Canonical Hermits, Non-Canonical Hermits, and Humility

[[Dear Sister, do some hermits chose not to become canonical because of their humility? I have read one hermit who chose not to do so because she wished to remain "small" and another because she wished to remain "hidden". Is there an advantage in making such a choice for these reasons?]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me define humility as I understand it and then try to answer your question about smallness from that perspective. Humility is a form of honesty, specifically, a form of loving honesty (both elements are critical here) about who one is (and who others are) in light of the way God sees us. We are humble when and to the extent we regard ourselves (or others) in the same way God regards us, neither disparaging ourselves (or others) nor engaging in self-aggrandizement. I have written here before about this and especially on the distinction between something that is truly humbling and something which is instead, humiliating. Too often in various threads of spirituality, the verb associated with humility has been mistakenly construed as 'humiliate'! But God does not humiliate --- ever! God's love humbles us. It reveals our true dignity. It raises us to the ability to see clearly and lovingly just who we and others are in light of God's own deep regard for and delight in us.

There can be many sources of the notion that canonical vocations are about pride or a lack of humility. Consider, however, that if God calls some to be diocesan hermits under c 603, it is also the case that acceptance of such a vocation might well be a wonderfully humbling experience. Surely it could be argued that God would intend any vocation to be a humbling (or humble-making) experience rooted in God's love for that person and those to whom they are called to minister in this specific way.  No? My own sense is that we tend to associate pride or arrogance with canonical standing because we often neglect to ask ourselves whether or not God calls anyone at all in this way. If a way of life represents a form of divine call, why should we assume that those who seek this specific form of life lack humility or that the way of life lacks sufficient "smallness" where another form of the vocation (non-canonical eremitical life, for instance) does not?

I participated in a couple of conversations this last couple of weeks on a list on "Hermit Vocations" --- a list apparently made up largely (but not exclusively) of self-designated hermits in the lay state. I was saddened to find the degree of judgment I did which is present regarding diocesan (c 603) hermits and the arrogance or pride they were thought to reveal simply in having sought (and been granted!) canonical standing. One opinion was that for those seeking standing in law under c 603 "was all about show" and concern with externals. It is seriously harmful to any form of eremitical life to paint them with such a cynically broad brush and I was surprised to find this response to be so immediate and, in some ways, pervasive. But, to be misunderstood is nothing new with eremitical vocations and I think the question of God's call is critical here: If canonical standing is something God wills for at least some hermits, then how can we automatically conclude that canonical standing and all it brings is something only the arrogant or prideful embrace? (By the way, please note that when folks criticize canonical hermits they tend only to criticize solitary canonical (or diocesan) hermits, not those living eremitical life in canonical communities. I wonder why that is?)

I am not certain what you are asking when you speak of advantages in making decisions in terms of "smallness", for instance, but I believe one's personal discernment can certainly benefit from being concerned with one's own personal and spiritual strengths and weaknesses and how the grace of God is working in the Church and one's own life to make the very best of these. If this means realizing that one sees diocesan eremitical life as lacking in "smallness" or "hiddenness", then it can certainly be of benefit to work through all of this with one's spiritual director. Similarly, if one is looking for a "higher" or "purer" form of eremitical life, perhaps one needs to spend some time working through this aim and all that motivates it. At the same time, if one is unable to see the real value in non-canonical eremitical life, the dignity and worth of such life, then one needs to work through whatever it is that causes one to see this form of eremitical life in this way. Whenever we get into competitive ways of seeing that accent "better", "superior" or "lower", "meaner", "purer," "less pure," etc, it is time to take real care regarding what is going on in our own hearts.

That said, it is important to also ask if there are ways each form of eremitical life challenges the other to greater authenticity. For instance, canonical standing calls hermits to understand that the eremitical vocation belongs to God and the Church, not to the individual. It calls hermits to find ways to embrace, live, and express the truth that eremitical life serves others from within the Church --- whether or not the vocation is technically an "ecclesial" vocation or not. Canonical standing emphasizes the place of mutual discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, and the necessity for regular spiritual direction and participation in the sacramental life of the church. It does not allow one to substitute license for genuine freedom. It stresses the need for a Rule, a vision of how one is to live the life and a commitment which binds in conscience and as well as in law, and which affirms what is foundational and what is not. Lay (non-canonical) eremitical life reminds hermits of the roots of eremitical vocations in the life of the Church, the profound prophetic character of hermit vocations as typified by the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and others throughout the history of the Western church. These two forms of solitary eremitical existence should be in conversation with one another, NOT in competition.

 There are temptations associated with each form of eremitical life. For instance, it is true that canonical standing can lead to the temptation to consider canonical hermits as "better" hermits than non-canonical hermits. This particular temptation needs to be assiduously eschewed and that may require one learning to see oneself merely as called to one valid form of eremitical life rather than another equally valid form. If one has a problem with pride, for example, then perhaps that is a good reason for one's diocese to require one to live as a hermit without the benefit of canonical standing until one appreciates the way God works in and through lay or non-canonical hermits. Even so, the conversations I have recently had remind me that non-canonical hermits can easily fall into the same trap -- that is, they can easily believe they are "better" hermits than canonical hermits because, for instance, they are more like the Desert Abbas and Ammas who did not have (and of course could not have had!!) canonical standing (institutional standing and support in law), or are (supposedly)  "smaller," or "more humble," or more "hidden."

But to get back to your questions and what I began this post with, namely, an understanding of humility, in all of this we need to recognize that real humility does not engage in such a competitive way of characterization and discourse. Real humility recognizes that both canonical and non-canonical eremitical life can be rooted in the call of God;  though they differ in their relative canonical rights and obligations, both have all the dignity and importance of true vocations of God and both can reveal the tremendous diversity and freedom of eremitical life.

Becoming a Catholic Hermit: Canon 603 and the question of "other institutes"

[[Dear Sister, I have read the Catechism's paragraphs on eremitical life and canon 603. Where do I find the Church's other institutes on the eremitical life? I am asking because of the following statement in the Catholic Hermit blog: [[There are older posts that I've written in detail as to the Roman Catholic Church's institutes on the eremitic life--briefly stated in 920-921 of The Cathechism (sic) of the Catholic Church and further addition in the briefly stated CL 603.]] This was part of an article on becoming a Catholic Hermit, a kind of how-to article --- though I honestly don't think she really answers the question. Can I ask you the same question someone asked the other hermit, how does one become a Catholic hermit? Where do I find these other institutes on the eremitic life? No one I have asked seems to know. Do they refer to using private vows?. . .]]

Thank you for the question. And thanks too for your patience. I know it has been several weeks since you first wrote me. One term which seems to have been misunderstood by the writer you are referencing when she read canon 603 is "institutes". Unfortunately that misunderstanding has, in part, caused her to misinterpret the nature of canon 603 per se and some other things essential to understanding the Church's approach to contemporary eremitical life. It was a fatal misunderstanding so let me start with the term "institutes." Please understand this is important if one is to really answer the question, "How does one become a Catholic Hermit"?

A fatal Misunderstanding:

In the above cited sentence and in other similar blog pieces, "institutes" seems to mean a body of ordinances, laws, and norms other than the content of paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) or c 603 of the revised Code of canon Law (CJC). This usage is sometimes found sprinkled variously throughout non-Catholic ecclesial groups (thus The Institutes of Calvin, for instance) but the Roman Catholic Church does not use the term in this sense. Instead, in canon law and elsewhere it refers to any and all societies of consecrated life as institutes. Thus when canon 603 says, "Besides institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life. . ." she means "Besides societies of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the (solitary) eremitic or anchoritic life. . ."  Canon 603 is universal in scope, that is, it applies to the entire Church; it is the only law or set of norms which specifically apply to eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church except for the proper law of Institutes of Consecrated Life which are canonically established societies under the canons appropriate for all canonical religious congregations.

Excursus: Proper law is law which does not apply to the entire Church; it is not universal. All communities, congregations, Orders, Confederations, etc have their own proper Law, namely, Constitutions and Statutes which are approved by the Church (by Bishops or the Holy See) and pertains or is PROPER to them alone. For that matter, the c 603 hermit composes a Rule which is approved by the Church and constitutes the hermit's own "proper law". (Meanwhile, in order not to have to type or otherwise explain the important canonical and other distinctions between these Orders, congregations, communities, societies, etc., --- these various groups of religious, et al, --- the Church simply refers to all and each of these as "institutes" of consecrated life.) End Excursus.

To reiterate, canon 603 reads, "Besides institutes of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitical or anchorite [form of] life. . ." and means simply that besides Institutes of Consecrated Life (including Orders like the Camaldolese Benedictines, the Carthusians, and the Carmelites which are either composed of hermits or allow explicitly for hermits in their Proper Law the Church recognizes and provides for in Universal (canon) Law the [solitary] eremitical or anchoritic life. The meaning of the term "institutes" in this context does not refer to other sets of laws, ordinances, statutes, or norms besides the canon recognizing and providing for eremitical life under canon 603! It means societies of consecrated life not sets of norms in addition to canon 603, especially which predate canon 603.

So why is this important? Why does it matter that canon 603 is not one canon on the eremitical life among many other ordinances or statutes, for instance? It matters because unlike the paragraphs of the Catechism which describe in summary fashion something that is true in the Catholic Church, Canon 603 "recognizes" and establishes in law for the first time in universal or Canon law the eremitical life lived under the authority and in the name of the Church. This canon is somewhat analogous to what are referred to as speech acts, acts of performative language which make real what they say. Canon 603 recognizes, establishes, defines (meaning it sets the content and limits of this reality right here and right now) and makes real in universal law and Catholic life something which has never before existed in the Church, namely the possibility of a solitary person living eremitical life in the consecrated state (or in a "state of perfection" to use Bp Remi De Roo's original and older language) apart from membership in an institute of consecrated life --- AND to do so in the name of the Church. In other words, with Canon 603 the Church has broadened the category of "religious" to include THESE professed and consecrated hermits. It does so with and in THIS Canon and NOWHERE ELSE. (cf Handbook on Canons 573-746 for observation on the term "religious")

Most of the time we read the canon and attend to the central elements it includes. This is critical, of course; we need to know how the canon defines eremitical life in this paradigmatic norm. But we must also attend to what it makes real for the first time in universal law and to the fact that it acts by making something real in the entire Roman (or Western) Church, as I said above, the possibility of living solitary eremitical life in the consecrated state as well as in the name of the Church. In this it is absolutely new and unique.

Canon 603 does not "briefly state" the contents of "other institutes" on the eremitical life. It is not a summary or an added "proviso," as the author of the blog you cited has sometimes asserted. There are no other institutes except in the sense c 603 uses the term. Canon 603 especially then does not simply add a few additional conditions or options for more structure or provisions for those who like these kinds of things (public vows with public rights and obligations, legitimate superiors, "temporal involvement") instead of the purely "spiritual" concerns of most hermits whom, "the Lord prefers to keep. . .more to himself" --- as the author cited has also written. Canon 603 is the norm which makes real in ecclesiastical law the vocation of solitary Catholic Hermit. Moreover, it is universal; it is the way solitary hermits become Catholic Hermits in every diocese in the Roman Catholic Church. Again, there is no other way nor has there ever been. 

Becoming a Catholic Hermit:

As you will find I have said before, the term Catholic Hermit does not merely mean one who is Catholic and a hermit. It has a more technical or specific meaning than that. It means one who has publicly been entrusted by the Church with and embraced through vows (or other sacred bonds) the rights and obligations associated with living the eremitical life in the name of the Roman Catholic Church. This occurs through public profession and consecration whether this occurs as a member of an institute of consecrated life (Camaldolese, Carthusian, etc) making profession in the hands of a legitimate superior of this congregation or as a solitary hermit making profession in the hands of the local bishop under canon 603. There are no other ways to become a Catholic Hermit.

In other words, to become a consecrated Catholic hermit one either goes through the steps to enter and become formed and definitively professed in a canonical community of hermits or one works with one's diocese to discern and be admitted to profession (public vows) as a diocesan (canon 603) hermit. If one chooses the first option the community will supervise the candidate's admission process, formation, discernment throughout, eventual admission to temporary profession and, after a number of years, admission to perpetual or solemn profession. In either/any case one does NOT become a Catholic hermit via private vows and self-"consecration"  (dedication!). In contrast to private vows, both options described above are canonical forms of life and require mutual discernment (representatives of the church and the candidate discern together) as well as public profession and consecration. You can find other posts in this blog which address times frames, preparation at various stages, discernment, and so forth, in other posts; please check the labels in the right hand column.

 Regarding private vows, let me reiterate here that these represent significant acts of self-dedication. As you will note in other posts here, I have said that we do not refer to private vows as an act of profession because they do not initiate one into the consecrated state of life nor, therefore, do they involve extending or embracing the public rights and obligations associated with initiation into the consecrated state of life. This includes identifying oneself as a Catholic hermit, which means one publicly professed and commissioned to live this life in the name of the Church. As a way of underscoring this those writing on this topic note that even when one has been finally professed and consecrated and then seeks to have their vows dispensed, while they remain consecrated (consecration per se cannot be undone) they are no longer in the consecrated state of life. Neither can they call themselves "religious" or a "consecrated hermit", for instance. This is because dispensation from public vows means release from the public bonds, rights, and obligations that constitute the heart of what the Church refers to as a stable state of life.

Private vows, significant as they are in their own way, are still entirely private acts that do not change one's state of life or involve ecclesial rights and obligations beyond those conferred with baptism. I stress this first because the author of the Catholic Hermit blog consistently ignores, or misconstrues and misrepresents this fact. Secondly, that is important because you are (or were) reading her blog while you are discerning whether you have an eremitical vocation; as you continue this discernment, and if you believe you are called to eremitical life, you will also need to determine whether that will be as a Catholic Hermit living this life in the name of the Church (a discernment you must undertake with Chancery staff) or with private vows (or no vows at all beyond your baptismal commitment --- something which is also possible).

Whichever direction you choose (should you discern you are called to eremitical life) know that it has its own value and witness. If you choose private commitment to God in this vocation know that the history of the eremitical vocation in the Church has mainly been typified by such expressions. The Desert Fathers and Mothers were not only privately committed (there was no other option then), they chose the desert vocation because they were critical of the Church being co-opted by the State. Throughout the centuries the vocation has had a storied number of prophets, saints, holy men and women who revealed the compassion of the Gospel and the truth of a God who meets us in our weakness to allow that weakness to be transfigured to glorify and reveal the power of God. If you feel called to public profession either in an institute or as a solitary hermit under c 603 know that you are seeking to stand in this same tradition but now, are proposing to do so in the name of the Church --- a significant responsibility and calling which underscores the gift of God this vocation is to the Church and through the mediation of the Church, to the whole world.

Mr Toad's Wild Ride

 [[Dear Sister Laurel, I think "joyful hermit" is challenging what you have written about Catholic Hermits in her recent post on becoming a Catholic hermit. But she has the following in her post and I am left confused by it: [[I have written about this process previously, but the basics may be found in The Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Institutes of the Church.  I am posting the requirements which are also, for those in the United States, on the website of the United States Council of Bishops.]] What are the Institutes of the Church? For that matter, what is the United States Council of Bishops? My biggest questions, however are why doesn't joyful hermit mention Canon Law and why does she call canon 603 a "recent proviso"?]] (cf: catholic hermit/how-to-become-catholic-hermit)

Well, Ms McClure is entirely free to challenge what I have written. I have a public blog and that means folks may disagree. At the same time she will recognize that her similarly public challenge  may raise questions and require a response. Personally the way she has argued, and continued to argue over the years makes me think of Mr Toad's attempts to drive a car. Ultimately it could be disastrous for herself, for the solitary consecrated eremitical vocation, and for any who pin their vocational hopes on her mistake-riddled position.

So, regarding your questions --- and let me make it clear that a number of people have raised the same significant questions with regard to this poster over the past years, some of them badly misled and disappointed in the process of following what she has written about becoming a Catholic Hermit ---  first of all, there is no such thing as the Institutes of the [Catholic] Church if by this one means a set of norms or guidelines called "institutes". They do not exist. As I understand it, once upon a time the author of the blog you referenced misread canon 603 and instead of citing it properly as [[Besides institutes of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitical or anchoritic life (Praeter vitae consecratae instituta)]] --- which means, "besides societies (Orders, Congregations, or communities) of consecrated life in canon 603 the Church recognizes solitary eremitical or anchoritic life" --- Ms McClure wrote instead, [[ In addition to THE institutes of consecrated life. . .]] and from there decided this referred to a set of norms besides (and apparently equal to and older than) those of canon law (or at least canon 603). 

Pretty much it has all been downhill from there and joyful has built an entire theory of how things work with regard to the Church's theology of consecrated life based on this misquote and a couple of other misinterpretations of paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In some ways this misquote drove the other misunderstandings.  In others it was a central piece of an ever-deepening and misleading feedback loop. Amazing what havoc the mistaken addition of a definite article can wreak!

Meanwhile, the implications of Ms McClure's misquote is the truth that while the rest of the Church recognizes the Code of Canon Law as the Church's universal law, Ms McClure (joyful hermit) apparently truly believes there is another code or set of norms which is equal to or has priority over canon law and which is called the "Institutes of the [Catholic] Church". This is the reason she can call canon 603 a "recent proviso" (meaning a conditional reality attached to something else) rather than regarding it as the law of the Church with regard to solitary consecrated Catholic Hermits. She gives priority to the supposed but fictional "Institutes" and treats the 1983 canon 603 as an alternative or conditional reality added to these. It also seems that she means these Institutes which are suppposedly written earlier than canon 603 is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was not published until 1994. Thus, she writes:

[[Canon Law 603, while more recent, is a viable, additional provision to the institutes of the Church per consecrated, eremitic life, for the Catholic man or woman discerning and/or called by God to the consecrated life of the Church as an eremitic.  For some bishops and hermits, it may be a preferred provision for various reasons, not mentioned here.]]  (Emboldening added)

But in this Ms McClure is ignoring or otherwise disregarding both the entire history of canon 603 and its significance and uniqueness. Namely, there is NO OTHER Canon on eremitical life in the Church's universal law regulating or establishing. There was none in the 1917 Code. Hermits were not mentioned. C 603 is entirely new and came from the work of Church Fathers who at Vatican II decried the lack of such legislation regarding the eremitical vocation. Consecrated vocations to solitary eremitical life MUST be consecrated according to canon 603; there is NO OTHER option in the Roman Catholic Church. If Ms McClure or other readers take(s) nothing else from this post she or they need to remember the CCC was written and published 11 years AFTER THE Revised Code of Canon Law; it CANNOT be "The Institutes" c 603 was supposedly written "in addition to" nor is the 1983 c 603 a "more recent" "additional proviso" to the 1994 Catechism paragraphs on the consecrated life.

Because Ms McClure reads the CCC in the way she does and believes it is some other normative source of law, she can and does disregard Canon Law and treats canon 603 as something some Bishops may simply prefer to something else. (Except for preferring that people make entirely private commitments in the lay state, for instance, and refusing to consecrate solitary hermits under c 603 at all, there is no option here. Bishops can't prefer some other way of consecrating solitary hermits because there isn't any other way; for Pope, Bishops, and everyone else in the Church c 603 is simply the law with regard to consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic church).

Too, because her entire position is built on the quicksand of her original misquote ("THE Institutes") and on a reading of paragraphs 920-921 of the CCC which wrests them from their essential literary, historical, ecclesial, and theological contexts Ms McClure's arguments lack cogency and her positions are groundless distortions of the truth; they cut the heart out of the vocation as ecclesial and in its place substitute an extreme  individualism --- the very antithesis of what the Church calls eremitical solitude. To then treat the CCC as though it has the legislative force of  the Code of Canon Law or is part of an entirely fictional "Institutes of the [Catholic] Church" which pre-date the revised Code is to have gone off the rails altogether --- just as Mr Toad did. My real concern is that she will lead others into the same individualistic ditch she has driven herself. When that happens the pain associated with being taken in in this way and then disabused of their delusion by pastors, chancery personnel, and even other parishioners would be likely to be significant no matter how tactfully done.

 Summary:

Ms McClure's posts on c 603 raise the following questions which, unless they can be adequately answered, point to the incoherence of her position.

1) Why does she translate c 603.1 as "In addition to THE institutes of consecrated life" rather than as "Besides institutes of consecrated life" (meaning besides societies of consecrated life) as given in the official English translation and in the original Latin?

2) If she continues to insist on the definite article in her translation I wonder why that is. Also what are these other "institutes" she refers to if not societies of consecrated life? Are they the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

3) Especially, does she mean these "institutes" are the CCC paragraphs 914-933 on consecrated life? I ask because this is the only other source she cites and she seems to give priority to it.

4) But if this is so then how can she speak of a 1983 canon which pre-dates these 1994 paragraphs as a "more recent" or an "additional proviso"? Canon 603 is 11 years older than the paragraphs of the CCC on consecrated life or par 920-921 on consecrated eremitical life and has historical as well as legislative or normative priority.

5) Since the 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated with the promulgation of the 1983 Revised Code and since it did not refer to eremitical life in any case Ms McClure (aka Joyful Hermit, The Complete Hermit, Catholic Hermit, cannot mean this earlier Code represents these "institutes" can she?

Postscript: There is no US Council of Bishops. We have the USCCB, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. That is the only organization I believe Ms McClure can be referring to.

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.

The Paradox of Canon 603: Structure in the Service of Life With and In God Alone

[[Dear Sister, because you are professed under a Bishop does this make you a kind of quasi religious order? Does a lay hermit have to go more their own way than a canonical hermit or do they have to do without a "middleman" like you have? Is it more a matter of launching into the unknown than with the canonical hermit?]]

Thanks for the questions. I think I know what you are trying to ask with the second and third questions but let me suggest that the answers you are seeking (and the questions you are asking in these) are a bit too black and white, too desirous of a yes or no response. Back to those in a moment.

The answer to your first question, however, is no, diocesan hermits are not some sort of a quasi religious order constituted by Bishop and hermit. They are simply religious and represent a change in the way that term is used in the Roman Catholic Church precisely because they do NOT belong (via public profession) to an Order or congregation. One of the reasons I use the term "solitary eremitical life" to describe this (and one of the reasons the Church herself uses it more and more in profession formulas of diocesan hermits) is to indicate that it is NOT a matter of belonging to or constituting a religious order, quasi or otherwise. While the Bishop is my legitimate superior and while my delegate (or any delegate really) serves in a capacity as the hermit's superior or quasi superior on both the hermit's behalf and that of the diocese, and while my vocation is both profoundly and formally ecclesial, I remain a solitary hermit whose eremitical course is charted in the dialogue between myself and God alone.

The paradox here is real and acute. Of course both my Bishop and my delegate (as well as Vicars for Religious, et al) are privileged to share in some parts of that dialogue and are responsible for keeping their fingers on the pulse of my vocation just as I am responsible to listen carefully to them, but generally there is nothing intrusive, presumptive, or overbearing in their place in this dialogue. They are actually called to and responsible for mediating God's own call as well as my own response, but for that very reason, as I understand the term anyway,  they are not "middlemen" in my relationship with God --- no more than, for instance, my pastor proclaiming the Word of God is some sort of middleman between me and that same Word. In any case, despite some overlap in common usage, I think there is a far more significant difference between a mediator and a middleman in these cases so I don't accept its use here.

This anticipates your second question. What gives me pause there  is precisely the use of the term "middleman" which makes it sound as though the vocation is not also and always a matter of what happens between the hermit and God alone. But perhaps your usage here is a consequence of my recent stress on the ecclesial and normative nature of the vocation. If so let me clarify the picture a little. While the reality of ecclesial mediation is a strong one in terms of the call to an ecclesial vocation, that does not detract from the fact that very much like the lay hermit the essence of the canonical hermit's life is the dialogue that occurs between herself and God alone. There is a paradox here, an emphasis on both/and rather than on either/or.

It is a bit like  the dynamics of spiritual direction where part of the director's primary obligation is to stay out of the Holy Spirit's way;  the Spirit, after all, is the "real" director! The spiritual director may assist a directee in her own hearkening to the Spirit in her life and will actually mediate or participate in the mediation of God's word to the directee --- even, and often especially, in her silence and listening --- but in doing this she gives the Spirit the sacred space to work! The Church mediates the call (and the hermit's definitive response) to an ecclesial vocation but at the same time this means her job is to allow God to be the source, ground, and goal of this vocation --- and therefore, to give God space to work in both the hermit's life and in her own as well! To the degree the director or superior, for instance, do this they will truly mediate God's own voice to the hermit. After all, they are not merely reporting what God says to them --- as, on the other hand, a middleman  might. Except in the most general sense they are unlikely even to know what God is saying/doing in the hermit's life at this particular moment! But of course, that is not their responsibility. Instead they are mediators and the hermit listens to the God who comes to her and to all of us in this or similar ways.

You see, with regard to your third question, every hermit's life is a matter of launching out into the unknown --- or rather, into the infinitely mysterious depths of life in God. But no one can do this without some degree of structure and/or established context. No one can do this without significant help charting and navigating their course. No one --- not even the truest mystic (and maybe especially the true mystic!) --- can do it without the mediation of the Church and her people! What canonical standing does is create a stable and legal context for this journey or voyage where shipwreck can be avoided, whether it occurs in the deep waters of contemplative prayer, is occasioned by the seduction of sirens we all too-easily mistake for the voice of God, or is (the far more likely) foundering that regularly occurs in the doldrums or on the shoals of the journey.

Because every true eremitical call is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church intended for the praise of God and the salvation of others the entire Church has a stake in each one. In and with her canonical vocations she will signal to everyone the place of the church in supporting, nurturing, and governing all eremitical vocations. The Church similarly signals especially to all hermits (both non-canonical and canonical)  that the eremitical vocation is not a way simply to do your own thing or to validate mere eccentricity --- including "spiritual" eccentricity! This is particularly important in an age seemingly ruled by individualism and even narcissism. While she does this by means of canonical standing more generally she also does so in terms of and by the existence of canon 603 itself.

Canon 603 is Normative of the Eremitical Life in the Church for ALL hermits:

Remember that the first part of this canon applies to every hermit in the Church because it defines the Church's own vision of the shape of this particular (eremitical) journey into God --- the dimensions of it, that is, that she can see and which are necessary on the part of ANY person claiming to be a serious voyager in this eremitical way: assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from those things which are resistant to Christ as well as some very good aspects of God's own good creation, the silence of solitude, a Rule or Plan of Life, the evangelical counsels, and a healthy life within the Church itself. While not every hermit will be given (nor desire or petition for) standing in law, canon 603 signals that eremitical vocations are genuinely inspired or charismatic realities in our contemporary day and age and further, that every authentic Christian eremitical vocation will be shaped accordingly and be an ecclesial reality in at least the most general sense of that term. 

What I mean is that, each one, when authentic, will be lived within the Church, be nourished by her Sacra-mental life, be fed by her Word, be sensitive to and participate to some degree or way in her missionary and evangelizing impulse (which, after all, is the very impulse of God!), and finally, CAN only exist in relation to and with the "assembly of called ones" the church is. At the same time each authentic eremitical life will involve a launching out into the unknown or at least the unplumbed depths of life in and with God.

This is, in fact, what canon 603 makes possible for both canonical and lay hermits simply by its existence within the Church! Again, it is the freedom the constraints of this canon permit whether de jure or simply de facto, that is, whether the hermit exists in law or simply in fact. What is up to every authentic hermit, non-canonical or canonical is that they allow themselves to live out both parts of this paradox in the way God calls them to. In other words, whether she is canonical or non-canonical, every hermit sharing in the vision of authentic eremitical or anchoritic life the Church has actually codified in canon 603 will also share in the this-worldly dimensions of the Church that allow such a voyage into the depths of God to be more safely made and the delusions and illusions so common to some "spiritualities" to be avoided. Neither is called to "go their own way" but rather God's --- and both are called to do so according to the vision and understanding of eremitical life the Church has codified in canon 603.

Diocesan Hermits as Hothouse Blooms?

You may remember that once I wrote a post contending with the assertion that canonical hermits were "hot house blooms" nurtured and cultivated while non-canonical hermits were wild roses trying to survive on their own without assistance, etc. In that post I listed the similarities that exist between non-canonical and canonical hermits. It might be a good idea to link you to that post here for a discussion which also takes into account the difficulties of living as a lay or non-canonical hermit but paves the way for this post as well. (Thus please see: Diocesan Hermits as Hothouse Blooms?)

On the Reservation of Eucharist by Hermits

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I saw a "privately professed and consecrated" hermit's video on YouTube. Is it true that non-canonical hermits can have tabernacles and reserve the Eucharist in their own places and that Bishops have allowed it? . . . Can I get permission as a lay hermit or can I move where it is allowed? ]] (Redacted: often-asked questions were omitted)

I would be VERY surprised to hear that ANY Bishop(s) has or have allowed non-canonical hermits to do this; to be perfectly frank, I think this person may have some (or all) of her facts wrong or even be simply making something up to justify (or obscure) what the Church would consider a seriously illicit matter. It is unusual in the extreme to allow any individual to reserve Eucharist in his/her own home; when this happens it is done as an extension of canon 934  for canonical hermits and consecrated virgins ONLY because of the nature of their vocations and standing in law.

Even so, it is not done automatically. One's own Bishop MUST give permission according to the requirements of canon law and with appropriate supervision. In the situations you refer to I think one would have to ask why a Bishop would allow this for a lay person if he is also unwilling to admit them to profession as a canon 603 hermit where they assume the necessary legal and moral rights and obligations associated with such permission. (By the way, if the person has freely chosen not to become a canonical hermit, then they have also chosen to forego the rights and obligations or responsibilities associated with this standing in law, and this will include the possibility of reservation of Eucharist in their own hermitage.) Once again we are faced with the reality that canonical standing under canon 603 is associated with rights AND obligations which hermits and Bishops honor. In light of this I have to say that this lay hermit's assertions simply do not compute for me.

Further, in such practice there is tension between the Church's theology of the reserved Eucharist and the necessary connection with the ACT of consecration which must be adequately preserved or honored. What I mean by this is that we are aware of Christ becoming present in the proclaimed Word, in the praying assembly (who also give themselves to God and are in turn consecrated by God to be freely broken and poured out for others) and in the presiding priest, as well as in the consecration of bread and wine during Mass. The Presence of Christ is always a living, dynamic reality realized in relationship and in the community's celebration of the Gospel. With the disciples on the road to Emmaus we recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread because he becomes truly present in the breaking of the bread and all that implies. Reservation of Eucharist (which is primarily meant to nourish the sick and isolated who cannot attend physically with the fruits of communal worship and belonging) is never to become detached from an integral connection with this communal event; there is some danger that it will, especially when individuals are allowed to have tabernacles in their own places. (Actually this is a significant danger wherever the reserved Eucharist is seen as somehow separated from the Eucharistic celebration.) Canonical hermits and consecrated Virgins are usually aware of this danger and are generally significantly attuned to the ecclesiality of their vocations. However it becomes especially acute and may cross the line into actual sacrilege particularly when the reservation is undertaken without permission or oversight as an individualistic or privatistic act.

Certain cautions are taken by the church to be sure this does not happen when the extensions (to CV's and Canonical hermits) mentioned above are made: 1) Mass is ordinarily said at least occasionally at the place of reservation (Canon law prefers twice monthly), or 2) when this is not possible (and it is often not) reserved hosts are regularly refreshed after a Eucharistic celebration with the parish community so that the integral connection to Mass itself and the local community of faith is clearly maintained. (We speak of the Real Presence remaining so long as the elements retain the "sensible qualities" of bread and wine and are unadulterated; in a similar way perhaps (just a thought) we have to think of the Real Presence remaining only so long as there is a living or vital connection with the celebration of Mass itself); this practice also helps maintain the hermit's connection with the specific commission given at the end of Mass, 3) only those who are answerable in law to ecclesiastical superiors (those who have responded to the call to ecclesial vocations) are allowed to reserve the Eucharist and must to do so according to the requirements of canon law (cc 934-941). Otherwise, it is simply too easy for people to slip into superstitious, individualistic devotional, or otherwise irreverent practices, not to mention bad or distorted theologies of the Eucharist and Eucharistic spirituality.

Personally, I would discourage you from even thinking about looking for a Bishop who allows such things as a lay hermit reserving Eucharist in her own home --- not least because I honestly doubt they exist any more than Bishops exist who allow lay persons generally to take Eucharist home with them for reservation no matter how personally reverent or pious these persons are. (Remember that even for EEMs bringing Eucharist to those who are sick, guidelines generally prohibit or strongly discourage stops between the Mass and the home being visited as well as they tend to prohibit taking the Eucharist home with one. Unless one is doing so for a sick family member this would ordinarily be a violation of the trust placed in one when one was commissioned as a minister to the sick and could itself rise to the level of sacrilege. Such actions tend to break or trivialize the integral connection with the communal celebration of the Eucharist and the commission to go forth which concludes the Mass.)

Moving to another diocese seems an even worse idea to me and is certainly something I would discourage. You would do far better developing a strong and sound Eucharistic spirituality within the limits which apply to you in the Church. Remember too that lay hermits generally are self-described and there is nothing preventing any person living alone from calling themselves a lay hermit. While I do not necessarily mean that you fall into that category, you must realize that there is nothing at all that assures the Church of the nature and quality of what is purported to be an eremitical life, the silence of solitude which is characteristic of such a life, the soundness of the spirituality, theology, prayer life, etc of a privately dedicated self-described hermit.

This might well be problematical sometimes even with diocesan hermits but at least with canonical hermits there is a Rule of Life they are legally as well as morally responsible for honoring and that necessarily entails regular meetings with directors and delegates as well as their Bishop. The canonical hermit is publicly responsible for living out her canonical commitments and the tensions between physical solitude and community which are part of the life; her canonical commitments reflect, specify, and nurture her ecclesiality. While no one can see into the hermitage (that is, Religious in community are more aware of the lives of those living with them than friends and neighbors of hermits), regular contact with those helping supervise her life serves to help ensure she is responsive or obedient to these commitments with a care which is edifying to the whole church. More importantly, unless one has in some way been publicly commissioned by the Church in a way which makes (or seeks to make) reservation of the Eucharist in one's own hermitage a true extension of the Church's worship one will, by definition, be abusing matters and betraying the very nature of Eucharist. The bottom line is that Eucharist, including Eucharist reserved in tabernacles, is not an individualistic devotional but always and everywhere a communal reality --- even (or especially!) in the solitude of a hermit's cell where it constantly reminds her of the ecclesial nature of her vocation. Canon Law and various guidelines are meant to ensure this is maintained and honored.

On the Use of the term "Vowed"

[[Sister Laurel, Why is the term "vowed" usually reserved for those with public or canonical vows? Do you mean to say that these are better than private vows?]]

The simple reason is that in the Roman Catholic Church, except for the act of consecration of a consecrated virgin which is unaccompanied by vows, or the consecration of the relative minority of diocesan hermits who choose sacred bonds other than vows, only public vows received by the Church and accompanied by the prayer of consecration during the rite of religious profession initiate a person into the consecrated state, a new and stable state of life. (As noted diocesan or c 603 hermits provide an exception here in some cases because the Canon allows for "public profession confirmed by vow or other sacred bond," but again, this would be an exception to the rule while it still involves public profession and is accompanied by the prayer of consecration. In a general way it would be considered a vowed life even with other sacred bonds.)  Private vows do not do what public vows do, nor do they bind in law in the same way. Thus we refer to the vowed life, the vowed state, or, within true religious communities, the vowed members, and when we do so we normally mean the publicly or canonically vowed.

In drawing the distinctions I have I absolutely do NOT mean that public vows are better than private vows, but they are different in the rights and responsibilities attached and, as just outlined, the state of life they help initiate a person into. As I wrote recently on another matter, diocesan hermits are specifically professed under Canon 603 but this is not the only Canon which binds in law and in conscience once the hermit is professed. A lay hermit may privately vow poverty and chastity (and if they can do so reasonably with someone who will act as director or superior --- an unlikely proposition --- obedience), but in so doing she is not bound in law to either Canon 603 or any of the other appropriate Canons which bind the diocesan hermit. Private vows do not bind in law in the same way as public vows. So, not better but different.


In a similar way, people have the right to certain NECESSARY expectations of the publicly professed person as someone who has professed an ecclesial vocation which they actually do not have with privately professed persons. They have the right to expect, among other things, that the Church herself was really, officially, and formally part of discerning and mediating this vocation, that the person acts in the church's name in living it out, that she is competent to commit to doing so for the whole of her life, that she may be approached as someone who represents the vocation with integrity and transparency, and so forth. They have the right to expect that, in some substantial way they can call on in need, she lives her life for them as she would for her own family, for instance. Thus too the public rights/privilege to title and habit, post-nomial initials, etc which are meant to serve as signs of these rights and responsibilities, and which are symbols of the state of life itself.

This, as I have written before, emphatically does not mean the lay hermit who makes private vows (or no vows at all!), for instance, has a second class vocation, or that she does not live the eremitical life every bit as well as the diocesan hermit, but it does mean that people do NOT have the right to necessarily expect of her what they may necessarily expect from a diocesan hermit. This includes that hermit being bound by and meeting the obligations of ALL of the Canons --- and thus to all of the canonical relationships which apply to consecrated life for the WHOLE (length, breadth, and depth) of her life. What applies to this illustration with hermits is true with regard to public vs private profession more generally. Again, not better, but different.

One of the reasons I am emphatic that people must be clear whether they are publicly or privately professed is that in the former case God's own call has been mediated to the person, and their response received (not merely witnessed) in a way which creates both moral and legal rights, responsibilities, and necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church. To summarize then, in general we use "vowed" to reference not just the obligations and responsibilities legally and morally assumed by the person professed, but to an entire constellation of rights and necessary expectations which people have a right to hold with regard to the one who is professed/consecrated and related to the People of God in this new and public way. Private vows neither bind nor obligate in the same way, nor allow for the same expectations. It is for this reason we ordinarily do not refer to these persons as "vowed." In other words, private vows are certainly personally binding, but not publicly so. It is a very large difference and for that reason we ordinarily reserve the term "vowed" for the latter.

cf also: Ecclesial vocations --- a matter of stable relationships for more on the stable relationships comprising the heart of canonical standing.

Were the Hermit Intercessors Religious?

[[Dearest Sr Laurel, The 56 didn't stay in a motel. They were in a Benedictine Retreat House. Now they were somewhere in Iowa [if i am not mistaken] and they'll be moving to Blair, NE, in a former campus dormitory. I feel that you're (sic) post lacks compassion for these former hermits. You seem to forget that they were in a religious community. You seem to attack even the obedient hermits {okay call them metaphorical hermits] by telling them they were never religious. This alone creates confusion. Some may even think they are deceiving people even from the start. Some may think they are fake brothers and sisters.

Now in your recent post, it seems that you discourage people to donate to the destitute former intercessors although you have clarified this at the end of your post. Yes they are part of the laity now, so they mustn't receive any support now? But they were in a religious community before, took vows of poverty and now they have nothing. Some of them are old now and have no family to return to. So, because they are laity they must be sent to charity homes for the aged? Some of them left their jobs because they entered "Religious life" so, they must be sent back to the world again because they are laity and we must not care for them now from now on? There's a great possibility that they'll be founding another community. Fr. Baxter has said that.]]

Thank you for the corrections regarding the motel, and the note on the dormitory. I have made the appropriate correction in the original post. I haven't seen where the former HIOL has published anything yet on this latter issue outside their request for money and their comment that it is difficult finding a place large enough for 50 plus people, so thank you for this information. I am sorry my last post seemed to lack compassion. There is no doubt the plea for longterm corporate assistance did not sit well with me. Because of that, and because they are pertinent, I should correct you on a couple of points. First, I do indeed discourage people from contributing to the support of the former HIOL as a group or "community", especially without demanding a good deal more transparency and clarity before doing so not only on the part of the former HIOL group of 56, but of the IOL, Inc. Secondly, and especially important, however, is the simple fact that the HIOL were never religious. I am not the source of confusion here, nor am I attacking anyone in clarifying their canonical status. Certainly there is nothing wrong with being a member of the laity (i.e., lay STATE in the vocational sense). Neither should it be seen to be an attack or somehow demeaning in pointing out that someone was a member of the lay state rather than the consecrated state.


So again, the HIOL were members of a Public Association of the Faithful. They did not have canonical (public) vows, were not members of an institute of consecrated life, and their vows, though made in good faith and a serious personal commitment, could be simply dispensed at any time by their pastor or bishop, and without the canonical process of public vows. It is not simply that they are NOW lay persons; they have been lay persons right along (and not merely in the hierarchical sense of that term which applies to non-clerics, but in the vocational sense which distinguishes between lay, ordained, and consecrated faithful). As I noted earlier, they were allowed the use of habits and titles AS THEY DISCERNED with the Church whether or not they would ever become an institute of consecrated life and be admitted to the consecrated state of life, but that eventuality was NEVER assured.

None of this means people should not contribute to them if they choose but simply that they should be clear the HIOL were not religious. Neither does this necessarily point to deception or pretense (although I personally find continuing references to "vowed members" as opposed to other lay members somewhat and perhaps purposely unclear (or maybe just confused) since ANY lay person may make private vows at any time which have the same gravity as those of any HIOL; further, they may do so do so on their own initiative without mutual discernment, permission from anyone, or anyone actually receiving those vows. The term vowed is ordinarily reserved for those with PUBLIC or canonical vows because they are initiated into the consecrated state by their profession and have their entire lives PUBLICLY defined in these terms, something that private vows do not do. Again what all this means is not that HIOL vows were insignificant (they were quite significant) but instead that the members of the HIOL were not religious, and need to be VERY clear in the future about their identity and category of canonical standing especially when they request assistance. Perhaps it will help if I quote rather extensively here from a canonist who specializes in consecrated life to back up what I am saying.

[[Reasons Why Knowing the Canonical Status of a Community is Important

1. Only members of Diocesan-right or Pontifical-Right Religious Institutes are religious and enjoy the rights of religious and the obligations of religious. Vowed members of such Religious Institutes are in the consecrated state. The Intercessors of the Lamb, contrary to popular opinion, were NEVER a religious institute and its members were not in the consecrated state. “Consecrated” or vowed Members had some of the trappings of religious life: a habit, vows, chapel, statutes, etc., but they were not recognized in the Church as true religious. Why? Because they were in the more risky (to discerners) stage of being a Public Association of the Faithful.

While they had the intention and hope of eventually following some kind of consecrated lifestyle in a form approved by the Church, the Intercessors of the Lamb had the same status as any other Public Association of the Faithful (think Legion of Mary, Worldwide Marriage Encounter, etc.). A good percentage of Public Associations of the Faithful who wish to become a Religious Institute or evolve into a Secular Institute or a Society of Apostolic Life simply fold, fizzle out, are suppressed, or disintegrate for a variety of reasons. Oftentimes, it is because there are unhealthy practices within the community, shady financial practices, personality struggles, etc. The bottom line is that even people with vows in a Public Association of the Faithful remain lay (if non-ordained) because they are not in a Religious Institute.]] Therese Ivers, JCL, Diocese of Sioux Falls.

In fact, I believe that there has been some serious imprudence on the part of the lay board who was meant to govern the HIOL, and possibly on the part of the community's leadership as well. Any person who is discerning a vocation with an Association of the Faithful should realize that the position of the organization is tenuous as best. Even (and perhaps especially) in making private vows of poverty in such an organization there probably should be some sort of provision for members who must leave or who are left high and dry should the organization dissolve or be suppressed. I am not in the least suggesting the former HIOL were disobedient (nor, however, that obedience -- or cooperation with the Archbishop -- should be rewarded financially), but I think we must be clear on the nature of the group and ask some serious questions about the MORAL and possibly legal obligations of IOL, Inc, as well as the imprudence of being wholly unprepared to pick up the financial pieces in case of the group's failure --- especially if asking for assistance from the laity generally distracts from demanding IOL, Inc act responsibly and morally in their regard.

In saying this I am assuming that the HIOL were clear on the private nature of the vows they took, and clear on the risk attached to being part of a still-discerning Association of the Faithful. (If they were not the situation becomes even more serious and irregular.) And while I can understand they would ask for emergency assistance, I have been very surprised that they seriously appear to expect the laity to support them for an indefinite period, provide luxury items like cars, trucks, computers, printers, and the like, or that they have not considered that their current circumstances will seriously effect the way they have been able to live their lives --- just as it would when any Association of the Faithful fails for whatever reason. Thus, it is not that I don't want former HIOL's assisted financially per se --- especially as emergency assistance; what I want is the appropriate people doing that and in the most appropriate way (namely, individually not corporately) given the (now former) canonical status of the group.

Further, in pointing to what I consider a serious example of imprudence on the part of HIOL leadership or perhaps abdication of responsibility by the IOL,Inc (I don't know which is involved or if both are) I will refer to one warning sign put forth by another Canonist, Peter J Vere, JCL, MCL. It is taken from a list of warning signs used in evaluating new groups. Vere writes that discerners et al should be cautious regarding groups evidencing, [[5. [a premature] insistence on placing all goods in common: While the Church has a history of associations and religious orders in which members place all their goods in common, the decision to do so should come after a reasonable period of careful discernment. Placing one’s goods in common is not for everyone, and the consequences of such a decision are lifelong. Additionally, the potential for abuse by those who administer the common goods is great. Therefore, canonists frown upon any insistence by an association that its new or potential members place their goods in common.

Due to the fact that modern times see less stability in common life, with members sometimes opting to leave after a number of years, the most prudent handling of goods in common is to place them in trust until a member dies. That way, if the member leaves, the goods are available to meet his or her needs outside of the community.]] (Emphasis added)

The link to the rest of this article will be found on Therese Ivers' site, "Do I Have a Vocation?" (More than this this point may be applicable so people should definitely take a look at it!) Ivers is also planning a series on the HIOL/IOL, Inc and people really should stay tuned. Strictly canonical questions can be directed to her as well.

As far as forming another community goes, everyone needs to be clear that this will continue to be a (Lay) Association of the Faithful, and possibly a private association before it becomes a public association in the beginning. It will have no different standing in law than any other Association, and vows made by members will remain private vows unless and until the Archbishop erects the group as an Institute of Consecrated Life and admits members to public vows where they actually assume the RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CANONICAL VOWS. Remember that there are literally hundreds of such groups extant at this point. Most desire to be ICL's at some point and some are headed by persons who long to be "foundresses". Many have private vows but have not yet received permission to adopt the habit "on loan" against the day they are made ICL's -- nor will they ever.

Most dissolve or are told they cannot continue by their local ordinary because of all kinds of irregularities and eccentricities. Do they have a right to expect the laity of the Church to support them as groups (or even members individually) nonetheless? Do they have the right to expect the laity to support them while they start out? I don't think so. Emergency help (counseling, social workers, financial aid, etc) especially for those who are too elderly to work should be made available, but I do personally think that those who are elderly and/or incapable of working should apply for government assistance (just as those who ARE publicly (canonically) professed sometimes need and are expected to do when they age or become infirm --- for neither dioceses nor laity support these persons). Those who are capable of working should do so of course, just as any other lay person is expected to do --- even if they believe they are called to contemplative lives or even to lives of eremitical solitude --- again, just as those with canonical vows (including diocesan hermits) are required to do --- and absolutely as every other person in the Church with private vows must usually do when in need.

It is possible that the Church will need to rethink the wisdom and prudence of the custom (for it is only custom) of allowing Public Associations of the Faithful who wish to become Institutes of Consecrated Life (etc) to adopt habits and titles prematurely (say, before it is sure that a Bishop WILL erect the group as an ICL, etc), or make vows which give up all property or the right to such, etc, as a result of this situation. Habits and titles are properly associated with the assumption of public rights and responsibilities, and generally too, with initiation into the consecrated state (exceptions, for instance, include novices who are allowed to wear the habit of the institute as they prepare for profession because they do indeed have some rights within the congregation which candidates do not have. They signal this to the rest of the Church along with the fact that they are indeed immediately preparing for public profession by adopting modified religious garb (e.g., white veil, no ring or community emblem associated with final profession). The confusion that is being generated in this case amongst average church members, and in fact, which is being insisted on as truth (as in your own email to me) in order to justify assistance and so forth is significant and a matter for concern I think.