Once Again, On States of Life and the meaning of Non-Canonical

[[Dear Sister Laurel, it seems to me that an important point of misunderstanding in the video someone recently linked you to is a failure to see the difference between consecration by God and consecration that initiates one into a "consecrated state". I think you have referred to this several times, but have you ever made the explanation explicit?  Also, if non-canonical means something is not normative is it correct to say that non-canonical means not-legal or illegal? ]]

Here is the piece I wrote (or rather, reprised) a year ago, in October. The most recent one before this was written in 2019, so I have been getting questions about this topic and responding for some time. I'll respond to your question about the meaning of non-canonical below this in Part II.

[[Hi Sister, I was reading the Catechism and canon 603 because I was trying to understand the idea of a "stable state of life" or a "stable way of living". You have said more on this --- though indirectly ---than I could find elsewhere online. Could you please define what constitutes a "stable state of life" in Roman Catholic theology? How does it apply to your life as opposed to that of a lay hermit? Thanks.]]

Great question. I don't know why I haven't ever thought to write about this; a stable (or permanent) state of life is a core element in understanding the distinction between consecrated eremitical life and lay (or non-canonical) eremitical life. I am very grateful you asked this. I checked it out online, and as you said, while it was part of every accurate definition of consecrated life (including consecrated eremitical life) there isn't much written about it that I could find. So let me try to make explicit what has been implicit in my writings on this and related topics.

Stable in this context means lasting, solid, established, and (relatively) secure. The necessary noun "state" means ä fixed and permanent mode of life, established (in and by the Church) to acquire or practice a certain virtue (e.g., perfection in the Christian Life, holiness, the evangelical counsels within religious life, etc). Implicit in these definitions when the two words are combined, is the sense that such a stable state signifies a recognized way God is working in the Church: ecclesial approval and mediation of God's call, canonical standing (standing in law), appropriate oversite, support, freedom, governance (legitimate superiors), and a formal (legitimate or canonical) commitment (say, to God via the evangelical counsels, for instance) by the one assuming the rights and obligations of the given state of life constitute this state as stable. The elements required for something to be considered a stable state of life tend toward structuring and extending to the individual life the elements necessary to truly pursue the given vocation in the name of the Church (and so, as a recognized representative of the vocation) with which the Church is entrusted. The Church recognizes several such states: Baptized or Lay, Married, Consecrated (Religious, Hermits, and Virgins), and Ordained. All require public commitments, whether Sacramental (Marriage and ordination) or via canonical profession and consecration (Religious, consecrated hermits, consecrated virgins).

When we begin to think about what makes a state of life in the Church a stable state, we begin to understand why it is that private vows, per se, never constitute the means to initiation into the consecrated state of life. They can be a significant part of the stable state of life we know as the baptized or lay state however, and they serve as significant (meaningful) specifications of one's baptismal consecration in this way. But in this case, it is one's baptismal consecration into the lay state which defines one's stable state of life; private vows are expressions of that particular consecration, but do not initiate one into it. Hence, my references in many places to "lay hermits" --- hermits who live their vows in the baptized or lay state alone. In any case, private commitments, though often witnessed by a priest or spiritual director, are not actually received in the name of the Church or overseen by anyone in a formal or canonical way. There are no additional public rights or obligations, nor approved Rule the living out of which the Church as a whole is responsible for governing and supervising. Neither is there any process of mutual discernment by which one may be evaluated as to their capacity and suitability to assume the public rights and obligations of a given state (here I am thinking of the consecrated state), nor of methodical formation with such commitments.

 Moreover, private vows are easily dispensed precisely because of their private nature. In other words one may make private vow as a hermit (whether with serious thought or on a relative whim) one day and days later (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) decide one has made a mistake or circumstances may change which make the vows inconvenient or an obstacle to a greater or more fundamental call from God re one's lay state. The vows can be dispensed by one's pastor. Because of the lack of oversight, etc.. other problems can creep in. If the person does not decide they have made a mistake, an individual living a private dedication to eremitical life, for instance, may decide to substitute their own private notions of eremitical spirituality, or live inconsistently given conditions of health, education, training, economics, etc. Even for the most sincere and well-intentioned individual, in a private commitment there is no authority to whom the individual is canonically answerable, no canonical (normative) constraints or ecclesial vision to which one has committed oneself to make sure the hermit in this case can make, has made, is keeping, and continues to (be empowered to) keep through the years an appropriate and maturing commitment which the Church herself could recognize as consistent with the eremitical tradition and as rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Canonical standing provides a context that is stable.

Remember that consecrated persons act (live this vocation) in the name of the Church (and also their founders and spiritual Tradition), and that gives the People of God their own rights and reasonable expectations about the quality of life being lived by the person who has been professed and/or consecrated. The people also have a right to turn to the person's legitimate superior if there are grounds for suggesting the vocation is being lived badly, or there are scandalous or concerning circumstances involved. Of course, this is true only because canonical vocations are public vocations. But think how important it is that such expectations and accountability add to the stability of genuinely consecrated vocations! Accountability itself is a central element of a stable or permanent state of life. It shapes the vocation, challenges, and supports it. In a public (canonical) vocation where the vocation "belongs" first of all to the Church, which is entrusted with this calling, and only secondarily to individuals called by God through the mediation of the Church, stability is a function of clear channels of authority and accountability. This does not mean these channels are heavy-handed, of course, but it does require them nonetheless.

One of the things I appreciate most about canonical standing is the way 
it establishes a person (or a community) in a living tradition so that there is a clear and responsible dialogue ongoing between the individual, the Church, and the spiritual tradition involved. (This is true in religious families like the Franciscans, Dominicans, Trappist(ine)s, Benedictines, Camaldolese, etc., and it is true in eremitical life per se.) The continuing give and take as the consecrated person is granted and assumes a defined place in the living stream of eremitical tradition is tremendously edifying. The individual is formed in a given strand of the tradition, and at the same time, she will shape and extend the tradition with her own life.** Edward Schillebeeckx writes about this powerfully in his essay on being a Dominican in God Among Us. A life that assumes this kind of responsibility, accountability, humility, and obedience has been initiated into a stable state of life that extends both behind and after her. She has taken a place within it and lives in a conscious and recognizable dialogue with and for this traditional thread, a thread which may have existed for two thousand years and stretches into whatever future the Church has. Private commitments, which of their nature are truly entirely private (as opposed to public in the technical sense I use it throughout), simply do not do this.

The Church is a complex living reality. States of life within the Church have been some of the primary ways the Gospel has been and continues to be proclaimed, and ministry carried out; they are capable of being flexible and responsive to the needs of the world as a whole because they are also well-founded and rooted in a living tradition. Because of their stability (again, they are mutually discerned, publicly committed, ecclesially consecrated, governed, and supervised), they can represent a way of life in a way that teaches and inspires. When the congregation or individual requires assistance, when congregations reach the end of their natural life, for instance, canonical standing allows for various creative ways to be sure their life and/or charism can be handed on and, eventually, their history entrusted to archives so scholars can research them and allow their life, a response to the Holy Spirit in a variety of circumstances, to be of continuing benefit to the Church and world.

With regard to the lives of diocesan hermits or publicly professed vs privately vowed hermits, I think you can see where the Church will be able to follow and assess the phenomenon of solitary eremitical life beginning in the late 20th century. She will be able to look at the Rules written by c 603 hermits, interview bishops professing and supervising them, speak with their delegates, parishes, and dioceses, and just generally provide the story of professed solitary hermits since 1983, according to c 603. Both as individuals and as a group these hermits will contribute to the eremitical tradition, to assessments of what formation was helpful or inadequate, to considering what time frames were associated with successful discernment and formation of eremitical lives, to considerations re protecting the hermit's requirements for support, modes and effectiveness of supervision, the place and nature of limited ministry in the lives of these hermits, and possibly -- to some extent -- the hermits' affect on their local church communities.

We will also more easily contribute to theologies of eremitical life that allow chronic illness as a witness to the way God's power is perfected in weakness, for instance, because some of us are chronically ill and sought out eremitical life in part because of this. Because we are professed and consecrated into a stable (and public!) state of life, the witness value of our lives will take on greater import for the Church and world. Sometimes folks decry the canonical paper trail that is attached to the profession of the diocesan hermit; others treat it as merely pro forma and relatively meaningless. But the paper trail is a witness to and even part of the stability of the hermit's life and a key to appreciating and researching eremitical tradition not only in the 20-21C but in comparison with it throughout history.

** Ponam in Deserto Viam is clear that this "belonging" to a historical thread of tradition within the Church militates against the danger of individualism. It says, [[All [canonical] hermits make their own a form of life that precedes and surpasses them. They incarnate this life historically and in docility to the action of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, the hermit's life is itself unfinished; a partial rendering of the many images of Christ. It is a figure in open relationship with both the ecclesial body and the body of history.]] Pope Leo drew on this very point in his recent address to diocesan hermits.

____________________________________________________

Part II 

Regarding your question about the meaning of non-canonical, I know I have also written about this, probably around the same time as the piece you linked above (October 2024), so please check that label out. What I will say here is that it is critical to understand that c 603 is normative for solitary eremitical life lived in the name of the Church. Profession and eventual consecration under c 603, admit a person to a stable state of life in which the professed/consecrated person is responsible for living out this norm with a faithfulness that allows the real nature of the canon's terms to be incarnated in an individual life. The person (hermit) herself is not normative (though her life and faithfulness might one day be considered such!), however, the canon is.

Facilely sliding (or eliding!) the term non-canonical into the term not-legal in the way done in various videos like the one recently linked here, is seriously unnuanced and actually rises to the level of misuse of language. In the Church, just because something is non-canonical does not mean it is illegal. It means it is not normative in the ways it might be were it canonical. Yes, this also means that the thing is not bound by the same rights and obligations associated with that which is canonical, but that still does not make it non-legal or illegal (illicit). Hermits who are non-canonical, as I am sure I have explained before, live their hermit calling by virtue of the grace of their baptism. They live it by virtue of their identity and freedom as members of the laity, the People of God.  However, they are not bound by canons beyond those binding any other baptized person by virtue of that Sacrament, and, to some extent, narrowing the freedom they received at baptism.** For this reason, they can also stop living as a hermit at any time without repercussions or special canonical processes like the dispensation of vows; this is true even if there are private vows associated with their hermit life. This is absolutely not a matter of the vocation not being valuable, but rather, it is a matter of there being no stable state of life except that of baptism, which defines (and keeps open!) the broadest freedom a Christian can know.

**I usually speak of freedom differently in this blog (i.e., as the power to become the persons we are called to be), and I have written about the paradoxical freedom granted by profession when I have done so. (Vows, etc., are constraints which paradoxically free us to truly become the persons God calls us to be.) Here, I am suggesting that baptism has a much wider ambit of choices associated with it, which might include becoming a canonical hermit, but is more likely to include many, many other things instead. Once we are baptized and begin to make life choices, we begin to look at states of life that build upon baptism, and too, that have their own appropriate canonical rights and obligations associated with a narrower ambit of choices open to those committed in these various ways. I can say more about this if it seems helpful. Just let me know.

Canon 603: a Paradigm for all Hermits

[[When we examine the now two Church-allowed hermit paths, we can see the challenges in each, but the greater challenge to me has remained that of living as a hermit unknown, unnoticed, non-acclaimed. Yet despite many trials and errors, I remain God’s beloved consecrated hermit--and a Catholic hermit. Indeed, some have stated that a privately professed hermit must not call him- or herself a “Catholic hermit” if not a diocese CL603 hermit. It does not matter, other than why cut off all the Church’s hermits who have lived and died living this more rare but special vocation when until recent times, there was no created church law establishing other than what always had been?]] 

Hi Sister, I wondered if you had seen this post and if you had any opinions on it. I wonder how the author can say "It does not matter" while it sounds like it matters a lot to her! Does Canon 603 cut off all who have lived and died as a non-canonical hermit? Was there no church law regarding hermits before c 603? I remember you saying there was but not universal canon law. Is this so? Thanks!]]

I have seen this passage before, yes. I agree that the assertion of an identity as a "consecrated Catholic hermit" despite never having been admitted to consecration as a Catholic hermit by anyone in the church with that authority and/or intention, does seem to matter a lot to the author. She is a Catholic and a hermit but does not live her eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. This is because using the term "Catholic hermit" to indicate a normative quality to the vocation requires someone with both authority and intent to establish one in law as a Catholic hermit. That, in turn, means extending the legal rights and obligations of a canonical (or public**) vocation to someone and the person to whom such rights and obligations are extended must also embrace these in law; this all occurs in the Rites of canonical Profession* and Consecration mediated by the Church in the person of the local ordinary. That the author has not met these requirements is significant given her claims. What is unclear to me is the reason she presses these claims since the Church recognizes all authentic forms of eremitical life in whatever state of life (lay, consecrated, or clerical) as laudable.

Before Canon 603, the main canonical provision for eremitical life was to join a congregation of Catholic Hermits (Carthusians, Camaldolese, some Carmelites, et al.). As you note, in individual dioceses in some centuries bishops did approve the lives of anchorites and cared for them if benefactors failed. During the Middle Ages there were local (diocesan) canons from place to place to regulate things in some ways (there was no universal Canon Law at this time). Otherwise, except for the orders/congregations of canonical hermits, the "traditional" form of solitary eremitical life was lay, not consecrated. Vocationally as well as hierarchically speaking, the Desert Abbas and Ammas were lay hermits --- they lived eremitical life in the lay state. So was every hermit who lived as a solitary hermit (that is, who was not part of a religious congregation) until 1983. Canon 603 recognized the value of solitary eremitical life after Bishop Remi De Roo intervened at Vatican II to ask for such recognition. De Roo requested that the eremitical vocation, which was so positive in his lived experience, should be recognized as a state of perfection, just as all religious life was recognized and established. 

But it took time to do this. There was the need to reflect on the lives of notable hermits and develop a list of characteristics a solitary hermit would live, just as there was the need to create a normative way of governing this life so it was truly exemplary --- not perfect, of course, but exemplary. Almost 20 years after Vatican II ended, the Church published a revised Code of Canon Law and for the very first time in the history of the Church, the solitary eremitical life was recognized in universal law as a state of perfection (that is, it was included as a consecrated state of life with those so consecrated recognized by the Church as Religious); thus it was defined in a normative way in Canon 603.

It is not that non-canonical hermits are being cut off, diminished, or disregarded. That seems to me to be a cynical and inaccurate representation of the facts. The long history of exemplary holiness and prophetic presence of such hermits is precisely what called for a Canon recognizing the value and dignity of this calling as an ecclesial vocation belonging to the Church. These hermits taught the Church this and made the way for Canon 603 as an eventuality!! The normative portrait of eremitical life in Canon 603 is drawn from the lives and wisdom of such hermits; in fact, it honors them!! At the same time, the Church is careful in discerning and governing eremitical vocations not only because these are significant gifts and more difficult to discern than vocations to life in community,  but also because the history of solitary hermits is ambiguous with evidence both of great holiness and disedifying or even scandalous eccentricity. 

The Church wants hermits to live this vocational gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and she recognizes the support and guidance of the Church are important if individuals are to live such vocations well. After all, eremitism is neither about being a loner nor a too-common, sometimes rampant individualism. Instead, it is lived within the dynamic and demanding context of the ecclesial community with its long history of non-canonical hermits as well as canonical eremitical congregations and (now) solitary canonical hermits. At the same time, the Church knows that hermits of whatever stripe can be a prophetic presence challenging the Church herself to an ever more radical living out of the Gospel. Canon 603 celebrates and witnesses to this as well. 

This became clear as the Church recognized the significance not only of the Desert Ammas and Abbas but also of both the anchoritic and eremitic vocations on a diocesan level through various eras of her history. Bishops created statutes and devised liturgies recognizing and embracing these vocations because of this recognition. (For instance, recall the rite praying for and blessing the anchorite and her cell, as well as closing her within her anchorhold; note the ways diocesan bishops exercised responsibility for the upkeep of the anchoress when the local community or benefactors failed to do so; consider also the way the right to wear a hermit's tunic or the license to preach and solicit from others as a hermit, came in these same centuries, from the local ordinary.)  Still, what was necessary to truly demonstrate that all such vocations were valued throughout the church in all eras was the hermit's recognition in universal law. 

Bishop Remi De Roo

That only occurred in 1983 with the promulgation of Canon 603. Still, the majority of hermits will likely remain non-canonical. I would argue that it is now easier to live as a non-canonical hermit precisely because the church recognizes the eremitical vocation as such canonically and has made these instances of it a normative and consecrated state. With canon 603 every eremitical vocation, whether non-canonical or canonical is raised to a new visibility and valuation in the Western Church. Canon 603 is still under-utilized and likely will be so for some time to come. Not everyone will or should become a canon 603 hermit or thus live this vocation in the name of the Church, but those who live their eremitic vocations as non-canonical hermits can be grateful that for the first time in almost 2 millennia, the Western church has honored the eremitical vocation in universal law. 

This requires that canonical hermits live the normativity of their vocations well and humbly for they do so for all hermits. They reflect on the terms of Canon 603 for the benefit of every hermit, whether canonical or non-canonical. If canonical, they have embraced ecclesial responsibilities in making Profession and accepting Consecration through the church's mediation, and each one will demonstrate aspects of the life any hermit should be open to learning from. Of course, non-canonical hermits must also live their chosen callings well and humbly. If they choose not to be canonical hermits or are refused admission to canonical standing, I believe they must still let themselves learn from Canon 603 and those professed and consecrated accordingly -- as well as from hermits in eremitical congregations. From before the time I first knocked on the chancery door seeking profession (@1985) to consecration in 2007 (about 23 years), I reflected on c 603 and learned from it despite having been given little hope my diocese might ever implement it for anyone. I also learned from the Camaldolese and others. 

Whether living as a non-canonical or canonical hermit, it was the vision of eremitical life the Church recognized as normative that was important for my own faithfulness and growth in the eremitical vocation. I hope that all hermits can understand the importance of both the Canon and those exploring eremitical life in a canonical/consecrated state. They do this not only for God and the Church more generally, but for all hermits, whether canonical or non-canonical. Because C 603 represents the normative vision of what the Church considers to constitute eremitical life,  to live this life canonically is not about prestige, but about responsibility. This is the meaning of status in the phrase canonical status or standing. Acceptance of this standing and correlative responsibility is reflected in the right to call oneself a Catholic Hermit and such rights and obligations are never self-assumed. Again, they are given by the Church to those whose vocations they have also discerned.

* Profession is a broader act than the making of vows. It is a public act of and for the Church in which an individual commits him/herself to the rights and obligations of a new state in life. Usually, this is done through the making and reception of canonical (public) vows. In final, perpetual, or definitive profession, through the reception of the individual's vows and the prayer of consecration, the Church mediates God's consecration of the person. This sets him/her apart as a sacred person and constitutes his/her definitive entrance into the consecrated state.

** Public in this context refers to the public rights and responsibilities undertaken in a public (canonical) commitment, not to the place this commitment takes place, nor to the number who attend it. Likewise, private means that legal (public) rights and obligations are not extended to nor undertaken by the hermit involved.

Normative vs non-Normative Vocations: Canonical vs Non-Canonical Hermits and the Misuse of Terms Like Illegal or Illicit

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, what is an "illegal" or "illicit" hermit? In your post on April 12, 2023 you wrote about non-canonical vocation to eremitical life as ancient and of continuing value. I wondered about someone who believes his own eremitical vocation was rendered illicit or illegal because it is not a c 603 vocation. You may not understand why he would say this but it seems like he feels what was the traditional form of hermit life was made illegal when c 603 came into existence. That seems to be what he is saying.]]

Thanks for the question, but I don't know what that is. Seems to me someone asked something similar several years ago. I will need to look through some older posts to see if I can find that. If I can't locate it I will need to get more information from you. The truth, however, regarding the language of canonicity is pretty simple in the Catholic Church. A canon is a norm and when something is made canonical it means that thing, whether a collection of Scriptures, a form of life, a particular office, a set of requirements, etc., is normative according to the church's understanding of something; on the other hand, non-canonical means not normative according to the church's understanding of the thing. By virtue of baptism alone one can live an eremitical life in any way they believe is appropriate for them and feel called to do. However, one is not a Catholic Hermit because what one lives is a private matter and one doesn't live this life, nor is one called to do so, according to all of the norms (standards) governing canonical eremitical life. One does it instead by virtue of one's lay state and the freedom one has in Christ. 

In this case, one dedicates him/herself to serve God in the eremitical life. S/he may make private vows of some sort, but they will not rise to the level of religious profession, nor will they be public or canonical. Because these kinds of commitments (public, canonical) are absent, and because the canonical rights and obligations (along with the expectations granted to the faithful generally in regard to this vocation) are similarly absent, we call this kind of eremitical life non-canonical. It does NOT mean illicit or illegal nor do I know anyone who considers this to be the case. Again, it is simply not normative of ecclesial eremitical life (i.e., it is not canonical) --- though it may well represent an excellent instance of eremitical life and one any hermit can learn from. 

There are two other forms of eremitical life in the church and both involve public (canonical) profession and consecration by God mediated by the Church and are lived in the name of the Church. These are normative forms of eremitical life in the Church. Thus too, both are marked by legal or normative (canonical) rights and obligations that do not obtain in the first form of this life. Another way of saying this is to note that they are both canonical because they are forms of life marked by canonical rights and obligations beyond those that come with baptism. The first is solitary eremitical life (members of which could become a lavra on a temporary basis) and the other is semi-eremitical (a canonical community or institute of hermits), where one's profession is made within the context of the institute. In both of these one makes a profession which, by the way, means more than the making of vows (an act of dedication, by the way). Sandra Schneiders, IHM, makes it clear that profession is a broader act than the simple making of vows. First it is a public act in which the individual takes on the kinds of rights and obligations mentioned above and does so as an expression and realization of a gift of God which has been entrusted to the Church and can only be mediated to one by the Church.

Secondly, then, an act of profession is an ecclesial act where the church extends to the individual the right to make such a profession, affirms them as called to live this in the name of the church, and establishes with various structures and offices a context meant to assure the gift is well-lived and continues the tradition into which the individual has been professed as a living, fruitful stream of the Holy Spirit. This differs from a private avowal which ordinarily involves no one but the individual(s) making the vows. Someone may witness such vows, but no one receives them on behalf of the church, no additional public rights nor obligations are entrusted nor taken on, no change of state occurs (there is no additional consecration by God** so one remains in the baptized state alone), and so forth. With private or non-canonical eremitical vocations vows or other forms of dedication don't even need to be made (though foregoing these might be unwise). Still, the dedication may be informal or formal (though still entirely private) --- depending on what suits the individual hermit. 

For canonical hermits profession is made in two ways, first, for solitary hermits, under c 603. When this canon is used, the profession is made to God in the hands of the local ordinary. Because we are speaking about the public assumption and entrustment of the hermit with ecclesial rights and obligations, the rite of profession (involving both profession and commissioning) is mediated by the church. The second way is to admit an individual to membership in an institute of consecrated life living eremitical life. This is familiar to us as admission into religious life and all that constitutes that. Individuals make their professions to God in the hands of the Prior(ess), Abbot (Abbess), of the order, that is in the hands of the general superior. (In both of these forms or eremitical life, perpetual or solemn profession God's consecration of the hermit is also mediated with a solemn blessing of consecration given by the bishop. Similarly, visible symbols of the new state, its rights and obligations, dedication, and commissioning, are presented: ring, habit, cowl (perpetual profession only), etc.) This mediation continues throughout the entirety of the hermit's life. Hence, it involves canonical structures, an approved Rule, legitimate superiors, and other ecclesial requirements, which help allow the church to ensure this gift of consecrated life contributes to the holiness of the church.

All of this is recognized by the church in her (still relatively) new Canon 603. Here she extends to the solitary hermit who petitions and is accepted by her diocese for profession and then consecration, the same standing that had been extended to religious institutes throughout the centuries. Individual dioceses had done some similar things in the late middle ages, usually in order to introduce some structure, obligations,  and responsibilities (i.e., norms) into the ranks of hermits traveling throughout the countryside, when bishops established statutes hermits had to commit to be allowed to represent themselves as hermits/anchorites or to preach and beg. But canon 603 goes further than these statutes, for what c 603 does is establish the hermit in what was once called a state of perfection (now, the consecrated state) and allows a solitary hermit to be regarded as a religious despite not belonging to an institute of consecrated life. The Church did this not only to recognize the significance of the eremitical vocation, but to protect it and authentic vocations to it. 

Despite what sometimes seemed like hordes of solitary hermits (for instance, in Italy at the time of Romuald) and the number of institutes of hermits established over the centuries, very few of such institutes lived into the 20th Century, and individual hermits became a rarity. Most well-known are the Camaldolese and the Carthusians, but there were also Carmelites, and some hermits within other institutes like the Trappists and Trappistines. Still, eremitical life was a rare and poorly understood vocation. After all, in the Western church, the eremitical life had almost died out. And of course, it was not so easy in the contemporary world to go off into the boonies and establish oneself as a hermit in the ways that were once possible. Moreover, our contemporary world often mistakes various other forms of life for the genuinely eremitical, including individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, agoraphobia, etc. 

Within the church itself,  contemplative life became rarer, genuine silence and solitude much harder to find, shifts in spirituality that themselves were healthy, and the necessary emphasis on ministerial life threw shade on eremitical life. But monks and nuns continued to discover calls to greater solitude and silence than their life in community really allowed for. Eventually, in response, the church carved out a space for solitary hermits with c 603. The canonical requirements helped replace the institutes necessary for the Camaldolese and Carthusians, for instance. At the same time, no pre-existing forms of eremitical life were replaced by c 603. Instead, it created a new form of consecrated life. Those baptized and in the lay state could live eremitism in their lay state before c 603 and they still can! The same is true of clerics with their bishop's permission. Thus, no eremitical form of life, especially that made known by the desert Abbas and Ammas who embraced desert spirituality as laity, has been rendered illegal!!! To speak so is misleading and I consider it disedifying given the significance of non-canonical hermit vocations through the centuries. 

** Baptism represents a consecration of the baptized. When one is perpetually professed as a religious or c 603 hermit, a second consecration in the form of a solemn prayer of consecration is extended to the person making their profession. (In temporary vows, the solemn prayer of consecration is not found; instead, there is a prayer of blessing.) We call this being initiated into the consecrated state of life. In this act, God consecrates the person; the person does not consecrate herself to God. Instead, no matter the commonality of this language of consecrating oneself, the one making profession dedicates herself to God. Only God can consecrate, for God alone is holy and makes holy. Vatican II was very careful always to maintain the distinction between these two verbs (dedicare and consecrare), as well as between similar terms.