Once again on "Illegal Hermits" as a Mistaken and Destructive Term

[[Hi Sister, I am a privately professed hermit but heard I am really illegal because I am not c 603. I also heard that I can't think of myself as Catholic though I am baptized and confirmed. I am really sure God has called me to be a hermit and to be a Catholic but I don't understand why I can't be a Catholic Hermit or have to consider myself illegal. I don't want to have to give up being a hermit in order to be a Catholic. I think all this vocabulary confuses me. Can you clarify it for me? What can I do to make myself a Catholic legal hermit? How do I get myself changed from being an illegal hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written extensively about all of these in the past so I encourage you to look at pertinent posts, especially those in the past month or two. One post you might want to check out is Why God allows Many Forms of Hermit Life. The following article  might also be helpful to you: Crash Course in Language. Let me summarize the situation as it applies to you.

You are a non-canonical hermit only in the sense that c 603 and the canons applying to religious (or consecrated life) do not apply to you. However, you are a lay hermit and all of the canons applying to laity apply to you until you are admitted to profession (a public act changing one's state of life) and then consecration as a c 603 hermit or member of an eremitical institute of consecrated life. Once that happens canons are added to those already applying to your lay life. Both states, lay and consecrated, are governed by canon law. To call one a non-canonical hermit is a shorthand way of saying the additional canons do NOT apply to them (yet). It does not mean that hermit is illegal since you are free to live as a lay hermit while honoring the canons that apply to all laity.

If you decide God has called you to live as a consecrated hermit, you must apply to be admitted to a process of MUTUAL discernment and formation with your diocese. Because this is an ecclesial vocation and belongs to the Church before it belongs to you, the Church herself must discern that you are indeed called to this. Our own discernment is important, but it is not sufficient when dealing with ecclesial vocations. This is a difficult point for most folks to "get". Meanwhile, if, in time, the Church agrees with your discernment and also that you are ready for public profession, then she will admit you to temporary profession and eventually to perpetual profession and consecration as a c 603 or diocesan hermit. At that point you accept the rights and obligations of a public and ecclesial vocation and MAY (i.e., are permitted by the Church whose vocation this is first of all to) call yourself a Catholic Hermit. This is because you would then have been called by God and the Church to live this vocation in the name of the Church.

Currently you are a Catholic AND a hermit. Another way of saying this is to say that you are a (Catholic) lay hermit (that is, you live hermit life in the lay or baptized state alone as you are entirely free to do), or you can say you are a non-canonical hermit because you haven't (yet) been admitted to eremitical life in the consecrated state; for this reason, the additional canons of consecrated eremitical life don't apply to you. You are entirely free to call yourself Catholic; you are entirely free to call yourself a hermit (if you are one); you are even free to say you are aspiring to becoming a Catholic hermit if that is also so, but you are NOT an illegal hermit or somehow not Catholic. To use the term illegal is demeaning of yourself and all Lay Hermits. Please let go of it!! You can read more on this or get back to me if it raises additional questions or confusions. I sincerely hope it is helpful.

N.B., a reminder that the term lay can be used in two different senses. In the hierarchical sense anyone who is not ordained is lay or part of the laity (from the Greek laos (λαος) for People as in People of God or laos tou theou). This sense includes religious and consecrated persons. In the vocational sense of the term lay, it is one of three basic states of life: lay, consecrated, and clerical. We have hermits in all three states of life and honor them all. In using lay above I am mainly speaking about the vocational lay state.  For the present, and until a diocese admits you (or anyone else living as a hermit) to profession and consecration, you (they) are a lay hermit in both hierarchical and vocational senses of the term lay/laity.

On Living Lay Life in the Name of the Church

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you wrote that you do not write in the name of the Church and that you live eremitical life in the name of the Church. But isn't writing part of your life and isn't this blog a part of your life and ministry? It seems to me that there's no big jump in saying you write in the name of the Church. No? Too, I wondered if because I am a Catholic and because I am a lay person, is that what people (you!) mean when they talk about canonical standing or standing in law? Does that mean the Church has commissioned me to live lay life in her name?? I think that's incredible, awesome even!! I hadn't realized!]]

Great question, thanks!! When I say I don't write in the name of the Church I am being pretty literal. The Church did not consecrate me as a writer, nor did (she) commission me specifically to write. She consecrated me as a hermit and commissioned me to live a life of prayer and penance in the silence of solitude. Writing is one of the ways this life spills over into ministry, yes. Because writing is a really important part of my life and because I tend to write these days mainly about my exploration of c 603 and eremitical life, I can see where I might slide into thinking of my writing as part of my consecration and commissioning. It's a fine line, though, especially since my Director encourages at least some of my writing. Perhaps if my Bishop were to say I needed to write more, or in some way directly encouraged me to write, my position on this might change, but for now, what this all means for me is that I don't say I write in the name of the Church; instead, I live eremitical life in the name of the Church and writing is a part of that. Think of it this way, recreation and sleeping are also important parts of a healthy eremitical life, but strictly speaking, I don't say I recreate or sleep in the name of the Church!

Yes, you have standing in law as a lay person (or a person in the lay state)! If you married in the Church you also have standing in law as a married person. The Church gives certificates for the various stages or ecclesially significant moments regarding these things. You might not know this but your Church of Baptism keeps track of the various sacraments you have received and other ecclesial events in their own records. If you entered religious life and made vows, a record of that also goes to your Church of Baptism or home parish. If you (just for example) were divorced and received a decree of nullity, that too is kept not only in the chancery where it was given but also sent to your home parish and added to your baptismal record. If you are ordained a deacon or priest, the same thing happens. Thus, when someone writes for your baptismal certificate, they will receive notice of all the Sacraments you have received and any other events (e.g., ordinations, professions, and consecrations) that impact and may modify your standing in law.

And yes! so long as you have not been ordained, the Church has commissioned you to live lay life in her name. That is why you are called and able to call yourself a Catholic!! You live your entire life as part of the People of God (laos Theou) in the name of the Church. Whatever you do as a layperson redounds to the honor or dishonor of the faith and the Church. Simply being a Catholic layperson is indeed an awesome calling. Consider all of the ways lay persons bring the sensibilities, ethics, and Gospel of the Church to the world!! Their lives are far more varied than the lives of priests and religious and they truly are commissioned to be the Church for others in every walk of life.  The depth and import of this vocation have been diminished today. Vatican II wrote significantly of the universal call to holiness to urge us to appropriately honor the call to be laity. Some of the Church's earliest stories help in this. 

Remember St Perpetua (the patron saint of my own parish). Perpetua had not yet been baptized but was training for that when she was arrested for not worshipping the emperor. Imprisoned with other Christians, it became clear that she and they were in danger of death. ("Simply" having been baptized put one in danger of death because Christ became one's Lord and King!) Perpetua's father came to visit and asked her to recant any commitment to Christ. As the story goes, she refused, pointed to a water pitcher that could be nothing but a water pitcher, and told her father that neither could she be anything but what she was, a Christian. In that prison, while waiting for death, Perpetua was baptized into full communion in the Church. Later, after much courageous suffering including watching her father be beaten with rods to convince her to betray her faith, she died in the arena as a baptized Christian and martyr for Christ. She lived and died as a member of the People of God, a member of the laos or laity just as she had been commissioned to do in the Name of God and God's Church. So, is it incredible, awesome even? Absolutely!!

Living Solitary Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church

[[Dear Sister Laurel, do you write what you do in the name of the Church? Do other hermits have that authority? When you use the phrase, "in the name of the Church" what do you mean?]]

Hi, and thanks for the question. The answer is simple and very straightforward. No, what I write is my opinion, though I certainly strive to be sure that those opinions are well-informed and accurate in theological, pastoral, and ecclesial terms. Neither I nor any other hermit has the authority to write in the name of the Church unless this authority is specifically granted in the giving of what is called a mandatum. However, what I and other canonical hermits have been given is the authority (and more fundamentally, the obligation) to live solitary eremitical life in the name of the Church. To some extent that implies the authority to explore this vocation, to grow and mature in it, for instance, and even to share what we have come to understand with others, but it does not mean that I, for instance, write or speak in the name of the Church. Of course not.

Remember that c 603 is the universal Church's norm for solitary eremitical life. (Other canons apply to hermits living their vocations within a communal context.) It describes a vision of this form of eremitical life and adds to that the requirement that the c 603 hermit writes her own Rule of life based on her experience, education, and training. The diocesan hermits I know take this vision seriously and (to greater and lesser degrees) share with one another so that day by day we may grow in our embodiment of the vision c 603 represents. I tend to share based upon my own experiences, education, training, etc., on this blog and that means that what I write is a reflection of what I have come to know about this vocation and the way I am called to live it. Still, while what I write may be helpful to some folks (including members of the hierarchy or canonists reflecting on this vocation), it does not mean what I write itself is necessarily normative, authoritative, or done in the name of the Church.

The phrase, "in the name of the Church" comes from the idea that the Church commissions people to act in certain ways on her behalf and thus, with the Church's authority. Just as Kings, for instance, charged ambassadors with tasks to carry out in the King's name in various foreign kingdoms --- meaning where the ambassador spoke or acted according to orders, the King himself spoke --- so too does the Church commission each of us to proclaim the Gospel in ways that are appropriate to our own state of life. In fact, each of our lives is meant to be an embodiment of such a commission. Thus, each of us at baptism assumes the name Catholic. We are Catholics who live our vocations in the name of the Church. Those who are married in the Church are also commissioned to live married life in the name of the Church and to do this faithfully -- a rather important charge or mission! Religious do the same with religious life. And so forth.

The shorthand way of pointing to all of this is to say of someone, [[X is a Catholic nun (or priest), or is part of a Catholic (or Sacramental) marriage.]] I am a Catholic (diocesan) hermit, which is the shorthand way of saying the Church has commissioned me to live this specific vocation in her name. I do this in faithfulness to c 603, its traditional context, and the larger context of eremitical life. Simply to say one is a Catholic is to claim to have been commissioned to live a foundational vocation to discipleship in the Church's name. That commission was associated with our baptism and is renewed at every Mass as we are nourished in our faith and then sent forth as Christ's own disciples. Beyond baptism, however, we may be called to religious life (including semi-eremitical life), consecrated life as solitary hermits or virgins. These are ecclesial vocations which the Church herself directly entrusts to individuals through a second consecration and commissioning to live in the Church's name. Thus, these persons are Catholic hermits, nuns and brothers, and virgins, not merely Catholic AND a nun, brother, etc.

We see something similar when a theologian is given a mandatum by the Church to teach and do theology in the Church's name. In order to do this, a theologian must do their terminal degree at a pontifical institution and be granted the authority to call themselves a Catholic theologian. This authority can be withdrawn by the Church as well, something that once happened to Hans Kung. Note well, however, simply because a theologian cannot call themselves a Catholic theologian, this does not mean that person's theology is not faithfully and exhaustively Catholic. The same is true of non-canonical hermits. While they cannot call themselves Catholic hermits (i.e., because they are not authorized to identify themselves as living a normative (canonical) vocation), this does not necessarily mean the person is not faithfully Catholic. It simply means the Church has not authorized her to live eremitical life in her name.

Given your questions, what might also be clearer to people reading the posts on this blog over the past couple of months is precisely why I might be upset at someone calling themselves a "hybrid hermit" and not taking as seriously as the Church expects, the commission associated with being admitted to profession as a diocesan hermit under c 603. Acceptance of profession under this canon is associated with an acceptance of a commission to live the terms of the canon as faithfully and fully as one can. The vocation is not an excuse for doing active ministry. The central elements of the canon are normative for this life. If one lives a c 603 life honestly, then they will be hermits, not some form of "hybrid hermit" or "hermit monk". Yes, in time, they will grow into this life more and more deeply if they have truly given themselves over to the vocation the canon describes and defines, but they will never be (called to be) something other than a hermit. If one cannot answer this call or accept this commission to live this vocation in a normative way in which both the hermit and c 603 life itself thrive in them, then one will naturally (and rightly) conclude they are not called to this vocation.

On the Diocese of Lexington and the Setting of Problematic Precedents Under c 603

[[Dear Sister, you wrote: "I have to ask Cole [Matson] if he really believes his vocation is more real than the hundreds of those whose dioceses turned them away when they wanted to use c 603 as the "only available canon" to become publicly professed despite not feeling called to be a solitary hermit? That is simply the height of arrogance." I haven't heard anyone else raise this question. Have there really been hundreds of persons turned away from dioceses who were seeking admission to profession under c 603? Why is it so many people are turned away? Has Bishop Stowe turned others away? Will he feel compelled to profess anyone who comes to him with this petition? It seems to me that Bishop Stowe kind of cut the heart out of the c 603 vocation.]]

Thanks for your questions. Several of them I really can't answer (I can't read minds, including that of Bishop Stowe) but here is what I know. Yes, there have been hundreds and hundreds of persons turned away from profession under c 603 throughout the country and many times more than that throughout the world. In my own diocese, I know from a meeting with the Vicar for Religious about 10 years after my consecration (meeting was @2017) that they had seen a steady stream of people seeking to be professed in this way during this time. The estimation was an average of 1/month for a period of @10 years. So, in my diocese alone at least 120 persons besides myself had sought profession under c 603 through 2017. If we extend that for the next 7 years, that's another @84 persons which is @204 persons in a single diocese in the US. What Father Robert Herbst (OFM Conv) said at the time was that none of those had gotten as far as I had. That means that the diocese did, in fact, give some serious time in discernment to some of them depending on the case. 

There are 176 dioceses in the US. If even only half of these received a similar number of persons seeking profession under c 603 in the diocese of Oakland, that would still be a huge number of people seeking profession. If we divide that number into half again in the interests of conservatism, that is still almost 10,000 persons (though I personally find this number hard to believe). Let's divide this by 50% (simply because I really do find it difficult to believe!!). Also, we must recognize that some dioceses and regions do not entertain petitions for c 603 profession so if we divide the number in half yet again to account for these, we still come up with 2,500 persons petitioning their dioceses over four decades in the USA alone. Of this number, only a fraction might be thought to have a genuine eremitical life; many of the others sought to use the canon as a stopgap way to get themselves professed and consecrated and were rightly refused admission to profession.

Since there are only about 100-150 diocesan hermits (fewer than 1 per diocese) in the US, it is clear that most candidates (@ 24 out of 25) do not make it very far towards perpetual profession and consecration. Still, we believe that the majority of these 100-150 persons are living authentic eremitical lives and a significant number of those turned away by their dioceses truly believed they had genuine vocations to solitary eremitical life. We can put that last number at several thousand. So, yes, even if we minimize the numbers in every way possible we are still looking at a rare vocation where hundreds and hundreds have been turned away from admission to profession and eventual consecration.

Why People are Turned away from Profession and Consecration under c 603

People are turned away from canonical profession for many reasons. Sometimes dioceses have a sense the person cannot really live this vocation in an exemplary way; sometimes the person cannot support themselves adequately without working outside the hermitage. Sometimes physical and mental illness have suggested dioceses ought not profess the person --- and sometimes these conclusions were sound. (At other times they demonstrated a faulty sense of the solitary eremitical vocation or the desert context illness can provide.) 

Candidates have been refused because their spirituality is unsound, because they don't have sufficient background in (practical) theology, prayer, or eremitical and monastic life which means they either don't understand what they are asking, or will not be able to live it fruitfully in a healthy way. Some candidates are refused because they are grieving some significant loss, have just left religious life for reasons other than feeling called to solitude, and so forth. These persons still need to transition to life outside marriage or religious life in community before seeking to be professed in a new vocation. (Sometimes bishops may underestimate the degree of transition between life in community and solitary eremitical life. In my experience, it is as significant as moving from secular life to solitary eremitical life.) And as noted, a number of dioceses refuse to implement c 603 (or c 604) simply because they believe these are stopgap or fallback vocations.

While I cannot answer the question about others being turned away from profession under c 603 in the diocese of Lexington in the past, and while I don't know what Bp Stowe will feel compelled to do in the future, the question of genuine discernment and formation of such vocations are a burning question for every diocese, but particularly now for the diocese of Lexington. One of the things that comes up again and again with candidates is the question of precedents. For instance, a candidate may want permission to reserve Eucharist before being admitted to profession, much less to consecration. But this would set a precedent for others seeking admission to profession in this and other dioceses we can argue we ought not establish. Thus, ordinarily, dioceses ask candidates to wait until they are admitted to perpetual profession for this permission (not least because life in cell/hermitage without reserved Eucharist is typical of eremitical life through the centuries, and also because the hermit needs to be able to clearly discern and affirm the presence of Christ in all of the ways Christ is present in the hermitage, particularly in the Word of God). The precedents now set in the Diocese of Lexington are significant. They include:

• Professing a transgendered person because they are transgendered and (in light of a continuing church position on this issue) have not been able to enter religious life before this.
• allowing reservation of Eucharist despite not having been consecrated nor even having discerned this vocation,
• allowing c 603 to be used in a stopgap way as a framework for non-eremitical vocations and then calling them "hybrid hermits" or "diocesan monks" or some such vacuous designation.
• entertaining agendas (rather than vocations) as a sufficient reason to admit to an ecclesial vocation.
• Calling a biological woman "Brother" and clothing her in a male habit.
• Allowing (or providing) a so-called diocesan hermit a place to reside on monastery grounds. (While this is something a candidate or diocesan hermit can arrange for themselves, it usually happens only after the person has lived eremitical life for some years and has a longstanding relationship with the monastery. In any case, this establishes a precedent for candidates to c 603 life and others might be allowed to expect similar living arrangements being made available.)
• Allowing a so-called diocesan hermit to work both afternoons and evenings outside the hermitage in a highly social job. (One also assumes the diocese has approved a Rule of Life that established this as "eremitical".)
• Allowing a candidate's profession without a history of living eremitical life in any capacity and in ways that make genuine discernment and formation with diocesan personnel and mentors unnecessary. 
• (A corollary to this is allowing someone being professed to have someone else write their Rule, or at least significant parts of their Rule for them because they don't have the experience to be able to do it themselves.) The ability to write a liveable Rule requires one to have the experience, education, and training that allows such a significant piece of writing. Assistance in this is important, even indispensable, but this does not mean the Rule can be written in part or in whole by someone else, particularly a non-hermit.
• Professing someone who can afford extended stays in monasteries to get some exposure to religious life. (Most candidates will not have this ability. On the other hand, if the diocese paid the expenses of such stays, it sets the precedent that the diocese will do so for every candidate for profession under c 603 with insufficient background to live eremitical life.) In either case, a precedent has been established that needs to be made available to other candidates for c 603 profession at various points along their journey.
• Professing someone whose life contradicts what the church considers normative for consecrated life and so too, is attempting to live this contradiction "in the Church's name". (A vow of obedience becomes doubtful, at best, in such a situation.)
• Professing a person who rejects her biological sex, and letting her make a vow of chastity in celibacy --- a vow promising to live her vocation to authentic womanliness as fully and exhaustively as a chaste woman can and should do despite an inability and unwillingness to live such a vow is a potentially disastrous precedent. It implies a change in the church's theology of the vows or, at the very least, a faulty understanding of the nature of chastity in celibacy.

Questions Raised by Such Precedents:

Each of these precedents in the Diocese of Lexington raises questions there and in other dioceses. But concerning the Diocese of Lexington, the question raised at the bottom is this: Who may not expect to be professed as a c 603 hermit in the Diocese of Lexington if they seek it? What is a good enough reason to deny profession to anyone seeking that under this canon? As you have affirmed yourself, Bp Stowe's actions with regard to Cole Matson did indeed cut the heart out of the vocation. It can now be said that in the Diocese of Lexington (and as they thus at least implicitly recommend to every other local church), one does not even need to be a hermit to be professed and consecrated as a hermit. Anyone wanting to be professed, any person saying they have always desired to become a religious and claims they were "unjustly" refused (whatever this means), can now approach the Diocese of Lexington and ask them to profess them with the same justification that Cole Matson did. 

Meanwhile, the defining characteristics of c 603 may be dismissed as mere "guidelines" rather than defining characteristics if they are not simply jettisoned altogether. Beyond this, Bishop Stowe might reasonably be approached by anyone with a normal prayer life for permission to reserve Eucharist in their own homes. He might now be asked to give permission for anyone wishing to wear a habit or to style themselves as Brother x or Sister y and expect others to to recognize them as such. All they have to promise, it seems, is that they have always desired this but were turned away in the past (or in other dioceses), and that has been terribly painful. If someone else can write them a Rule of life, then even better.

As I have written before, when most of us c 603 hermits approach our dioceses to profess and consecrate us under this canon, it is after we have lived solitary eremitical life for at least several years (many of us have lived it at least a decade or two before our diocese will admit us to profession). We recognize that canonical standing entrusts us with additional rights and obligations beyond those of baptism, and also, at least some of us understand that we return to the Church with something special, even unique, that we gained in the silence of solitude and give the Church in return. In other words, we recognize that God has been working in our lives in a special way in the silence of solitude, that God transfigures our lives in this way, and because of that, we seek to live eremitical life in the name of the Church. This makes us able and ready to proclaim the Good News of the God of Jesus Christ, and again, it is only possible because we embraced eremitical life honestly and exhaustively looking to it and the God who is its author to make an ultimate kind of sense of our lives. So what happens to that witness in light of the Cole Matson situation? It has certainly been threatened and definitely will be lost if Bishop Stowe's precedents are treated as valid or allowed to become commonly practiced by other bishops and dioceses.

On the Church's Distinction Between Gender Dysphoria and Gender Ideology and other Questions

[[Sister, in the article published today in OSV News Diocesan Hermit-Theologian Warned Bishop ‘Transgender Hermit’ Proposal Would ‘Misuse’ Church Law, Cole Matson seemed to believe that the church does not distinguish between gender ideology and gender dysphoria. I don't think the church lumps it all together in this way, does she? And about Cole now saying he is feeling more and more called to solitary eremitical life. How does that work? Will Cole be able to claim he has truly discerned this vocation?]]

Personally, I don't think the church does lump things together in the way Cole Matson seems to believe she does, no. Several weeks ago now I was referred by my director to a moral theologian she values very highly by the name of Rev Gerald Coleman, PSS. This was before the Cole Matson stuff blew up on Pentecost when I was trying to decide my own next steps regarding the situation in Lexington. I never made the connection with Father Coleman because of the rapidly changing situation, but both Sister Marietta and I read Coleman's The Many Faces of Transgender to be sure we could continue our conversations on the same page as well as to provide a knowledgeable intro to Coleman when I did reach out (Marietta  knew him well but I had never read nor met him). 

In that book I would say that Father Coleman captured some moral theologians' careful and orthodox positions on the matter, namely, he was very careful to delineate or distinguish between the reality of gender dysphoria that can, in certain given circumstances be so anquishing as to make gender affirmation interventions of various types a moral option, and the whole gender ideology complex itself. The latter involves the sense that gender is a chosen quality, that individuals may do what they like in this matter,  and may even be considered "gender fluid" --- something which is anathema to the church and her anthropology. It becomes especially abhorent when applied to or encouraged to be adopted by minors and those with either significant psycho-sexual immaturity or an agenda in this area. 

My own opinion is that Cole may have done an injustice to the church's own theological conversations in this matter as well. I don't believe moral theologians fail to draw appropriate distinctions. What I believe the Church desires is for the LGBTQ+ community to do the same so that appropriate compassion may be nurtured and expressed. Cole says he disagrees with gender ideology. Good!! Moreover, in some ways, the church continues to learn, as do we all and that takes time and painful honesty. What she recognizes then is that for some, gender dysphoria is a real and oftentimes acutely painful struggle one needs help to negotiate. This can take therapy --- sometimes long and arduous therapy along, in some instances, with gender affirming medical and surgical procedures. In some instances these interventions can be considered moral according to theologians like Coleman. And of course, such gender dysphoria merits compassion from all of us. What the church does not recognize or condone, however, and what Francis considers "ugly", it seems to me is gender ideology, including the notion of gender fluidity, and the like --- particularly in minors.

Meanwhile, I continue to focus on the fact that Cole Matson and the Diocese of Lexington have committed fraud in attempting the professions they have done, not only because there was deception in claiming at least implicitly that Cole was a biological male and vesting him as a Brother given the right to style himself as "Brother," but more, from my perspective at least, because they are calling him a diocesan hermit when he never truly claimed to feel called to this, did not discern such a vocation in necessary years prior to attempted admission to vows, and has been clear they were using canon 603 as a stopgap because nothing else was available. I have to ask Cole if he really believes his vocation is more real than the hundreds of those whose dioceses turned them away when they wanted to use c 603 as the "only available canon" to become publicly professed despite not feeling called to be a solitary hermit? That is simply the height of arrogance.

Regarding your second question, I don't see how Cole can be believed in this. Consider that Cole has made fraudulent vows pretending to a vocation he does not have. He is being allowed to live it any way he actually wants and define it similarly. And he is being given the public standing (for the moment anyway) he so desperately wanted. Maybe this is too cynical of me, but I want to say, of course he is going to say he feels called to it more and more!!! What else would or could he say?? But, you see, most of us live into a vocation for some years before being admitted to profession and we are not admitted to vows simply so we can experiment with the calling to see if perhaps we might have it! Further, for those of us professed under c 603, we live the solitary eremitical vocation through our doubts or uncertainties, learning over time the hard lessons of assiduous prayer and penance, as well as the tedium that can be associated with letting these shape our lives in God's own way until we are clear not only that this is a Divine calling, but that we also bring something authentic and unique to the church herself as we petition her to admit us to canonical standing in an ecclesial vocation! (Some may never reach this step and either decide or are asked to remain non-canonical solitary hermits.)

The point is one lives the life before one is ever professed and before living eremitical life itself, one comes to live contemplative life --- usually for some years! For instance, I have one c 603 candidate I am currently working with and have been working with for at least three years now. She left her congregation prior to perpetual profession to explore eremitical life, both solitary and semi-eremitical. She is diligent, patient, shows great initiative and faithfulness to God, has sacrificed to set up a beautiful (and beautifully functional) hermitage after living in other less satisfactory places due to need, found appropriate ways to support herself, etc.; she struggles with balance between the elements of her life as every authentic hermit will struggle, and gradually, she has come to prefer the silence of solitude of the true eremite. 

I believe she is truly called to be a diocesan hermit and is prepared to live eremitical vows. Yet, her Archdiocese, despite the ongoing support of one bishop skilled in formation work, will require a still-longer discernment/formation period for several good reasons (mainly having nothing to do with the candidate herself, but with transitions within the diocese). She understands this and continues working toward a deeper and deeper personal embodiment of c 603 in the meantime and she does this for the sake of the church and the vocation itself. Unless her discernment shifts, this seems to be who she is; it is the way one lives such a calling! 

My concern is that cases like these may be dismissed now, or waiting periods extended exorbitantly without admission to profession because of the notoriety, flippancy, and even the deceitful quality of the Lexington Diocese's usage of c 603. I am genuinely hopeful this will not happen in this instance, but in other cases where we have candidates whom a specific diocese does not yet know well, true vocations could be jeopardized. You see, one dimension of a genuine canon 603 vocation is the sense that one is responsible for living and furthering the life of this specific vocational thread in the church. It continues to live on throughout the centuries not only because God calls individuals to it but also because the church entrusts one with living out this specific ecclesial vocation in her name. This simply doesn't happen when selfish motives are allowed to drive professions, and in a calling that is so rare and vulnerable (especially in a world rampant with individualism!) the vocation itself is hurt.

Letter from Another Hermit on the Situation in Lexington, KY

I have raised the question of dishonesty and the misuse of c 603 concerning the situation in the Diocese of Lexington. In a conversation today regarding the canon lawyer's notion that c 603 could be used for Cole Matson's profession, because there's no community involved and no limitation on whether one is male or female, a good friend of mine (without a degree in canon law) certainly understands the principle involved here. She summarized the situation this way: 

[[Well, right! While one can be either male or female to be professed under c 603, one still needs to be a hermit!!]] 

And that has been the point of contention I have been addressing this week rather than Cole Matson's sexuality. It is true that eremitical life is little understood by most folks but there are more of us out there than most folks realize. Many are non-canonical, either by choice or perhaps because their dioceses have chosen not to implement c 603 for the consecration of solitary hermits. Some readers will remember I waited for 23 years for this possibility in the Diocese of Oakland. Another friend and Diocesan Hermit in New Zealand waited 17 years. These kinds of waiting periods are not atypical, and while they can be frustrating, they can also be a grace and essential for the authentic hermit's discernment and formation. After all, during these years God made Sister Nerina and me into hermits and did that as all hermit vocations are formed, viz., in the silence of solitude. What one brings to the Church for profession and then consecration in an ecclesial vocation is the gift of a true eremitical vocation forged over long years in humble faithfulness to God and God's Church.

There are a number of reasons the Church makes hermits wait for such lengths of time.  First of all, the vocation itself requires years to be formed. And sometimes bishops themselves need to learn more about the vocation they are honoring (or in the case of Lexington's Bishop Stowe, dishonoring) in this way. Sometimes dioceses lack sufficient personnel to make certain the hermit vocation is adequately discerned and formed. Sometimes dioceses that once consecrated hermits get a new bishop and that new bishop may decide he does not want to give permission for any further use of c 603. In such cases, the non-canonical hermits have to decide whether to move to a diocese where c 603 can be implemented (arguably the only form of bishop-shopping that is valid for such vocations), or whether to continue faithfully living their eremitical lives where they are while praying for the day c 603 profession and consecration will be possible in the diocese again. I heard from one of those hermits yesterday. While I don't usually post whole letters or author's names (or their chosen pseudonyms) in this blog, I am going to do so in this case. In contrast to the situation in Lexington, this letter is edifying and should be heard.

Sr. Laurel,
I just wanted to write and say how much I appreciated your posts on the issue concerning the issue of the professed transsexual hermit Cole Matson. I thought your post on May 20, 2024 was particularly useful in answering people's questions about the situation as it was comprehensive and honest. It was particularly helpful for me in answering some of the questions I was presented with by others concerning what I thought of the matter.

In the Diocese I live in, we do not have an option to be a Diocesan hermit as the current Bishop has made the decision not to consecrate anyone seeking the eremitic vocation. However, he does allow those of us who have discerned a vocation to the life of a hermit to do so in front of our parish at a public Mass. Of course, as you know, this means I do not have canonical status but it does allow me to live out my vocation authentically and with the support of my parish family until such time as a new bishop may reverse this decision.

I mention that to say, as someone who is living the eremitic life, besides all the issues you addressed in your post, I was also very much struck by the fact that Cole made the conscious and deliberate decision to make a public announcement concerning her being transsexual. My issues with this action are two-fold. First, the very act of making what amounts to a very public press announcement which an individual knows will garner widespread attention would, in itself, seem to be quite contrary to the spirit of the eremitic life. It would seem to me the last thing a hermit should be seeking is public notoriety. Second, to do anything that, by its very nature, would cause public scandal for the Church is an egregious violation of the eremitic vocation. Pardon my naivety but it seems that making such a public announcement has little to nothing to do with the need to authentically live an eremitic life and more to do with using that vocation to make a statement about an individual's view of what constitutes social justice and to forward a particular socio-political agenda.

Yours in Christ
Paul

I found Paul's letter (and another one in our mutual correspondence yesterday) to be immensely consoling and inspiring. Many of us who have honestly discerned an eremitical vocation recognize that God has done something rare and edifying in our lives by making us hermits; we desire, because of that, to gain canonical standing. However, to watch as the fragile and purposely little-used canon under which we either are or would be professed and consecrated is misused and abused as it has been in the Diocese of Lexington brings some foreboding as well. We know well that as a result of the hypocritical circus in Lexington, some bishops will now reject c 603 and let it go unused for even the genuine hermits waiting for a chance to live authentic eremitical life in the name of the Church. My prayer is that the hermits whom God has called from the midst of a suffering world will be able to witness publicly to this grace in the way c 603 first made universally possible in 1983 --- authentically, faithfully, and humbly in the silence of solitude.

The Lay Vocation: Living as part of the People of God in the Name of the Church

[[Sister O'Neal, I am trying to get my head around this idea of "living a state of life or a vocation in the name of the Church." Does this only work for people in the consecrated or clerical states? Is it also true for lay people? If it is true of us then what are my rights and obligations? I don't think you have ever said anything about this.]]

Terrific question! And no, I may not have written directly about this. Yes, it applies to folks living in the lay state and/or lay vocations. Remember these are people who have been initiated through baptism (and other Sacraments of initiation) into membership in the People of God and thus, it also means people with all the rights and obligations of lay persons in the Church. You and any other lay person lives your vocation in the name of the Church: you are a Catholic lay person and the right to call yourself this is a significant right all by itself. It also comes with obligations.

(Assuming you are a baptized Catholic) everything you are and do is meant to be done in the name of your Catholic identity. You may teach or nurse or do medicine, you may be a business leader, a CEO, a housewife, or shipbuilder, student, caregiver, etc. As a Catholic lay person (or "just" as a Catholic) you are entirely free to live your faith and thus be a Catholic lay person in an infinite number of ways. You never stop being a person who lives your Christian faith in the name of the Church --- unless of course you reject  and walk away from this identity in some material way. Not everything you do may reflect well on your calling or on the Name in which you are called to live your life but the call is still yours. By the way, one tricky piece here is that you are not a Catholic shipbuilder, or a Catholic CEO. The Church has not commissioned you to do or be these specific things in her name. Even so, you are a Catholic Lay Person and CEO, or Catholic and shipbuilder, etc. You are free to make as much money as you can (though the evangelical counsel of poverty is also an obligation which is part of your Catholic vocation), free to marry, to raise a family, to move wherever you like, study whatever you want, and so forth (though in all of this the evangelical counsels of obedience and chastity also bind you --- though not religious obedience or religious chastity in celibacy).

You have the right (and sometimes the obligation!) to receive the sacraments regularly, to keep the precepts of the Church, to participate in a parish or other faith community, to participate as you feel called in all of the forms of lay ministry the church opens to you. If you are trained and commissioned as an EEM you do this in the name of the church. You are a Catholic EEM. You have the obligation to be knowledgeable about your faith, to inculcate the theological and cardinal virtues (etc.), to live the law of the Church and of God's Law of Love, to become  a person of prayer (the very prayer of God), to raise your children in a similar way, to create a home which is genuinely Catholic and reflects Catholic faith and values. You are free to associate with others and create associations of the lay faithful. In serious or emergency situations you are even free to baptize! These are also rights which are yours as a person in the lay state. Moreover, you have the right and obligation to discern the shape of God's call in your life and to live this out the best you can. This vocation is the foundation of every other in the Church.  At every moment and mood of your life you have the right and obligation to hear and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a Catholic in the Lay state.

When people say "I am a Catholic" all of this and more is implied --- or at least is meant to be implied. Above all, I think, to say, "I am a Catholic" is to recognize and embrace a call to holiness in Christ, to recognize and embrace a call to be God's embodied Word as you image Christ in this unique and foundational state of life. Because you are baptized, confirmed, and nourished with  the Eucharist and the Word of God, strengthened as needed with the Sacrament of the Sick, healed and reconciled with the Sacrament of reconciliation, you are called and commissioned to live this state of life in an inspired and edifying way. Here rights and obligations become hard or impossible to tease apart but they are all part of your unique vocation as a Catholic and as Catholic Laity.

Are there limitations on your rights and obligations? Yes, of course. What I mentioned as "tricky" earlier points to some of these limitations. If, like I have done, you study Theology and become a theologian by training, expertise, and even passion, unless the Church specifically charges you with this right and obligation you cannot identify yourself as a Catholic theologian because you do not do or teach theology in the name of the Church. This requires a special Mandatum which can be granted or taken away. This does not mean the theology you do or teach is anything other than Catholic or profoundly orthodox, but unless the Church herself has granted you this Mandatum, you, like I, cannot call yourself a Catholic Theologian.

Similarly, you may be a gifted preacher, knowledgeable in the Word of God and human psychology, but unless and until the Church grants you the right (and charges you with the associated obligations), you cannot call yourself a Catholic preacher. (You would be a Catholic and a preacher, but you do not preach in the name of the Church; she has not granted this ecclesial calling, rights, and commensurate obligations to you). You may pray and live in all the ways a Catholic Religious prays, but you do so in the lay state (and why not?!); you are not a Catholic religious unless and until you are initiated by competent authorities into this state of life. Such rights and obligations belong to the Church (we call these callings, "ecclesial vocations") and they are hers alone to confer; they are never self-assumed.

But the more pertinent point in light of your question is the truth that by the very fact of your Baptism you live lay life in the name of the Church. The Church recognizes you as part of the People of God, the (Gk.,λαος laos,laity, or People), and that is a very significant vocation wherever and how ever you live it out or express it; for wherever and how ever you do this, you are called to be Church. You are (a) Catholic; your selfhood is lived in the name of God and the name of the Church. The challenge, of course, is always to live this vocation worthily in a way which builds up the People, to understand that with baptism you did not simply join a religious group but were gifted with and embraced a Catholic vocation marked by its undeniable call to an exhaustive (if difficult!) holiness-in-community, and very unique (and challenging!) freedom.

Once Again on the Requirements of Age and Self-Support for the Diocesan Hermit

[[ Dear Sister, your post on c 603 and bankruptcy brings up the question of hermits who seem unable to provide adequately for themselves, whether that has to do with housing, medical care, or other needs. I wonder what you would say about a hermit who lives in abject poverty, housing which is not sanitary or habitable, or who has inadequate medical insurance. Catholic Hermit  writes all the time about her living conditions and now has gone to live with family, at least temporarily; she also writes about not having adequate medical insurance. How can her diocese allow her to represent a public vocation as you say, "in the name of the Church," and yet seemingly have none of her real needs taken care of or even live in eremitical solitude?]]

I have written fairly recently in response to a similar series of questions. Here is the link to that post: Questions on Catholic Hermit blog and Hermit.  I have not written recently about the need to live in eremitical solitude rather than with one's family, for instance, so perhaps I can say a bit more about that here; the question affects anyone aspiring to be professed as a solitary hermit so it might be important to discuss at this point. Otherwise, please check the link provided and get back to me if you don't find it answers your specific questions.

Some very few dioceses have broken with received wisdom and professed young hermits (in their 20's or early 30's, for instance) who may then live with their families. I think this is a mistake for several reasons. First, the eremitical vocation, but especially the solitary eremitical vocation is generally understood as a second half of life vocation. It requires individuals to have lived a rich and independent life before giving over everything to a life of such unusual community ("living together alone"), depth, and intensity. It takes time to negotiate all the ways God calls us to fullness of life, to achieve true individuation, develop an essentially contemplative prayer life, and then move to the kind of depth of listening contemplative life requires.

We will try many avenues to develop our personal capacities and serve others and usually, only along these various intellectual, psychological, social, professional, and other avenues will we learn to hearken to the deep inner reality which is at the heart of contemplative life. Secondly, eremitical life under c 603 means one lives alone and deals with all the exigencies of solitary (not isolated) life. It is not ordinarily lived in the midst of one's family, and certainly not by someone who has not achieved true adulthood apart from their families. Again, it takes time to learn to live one's faith in community with the kind of maturity, depth, and intensity necessary before one embraces a solitary vocation which is truly sensitive to and responsible for an ecclesial identity.

As I have noted before, Karl Jung once wrote that solitude could be lived by those with significant early experiences that suited them to solitude, but at the same time, these are rare individuals since the experiences we are speaking of wound and are more likely to make the person uniquely unsuited for eremitical solitude (it can isolate and make isolation relatively comfortable, but this is not the same as eremitical solitude). In either case, the person will need to work through the woundedness that leads to various dimensions of isolation and allow the love of God and others to transform these into the conditions for authentic eremitical solitude.

In the main this will happen before one can discover a genuine call to eremitical life; in some cases one will need to continue this work at deeper levels of healing and transformation once she is professed. (Because one commits to  live eremitical solitude or "the silence of solitude" in the name of the Church, diocesan hermits are obligated to undertake the healing work necessary to be sure isolation is transfigured and transformed into eremitical solitude and the quies, or stillness of hesychastic silence.) In any case, those who continue to live at home with their families have not yet lived eremitical solitude, and in my opinion, have not yet discerned nor been sufficiently formed to live eremitical solitude.

Even diocesan hermits can run into situations which make temporary living arrangements with family, friends, convents and monastic communities necessary. These need to be discerned and embraced as truly temporary. If they are made necessary by health problems or finances, a diocese will need to discern with the hermit whether or not she will be able to once again live as a solitary hermit. (Living on the grounds of a monastery is not the same situation; in such communities it is typical that the diocesan hermit lives a significant solitude while being a significant part of the monastic and parish or diocesan community.) After years of living as a solitary hermit it may well be one will need caregivers or be required to live in a care facility (especially where one where other religious and priests retire!) and some degree of healthy solitude can be maintained. In such instances no diocese will dispense the hermit's vows; however, if the hermit is relatively young, has many years before her and is simply incapable of living alone or of supporting herself adequately as a solitary hermit, a diocese may well decide her vows should be dispensed (or never allowed or received in the first place) --- and rightly so I think.

Whether the Church is right in her stance on the self-support of diocesan hermits or not (and in general, I believe she is), those who developed c 603, write about it in an expert and canonical capacity, and who live it in season and out,  understand that living with one's family and being generally incapable of living solitary eremitical life as self-supporting does not allow one to witness to the essence of the eremitical vocation, namely, that God alone is sufficient for us. Only very rarely have bishops departed from received wisdom in this matter and professed the too-young or yet-too-dependent. My sense from these professions is that c 603 is still insufficiently understood or appreciated and esteemed even by some among the hierarchy; as we have greater experience of diocesan eremitical life and through the wisdom gleaned from this experience, educate the Church and others on the nature of this vocation, I believe the situation will change.

What's the Big Deal?

 [[Dear Sister, why is it so important to make clear that there is a difference between consecrated hermits or canon 603 hermits and lay hermits? There is one person [cf., A Catholic Hermit] who claims to be writing for hermits who wish to be consecrated religious hermits by making private vows. She says, "This nothing hermit has also reflected and been reminded to encourage all aspiring Catholic hermits, to keep in mind we are consecrated religious eremitics called to live and keep our valid private vows. Regardless which of the now two Church-approved paths (privately or since 1983 publicly expressed vows), we ought prayerfully live daily and nightly the three evangelical counsels, and all else asked of hermits, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church."  Shouldn't she just be allowed to do this? I mean what does it matter? What harm can it do? They would still be hermits.]] (emphasis added)

Because I have already explained the difference between private and public vows in other posts here I really don't want to do that again.  It seems though that some of this is still unclear. The central issue is not merely about whether or not vows are expressed privately or publicly. In fact that is not the issue at all since private vows can be made in front of many people and public vows can be made in relative secret if the need exists. To continue to insist or imply this is the essential difference between public and private vows, as the person you have cited does, is to perpetuate a distortion of the truth. Instead the central issue is whether vows lead to new legitimate rights and obligations or not. What is at issue when we speak of private versus public vows is whether they establish the person in a public vocation or instead represent a private commitment. In other words, in distinguishing these two forms of vows the Church is concerned with whether or not, through the mediation of the Church, the person is initiated into another state of life (religious and/or consecrated life) for which they are publicly (that is, both morally and legally) responsible.

The person you are citing (who does read this blog, by the way) does and is certainly entirely free to disagree with what I write about many things, but in this matter, I am not merely expressing my own opinion. What I have explained is simply factual and centers on the way the Church herself uses the terms "consecrated hermits", "professed religious", "profession", and so forth". What the Catechism of the Catholic Church writes about "consecrated Life" and hermits has to be understood in light of the glossary which provides definitions of fundamental terms that might otherwise be misunderstood (cf especially "vows", and "consecrated life) ; the definitions there make it clear that paragraphs 920-921 which fall under the heading "consecrated life" refer specifically to those entering the consecrated state of life as solitary hermits, not to lay hermits. These hermits always make their commitment via public profession but they may not always use vows of the evangelical counsels to do so. Some may use "other sacred bonds" to make their profession. Some may use the classic monastic vows (stability, conversion of life (which includes poverty and chastity), and obedience rather than the more typically Franciscan triad. Since 1983 these publicly professed solitary hermits exist as religious besides (along with) already recognized institutes of consecrated life.

I have also explained that there are three paths in the Church today to pursue eremitical life, not two: 1) publicly professed and consecrated life in a community (that is, an institute) of hermits (Camaldolese, Carthusian, Sisters of Bethlehem, etc); this "semi-eremitic" option has existed for more than twelve centuries, 2) consecrated life under canon 603 (solitary diocesan eremitical life); this establishes in universal law what many dioceses anticipated and allowed through the authority of the local Bishop throughout Church history; these hermits are solitary hermits and are not professed as part of an institute of religious life (the Church's term for a congregation, community, or Order); finally there is 3) lay eremitical life (extant in the church since the 4C). The first two of these require public vows (which can be made without any notoriety, especially in countries where the person would be persecuted if their profession and/or consecration were known) and they establish the hermit in a public vocation no matter the hiddenness of the life, The third is a private commitment (even if made in public before hundreds of people) and does not change the person's state of life. If they were a lay person (in the vocational sense) before these vows, then despite the unquestioned validity of the (private) vows, they remain lay persons afterward. (Similarly, if they were clerics they remain clerics and if already religious they remain religious.) No change in one's state of life is involved in private vows.

Because the canonical rights and obligations of these forms of eremitical life differ despite the fact that they are each truly eremitical it is important that people seeking to live this life be able to make a wise and accurately informed discernment on which of these is truly what fits one's own vocation. Some people have absolutely no desire to live their vocations in the name of the Church, some have no interest in representing or extending a living tradition in the contemporary world, many have no desire to have their lives supervised by the church or to live under superiors or with regard to canon law; others refuse to jump through the hoops necessary to become publicly professed and consecrated hermits, and some simply are not able to do these things in a representative and credible way, for whatever reason.

What's the Big Deal with Distortions of the Truth?

This is not the first time I have been asked, "What's the harm?" What you are asking, whether you realize it or not is, "What's the big deal with allowing distortions of the truth?" You are also asking, "What harm can living a life (or encouraging others to live a life) of pretense do?" You see, so long as the way to becoming a consecrated or Catholic hermit in the Catholic Church is invariably through public profession and (with perpetual profession) consecration overseen and mediated by the Church, the person you cited is perpetuating a falsehood. So long as initiation into the consecrated and religious states of life is ALWAYS mediated by the church in a public act and represents an ecclesial vocation, the person you referenced is living and fostering a lie.

Moreover, so long as this person is distorting language and texts to read in ways the Church did not intend simply because she believes she has the right to her opinion on the meaning of these same terms and texts and then writes that her individualistic understanding and praxis can be considered appropriate for others, she has crossed the line into a seductive fraud --- a fraud which she hopes and encourages other vulnerable persons to adopt while unaware of the truth. The point is the notion that someone can become a consecrated religious hermit or a "professed religious" or a "Catholic Hermit" merely by making private vows is simply not true. When this notion is perpetuated, and especially when it is done by someone falsely claiming to be a Catholic Hermit, that is a hermit living her life in the name of the Church, it can mislead others and hurt them, just as believing in and acting on lies often hurts those who have done so --- except that here the Church has been nominally and wrongly implicated in the lie.

We are sensitive today to people acting in the name of the Church committing crimes, hypocrisy, immorality of all sorts. And rightly so. When someone appends Catholic to their vocation, workplace, project, or whatever, the Church herself can be smeared by anything offensive associated with that enterprise; for that reason she has a say in whether their use of the characterization Catholic is acceptable or not. That is why the Church has legislated in Canon Law that no one will use the name Catholic without explicit permission from the appropriate authority. It is why we sometimes see online radio or TV stations deprived of the name Catholic by the local Bishop. If a Catholic priest does something seriously wrong then the Church herself is besmirched; if a Catholic theologian writes against the resurrection then the Church herself is implicated in his/her actions because s/he acted in her name and she is responsible for the mission that allows this theologian to call him/herself a "Catholic Theologian". The same is true with Catholic monks, nuns, religious sisters, brothers, and hermits. All of these have been publicly commissioned to live their lives in the name of the Church. All of them are supervised by the Church and are specifically answerable to the entire Church. Moreover, they are careful of hypocrisy in their own lives and sensitive to frauds within their ranks; they are equally sensitive to more overt frauds pretending to be religious living and acting in the name of the Church.

So, my answer to your first question is no, the person you cited should not simply be allowed to encourage others to pursue or live a lie without at least an attempt to correct the falsehoods and distortions she perpetuates. She should especially not be allowed to do so while claiming the credentials, "professed religious", "consecrated hermit," "consecrated religious", or "Catholic hermit." To do this is to potentially distort peoples' discernment processes with false information. It is at least potentially, to waste months and even years of their lives in following a lie. It is to set these people up for marginalization and rejection. It is to encourage them to be seen as incredible, as frauds, or even as deluded persons, or as those who could not pursue an eremitical vocation in the usual ways and so, made something up instead. It is to lead them to believe the Church herself sees them as consecrated religious when this is not true. More, it is to encourage them to deny the very vocation God may be calling them to, namely lay eremitical life. In an age of the Church which is recovering a strong sense of the significance of baptismal consecration and lay life of all sorts it is seriously misguided to encourage others who are, vocationally speaking, lay persons to think of themselves as consecrated and professed religious. Because this person's understanding of the eremitical vocation (cited in your question) doesn't even recognize the existence of lay hermits, it implicitly says that being a lay person is not really good enough even though the person decides either not to pursue or is not discerned to have another vocation which is entered through a public commitment besides baptism.

Similarly, others who have a vocation to consecrated eremitical life might never even pursue it because they think they are already living it. A life given over to such a foundational pretense, though it might instead have been one of significant ecclesial witness, could be unlikely thereafter ever to be admitted to such a position of trust by the Church. Similarly, catering to someone's desperation to be allowed to live a religious life or "to belong" or "have a niche in the Church" or whatever it is that drives them to embrace these kinds of fictions will prevent them from dealing maturely and effectively with the roots of their need. It is simply not charitable to encourage people to embrace and live a lie. It is neither charitable to them nor to those to whom they seek to minister. It is not respectful of them or their real vocations. It is not respectful to the truth or the God of Truth who gifts us with both lay and consecrated vocations; nor is it respectful of the Church which is responsible for mediating these varied gifts through baptism and the public professions and consecration of those called to live them in credible and pastorally responsible ways.

They Would Still Be Hermits:

You write that they would be hermits anyway. Perhaps. Perhaps not. With private vows this is less certain. I have said before that because many self-defined lay hermits are not supervised, may not be formed in the life or committed to ongoing formation, may have insufficient direction and knowledge, etc., they may simply be living a pious life alone --- a life that differs very little if at all from that of others who live alone and pray before meals and bed. In such a case calling themselves hermits perpetuates a destructive fiction which makes the vocation itself incredible.

Even more problematical are those lay hermits who mistake isolation for solitude or whose spirituality is a thinly veiled "celebration" of self-hatred, bitterness, and rejection of God's good creation in the name of a misunderstood notion of fleeing or hating "the world". Some aspiring "hermits" I have spoken to spend hours watching TV, others use the designation "hermit" as an excuse to spend their days painting or writing or just kicking back, etc. (Many true hermits ALSO write or paint, etc. I am not referring to these! They are hermits (or monks and nuns) first of all and their writing or painting is integrated into this, not vice versa.) Others simply want the garb or the title or desire a way to "belong" in the Church they have already been baptized in. While it is sad when a person cannot accept themselves or a lay vocation, none of these things mean the person is called to be a hermit much less do they make the person a hermit, lay or otherwise.

At the same time however, I know several lay hermits who are paradigms of the eremitical vocation. I expect there are many more. These hermits inspire and challenge me. At least two of them were religious and received their formation, both initial and ongoing, over a period of years. The others spent time studying theology, spirituality, and prepared themselves for significant ministerial roles in the Church before discerning a call to eremitical solitude. Each of these meets regularly with a director and has done so for years. Each is integrally connected to the Church, whether through a parish, monastery, or retreat house. Each of them knows firsthand what it means to be a hermit and how this differs from being simply a lone pious person. Each of them understands themselves as part of a profound and ancient tradition and feel responsible for continuing that in our contemporary world. Because I know these individuals and because I know many people, including a number of isolated elderly, or chronically ill persons who would be wonderful hermits if they only knew the vocation is a vital and contemporary one, I value the lay eremitical vocation and its potential. But I am not unrealistic about its limitations or challenges. As with many things, these limitations may allow exceptional individuals to succeed beautifully while the rest of us need the help and challenge associated with public standing, but equally, they may merely lead to an exceptional failure.

Credibility is the Bottom Line:

My sincerest desire is that I never have to write about the distortion of language involved when lay hermits call themselves consecrated religious, "Catholic Hermits" or "professed religious" again. But unfortunately, so long as people are blogging this way, people who do not know the language very well are going to be seduced by the prospect of avoiding the hoops canonical hermits must negotiate or the scrutiny and constraints they must embrace and still call themselves "consecrated religious hermits." When these same writers submit that canon 603 is a departure from and even a betrayal of the eremitical tradition, then from time to time I will probably continue to get questions from their readers --- and I will probably need to respond yet again.

Canonical hermits, whether professed in community or as solitary hermits under c 603, and whether they come from the laity or the clergy make significant sacrifices in order that their lives are credible representations of a living eremitical tradition and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The constraints on their lives --- canon law, Rule, constitutions, legitimate superiors, commitment to regular and competent spiritual direction, ongoing formation, and public vows --- as well as their commitment to the life giving sources of the Church (Scripture, Sacraments, etc) are all traditional necessities they have freely embraced to be sure their lives are credible and lived with integrity. For most of us these things are also sources of great joy, graced resources which help nurture the maturity and fruitfulness of lives consecrated by God and commissioned in the name of the Church. Even so, for someone to forego all of these and still claim the name "Catholic Hermit" even while ignoring and distorting the way the Church herself uses this term is offensive and dishonest. It is also the very essence of the self-centered and individualistic worldliness which the consecrated hermit is publicly committed to reject with her entire life.