On the Bishop's Role in Supervising Canon 603 Vocations

[[Hi Sister, you said something recently about bishops supervising hermits. I looked but couldn't find it. It sounded like sometimes bishops don't really do a good job in their supervision. Is this a problem? I wouldn't think it would require much effort or time to supervise a diocesan hermit.]]

Great question. Yes, I referred to the growth of the hermit's vision of eremitical life and relationship with Scripture; I said, essentially, that her director, delegate, and her bishop --- when he knows her well enough, which some, unfortunately, do not --- will recognize this growth long before it becomes explicit enough to show up in revisions of her Rule. It is the case that the bishop's role in supervising a hermit's vocation (living of her Rule, ongoing formation, life needs, and so forth) are not defined in c.603 beyond the general term "supervise", and this can sometimes mean that solitary canonical hermits slip through the canonical cracks with regard to their bishops. You see, bishops are required to visit religious communities to check on their general health, etc., and there are other canonical requirements and mechanisms in proper law that help ensure Religious in community continue to mature in their vocations, that they are otherwise doing well and that they have what they need to live their vocations responsibly.  Even so, the bishop does not supervise such congregations or their members, however. Instead, their legitimate superiors are members of their own communities and congregations ---  groups which constitute kinds of extended families of faith and love who are committed to one another, to their community charism and mission and so, to those they serve in ministry. One of the canonically established mechanisms which ensures this is the leadership team of each congregation and/or province. Sisters take on leadership roles for a period of four years (or more) in order to ensure the health of the congregation and those who comprise it.

But hermits professed under canon 603, have none of this specific support --- at least not exactly.  Canon 603 requires the bishop's supervision, nothing more. Fortunately, at my bishop's request, my diocese asked me to select someone who would act as a delegate for myself and for the bishop. This person would be a "quasi superior", that is, as one who would serve me in the ministry of authority; she would undertake this in service to the diocese and eremitical life itself, and she would do so on the bishop's behalf. We would meet regularly and more frequently than I could meet with the bishop.

Over the years, some bishops worked through my delegate or asked for her input in making decisions in my regard (because she knew me much better than they), others did not (usually because there was no need during their time in office). At all times, my delegate(s) serve(s) me and help(s) ensure my well-being in all of the ways my vocation requires; in this way she (they) serve(s) the diocese and canon 603 vocations as well. This is true no matter the kind of relationship I have with the current bishop. Thus, though there have been four bishops (one, an interim administrator) since my perpetual profession, my delegate (and, now, my co-delegate as well) provide a continuity and knowledge of me which is important for someone living a solitary eremitical vocation --- and also important, therefore, for the diocese and bishop.

Not every c 603 hermit's diocese requires or requests that a hermit select a delegate. Some hermits, especially in smaller dioceses may be able to meet with their bishop far more frequently than those in larger dioceses. The average, as far as I can tell, in larger dioceses is 1 or 2 meetings annually with an option to call for an appointment should something arise requiring a conversation. It is also the case that some bishops coming into a diocese may not have the time to meet with hermits, not only at first when he is getting his feet on the ground in his new office, but even later when things have settled down and he has the lay of the land, so to speak; in some cases a new bishop may never really accept the responsibility of supervising this vocation. I don't know how often this occurs but I have spoken to several diocesan hermits who have described similar situations --- usually occurring when a new bishop replaces an older one.  Personally I am very grateful my own diocese had the insight and wisdom to require a delegate prior to perpetual profession; this has meant no matter the nature of my relationship to a bishop, I always have access to Religious who are working with me for the benefit of the diocese, and more primarily for my well-being and that of my vocation.

No, I don't think supervising a c 603 hermit is onerous, but sometimes it just does not happen. Some bishops with several hermits in the diocese have refused to meet individually with them; this hardly makes sense and effectively means none of the hermits are apt to even try to make appointments with their bishop. Other bishops don't understand religious life generally, and they don't have any sense of what it means to be a hermit. Some do not value contemplative life and this means they find it even more difficult to value solitary eremitical life. Hermits in their dioceses without delegates or regular access to the Vicar for Religious, for instance, will still have a spiritual director, but that role is different than that of delegate or Vicar. So, while the supervision required by c 603 is not onerous, it is important and required by the canon; some of those who authored the canon had significant sense of history and experience with hermits which allowed them to demonstrate real wisdom in requiring this. A hermit lacking adequate supervision or the assistance of a delegate should probably be encouraged by their diocese to find someone who can serve in this role. It really does serve everyone involved in the hermit's profession commitment.

To summarize then. I think this is one of the definite weak points of canon 603. Bishops are not used to supervising religious in their dioceses and are even less used to doing so for eremitical vocations they are unlikely even to understand. When failures occur in this area of the canon, the ecclesiality of the hermit's vocation will suffer and she can feel "cut loose" by the very church that professed and consecrated her to live this call in her name. In a vocation which is very specifically ecclesial and involves a call to eremitical solitude rather than to isolation and individualism, this can be fatal to the vocation itself.  However, this weakness can be easily dealt with, not only by making it clear that bishops are truly responsible in a unique and meaningful way for c 603 hermits in their diocese --- even when they are not the professing bishop --- but by requiring/asking the hermit to select a religious or other competent person to serve as delegate on behalf of the bishop, the diocese, and the hermit and solitary eremitism itself.

Such a person takes on a role which is somewhat similar to a leadership role in a congregation. Her ministry in this matter  ensures the hermit is allowed to exercise her own responsibility fully by being specifically accountable to someone for her vocation and her own ongoing formation and personal life needs. One of my delegates sees her role as one of advocacy; the other sees it in terms of ensuring the health of my vocation and all that implies. In any case, having someone fill such a role gives the hermit someone she can talk to in ways she may never be able to do with her bishop or even her spiritual director, and this is no small matter! (This, by the way, is not about honesty, but about experience and degrees of commonality and personal intimacy.) For this reason alone I suggest c 603 hermits have a delegate even when they are able to meet sufficiently regularly with their bishop. Along with this and the other reasons mentioned above, a delegate also provides consistency  when bishops and other personnel in the diocese change, while at the same time giving the incoming bishop someone he can turn to in case of need without necessarily interrupting the hermit herself. In these ways, such an arrangement can allow the requirements of canon 603 to be met fully and flexibly by both bishop and hermit.

On the Correspondence Between Paul Giustiniani's Vision of Eremitical Life and The Central Elements of c 603

Dear Sister, I saw an exchange between you and another hermit on a list for hermits. (I am not one but I aspire to be.) He is non-canonical and you are canonical. Near the end of the discussion he said that you and he have completely different conceptions of hermit. I wondered what the differences are between his notion of a hermit and your own.]]

Thanks for the question. I can't say very much about his idea of eremitical life because I haven't seen him post much about it. He has cited the work of Merton's friend, Dom Jean LeClercq and his fine work,  Alone With God. I believe all of his ideas of hermit life come from there since he made a comment which contrasted other forms of eremitical life with that found in Alone With God.  The conception of the hermit in this book is Paul Giustiniani's, a Monte Corona Camaldolese founder and hermit who broke away from the original Camaldolese when he was driven to reform them. His eremitism as described by LeClercq, was constituted as a 1) pure contemplative, 2) living in solitude and pure poverty or simplicity, 3) living in and with God in Christ and aiming for total union with God. One other thing which might be said to contextualize or provide a framework for all of these, and constitute a fourth element is what Paul Giustiniani  describes as 4) the "role of the hermit in the church." This is really critical because how ever we approach those first three elements above, insofar as we are Christian hermits, we must do so within the Church and on behalf of the Church. It is also here in relation to this last element, that, in reflecting on the eremitical vocation and other vocations in the church, Giustiniani perceives the importance of diversity within unity.

In other words, Giustiniani's vision opens up a strong notion of the hermit whose solitude is marked and framed by community with and within the whole church in Christ, including what we would call today, "A preferential option for the poor" and all the necessary conditions of a life of the silence of solitude in order to grow in communion with Christ to the point of union. The ecclesial framework of eremitical life was very important to Giustiniani. So are states of life which allow for differing expressions of the eremitic life. Giustiniani accepts that the religious (we would also say consecrated) state is far safer for living a good eremitical life. This is so because it allows for  Rule and legitimate superior who can exercise the ministry of authority. Generally speaking, that is my understanding of Giustiniani's view of eremitical life.

Dom Robert Hale, OSB Cam

Now, I don't know this for certain but it seems to me the authors and consultants on c 603 drew in major ways from Alone with God and the concerns and observations of Paul Giustiniani when they created this first-ever universal (canonical) way for solitary hermits to become the kind of hermits Giustiniani always desired. Canon 603, the canon by which my own eremitic life is lived sounds to me very like what Giustiniani considered essential for good hermits on their way to union with God in Christ; it includes: 1) stricter separation from the world, 2 assiduous prayer and penance, 3) the silence of solitude, 4) the evangelical councils embraced by vow or other sacred bond, all 5) lived according to the Rule the hermit writes for herself and all lived 6) under the supervision of the diocesan bishop (who exercises the ministry of authority for the hermit).  The two approaches to eremitic life seem very similar to me, so I can't understand how the person you referred to might have affirmed he and I each hold completely different conceptions of what a hermit is. If he doesn't hold Giustiniani's view of ecclesial import and the place of obedience and legitimate superiors, then he has not said that. At the same time, he does seem to hold some antipathy towards institutionalization and considers it antithetical to eremitical life -- so in that he may differ from both Giustiniani and myself depending on what is meant by "institutionalization."

This is very general and was merely meant to describe Giustiniani's view of eremitical  life and the way it largely corresponds to canon 603. Please ask for clarifications if there are things you want me to go into in more detail. I am actually pretty excited to reread Alone With God and to consider where I am in my life in comparison to what Paul Giustiniani describes and even requires, so I will post more on this comparison I think. It's a great subject and if you have more questions, it could be helpful because they would fit right in. Again, thanks for the question!

Follow up on Canon 603 and Freedom

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I just read your recent post on freedom vs license. I thought the examples you used re playing the violin or playing as an elite athlete on a basketball team were an excellent way to illustrate the distinction between these two ideas. I would have thought that canon 603 limited hermit freedom. While I don't know a lot about canon law I have always had the sense that it curtails freedom. What is it about canon 603 that makes it different from the rest of canon law? Does it really result in freedom for the hermit?]]

Thanks for your comments and questions. This will build on the post on freedom and license On Questions of Freedom and License so please bear the examples there in mind. Maybe this will surprise some folks but I suppose I have always felt the same way about canon law as you. I think I feel that way still with the exception of canon 603. I have lived as perpetually professed under this canon for over a dozen years now and I have experienced it as a source of great freedom throughout that time. Neither has anyone who might have done so (chancery personnel, bishop, delegate) interfered with that freedom by imposing requirements on me beyond my Rule or the canon itself. What makes canon 603 different to my mind are two things: 1) the essential elements are left undefined; they are mysteries to be explored and embraced, and 2) these elements are combined with a Rule the hermit writes herself based on her own lived experience. I think the way these two things come together in the power of the Holy Spirit is the key to a hermit being really and authentically free. They are also the thing which sets this apart from most other canons.

Regarding the essential elements, these have meaning in light of the  lived tradition and the lived life experience of the hermit. For instance, when I first read the canon (@ December 1983) I misread it as calling for, "silence and solitude," rather than "the silence of solitude" and lived those first realities mainly in terms of external silence and physical solitude, Only a while later did I come to see the canon said "the silence of solitude", a Carthusian  reality which is much richer than the sum of its parts; only much later had I moved from seeing this as just an environment in which the hermit lives to also seeing it as a symbol of the goal of life with God. Even later still I came to see this same essential term as a description of the charism (gift quality) of the solitary eremitical vocation, which, when understood by chancery personnel, could prevent problems in professing or dismissing candidates for profession. It took time to live into and truly understand this mystery. Something similar happened with the terms assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, and living this vocation for the salvation of the world.

Each term was and is absolutely central to the vocation, and yet the Church did not define them; some might have thought the meaning of these terms to be self-evident, or they might have given dictionary definitions and thought these sufficient. Either alternative would be a serious mistake. Though one is not free to create an entirely new meaning for these terms, each one embodies a whole world and constitutes an invitation to discover and explore this world of Divine power, presence, and love. Each also reflects a long and varied history of eremitical tradition and freedom and each one will call one to make choices pertinent to one's life circumstances and God's personal call to wholeness and holiness in light of these elements. Those who wrote the canon knew this, I believe; those who professed me expected me to come to deeper and deeper understanding of these mysteries as well as those of the evangelical counsels (which are themselves geared towards freedom) and live (and live into) them ever more deeply. The call to embrace and explore these mysteries was and is both a right and an obligation whose fulfillment was extended to me as well as empowered by the grace of profession and consecration. The bottom line here is that I was truly free to do this in whatever ways and according to whatever timetable worked best for me. Moreover, as I did this, as I entered more deeply into each mystery (and thus, into the world of God's love they opened to me), my own freedom to be the person God called me to be would increase.

A part of this deepening freedom and faithfulness involved the writing of a Rule the Church received  and officially approved with a Bishop's decree. This too is a non-negotiable part of the canon like the others mentioned above. The Rule was written and rewritten on the basis of my own lived experience and codified a particular vision of eremitical life which drew not only from my life experiences (including now the inner work I am doing with my Director), but from Camaldolese and Cistercian spirituality, as well as from the substance of the canon itself. Additional sources were the lives and spirituality of hermits through the centuries, but especially the Carthusians and the Desert Ammas and Abbas, and the Camaldolese St Romuald and St Peter Damian. The living out of this Rule has asked me everyday to grow in understanding, freedom, wholeness, and holiness. The writing  of this blog too has been a source of growth and deepening freedom. Canon 603 is at least indirectly responsible for my taking this project on and continuing it.

Another part of my experience of freedom with regard to canon 603 has been the Church's public commissioning of me to live this life. When everything around me and (sometimes) even within me seems to militate against the silence of solitude, I can remind myself of the mutual discernment process the chancery and I negotiated, the prayers for my vocation I know people offered and still offer, and my assurance that these things indicate the granting of a very real freedom with regard to the pressures acting against eremitical life. Canonical standing and God's own consecration which was mediated by the Church, results in freedom to resist other self-definitions and affirm the deep truth of self in God. What I want to stress in all of this is the degree of freedom c 603 and the Church herself gives me to discern various things within this eremitical context  I would not be free to undertake from outside it. When I fail in one way or another I don't  need to worry whether my own initial discernment of this vocation was accurate; the Church has weighed in on things and tips the scales towards an affirmation of this vocation and a renewed commitment to persevere. Finally, a central piece of the way c 603 has afforded me real freedom is the intense work I have undertaken with my Director. I would not have been free to undertake this in the way we have done it had it not been for canon 603 and the public commissioning associated with it. Likewise, as I have written recently, the ministry of authority which is a significant part of a canonical vow of obedience has been incredibly freeing as well.

I think it is important to understand that the freedom I have discovered and come to live more and more is not the freedom to be anything or just anyone at all. However, through canon 603 I have been made more truly free to be myself. There are constraints, of course and the ability to use certain gifts and talents is among these. Still. the rich sources of freedom which make up life under canon 603 are inspired by the Holy Spirit and they have led me deeper and deeper into the heart of eremitical life which in turn has made me even more free as hermit and as a human being. Canon 603, with its combination of essential or defining elements and a Rule I necessarily wrote myself with its dependence on my own lived experience and vision of eremitical life, created a realm of God-given space which I can explore and in which I could hearken to the voice and Word of God as I become the person God calls me to be. Remember that in Catholic theology freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. What canon 603 does in my life (and, I would argue, in the life of anyone truly called to this vocation) is to ensure me the invitations, space, and tools to become myself as I explore the heights and depths of life in communion with God.

To summarize then: I think that, generally speaking, Canon Law is meant to protect various realities in the Church. This always involves setting parameters or limitations --- but parameters and limitations which also define a realm of freedom. Again, one is not free to be anything at all but, if one is called by God to this, one is certainly free to be themselves as a hermit who lives this life in the name of the Church. Even so, I believe canon 603 is truly unique in combining the hermit's own Rule and other non-negotiable elements in a way which allows the hermit to explore the depths and heights of the mystery we identify as solitary eremitical life and thus, life with and in the God who inspires and empowers it. I find the canon to be genuinely beautiful in the way it is composed; it creates the necessary space for the Holy Spirit to work if one really has an eremitical vocation. (This is one reason its non-negotiable elements are built into the lives of non-canonical or lay hermits' lives as well.) I would not have thought these things were I looking at the canon from the outside in. But I have now lived this life for some time and things look differently from "within" or under canon 603 itself.

Another look at Religious Obedience and the Ministry of Authority

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am not a Catholic and I have no real knowledge of religious life except what I've heard here and there or that I just grew up believing. I read an article you wrote on obedience and on what you called "the ministry of authority" which you defined in terms of love. I have to say I was kind of floored by it. It is nothing like what I thought a vow of obedience or the way superiors worked in a nun's life. When you speak of your Delegate I get the sense you are very close but also that she can exercise authority any time she feels it is necessary. Have I got that right? Does she ever just tell you what to do? Does she ever tell you to do things you don't want to do or feel are wrong? Can you give me some specific examples of how obedience and the "ministry of authority" actually work? Do you ever worry that a vow of obedience might make you somehow less than an adult? I don't mean any offense! I am not sure why this is so interesting to me but you are dispelling some long-held misunderstandings and I don't know where else I could ask these questions. Thank you!]]

Thanks for your questions. My own family is not Catholic and I suspect they hold (or held) some of the same misunderstandings so I am grateful you have asked about the topic. First though, let me thank you once more. You have read the article you mention well and summarized it accurately. Obedience is linked to the ministry of authority and that authority is (in my experience) exercised as an expression of love. Neither do I mean it is exercised as an expression of an abstract love, but as an expression of a genuine love rooted in knowledge of and care for the person's truest self. (A superior in a congregation must cultivate a love not just for an individual Sister but for the house, the congregation and its charism and mission; working with a diocesan hermit is somewhat different. The delegate cultivates a love for the hermit, her place in the parish and diocese, and the eremitical tradition she represents in a canonical way; it is in this smaller context that she exercises the ministry of authority with a solitary Catholic hermit.)

As you can see exercising a ministry of authority is about much more than telling someone what to do. Encouraging another's growth in Christ requires its own attentiveness, faith, and fidelity to truth, both personal and institutional. Similarly then, obedience is a much richer and significant reality than simply "doing what one is told". Obedience is about listening attentively, to God, to one's deepest self, to the needs and potential one has within, to the nature and quality of one's commitments,  and to the way life summons one to greater and greater fullness in the service of others. We may use the short hand phrase "will of God" for all of this but cultivating this kind of attentive listening is at the heart of a vow of obedience and all contemplative life. One of the more privileged sources of discernment regarding the ways love and life call us to fullness in our transparency to God is one's delegate or Director. One's Director/delegate knows us (indeed, they have worked with us usually for years, listened well to us, prayed for and with us, and in part have been chosen for this role precisely because they know us well) and love us in the way every person needs most. They will also be chosen for their experience in religious life (including formation and leadership) as well as their wisdom and faithfulness as a consecrated person living an ecclesial vocation.

On the other hand, by the time one becomes a diocesan hermit (i.e., is professed and consecrated in a life commitment under c 603) one has lived eremitical life for some time, written a liveable Rule of Life (usually after several drafts and lots of notes made over time), and become accustomed to vows of the Evangelical Counsels. One may or may not have been a religious in another chapter of one's life, but in any case one has learned what is essential for one's relationship with God, and developed the skills and tools necessary to respond to God faithfully day in and day out. The Liturgy of the Hours, lectio divina, study of Scripture, a fair theology and spirituality will have become foci for one's life. One will have worked with a spiritual director regularly for some years, fostered a relationship with the Church (usually through one's parish) and accepted an adult  leadership role (not necessarily a formal one) in the faith community. In other words, one is an adult in one's faith and does not need someone telling them what to do day in and day out. But one will also be profoundly committed to grow 1) as a Christian, 2) as a contemplative, and 3) as a hermit representing a significant, prophetic, but rare tradition. It is the role of a hermit's Director (delegate) to make sure one's arc of growth in these ways occurs in a way which is edifying to the diocese and church universal.So, what does this look like "on the ground" so to speak?

As I have noted several times, my own Director rarely tells me what to do --- though she will do a fair amount of encouraging, especially in connection with inner work we also do or when I am considering doing something new ministerially! In the past three and a half years I think she has given me what I might consider a demand rooted in obedience perhaps three times. You asked for examples. A couple of times recently she has told me to do something I didn't much want to do, but the directive was a way of allowing my trust for M. (and, ultimately, for the God who is active in our work together) to triumph over my own fear, reluctance, or reticence. The one somewhat different example that stands out in my mind comes from a time when I was juggling a few different things and was also at a very difficult part of my own growth work. My pastor was travelling and that meant the daily schedule of services for the chapel community had to be worked out in his absence. We try to have priests fill in at these times, but it is not always possible. Although 6-7 days needed to be covered and I was willing to try to do what I could along with a couple of others, my delegate simply said, "Two services, no more." It was a limit I might eventually have set for myself at that time, and it was a directive I could perhaps have blown off had I chosen to, but this simple directive recognized not only my role in the parish but the importance of the other dimensions of my life and the difficulty and energy required for the inner work I was doing as well my parish's needs. My Director saw what I could not and set the limits for me; the limits were actually a relief and it never occurred to me to transgress these.

When I reflect on how this worked I think it illustrates well why ministry and authority are combined in the designation, "Ministry of authority". Sister was ministering to me in this instance and she was doing so on the basis of both knowledge and love. She was protecting me so my own ministries in the parish, diocese, and universal Church could continue in a fruitful way --- not only my ministry of prayer in the silence of solitude, but also what I do as pastoral assistant as well as my own inner work, blogging, and writing on eremitical life itself. Those four words, had a bit of steel in them but were gently spoken and came from a place of love. What I want you to hear here is that no one else (except my bishop) could have said those same words to me ("Two services, no more!"), not my best friend or a favorite professor, not a confessor nor a spiritual director, but only someone with the authority associated with my public vow of obedience. My pastor might well have asked I do or feel free to do only two of the services and he could have said "Let the other two work out the remainder", but he could not have said precisely what my Director did in the same way she did. He does not have that authority. What I also want you to hear, however, is that there is nothing infantilizing in setting such a requirement. That is precisely because it is rare and rooted in a love focused on my own well-being and growth.

Obedience binds in situations where there is no directive, of course, but not in quite the same way. If my Director (delegate) asks or encourages me about something with regard to my health, spirituality, relationships, ministry, work, etc. I will certainly give whatever it is serious consideration, explore what it will take to implement or follow up on it appropriately, as well as pray about and take what action is appropriate. But in these kinds of things I am also free to make what decisions I will. In other words, I listen attentively, discuss things with relevant people, work through them (prayer, journaling, research) and do what is clearly needed in light of my own integrity and vocation. I would say that this is the way obedience generally works for vowed religious (professed diocesan hermits) these days. It is the same pattern I described in another example when I asked my Director if she could see any problem with me doing something very much outside my usual routine (protesting governmental action at a major airport). In that instance she said, "So long as it comports with your Rule, respects your own physical needs, frailties, and health concerns, and is consistent with your own deep conscience, I don't see any problem with it." She also reminded me since this action was public I needed to decide about wearing my habit/cowl but that too was left up to me.

No Director (delegate or superior) can demand someone do something they consider wrong, or rather, no religious/professed hermit can obey such a demand, not without sinning seriously. We  (every Christian) is/are required to follow our certain conscience judgments. Conscience is the very voice of God within us and we cannot act counter to such a conscience judgment without acting against God. If a superior requires we do something contrary to conscience, conscience must always trump the superior's directive. As St Thomas once pointed out, if one is condemned unjustly for following one's conscience, even to the point of being excommunicated, one must follow one's conscience and bear the punishment humbly. Conscience judgments  always have primacy for they are they very voice of God within a person's heart of hearts. I hope this is helpful. The ministry of authority has been conceived variously over the centuries and many folks' only sense of what it means may come from movies or TV. There's lots of good literature on obedience generally and the vow specifically, but mostly only religious read such stuff!

The Silence of Solitude, Yes. But No, I am Never in this Alone!

[[Sister Laurel, because your vocation is an ecclesial one this means you are not in this alone doesn't it? I mean I know you are in this with God and say with your life that God alone is sufficient for you (or anyone) but I also mean that when you make decisions or do discernment you are not in this alone. You have people you are responsible to and who are responsible for you, isn't this so? I was wondering how that works; how do you get permission for things and how often do you do this? What would happen to you if you didn't seek permission and your bishop disagreed with something you did? Can you just get up and do things on your own? I mean can you do big things in this way: can you move, or buy a car or home (hermitage I guess) or something else which is really serious without permission?]]

Thanks for your questions. I especially like the observation you began with. Yes, you are right, neither I nor any other consecrated hermit is "in this" alone. And yes, first of all that means God is with and in me and I am in, with, and from God. But you are also correct when you describe others being responsible for me (and in some ways, more especially they are there for the sake of eremitical life itself) and I am responsible to God through my obedience (attentiveness) to them. God's presence, power, and will are most often mediated realities. We understand this readily enough when we think of Christianity being mediated to us in sacraments, preaching, the Scriptures, and so forth. This occurs in and through people as well: for hermits our pastor, spiritual director, Director/delegate and bishop are also privileged mediators of God to and for us, and just like for anyone else others may also serve in this way, especially friends and mentors. The bottom line here is that while God touches us directly in prayer more ordinarily he does so only through others in a mediated way.

No, I am not alone. I pray, write (journal), and discern things as best I can and I do so in solitude; my decisions are my own of course, but at the same time, I certainly run things by my director. In matters of serious change or ministry we will talk about things both before my decision and afterwards to see how it is working out --- sometimes just to share and celebrate things. I rarely if ever ask for permission for something. (I can't remember the last time I actually asked for permission -- it may have been while I was in community -- and, as I have noted before here, my director rarely acts/speaks in a way that could be construed as a command/requirement. She trusts me to work things out, to make good decisions consonant with my call and commissioning by the Church, and will assist me in this in whatever way is best for me and for my vocation. It is important to realize, I think, that a hermit's Director/delegate is concerned not only with what the hermit may need but with what is best for the eremitical vocation she is living. Thus, it might seem that doing more active ministry, for instance, is good for me, but at the same time it might seem to conflict with eremitism itself. In such a case the decision made and encouraged is that which best serves the vocation --- which is what I am professed and commissioned to live. In this I would trust that God's will for my vocation is also best for me even when, how, or why that is, is not entirely apparent. Similarly though, to reiterate, most of the time what is best for me seems to be what is best for my vocation as well.

I don't know what would happen if I were to make a decision (or, more likely, a series of smaller decisions constituting a pattern of behavior) and then have my bishop disagree with it although there are several possibilities. He could request or even require I go back behind the decision, but I am fairly certain this would not happen without his asking to hear how and why I discerned and made the decision I did. In such a case he would likely request I come into the chancery for a conversation. If he really felt he needed more information he could ask my Director/delegate to come in to discuss the decision. If he continued to question the rightness or soundness of the decision my sense is he would explain his reservations to me and require I reconsider my decision. If I could not do that and  my bishop believed my decision conflicted with eremitical life, he could eventually determine my vows would be dispensed. If things reached this level I am pretty sure I would revise my initial decision. I only know of one situation involving a diocesan hermit which fits some of these conditions. A bishop decided something a hermit was involved in was contrary to her commitment as a canon 603 hermit; he said (essentially), if you choose to continue in this I cannot consider you are living eremitical life and will need to dispense your vows. In that case the hermit revised her course of action.

In the main I have all the freedom I need to make decisions and to act as I understand is best for me and for consecrated solitary eremitical life. I continue to read about it, learn its history, reflect on its essential elements, write about it, grow in the vows and my relationship with God, and assume my place in this living tradition. My Director helps me to do all of these things and to attend to the Holy Spirit in ways which assure my personal growth and maturity in Christ. She also works with me to achieve wholeness, something which means healing from woundedness or anything which can be an obstacle to wholeness. In the midst of all of this there are some major decisions to be made --- usually medical, some regarding elective or experimental surgery, provisions for future care and living situations, and on a less serious level, there are sometimes decisions to be made regarding ministry at the parish or other time spent outside the hermitage (speaking, playing violin, etc). I am not in this alone nor is it for my own sake, and that is important because the life I live is essentially ecclesial.

I and those who accompany me in his vocation assist me (and the church herself) to be sure I am faithful to what has been entrusted to me. There is nothing heavy-handed in this kind of accompaniment. Though I make my own decisions, I do not ever go off on my own simply because I am not on my own. This means I do not move or make really major purchases without some communication and even consultation. Again, I don't necessarily need permission for such things --- though if, for instance, I were to move dioceses that would require the permission of the new bishop and the assurance of my old bishop that I was a hermit in good standing if the new bishop was also to accept my vows under canon 603. 

No religious, no consecrated hermit, no consecrated virgin, no one admitted to the consecrated state of life can simply get up and do things entirely on their own --- if by this we mean taking major actions like moves, extended trips, really major purchases, and so forth without some consultation or oversight. That oversight might simply mean turning our yearly budget over to the diocese or our congregation once a year, for instance. It might mean providing details of our discernment to our superiors or delegates after our decision has been made, and in other instances it may mean consulting someone beforehand. The bottom line here is the same: because of public vows (and/or life in community) we do not have the same kind of freedom lay persons have in such matters (though, I would point out, our freedom is profound and, in many ways, little more limited than someone with and responsible for a family, etc.).

Hermits live significant silence and solitude with God for the sake of others, but no, we do not enter into this silence of solitude in a way which isolates us from the Church or the guidance she provides. So eremitical solitude, yes, but no, we are not in this alone nor merely for our own sakes, not even merely for the sake of our own holiness. Ironically, this paradox has always been a major grace of eremitical life lived as an ecclesial vocation; its opposite (isolation undertaken for one's own sake, no matter how outwardly pious one might be) is at the heart of most of the perversions and stereotypes of eremitical life I can think of.

On Canonical Hermits and the Ministry of Authority

Donna Korba, IHM

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was impressed with what you said about your Directors exercising the ministry of authority as  a matter of love. I am also a Religious Sister (Saint Francis) and I don't think most people understand the requirements of religious obedience in this way. What was especially striking to me was the way you explained that your change in state of life affected others and called for this new form of love from them. When you write about ecclesial vocations or "stable states of life" the way others are implicated in your profession and consecration is what you have in mind, isn't it? I had not seen it as clearly until you explained about requiring obedience as an act of love on your Director's part. The way you described how intently and well your Director must truly listen to and know you in order to require religious obedience from you by virtue of your vow also made this much clearer to me. Thank you! Oh, sorry, I forgot to ask a question! Can you say more about this? I think I have understood you, haven't I?]]

Wow! really terrific comments and questions! Thanks!! Yes, you have it exactly right and I don't think I could have said it better. When we speak of a change in one's state of life or one's initiation into a stable state of life, or when I use the term ecclesial vocations or speak of the rights and responsibilities associated with the canonical state of consecrated life, I am trying to at least point to the way an entire constellation of relationships are affected; new relationships and roles are established and new ways of loving and being loved are effected and called for. This constellation of relationships is actually a piece of what makes living one's vocation possible. The example of religious obedience is important because to require obedience of another because one has been entrusted with "the ministry of authority" in her life and by the Church is first of all to commit to being profoundly obedient oneself. To listen profoundly to another in a way that allows them to come to the fullness of life God calls them to, especially in an exercise of legitimate authority, is to engage in a clearly and deeply loving, creative, act.

Because this specific way of exercising authority (that is, in requiring obedience of someone by virtue of their canonical vow) is so rare for my Director (et al) I only truly discovered how loving for me and demanding for her this specific ministry can be in the last several years. I made vow(s) several times over the years, most recently in my solemn/perpetual eremitical profession under canon 603, but only in the past three years have I experienced how profoundly implicated others are in the Church's decision to admit me to public profession and her reception of my commitment. 

I have long appreciated that others in the Church have a right to certain expectations in my regard by virtue of public profession, but the unique demands of the vow of obedience in this matter were not clear to me until I found myself truly loved and cared for by virtue of my Director exercising this ministry in my regard. Vows certainly help to create stability in a state of life, but above all, and especially in an ecclesial vocation, it is one's relationships with others and especially with those who exercise the ministry of authority in one's regard that stability is established and protected. (By the way, my Director exercises the ministry of authority in ways other than the narrow action I have spoken of in this paragraph; all of it is loving and creative; all of it is rooted in profound obedience on my Director's part, both to God and to my own being! As you well know, one shouldn't think requiring obedience in this specific way is all there is to the ministry of authority!)

I write here a lot about the besetting sin of our times (or at least one of these), namely, individualism. When I am asked about hermits whose vows are private or those who do not seek canonical standing I often comment on how difficult it must be to live this way. In part in making this observation I am recognizing that such vocations may well be inherently unstable; as I have noted before the world militates against such vocations but in part I am also recognizing that such vocations may well be inherently unstable because they are also unrelated to others in an institutional or structural way and, unfortunately, are poorly linked to the reality we call (legitimate or ecclesial) authority. If so, then they also lack the stability associated with the canonical hermit's consecrated state of life. 

(This is not to say that such hermits cannot build in the kinds of relationships that will provide greater stability and protect eremitical solitude from becoming skewed in the direction of individualism, but the vow of religious obedience implicates others who make a binding commitment to the hermit and the ministry of authority her vocation requires. What I think is often not recognized sufficiently --- not least because it is too rarely experienced, even indirectly, by those outside religious or consecrated life -- is that the legitimate exercise of authority which is part and parcel of empowering another to live their vocations in the name of the Church, is (or is meant to be) about acts of love which empower and set free.

Stereotypes of hermits abound, but so do stereotypes of those called to exercise the ministry of authority in our lives. One blogger I can think of regularly writes about how it is that some seek canonical standing because of pride or the need for some kind of prestige, a penchant for legalism, etc. Unfortunately, she writes from outside the canonical vocation as do others who also automatically associate canon law or the embrace of canonical standing with legalism or some unusual love for canon law, etc.. But as I have said here a number of times, "law (can and often does) serve(s) love"! Those who agree to serve in the exercise of legitimate authority in our lives have assumed an awesome responsibility, not because they are into power or pride (most are very far from these!!), but because they have accepted a call to assist God in loving us into wholeness; they have accepted the sometimes difficult call to assist one to achieve and live a disciplined, ordered, and personally integral vocational stability in their state of life.

We recognize relatively easily that someone accepting a role in congregational leadership is accepting a call to love in a unique and challenging way. But what is more generally true is that in the life of anyone entering a new state of life, people must step up and take on a similar role or that person's life will lack some of the stability it is meant to be marked by for the sake God's life in that person, her vocation, and the life of the Church. This is one of the reasons initiation into new states of life involves public commitments, not private ones. 

Canonical hermits live a life of the silence of solitude but, again, they do so within a constellation of relationships, some of which are directly implicated in making sure the hermit can and does live her vocation with the integrity she and the Church as such feels she is called to do, but also as the Church has allowed her to publicly commit to doing. This is the heart of what it means to be admitted to an ecclesial vocation. Again eremitical life is about a solitude lived with God for the sake of others. I should underscore that this solitude, which is never to be confused with isolation, is also empowered by the love of others for the hermit (and the hermit's love for them!); those exercising the ministry of authority in her regard are primary among these.