A Crash Course in the Language of things Canonical and Non-Canonical

 Recently questions and misunderstandings came up about the meaning and implications of the term non-canonical. I have written about this before and added a postscript to my follow-up post on why God wills many forms of hermit life in the Catholic Church. I also wrote about it four years ago when a non-canonical hermit suggested she had discovered she was illegal and perhaps couldn't even think of herself as Catholic. 

But, it seems the lesson was never really internalized. I am going to come at it again now for two reasons: 1) it is a terrible and very costly error to believe that because one is non-canonical and cannot call oneself a Catholic hermit, one cannot be a Catholic if one wants to remain a hermit or that one cannot be a hermit if one wants to remain a Catholic, and 2) if one person is making this error, others may also be making or being led to make it as well. So here is the basic question, does non-canonical mean illegal? The answer is no, it does not!!  Here is one place it is probably more helpful to think of canons as norms rather than laws, (I am not denying canons are laws, but the use of the word law and its cognates (illegal, illicit, unlawful, etc.) in this context is seriously misleading. If we think of canons as norms, the opposite of having them apply is not being illegal, but being unbound by, or free of them. To be a non-canonical hermit is to be free of the specific canonical rights and obligations that bind a canonical hermit.)

When we are baptized into the Church certain norms of the universal Church apply to us automatically. We are, by virtue of our baptism, Catholics, and we have the right to call ourselves Catholic. That right and others come with baptism as do certain obligations, the requirement that we attend Mass on Sundays, follow the laws of fasting and abstinence, go to confession once a year in case of mortal sin, etc. In other words, at baptism we are admitted to the lay state of life and like all new states of life it is a public vocation with pertinent canonical rights and obligations. We do not lose these rights and obligations so long as we are in the baptized state. In this sense, though we don't usually speak this way, baptism makes us canonical; it causes us to be bound by certain norms or canons corresponding to specific rights and obligations that belong to every person in the Church in virtue of Baptism.

As laity, every baptized Catholic can pursue all kinds of avenues of life including the eremitical life. However if one makes vows on one's own, private vows, even if encouraged and witnessed by someone in authority in the Church, they are a private matter not a public one. No additional public rights or obligations, no additional norms or canons bind this person in law. Suppose the vows are associated with living as a hermit (including the evangelical counsels!). In that case, the person is a Catholic and a Hermit, but they are NOT Catholic Hermits (more about this below). They are bound by all the canons that bound them upon baptism, no more, no less. In other words, when we speak of these hermits as non-canonical we do so because they live eremitical life without additional canons that bind them in law, whether c 603 or those appropriate to religious institutes. 

Some persons seek to live as consecrated hermits, either as part of a community or as solitary consecrated hermits. Each option is a public and ecclesial vocation requiring the Church's approval for admittance to public profession and consecration, and each of these fall under its own set of new canons beyond those associated with the lay state. For those whose profession is received by the Church in a public rite, they become canonical hermits. New Canons beyond those binding at baptism become legally binding on these hermits. For this reason, they are called canonical hermits. Canonical is a shorthand term for bound by (additional) canons or norms. Non-canonical is a shorthand term for unbound by additional canons or norms. Because the Church acting in God's name consecrates them in the hands of the Bishop they are consecrated hermits. And finally, because canonists point out that because of c 603, the category of religious life now applies to people with no relation to an institute of consecrated life, these hermits are considered Religious. Canon 603 hermits are Catholic Hermits and live the eremitical life in the name of the Church. They are specifically commissioned by the Church to be and do this because the gift of this vocation belongs first of all to the Church and only secondarily to the individual hermit. 

This emphatically does NOT mean that privately vowed hermits are illegal!! They live this vocation privately rooted in their own discernment and dedication under the same norms every baptized Christian is bound by; they do not consecrate themselves nor live this vocation as a public representative of the eremitical life in the Catholic Church. The Church has not entrusted them with this calling nor have they embraced the rights and obligations associated with a public and ecclesial vocation. However, they remain Catholics living a private eremitical life. They are, as one friend said, hermit (or eremitic) Catholics but they are NOT Catholic Hermits because the latter means they live this life in the name of the Church. 

(By the way, once again, by way of illustration, I do not write in the name of the Church nor do I teach Scripture or theology in her name. I am not and cannot call myself a Catholic theologian, though the theology I do is profoundly Catholic. To do theology as a Catholic Theologian requires a pontifical degree (not just a PhD or a ThD from a Catholic College, University, or Theological School) and a mandatum to teach in the Church's name. 

Followup Questions on "Canonical" as meaning Normative or Paradigmatic

[[Hi Sister, let me push you some on the idea of canonical as normative or meeting certain standards, okay? Are you saying that a non-canonical eremitical life is less authentic than a canonical eremitical life? I am afraid the idea of normative and not normative could be interpreted to mean perfect and imperfect, good and not-as-good, or something like that. I really hope that is not what you are saying!! How do you understand this when applied to your own life?]]

Those are really good questions and you are correct that I am not saying the things you are afraid I am saying. What I have tried to say is that some forms of eremitical life in the church have norms and standards set by the church herself, and others do not. This in turn means that if one wants to live eremitical life in the name of the Church as a Catholic Hermit, s/he must accept, embrace, and be confirmed in embracing and meeting these norms. In fact, she must show a pattern of valuing and living these norms for some time before the church admits her to a public commitment and state of life as a representative of someone living and continually striving to live more deeply, such a normative (canonical) life.

It is, again, the life itself that is established in law as normative, not the person living or proposing to live it. Still, I think we all know people who have been shaped by and embody a way of life so well, that they come to represent a normative (or perhaps paradigmatic) instance of it. This is ideal and the way truly living a vocation tends to form or shape us. In religious life, we sometimes refer to people as "Living Rules". For instance, I can think of various Benedictines or Camaldolese who are what it means to be Camaldolese or Benedictine. I know one Sister who IS Franciscanism for me and another who IS what it means BE a "Gleaner" -- the very charism of her community. To be admitted to canonical standing says, that the church trusts that one will strive to live ever more deeply into the normative (canonical) state of life to which one has been admitted. It means that one has carefully and honestly discerned this vocation with representatives of the church, entered whole-heartedly into initial and (as time approaches for perpetual profession), ongoing formation processes; it means that one understands and meets the requirements of the canons (norms) which govern the life (c 603, in the case of solitary hermits), and that one accepts responsibility for bearing this part of the church's tradition in a way that shapes her whole being and potentially, the vocation itself.

Sometimes, because I write about c 603 a lot, I have been accused of being obsessed with c 603, and of not maturing spiritually. That doesn't bother me one whit. After all,  I am a c 603 hermit and I am professed not just to live the evangelical counsels, but to live ever more deeply into the constitutive elements of the canon (or the canon's vision) itself. What else should I be so concerned with given the fact that God and his salvific will are central to the canon's very existence? As I have noted in the past, I actually am struck by the beauty of c 603's construction, and I accept that it is normative for my life; in fact, I see it as defining my life in ways that ask me to become a living embodiment of the vision of the silence of solitude the canon involves in the unique way God calls me to that. Others are called similarly; paradoxically, they will live this canon both as I do and differently than I do precisely because we both take the elements of the canon with similar seriousness. That is because we each live our relationship with God under these norms in a way that allows God to shape us individually with our whole history, personality, vision, and variety of talents, gifts, idiosyncrasies, needs, perceptions, insights, etc., under the norms of the canon and the supervision of the church.

So, I am not saying norms create uniformity, nor am I saying that a canonical (normative) vocation means the person representing that vocation is perfect or normative. Still, within reason, persons admitted to canonical profession have been deemed by those capable of determining such things, capable of understanding, valuing, and carrying out the rights and obligations they are undertaking in the name of the church; they have been seen to be sincere in their attempts to live these well over some time as part of the church's proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and, most importantly, they have been discerned to be (and truly believe they have been) called by God to do so as the way they become fully human or holy. The vocation is normative because the church has discerned it contains or is constituted by the elements necessary to constitute a way that helps shape these persons and their commitment into the persons God calls them to become. This is less about the persons themselves than  it is about the power of the vocation they are called to and their commitment to be shaped by that vocation and the God who is its source.

At the same time, there is no reason that someone embracing a non-canonical eremitical life because they are rightly convinced God has called them to this, cannot be every bit as good (or even better!) a hermit as the canonically professed hermit. Again, canonical means the vocation is normative or paradigmatic within the life of the church and all she touches; simply because something is not normative in the same way does not mean God does not use it to call outstanding hermits.

On Discerning a Call to Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sr. Laurel,  Would you be so kind as to write a bit about your experiences as a lay hermit? What does the process of discernment look like when a  lay hermit discerns canonical eremitism? As a layperson, how does one live a privately eremitical life while still presenting an open, engaged public life in society, parish and workplace? I'm thinking about the need for a lay-hermit to avoid falling into merely antisocial behavior and justifying such behavior as an expression of eremitic life.  

A few years ago, I changed some things in my daily structure to create space for more prayer and solitude--hardly enough to claim to be living as a hermit! Yet, my acquaintances/coworkers questioned me quite critically on my lifestyle (what exactly do you do on the weekends? Don't you have a social life? Why are you always busy but never say what you're doing? Don't you want to get married?--Time's running out! So what do you do for fun?--that doesn't sound like fun!). 

I guess what I want to know is: Am I being a wannabe/imposter/poser by even testing this mode of living as a lay hermit? Why does it arouse such opposition in others, but feel just right to me? Did you experience anything like this in your discernment?]]

Hi there, I think what you are experiencing is part of the reason some hermits have discovered the importance of canonical standing with regard to their eremitical lives. Ecclesial vocations rooted in admission to canonical profession and consecration along with the rights and obligations of an established state of life provide a realm of freedom in which one can live an eremitical life as fully and authentically as possible without having to be ultimately (i.e., beyond the period of initial and mutual discernment) concerned with one's motivations or the opinions of others. The Church's approval of one's vocation is especially helpful during those times when one is led to work again through the reasons one has discerned this vocation and whether it is truly God's call or a response to ill-fitting motivations one was previously unaware or inadequately aware of. At these times one has the Church's discernment to trust in. It helps a lot with questions of authenticity (is this doubt due to my imperfection or am I just a poser, am I kidding myself in trying this, am I the real deal, how much of this is due to failure or selfishness?); it also provides a context which challenges and demands one live one's vocation in a whole-hearted, exhaustive way which witnesses to the Gospel.

 What I am saying is that your own experience, the things you are struggling with or worrying about may be indicators that you are dealing with exactly the kinds of dynamics one must negotiate in discerning such a call. None of us come to this vocation without a mix of existential successes and failures as well as a mix of motivations that make our discernment more complicated. When we add the impressions and opinions of others to the mix, or when we measure our lives against the normative or ideal ways of living our society touts initial discernment can be difficult. Despite some vision-and-locution-riddled accounts of calls to eremitical life one can find online, God does not ordinarily simply say to a person, "I want you to be a hermit." Instead, God summons us to the silence of solitude in ways both clear and subtle, vivid and obscure, with movements of our hearts;  it is up to us to discern this call in the midst of our own human complexity and then determine the very best context for living it out.

Also, please understand that few folks in our culture or society will understand a call to eremitical life. Even devout Catholics are unlikely to immediately understand it because its witness value differs so profoundly from that of apostolic Religious life or ministerial life --- both lay and ordained. (Given time and conversation with actual hermits, however, understanding will -- or at least can --- come!) At this point in time, despite the existence of canon 603, even many bishops still don't understand or accept eremitical life as something authentic. Even so, I sincerely believe that those who truly love you will be able to see how fulfilling contemplative and/or eremitical life is for you. (More about this in the excursus below.) Others will never get it. You need to learn to understand and trust your own motives. If you are looking to get other folks to understand an eremitical vocation please know most never will. Eremitical life is counter-cultural even within the contemporary Church and while our contemporary world knows and accepts things such as cocooning (an anti-social form of isolation) it generally does not accept lives lived for God and especially those that say "God alone is sufficient for us".

My Own Life as a Hermit:

I don't know if I can be of much help here regarding being a lay hermit. Remember I had a background in religious life, lived as part of a community when I began the process of becoming a diocesan hermit and was generally known as a Religious Sister in my neighborhood even after my diocese decided they were not going to profess anyone under c 603 due to some earlier situation which "left a bad taste in the bishop's mouth". At this point I had to decide whether I would continue living as a hermit whether in community or as a lay hermit. Eventually I decided I would continue living as a hermit no matter which state in which I did that --- that I could do nothing else because I clearly was thriving in this way.

However, because I was not a canonical hermit without the Church herself professing or consecrating me as a hermit, I can say I understand the difficulties of having people understand or support what I was doing and why. What I experienced, however, is that to the degree I was comfortable with my own vocation people gave me the benefit of any doubt. They might not understand about hermits and what motivates them, but they trusted me and remained open to the idea of my being a hermit. I did lose a couple of friends but not with the degree of antipathy you seem to be describing. When friends needed something to hold onto that would make sense of my life and that also made sense to them, they hung onto my identity as a woman Religious. For myself, it was clear to me that the Holy Spirit was working in my life in this specific way and while I hoped some day the Church would recognize this, I could not do anything but continue on as a hermit while still being professed in community. God was calling me to do this -- of that I was certain. However, it also became very important to find connections which/who supported me in my journey, e.g., the Camaldolese, a good spiritual director, other Sisters, etc. I don't know if this helps but if you have other specific questions re my own life as a hermit, please get back to me with those.

Discernment and Your Questions about Balancing a Healthy Relationship With Parish and Eremitical Life:

You describe maintaining a healthy presence and an open, engaged public life in society, parish, and workplace while living a privately [vowed] eremitical life. I wonder most about your comment about workplace. If you must work outside your hermitage and it cannot be 1) in a solitary way or 2) part-time (fewer than 20 hours a week), I don't think you can think of yourself as a hermit. (By the way, this is true about canonical hermits as well; dioceses have occasionally made the mistake of professing those working in social jobs on a full-time basis -- the Archdiocese of Boston is, unfortunately, best known for this serious error -- but most bishops will not even consider professing a hermit who works outside the hermitage much less in a full-time job.)  If you are transitioning to an eremitical life, and especially if you plan on seeking standing in law as a diocesan hermit, the ability to work only part time in a way which is consonant with eremitical life is one of the first things you will need to negotiate.

Before you are ready to do this you will need to work to 1) move to a genuinely contemplative life. This means growing in contemplative prayer but also in your approach to the whole of your life. I assume you are working regularly with a spiritual director who will aid you in your developing life as a contemplative. This is a sine qua non without which you cannot progress in your own growth in this way. Once this prayer and life is well-established you may find you have no real need to live as a hermit. On the other hand, you may find you feel called to even greater solitude and feel an even more intense sense that eremitical life is the only context and content that makes sense of your entire life. This whole process until this point takes years. You will not be a hermit at this point, and may not ever feel called to being a hermit.

Once you have reached this point, however, if you do feel a call to even greater solitude you will need to limit your participation in your parish and other external activities or venues. I would suggest you write a draft or working Rule of life describing what elements of prayer, lectio, study, and penance are essential for you right now. Similarly, describe the relationships you have that are genuinely life-giving and need to be honored no matter whether you are a hermit or not. Similarly, list the ways you engage in ministry that are life-giving to you and that you determine are important for your own prayer/spiritual life. For the present then (once you have reached this point), limit yourself to this degree of active participation in the parish and make clear to those who know you why you are doing this in a matter-of-fact way: "I need more time for prayer, lectio, or study" or, "My relationship with God is growing in this direction". Don't make a big deal of it. You are merely stating what your own life holds as priorities. Most likely ou will continue to support your parish in prayer, attend liturgy there, do limited ministry, and maintain friendships (though this last might not be in quite the same way you have done until now).

Excursus: The rule of thumb I think you should hold onto is "when in the parish or other social situation be available to others in a normal way; do not hold yourself aloof but let yourself be truly present! Especially, do not insist on only speaking about "Holy things" or only talking about God!! In other words, do NOT "play" hermit!! Be yourself!! If you need greater solitude, build it into your life but in all things, be yourself and when you are at your parish, etc., be there with and for others! You may (or may not) lose a few friends but it will not be due to some kind of pretense on your part. Meanwhile, you may also gain some new ones with whom you can share yourself truly. While your life may not seem like fun to others the more relevant question, I think, is whether or not you are happy. Folks know that I am supremely happy and even excited when I am reading Scripture or studying theology. This is not their idea of a good time maybe, but neither do I insist it should be. When I am happy that comes across in my ability to be present to/with others and it is here that the importance of what I do for recreation or with my time alone becomes a witness for others. End excursus.

Back to Writing a Rule:

As I think you can see from the above description, writing a Rule is first of all an exercise in discernment. Meet regularly with your spiritual director during this process. Don't be surprised if it takes some time before you have a Rule that meets your own needs and challenges you to grow even as it reflects the nature of your life now. When you are satisfied this Rule can assist you for the next couple of years, commit to living it. During this time your director can assist you in keeping what works and editing those which do not. Revise your Rule in ways that allows it to work better for you in terms of relationships and ministry (including hospitality to God and others) while respecting your sense of being called to greater silence and solitude.

If this particular Rule should work out for a space of time after revisions (say 1 to 2 years), and you see yourself called to eremitical life rather than merely to contemplative life with significant silence and solitude, it will be time to begin considering what context best allows you to live this. Will it be as a non-canonical or lay hermit or will it be as a canonical hermit under canon 603? Throughout all of this time, you will also pay attention to the evangelical counsels -- the values of poverty, chastity, and obedience (the values that define the way you relate to wealth, relationships, and matters of power or autonomy).

Private vows here are not essential, but they can make sense and help you prepare for canonical profession if that is a direction you believe you might go. For instance, while you will not have a legitimate superior (your spiritual director should not expect or be expected to act as one!), a private vow of obedience can make sense in terms of committing to allowing God to be sovereign in your life and in being attentive and open to God's presence and will. Similarly, you will live simply and take care of any wealth you might have just as you will love well and maintain the relationships which lead to wholeness and holiness. As you do this you may or may not find that God is calling you to the freedom (and responsibility) of the consecrated state of life where you will live eremitical life in the Church's name (i.e., as a Catholic hermit). If so, you will likely petition your diocese for admission to profession and eventual consecration under Canon 603). I would suggest you will have needed to live as a hermit per se for at least two or three years in order to be clear you feel called in this way.

Throughout all of this you will be discerning. There will be questions like the following running all through everything you are and do --- something which will be true whether or not you are discerning a canonical or non-canonical vocation: What does God call me to? How am I truly happiest, truly free? What makes me most whole and generous as a human being? Am I merely indulging my own tendencies to selfishness or being individualistic (which is not the same as truly being an individual)? Am I being false or engaging in pretense in this? How and how not? Is my need to be by myself  (or live in solitude) motivated by woundedness or by wholeness? (It is likely to be both and with your director's help you will need to learn to work through/heal the woundedness and enhance your own wholeness so your discernment can continue.)  How do I love best? How will my life witness most fully to the Gospel of God in Christ? Who am I really and who does God call me to be? That these questions arise does not necessarily indicate pretense on your part; they do say you need to grow in clarity about who you are and how God is working in your life, and that you continue to grow precisely in honestly posing such questions and attending seriously to the answers they reveal throughout your life.

I hope this is helpful. Again, if I have missed the mark for you or raised more questions, please feel free to get back to me with further comments and questions. In the meantime, all my best.

Consequences of Unfaithfulness: Canonical vs Non-Canonical Hermits

[[Dear Sister, I wonder if the blogger from [link omitted] is even really listening to you or reading your posts in a thoughtful way. She really doesn't seem to understand anything about religious or consecrated life, much less about canon 603. I don't think you are going to change her mind or educate her. The heart of her difficulties seems to be treating the paragraphs from the Catechism as equivalent or even superior to Canon Law. She believes what she wants to believe and uses words like she wants to use words. Who cares if the Church doesn't use them the way she does? Not her! I would encourage you not to waste your time trying to explain!

But other than all that, I have enjoyed your recent posts and learned some things too. The posts about bonds and the explanation about how bonds come to be or the freedom needed to enter the consecrated state were very interesting to me. You have stressed a number of times here that the canonical requirements are meant to establish and protect relationships. I heard that again in what you said about these things and it was even clearer to me. Impediments mean things that get in the way of the relationships that need to be foundational. Right? While I know you regard the lay eremitical vocation what do you really think about private vows? There is such a difference between making a private commitment and a public one but you reject the idea that one vocation is "higher" than the other. How can you do that? One question you haven't answered yet is what happens if a publicly professed hermit fails to live her Rule or her vows vs what happens if a privately dedicated hermit fails to do so. Since the consequences are very different doesn't it argue that one vocation is higher than the other?. . .]]

Thanks for your questions and comments. I am going to respond to some of what you have written. I had never thought of impediments in quite that way before but I think you are right that impediments are those things which will prevent the necessary foundational relationships from being formed or which prevent the relationships from achieving maturity and appropriate fruitfulness. We are more used to thinking of impediments with regard to marriage but in consecrated life we find them too. Insufficient age, affective immaturity, co-dependence, the presence of another exclusive bond, ignorance of what the commitment requires, the inability to enter whole-heartedly into formation, etc are impediments to profession --- though only some of these are noted in canon law.

What Happens to Canonical vs Non-canonical Hermits Who Fail to live their Commitments?

Anyway, on to your other questions and comments. My own regard for the lay vocation I hope has been clear throughout many posts, but it is very true that the questions the other poster put up about the consequences for infidelity to one's commitments have very different answers for the lay hermit and for the consecrated hermit (or, in other words, for the non-canonical hermit and for the canonical hermit). If I am unfaithful to or cannot live my commitment a number of things will happen on several levels, personal, parish, diocesan and perhaps even beyond that if that seems like it is necessary or could be helpful. On the other hand, with an entirely private commitment the resolution would come on the personal level with the help (perhaps) of one's confessor and/or pastor. Nothing more. If we contrast what happens in either case it looks like this: 

Diocesan Hermits:

 If the diocesan hermit  is perpetually professed and consecrated and she fails to live her life as she is responsible for doing, then attempts are made to work with her so that she can again live her Rule. This will involve consultation with her director and /or her delegate as well as the Bishop. It may also involve consultations with physicians or therapists if the situation is due to some extraordinary change in health or stress levels. It is likely to include consultation with the hermit's pastor as well if he knows her well. If the hermit's Rule needs to be changed to accommodate changing circumstances so that the elements of the canon are appropriately expressed in new ways she will do that. Apart from this, however, the diocese and hermit might be able to work out an extended period in a monastery or other religious house where the hermit could experience the support of others living lives of prayer, solitude and penance similar to the one she is committed to.

After some time here the solitary hermit might feel ready to live her commitments again in the rigors (and the temptations!) of her urban hermitage, for instance. Or she might decide she needs to live the same vocation in another context. There are many possibilities here and they will be explored or even tried until and unless the hermit discerns she needs to request a dispensation from her vows. If the hermit's inability or failure is occurring due to illness, then a diocese could conceivably find a way to temporarily suspend her obligations or even grant something akin to an indult of exclaustration which frees the person of her obligations and often the rights that came with canonical standing. Such an indult would be given for a period of time (up to 3 years though there is some provision for an extension) and give time for the hermit to get well while her obligations as a hermit have been lifted. The hermit herself would need to request some such action be taken. In cases of illness occurring after one has made perpetual profession I don't believe the diocese can act against the hermit's will to dispense her vows, but I would need to check on that.

Permanent Canonical Solutions:
 

However, if illness is not the problem it is an even more serious matter and more permanent canonical steps may also be taken. If the person fails or refuses to live her profession faithfully in such a case and she cannot or will not work out a resolution she will be given a canonical warning to which she has the right of response or defense. A second warning can be given if she does not respond which advises that she will be dismissed from the consecrated eremitical state and her vows dispensed. Her right of defense remains. If there is no change forthcoming and all avenues toward this have been exhausted, then her vows will be dispensed. In such a case she does not cease to be consecrated (that was the action of God and cannot be undone) but she is released (or dismissed) from the consecrated state of life, meaning that her standing in law reverts to that of the lay state (vocationally speaking) and she is no longer bound by (or entrusted with) the canonical rights or obligations of the consecrated state of life.

Non-canonical or privately dedicated hermits:

In contrast, what happens to a privately vowed hermit who does not live her Rule? Nothing. No more than happens to any lay Catholic committing a private sin or habitual fault. Conceivably she will confess her sin, repent and reform her life, but if she continues to fail in this matter there are no other consequences really because her commitment was an entirely private matter. I would think a confessor could strongly encourage her to accept the dispensation of her vows in serious situations (any pastor can do this), but even if she were to do that, she could also remake these vows as easily --- and perhaps as imprudently --- as she made them in the first place if she could find a priest or other person to witness them.

In any case, no one but God, the hermit, and her confessor would even know she has failed to live her commitment. Again, her's is a private dedication with no public rights or obligations and no specific expectations on anyone's part but the hermit and God. This does not make such vows unimportant, much less invalid, but it does underscore their private nature. (In general the Church expects anyone making a private vow to live it with fidelity and integrity; she esteems the commitment but doing that is up to the individual with the vow(s) and no one else. Again, in canonical commitments relationships are established in law and several people have obligations in such a situation. Not so with private dedications or vows. Certainly in the normal course of such things a Bishop is not going to be concerned except as he is generally concerned with the well-being of all his faithful. Think subsidiarity here. Such matters are handled at the lowest appropriate level. No diocesan or canonical involvement is necessary because none have been involved to this point.

My Own Feelings About Private Vows:

I think private vows can be very helpful in a person's commitment to spiritual growth, especially in areas or regions where there are few people who understand the commitment the person wants to undertake. However, I don't think lay persons generally need vows of the evangelical counsels, for instance, because they are committed by Baptismal promises to these though in unspecified ways. My own preference is that a person look at the things we all promise when we renew our baptismal commitments and then specify for themselves what that means in concrete terms in their own life today.

l would encourage someone to write themselves a Rule of life which includes the values one wishes to live in a methodical way and add a commitment to live this Rule in a faithful way. Such a plan can include reading Scripture or other lectio, provisions for prayer and penance, allowances for recreation which control one's exposure to TV, computer games, media of all sorts, etc. It can also help one include physical exercise, intellectual projects, etc. It might also include a budget and savings plans which help control spending, cut back on shopping trips or online shopping for those for whom these are problematical, and ensure resources for emergencies. With such a Rule a vow of obedience would not be necessary because the attentiveness and listening one wanted to commit to is included. One does not need a vow of obedience unless one is making a vow of religious obedience which binds to God through legitimate structures and superiors. The same with poverty. In religious poverty there is ordinarily a communal dimension involved, a "we are in this together" sense where all are similarly committed and sacrifice for one another and the sake of witness and ministry to those outside the institute. Chastity is something one in the unmarried state is already obliged to so there is no need for this sort of vow either.(We don't make vows for things we are already obligated to!)

Some lay people write about having a vow of obedience to their spiritual director but to be honest, I would never want a client to do that nor would I relate to them as a legitimate superior. This would be dishonest and in my understanding of spiritual direction infantilizing. Legitimate superiors know obedience because they have lived it themselves. They know what it means and does not mean, what it should and should not be in a "subject's" life. Moreover they know the person bound in a vow of obedience is properly prepared and deemed ready for such a vow. A demand that one obey by virtue of their vow is exercised rarely and with discretion these days. The situation is very different when people assume that they will owe their director obedience as they might a legitimate superior and neither one is in a legitimate (bound in law or "lawful") relationship!

Spiritual directors build a relationship of trust and a unique intimacy with their directees. In mature direction relationships between religious (which are usually long-standing), one of these persons (if in the same institute or congregation) may actually be given and assume the role of the legitimate superior to the other --- though not in her role as director per se; in such a case a vow of obedience is unlikely to be problematical. Its use will be rare and generally limited to matters of the external forum --- matters which are externally verifiable and sometimes visible to everyone, matters that do nor depend on the confidential disclosures that occur in spiritual direction. Such vows of obedience will, according to c 601, also be governed and limited by the religious' "proper constitutions", those constitutions "proper" to their congregation.

In any case I support the use of private vows in limited situations, but not of the evangelical counsels. If someone wants to live these values within a secular context I hope they will find a way (baptism calls and commissions them to do so), but I don't want anyone pretending they are something they are not or embracing values which may actually conflict with the ways they are called to be responsible in terms of money, power, and relationships. That is why I prefer they write a Rule which includes these values worked out in an integral way.

Higher Vocations?

I have said a number of times that every vocation is a call to exhaustive holiness. Given that fact there is no way to speak of one being higher than another. Similarly the Church is clear that members of the consecrated and religious states of life may be drawn from laity or clergy but that this state of life is not part of the Church's hierarchical structure as a third class or level. In that sense too then we must conclude that the canonical eremitical life is not a higher vocation than the non-canonical. What does differ in these vocations are the rights and obligations and the canonical relationships and structure which apply to consecrated (canonical) eremitical life but not to non-canonical (lay) eremitical life. In a sense, Thomas Aquinas' language of "objective superiority" certainly applies here --- but not as that term came to be translated subsequently. We tend to think "objective superiority" logically means "higher" or "above" but that is not the case here and never in the calculus of the Kingdom.

The diocesan hermit's vocation is canonically defined, protected, and supported. She makes her commitment in law and lives her life in the name of the Church. She has legitimate superiors (Bishop, delegate, Vicars if needed during a Bishop's illness or the interim between successors) and her life of solitude is esteemed even if it is not always understood. She is entrusted with the right to wear religious garb, use the title Sister (etc.), and to live a public vocation in the heart of the Church. She has what she needs to live a life of holiness and to grow in that (time for prayer, silence, solitude, Scripture, access to the Sacraments, --- often including reserved Eucharist, etc). These are the sorts of things Aquinas was referring to when he spoke of "objective superiority". Some vocations have "built into them" access to so much that is necessary for growth in holiness. But this does not translate to the word higher! She has greater responsibility for the eremitical vocation in some ways than the non-canonical hermit, but also greater help, greater freedom, and fewer obstacles to live it. The bottom line here is that in the Church legal constraints lead to greater freedom from the expectations of the world around us. Similarly, greater responsibility in certain areas is granted only so that one may serve or minister to others more effectively than one might be able to otherwise. I don't think we can therefore use the term "higher" for such a vocation.

Public vs Private Profession or Profession vs Commitment: Followup questions

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, As a lay person who has made Simple, Personal Vows to God which were witnessed by the parish priest, and as a lay person who has written and observes a personal Rule, it seems that my actions are strictly between myself and God, and that no special obligations or relationship exists between me and any official part of the Church, and in no official capacity, and that even though my vows were witnessed by the priest, I have not accomplished a "Profession". Am I correct? It would seem I am truly on my own, and not obligated to the Church in any official way, which leaves me free, but obligated to live a good and moral life and loyal to the Church. I hope to have the help of the Church, certainly Her prayers and blessings as I may have the good fortune to receive them, but that I am not in a "consecrated STATE" as far as the Church is concerned.

Thanks very much for your questions. I realize asking them indicates both understanding and substantial personal pain. I am breaking them up and placing them throughout this post, but let me try to answer in a way which brings out not only the distinctions involved between public and private profession (or, what some, more accurately, call profession vs dedication) but also the seriousness of what you have indeed committed to.

As noted in the last post, Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, defines profession as a formal, solemn, and public act by which a person undertakes a state of life, and when looked at that way, your vows are indeed a dedication but not a profession. In what I have written on this blog I have tended to a usage which distinguishes between public and private professions while implicitly linking these to differing states of life. Sister Sandra's usage in making state of life an explicit part of the definition of profession is less ambiguous and for that reason, perhaps significantly more helpful than my own in avoiding misunderstanding and the obscuring of important distinctions; still, I think we are in essential agreement. Your vows are private and that means that while they are a personally significant expression of your baptismal consecration (for you are indeed consecrated in that way), you remain in the lay state to live out that expression. As is true of any person in the church, you, as baptized, are obliged to live out the evangelical counsels in some way in that state and your vows express this explicitly. What remains true is that the Church which you help constitute both needs and expects you to live out any commitments you make with integrity and seriousness. She has affirmed that baptism constitutes a universal call to holiness and that holiness is no less exhaustive or significant than the call experienced by someone in the consecrated or ordained states.

It is true that, as you say, your private dedication of yourself via these vows does not cause you to enter the consecrated state of life and does not lead to the same kinds of legitimate (canonical) relationships an ecclesial vocation with public vows does. You do not have legitimate superiors, for instance, do not belong to a congregation or religious community by virtue of this commitment nor do you enjoy additional rights, obligations or protections which are part of such relationships in order to support the stable state of life for which they exist. While you are expected to live out your baptismal vows (the laws which bind every Catholic are indeed binding on you and hold you accountable for this) you have assumed no additional legal rights or obligations nor entered into the additional legal (canonical) relationships which obtain in public profession. However, the values you live out in those vows are personally binding on you nonetheless because they are real specifications of your baptismal consecration. Your dedication (i.e., your private vows) commits you in a serious and real way until you discern either that you are no longer called to this or until you determine you need no additional vows to live out your baptismal consecration and act to have these vows dispensed by your pastor, for instance.

The Importance of Private Commitments

[[This is an important distinction because there actually would seem to me to be a consecration of sorts present by virtue of trying to fulfill what I believe to be God's desires in my life; it would seem necessary in order to fulfill them. I am obligated to obey the Church by the wording and intent of the my (sic) vows, as much as I am obligated to fulfill my vows to God to whom I made them, and a blatant refusal or deliberate failure to do so would be a sin. I had the intent of living by the vows I took forever, but it seems the Church does not see my vows that way in spite of what I may have intended. Which makes me wonder then, what is my obligation to my Lord if having made vows with the intent of permanency and solemnity the Church does not see things that way? If I were a younger person it might be easier to resolve the issue by entering a religious order or lay institute and making profession; unfortunately, it seems that time is past.]]

Both God and the Church expect you to live out the private vows you have made as part of a significant Christian commitment, and to do so with integrity. The Church expects you to lead others in taking their own baptismal commitments with absolute seriousness as well. She also takes your private vows seriously --- which is one reason she provides for their dispensation by your pastor, Bishop, or others designated to do so in case you discern you are called to something else (c.1196), for instance. She does not simply say, "Oh, just move on --- forget about them! They are insignificant" They are not. They are significant commitments to God. However the church, who had no part in discerning the wisdom of or mediating your vows, does regard them as private commitments which can be dispensed without additional legal steps and without directly affecting your relationships with others in the church should you discern that is the right course of action. (For instance, when a religious seeks dispensation of her vows this affects others in direct and significant ways, whether they are her superiors who participate in what is often a painful process of discernment and cease to be legally responsible for her or her vocation), her community more generally (who love her and, though retaining profound friendships, lose her as a Sister in religion and important member of the community or congregation), or the church as a whole (who now welcome her as a lay person), etc.) Should you ever seek dispensation of your vows others are not similarly affected because your commitments, while personally significant, are private and made privately to God.

Even so, what does not change in all of this for you is your baptismal consecration and your responsibility to live out an exhaustive holiness accordingly in ways which are paradigmatic of and for the lay state. This IS a formal, solemn, and public sacramental consecration for you and affects many people and the life of the Church more generally. It is the power of this consecration which I believe is behind your sense that some consecration is necessary to live out your own private commitments. Your baptismal consecration grounds and empowers your living out the will of God in your life.

A larger question regarding the place of private vows for the baptized or married

Whether this applies in your specific case or not, one of the issues your questions raise is the remaining effects of a theology of religious life and vocation which effectively treated baptism as an entry level position in the church and other vocations as higher levels and more exhaustive forms of holiness. We have to encourage people to take their lay (baptismal) consecration and commitments with absolute seriousness. We have to be clear that every Christian is called to the evangelical counsels in some sense and we have to find ways to communicate that. Too often people seek to make private vows in an attempt to express their sense they are called to a self-commitment and holiness "more" exhaustive than their baptismal consecration involves.

For instance, they may make a vow of obedience as "listening" and commit to reading the Bible or listening to the Word of God in other ways when in fact these are generally things EVERY Christian is obliged to by virtue of their identities as Christians. They may make a vow of poverty in terms of a simplicity and detachment which are themselves something every Christian is obliged to by virtue of their baptism.

Sometimes, as I have mentioned before, I hear from married persons seeking to make additional vows --- usually of poverty and obedience, though sometimes also of chastity. When we talk about the matter and examine why they feel this way and what it is their marriage vows call them to in this place and time, there is usually no need for additional vows. Further, given the relationship between wife and husband there is usually no real place for vows which are private and bind only one of them. What was needed in such cases was a clearer idea of how significant and demanding are the public vows (baptism and marriage) they have already made. The significance and nature of these vows as public vows which are a means and call to achieving holiness and union with God, and in the case of marriage vows, a call to such holiness and union through this union with another, had slipped from sight. So had the need to reflect on and grow in their understanding and living out of these vows --- just as Religious routinely reflect on and grow in their their own.

The Church has contributed to this problem through the centuries. Vatican II took a decisive step away from the theology which engendered and exacerbates it. But we have a long way to go in implementing Vatican II in our lives and allowing it to guide our theologies, especially in this area. While wonderful and essential, it is not enough that lay people are moving into areas of ministry that were closed to them before. A fundamental change in our appreciation of what the lay vocation is and demands is still necessary so that people do not continue to feel they have only been called to an entry level vocation and cannot give their whole selves to God in this way.