in avoiding individualism. And fifth, and most fundamentally, the hermit's regular life lived in communion with God is a significant factor in avoiding individualism. 

In all of this, what the hermit must be growing in is her relationship with God, and her love of herself and others in Christ. I tend to measure this in terms of my own growth in compassion. While living on the margins of society, the c 603 hermit is called on to live at the very heart of the Church, in the place where God and world come together in Christ. This is the place of intercession, the place the hermit herself in Christ, actually IS, and while such a life is supremely free, it is not the kind of freedom (license) to do anything one believes or wants that the world values so much. This freedom is, instead, the power to be the one we arecalled to be by God through the agency of the Spirit and the mediation of the Church. In my own case, that means being the canonical hermit God calls me to be so that I can proclaim the truth of the Gospel with my life. 

What this means, in a language you may not be at all used to, is that I am called to "pose the question" and be the seeking and the yearning that I am, as deeply as God empowers me to do and be, so that, in Christ, I may also meet and incarnate the answer that God is. This, by the way, is what it means for a hermit to be a silent preaching of the Lord! It is also the heart of what we call an ecclesial vocation. This is so because one with an ecclesial vocation is responsible for experiencing, living, and thus, proclaiming the truth of the Church's own kerygma. Everything in c 603 eremitical life is ultimately about assuming and becoming an intercessory place where the answer God wills to be is allowed to meet and resolve with his presence, the profound question we each are. Together, in union with God in Christ, we become a Word Event that proclaims the Gospel of God. As noted, paradoxically, this hermit vocation means that where I am most alone, I am not alone at all, for God and the entire world God embraces is there with me. Moreover, where I am most myself with God, that is, where I am most the individual I am meant to be, I am the antithesis of an individualist.

_______________________________________________

The central or constitutive elements of c 603 are assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, the Evangelical Counsels, marking a life lived for the praise or glory of God and the salvation of the world, and undertaken according to a Rule that the hermit writes herself and lives out under the supervision of the diocesan bishop. Each element and the canon as a whole is strongly ecclesial and also strongly related in Christ to the spatio-temporal world.

** Of course, we can each be "fed mystically"; however, when one is entirely divorced from the Church or the Mass, which is the "source and summit of Christian life," because one is committed to "the spiritual church" and is opposed to "the temporal Church", what is claimed to be mystical is more likely the validation of individualism. That is much more likely when this lack of genuine participation in the Church's life is excused or justified with the term "hermit". As noted in an earlier post, when one cannot physically attend Mass, there are still effective ways to participate in the Church's liturgical and sacramental life. One only needs to call a nearby parish to arrange this.

Another Look at Existential Solitude and the Call to Authentic Humanity

[[Dear Sister, I have struggled with what you wrote about existential solitude. I am not sure I even know how to ask about it I struggled that much! But you said you had an experience of hunger, and it was a hunger for being and meaning. In another place, you said it was a hunger for wholeness. I am not sure what that means. I also don't understand how hunger for those things could lead to an experience of God and your deepest or truest self. Isn't hunger for these things a sign of their absence? You know, I never thought a hermit would have anything to offer me, your life seems so different from mine, but I have become aware that what you write about is exactly what I struggle with every day. Do you think therapists "pathologize" (your term) existential loneliness when it is really just basically human? I thought maybe you were saying that. If that's true, it could help me come to terms with my own experience of loneliness and that would mean you have taught me something I never expected to learn from a hermit. Thank you.]]

Really good questions! Thank you. Before I try to answer you, let me say a little about the most basic definition of God I use. When I speak of God, I recognize that (he) is the ground and source of all being and meaning (everything that exists and is meaningful depends upon something outside itself for these qualities). God is not a being among other beings; (he) is not even the biggest and best being among other beings, some kind of supreme being, for instance. Instead, God is the reality out of which everything that has existence "stands". The word existence literally means to stand up (-istere) out of (ex-) this reality.  God grounds our existence and is its source as well. In the same way, God is the ground and source of meaning. To the extent something has existence and meaning, it is grounded and has its source in God. I also believe that God is the ground and source of personhood, of the truly personal. This means that God is not impersonal despite not being A being. In meaningful existence and personhood, we are grounded and have our origin in God. We are, in the language of theology, contingent, and without God, we would simply cease to be.

With all of that in mind (at least in the back of our minds), let me try to answer your questions. How does hunger for being and meaning, or for wholeness, lead to an experience of God? By definition (as noted above), God is the source and ground of our existence. By itself, that says that our yearning for being and meaning is rooted in the very thing we are hungry for, that is, it is rooted in and points to God, who is the source of eternal or abundant and meaningful life. Wholeness or holiness has to do with being intimately and exhaustively related to God so that being and meaning are gifts from God and represent a share in God's own life.

Think of it this way: if I tell you that I yearn for a glass of ice-cold milk this means two things, 1) I already know what ice-cold milk tastes like and the way it satisfies certain needs and hungers, and 2) some form of void or lack has caused me to want or need that glass of ice-cold milk. There is a lack of something (in this case,the milk) that is experienced as a thirst, hunger, or yearning. When I write about yearning for wholeness or holiness and all that implies, it also points to both the presence of an intimate form of knowing (I know what it means to exist, and I know what it means for my life to be meaningful or purposeful); likewise, I am aware of some lack of these things (I can die; I need more of the life and meaning I already know intimately; I hunger for abundant or eternal life). Since God is the ground and source of all being and meaning, my very hunger for this is an implicit awareness of God's presence in my life, just as my awareness of thirst allows me to become aware of already knowing the nature and power of a glass of ice-cold milk on a hot day. (If that knowing was not there, if there was no such thing as ice-cold milk or I had never felt and tasted it, I could never have become aware of wanting or thirsting for it.)

In a similar way, when I get in touch with that profound yearning for wholeness, I become aware of what I am made for, what I have the potential for, who I am in light of these forms of hunger or yearning. I understand this as also being an awareness of my truest and deepest self, my most authentic identity and foundational humanness.  My sense is that this experience means transcending the ego self and any distorted senses of self or of God we might hold (or be held by!). One journeys to the depths of oneself and discovers both God and oneself in the process. When one embraces this true self, one becomes more whole and holy. One is grasped by God and begins to truly grasp who one is most fundamentally. That is the task of all spirituality, all prayer, and it is explicitly the goal and challenge of monastic and eremitical life.

I did allude to the fact that our society tends to pathologize all loneliness, yes. If we rule God (and perhaps the true self) out of the picture (as all forms of scientism do today), so do we rule out a central explanation for what I, Merton, and others call existential solitude. I am aware today of some really fine therapists whose spirituality (both Christian and Buddhist) allows them to avoid this tragic error, but in the main, it seems to me that the tendency to pathologize any uncomfortable experience, but particularly that of a deep and foundational loneliness and solitude still dominate the fields of psychology and psychotherapy. This means that people are often discouraged from admitting, much less expressing, their experience of existential solitude, or the exemplary nature of a search for God and one's truest identity. In such circumstances, they can even be convinced to medicate themselves against such an experience. This situation in science and therapy can actually contribute to a sense of shame that one experiences loneliness when, in fact, this specific experience of hunger or yearning is evidence of the fact that we are made to be the very image of God in our world.

I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks very much for your comments on my experience and its helpfulness to you. So often we think of the hermit life as a selfish one unless it is redeemed in terms of intercessory prayer. What I have been affirming during the last two months is that the hermit vocation is a truly significant human vocation that illustrates the universality of the call and nature of the solitary journey to God and authentic selfhood.