On Full-time Work and Terminology for Hermits

Dear Sister, I have included two quotes from Therese Iver's article on full time work for hermits in Full time Work for Hermits? In the first one I wondered if she means vows become invalid if a person starts working full time in case of need or if this only applies if the person is working full time when professed? Have there ever been cases where such vows were considered invalid? [[It is actually an abuse of the canon to profess individuals with employment outside the hermitage that isn’t done in solitude.   Further, because the canon must be followed in its entirety for a person to be a canonical hermit, either the vows are invalid in the case of a full-time worker in a normal job that isn’t done in strict solitude or the vow of obedience is being violated.]]

I have not spoken to Therese in regard to the article you cited but it seems clear she means that vows would be invalid if made while a person was working full time outside the hermitage and doing so in a non-solitary job. Validity is a matter of the patency of vows when made. Otherwise, as Therese says, the vows would be valid but, should circumstances change and the person begin working full time in a highly social job, she would then be violating her Rule (assuming it is adequately detailed in this regard) and her vow of obedience. I don't know if there have been cases where vows were determined to be invalid but there have definitely been cases where individuals working full time in highly social jobs at the time of  their profession were still professed under canon 603.

Those vows, I sincerely believe, should have been determined to be invalid. (I say that because it seems obvious to me that they should never have been allowed to have been made in the first place given the work situations and the lack of true eremitical experience that existed. Dioceses do not generally allow persons to make invalid vows, (or eremitical vows in these circumstances) nor should they.) Exceptions have occurred and they have raised serious questions among dioceses, diocesan hermits, and those who are interested in canon 603 vocations. Two of these are from the Archdiocese of Boston; another involves a hermit working full time as a social worker while a fourth involves a hermit canonist working for her diocese. The usual question is "How can one live an eremitical life and also work fulltime outside the hermitage?" Corollaries include, "How well-conceived is canon 603?" "Isn't it merely created for stopgap or fall back vocations to religious life?" and "What kinds of formation are required when a person can work full time and treat a contemplative prayer life in the silence of solitude as secondary?"

Since I believe c 603 is well-conceived --- though demanding in what it expects of candidates' and chanceries' knowledge of desert spirituality --- and since I believe there are real eremitical vocations out there, I also believe it is critical that dioceses do not "settle" in professing those who treat eremitical life as a "metaphor" or as analogous to the Anglican canon 14.3 on "solitary religious" and treat hermits as though they are individuals who simply live alone and take a desert day once a week or so! In one of the cases noted it is unclear whether the person's vows were ever declared invalid but both she and her Archdiocese still refer to her eremitical profession (referred to by date) as the basis for her communal life (she has begun a new community) while dropping any mention of canon 603. In any case, significant questions regarding this apparent bit of legal or linguistic sleight of hand are thus also cropping up amongst hermits and canonists. Since this person no longer lives an eremitical life under the Rule she submitted for perpetual profession, it seems her vows have ceased to be valid or binding on the basis of a significant material change in the circumstances involved.

Appropriate Accommodations for Emergency Circumstances?

What does sometimes happen is that a hermit will need to work temporarily while waiting for some kind of assistance to be settled on (like SSI  or disability for instance). This will usually be part-time work at best because the hermit cannot do more than this (after all, a life of assiduous prayer and penance and the silence of solitude is a full time work in and of itself; add to this the fact of disability and one ordinarily is simply unable to work full time). In cases, however, where the hermit works outside the hermitage full time this must truly be an entirely temporary situation  and she must be working with her superiors to be sure she maintains her Rule as best she can. This is still embraced in profession as the defining and governing document of her life; it expresses the shape of her commitment to canon 603 in particular. I would argue there are better ways to deal with such a situation and that, at the very least, a diocese should set a time limit on the period involved. If, in the case of a hermit waiting for SSI or something similar, the assistance is truly expected to come eventually, then perhaps the diocese DOES need to consider helping the hermit out financially until this occurs. Whether the hermit pays the diocese back or not once the award is granted is a separate question. In any case, a time limit would be important in signaling that this situation is contrary to the life of canon 603 and neither can nor will be allowed to continue indefinitely.

If a hermit needs to change from working within the hermitage (as noted above, this cannot be full time work since the life itself would not allow it) to working full time outside it (especially in a highly social job) on something other than a clearly temporary basis, then the diocese should seriously consider whether it needs to dispense this hermit's vows or grant a decree of exclaustration or something similar for a period of time. After all, such a hermit would no longer be living the terms of the canon or her own Rule; she would be violating her profession commitment if not the vows themselves (remember profession is the commitment of the whole person within a state of life; vows are the ordinary way this is expressed). In such a situation something like exclaustration (a good temporary solution I think) or dispensation might well be the only prudent and honest solution open to the diocese.

Again, this is a difficult situation because customarily dioceses do not support hermits in any material way while the canon obliges to religious poverty; even so they have every right to expect a hermit to be living the terms of the Canon and to be doing so in ways which are clear to others looking on. One thing Therese Ivers suggests is that the ability to support oneself is a kind of acid test today for the presence of a c 603 vocation. Personally I would not go quite that far because I think in the later years of a hermit's life dioceses may need to consider assisting them in material ways simply so they can remain in situations of some clear solitude. Still, for admission to perpetual profession and for the foreseeable future of a hermit's life, I think the capacity to support oneself in some way is an absolute requirement of canon 603 vocations.

On the Terminology Semi-Eremitical:

[[My second question has to do with Carthusians as semi-hermits. Ms Ivers writes:  [[What can we learn about the “silence of solitude” when analyzing the lives of the Carthusians?  That if they consider themselves semi-hermits because they get together daily once or twice for prayer/Mass and have recreation together once a week, how does a person with a full time job as a parish finance manager or a social worker fit the description of living as a hermit?]] I have never heard them referred to in this way. Are they really only "semi-hermits"? Does the Church use the language of "full hermits" and "half hermits"?]]

Personally, though I completely agree with Therese's point about the importance of "the silence of solitude" in c 603 life and understand why she underscored it in this way, I think this "semi-hermit" usage is an overstatement and possibly a too-literal misrepresentation of the real meaning of the term semi-eremitical. Carthusian monks are hermits in the fullest sense of the word. They are not monks who also highly value solitude, but hermits who also value and need community because of their commitment to eremitical solitude. As I understand it, the term semi-eremite refers more to the context in which a hermit lives his or her solitary life, that is, within a community than it does to the hermit him/herself.

The communal context protects the hermit's solitude, provides for the hermit's sustenance, clothing, medical care, etc,  allows for communal liturgy which also protects the hermits' stricter separation and silence of solitude, and ensures his clear ecclesial identity and sensibilities. Thus the context is semi-eremitical but the life is fully eremitical. Canon 603 hermits, on the other hand, are solitary hermits. Both terms are important; neither is redundant. Canon 603 hermits too are fully hermits but the context for their lives is solitary. They do not belong to an institute of consecrated life, they are self-supporting and must shop for themselves, maintain their own physical solitude in all the ways that is required, and do so without the support of "lay" sisters or "conversae" as the Carthusians have. They live out their ecclesial commitment within the context of a diocese and parish but despite the stability this provides (and I am not speaking here of monastic stability per se) it does not rise to the level of stability provided in a religious community or monastery.

While it is true that Carthusian hermits attend Office and Mass together daily and c 603 hermits attend Mass perhaps once a day in their parish and generally pray Office alone, it would be a mistake. I think, to refer c 603 hermits as (full) "hermits" and Carthusians as semi or "half-hermits". Similarly it would be a mistake to think of solitary hermits under c 603 as "semi-hermits" because they attend parish liturgies while reserving the term hermit or "full-hermit" for those who, for instance, live more isolated lives --- sometimes as self-dedicated but living without real ecclesial identity or involvement. Therese Ivers was rightly underscoring the importance of the silence of solitude for canon 603 hermits. The term "the silence of solitude" is a Carthusian term so the connection to this tradition for c 603 hermits is a significant one. Even so, semi-eremite generally refers to a hermit who depends on professed membership in a community to protect his/her solitude and allow for a truly contemplative life while solitary hermit generally refers to a hermit who is entirely self-supporting and lives a desert existence alone.

Eremitical life occurs along a spectrum of involvement in ecclesial life. Generally today there are three main points along this continuum: solitary eremitical life, semi-eremitical life or eremitical life lived within a community context, and reclusion (which always requires communal support of some sort but is bereft of direct social or communal involvement). What differs in each of these is the degree of separation from others, the degree of physical solitude involved. Still,  all of these folks are hermits in the fullest sense of the word. The Church does not use terms like full-hermits or half-hermits. One is a hermit or one is not. There are no part time hermits, no married hermits, and no dilettantes. How one negotiates the necessary and intrinsic ecclesial dimension of the vocation and protects one's call to prayer in solitude may differ one from another but all of these vocations are eremitical in the fullest sense of the term so long as they live out the non-negotiable elements which define all authentic eremitical life.

Followup on Hermit Formation

[[Dear Sister, Thank you so very much for your thoughtful and detailed response to my question.(cf., Questions on Formation) I suppose the one thing I fret about the most is my prayer life. I believe I have found a rich but simple way to pray that incorporates lectio and the psalter. It's modelled on the Liturgy of the Hours but is very simple. I find it very life giving. Part of what I like about it is its simplicity, ease of use and flexibility: For example here is what Morning Prayer looks like.... O God, come to my assistance etc. , Psalm 95 (Invitatory) Hymn (Usually the Eastern Orthodox "O Heavenly King" prayer to the Holy Spirit). Three Psalms (I pray 3 psalms, in order, at each office). 1 chapter from the OT and one from the NT. Contemplative/Intercessory Prayer, Our Father, Hail Mary, Benedictus, Closing collect (usually collect of the day from the Missal).  Evening prayer is similar except it has the Examination of conscience, Magnificat etc. I do keep track of feast days and the liturgical seasons as well.  [A reference to Compline was excerpted here]

On "hermit days" (days I can live in total solitude, like Saturdays and Sundays, because I still work in the world) I also pray the Angelus, Rosary and do other spiritual reading and journaling (in addition to exercise and some physical labour). Morning, Evening and night prayer are my foundations no matter what. I also spend long periods of the holidays and summers in solitude (I'm a teacher). As you can see, slowly but surely a rhythm of life is emerging as I experiment with this life and grow in it. I'm sorry if this email is long winded but I was hoping you could answer a few questions for me...

1) Do you think what I've described is an effective way to pray as a hermit (at least formally as your really praying all day)? This has become a very small point of disagreement between me and my director. He keeps saying I should pray the official LOTH. I tell him that I respect it but the mechanics of it drives me nuts. I like praying the full Psalms uninterrupted, I like that my prayer isn't constantly interrupted by flipping and rubrics etc. I like that when I pray I come before The Lord with just my Bible and before an icon of Him and Our Lady I pray in simplicity. I wonder that if God calls me to this life that I'll have to abandon this form of prayer for the LOTH. I know obedience is essential, but do you think that hermits are allowed to pray more freely than diocesan priests and religious? I know many monastic communities have crafted their own version of the office. Thoughts, advice and insights on this are greatly appreciated. ]]

First, I am glad my last post (cf., Questions on Formation) was of assistance to you. Many thanks as well for permission to post your response with its set of questions and especially some of the description of how you are proceeding in embracing the eremitical life more and more. I think they can be helpful to others who are looking for ways to do something similar.

On the Phrase "Still work in the world":

Before I move on to your questions though, allow me one quibble with your use of the term "the world" as in "I still work in the world." There are some "hermitages" (or putative hermitages!) that are every bit as much or more "the world" than the region you are describing. Remember that "the world" in the pejorative sense, the sense that canon law primarily refers to with c 603's,"stricter separation from the world" or the sense monastic mainly mean when they refer to fuga mundi (flight from the world), as well as the meaning of the term in the early Greek and/or Desert Fathers, was not the world as a whole (which they saw as God's good creation), nor even the populated world (which was ambiguous though essentially good), but rather, "that which is resistant to Christ."

I have written about this before, but let me quote from a commentary on John Climacus' Ladder. Climacus is quite strict in his approach to solitude but he can also be misunderstood when read literally and unhistorically. Thus, Vassilios Papavassiliou writes: "In this sense, 'the world' means all those things that are opposed to Christ and to our salvation. The world in the sense of God's creation is good, and we are all (even those living monastic life) a part of it. However remote monasteries or hermitages may be, all monastics lie beneath the same sun and moon, breathe the same air, and share the soil and the fruits of the earth with all humanity . . . There can be no ascetic life, no true spirituality of we are not willing to break with the world in terms of what we hold dear and what constitutes the focus of our lives. .  ." (Thirty Steps to Heaven, The Ladder of Divine Ascent for all Walks of Life, Ancient Faith Publishing, 2013) Canonists reflecting on the canons on religious life say something very similar in the Handbook on Canons 573-746: "'The world' is that which is unredeemed and resistant to Christ."

If you get in the habit of referring to everything outside your own home as "the world" you will be buying into a false dichotomy which idealizes your own physical space and demonizes that which is other while you also neglect the fact that "the world" in the pejorative sense is more primarily a matter of the heart and who has a claim on that than it is a reference to a geographical region. Moreover you will be setting yourself up for a spiritual elitism which is incapable of perceiving the inbreaking of the Kingdom in the unexpected or unacceptable place --- the very thing that happened to the Pharisees and led to Jesus' crucifixion --- or of standing in solidarity with others outside your home.

Similarly you will be viewing a world which is essentially and always potentially sacramental through a lens which prevents us from seeing that clearly. Finally, you will be at least subtly encouraging yourself to refrain from or avoid the conversion necessary to allow God's love to overcome the resistances within your own heart --- the most persistent and dangerous instances of "the world" any of us ever know. While I don't think you are guilty of this (I really can't know this) to shut the door of one's cell and to believe that one has thus effectively shut out "the world" is often merely a pernicious and arrogant deceit --- something that is one of the surest signs of a dangerously destructive worldliness. What is ordinarily much truer is that at best, we shut the door on the world out there so that, through the grace of God, we can do battle with the demons and world within us! Moreover, we do so in order to love our world and all that is precious to God into the wholeness for which it is made.

On the Way you are Praying, Strengths and Weaknesses:

Now, regarding the way you are praying, I think it has significant strengths and some weaknesses as well. At this point I think the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses, but you should be aware that could change in time, especially as your life in solitude matures, and you will need to be open to that. One primary rule in prayer is always to pray as you can, not as you can't and you are doing that. You are creating and living a rhythm which will structure your entire life in time, and you are integrating lectio (or at least you have allowed for the opportunity to integrate lectio) into your prayer. Within your praxis of LOH you are combining psalmody, intercession and contemplative prayer in what will become an effective invitation to transition from one to another in the whole of your life. Finally, you are finding practical ways to center your prayer life on Scripture. My evaluation of all of this is very favorable. You show you have spent time thinking about this and the fact that you are attending to your feelings as well is significant and positive.

The weaknesses I mentioned are the result of the lack of variation in your office. You see, the official LOH re-enacts the rhythm from creation to death to resurrection and recreation. It does this again and again every day, every week, and over the space of the liturgical year. The hymns change, the antiphons do the same so that they can serve to highlight the main themes of the hours and tie them together with the readings and the season as well. The psalms are chosen for their themes and their relation to the time of day, season, etc. Ordinarily the entire psalm is not used at a given hour because the entire psalm tends to reflect different moods, tones, and themes. (There is similar point to the way readings are chosen, not only to highlight a particular theme but to choose a pericope which is conducive to lectio --- something whole chapters may not do or be.)

The purpose of the LOH is not simply to get us through all 150 psalms each day or week as early approaches to the Work of God did in their effort to pray without ceasing and sanctify the day, but to sanctify and celebrate (make prayer of) all of the moments and moods of human life in light of the rhythm of God's history among us as we mark that each day and over longer periods via the liturgical calendar. The emphasis differs. If you continue to pray the stripped down Office you have described without eventually participating more and more in the official LOH (or in a version of that adopted by the Camaldolese, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc which also use several week cycles, varying hymns and antiphons, and include Night prayer which can be sung and memorized easily) you miss many opportunities for making the whole of your life a prayer which resonates with the Church's official prayer. While this is not apt to be a matter of obedience in the narrow sense of someone in authority telling you to do this or refusing to profess you, it is likely to be a matter of obedience in the broader and more profound sense of hearkening to God's voice as it comes to us in the Church's liturgical life.

It is true the LOH is not easy to learn, especially on one's own. A large part of learning to pray it has to do with aural memory and an inculcation of its various rhythms (sound, gesture, etc) all of which are best experienced in choir and in community. Though I regularly sing Office I miss praying it in community and am still reminded of that every time I pray it. Even so its complexities are indicative of its richness and its ability to speak to, console, challenge, and convert us in every moment and mood of our life. I suspect your director knows this and may be coming from this POV rather than another more superficial one.

At this point in time you do not necessarily need to change the way you are praying, but I would seriously suggest you find a 1 volume copy of the Office (a book called Christian Prayer which has very little flipping back and forth) to supplement your current praxis. (If and when you decide to do this your director can assist you in doing so in a way which respects both your preferences and the important diversity and richness of the LOH. In learning the use of the LOH you may find it challenges temperamental tendencies or strengths within you so be aware that your preferences may be rooted both in your response to God as well as in your personal insecurities and resistance to the movement of the Holy Spirit.) Remember that the diocesan hermit's prayer is not only personal but ecclesial and a participation in the Church's own prayer. The LOH is a formative reality, that is, it is one of the major ways the Church forms herself as a People at prayer by forming individuals in the rhythms and themes of her liturgical and Christocentric life.

That said though, let me point out that only priests are canonically required to pray the LOH. Religious (who are not clerics) are canonically obliged to pray the LOH according to proper law, that is according to the constitutions of their congregation (or in the hermit's case, the Rule approved by her Bishop). Some hermits I know (I know one presently) do not pray the Office at all (though I admit I do not personally understand how this can be the case). Others, myself included, use the Office book of a specific congregation. I use the Camaldolese office book (consisting mainly of Lauds and Vespers, though it also has Compline); I do so because it is entirely geared to singing the hours and the psalm tones used are both simple and musically interesting (unlike something like the Mundelein office book which I tried a few years ago and found musically tedious). For Vigils, however, I use the four volume LOH, as I do for Scripture readings. Others use Franciscan office books or those of some other tradition. They may supplement their Office book with collections of readings for Vigils like those books (Augustinian Press I think) used by the Camaldolese, etc.

Becoming a Hermit, some Nuts and Bolts:

[[(2) Is this how a rule is crafted and the embrace of this life takes place? I think that it would be very hard to go cold turkey and become a hermit overnight. I'm finding that my immersion into this life and the crafting of a rule is gradual process. Slowly I'm spending more days alone in prayer. I'm not being weird about it. I still have life giving friendships and I'm involved with my family and my parish but the putting on of this life is happening slowly. I'm 38 years old and I imagine as I discern more and more and live this life that there will come a time where I naturally embrace this life full time. I already see it happening by ensuring my weekends and holidays are "hermit days".

From this I see a rhythm emerging. I like to keep my prayer life/devotional life very simple (hence my simple prayer office). I think it was St. Benedict who lauded short and simple prayer. Is this how a rule is developed? And is this how the call to eremitic life discerned? More insights, thoughts and advice are greatly appreciated. Thank you so very much for your help. Your insights are gold as I try to figure out this thing the Lord may be calling me to. ]]

Yes, I think generally this is how a Rule comes to be crafted. Over time we pay attention to the things which are lifegiving for us, the ways in which God comes to us, the ways in which we truly give ourselves and allow our hearts to be opened and formed in the love of Christ, etc as well as to those things which are traditionally part of the eremitical life; we build those into our life or otherwise make provision for them in ways which are most advantageous for our growth and an integral obedience to God. As you probably already know, a Rule is not merely a list of do's and don'ts, nor a system of abstract principles or values. It is, in the language of canon 603, a Plan of Life, a plan for the way we can best live our God-given, God-willed lives in the fullest and most integral way possible. You seem to me to be approaching this in just the right way no matter what form of life it leads you to or eventually best expresses (the more definitive Rule or plan of life you eventually write --- for you will probably write several in the next years --- may or may not be an eremitical one).

At this point I would not say you are discerning an eremitical vocation so much as you are discerning the place of prayer and some (perhaps a significant amount of) solitude and silence in your life. Your "hermit" days are what are usually called "desert days" or "days of recollection" and active religious will also take such days. However, at  some point you may well make a relatively complete break with the life you live now and embrace one of the silence of solitude. But whether this is as a hermit or a contemplative religious or monastic, a dedicated lay person who enjoys the kind of non-eremitical solitude so many older and retired adults live today, etc, is still unclear, undecided, and untried. While it may be hard to go "cold turkey" and while one can and will certainly grow into this vocation, until one is living fulltime silence and solitude and has undertaken the renunciations and, to some extent, the obligations associated with an eremitical life, until, that is, one has spent time testing the true extent to which solitude has opened the door to one as a way to be one's truest and best self, I don't think one can speak of discerning an eremitical vocation per se.

You may have noticed the post on the new Lifetime series, "The Sisterhood". It has been billed as being about women discerning religious life. In actual fact they are discerning WHETHER to enter a congregation and mutually discern such a vocation with them. While one can see to what extent one feels immediately drawn to or repulsed by such a life by such experiences, until one actually enters the life, one is discerning something other than the life itself.  Until one risks losing oneself in a radical way on this solitary (or any other vocational) path neither will one be able to discover if it is what God is calling one to and thus, to 'find oneself' there. As you well know yourself, one can take education courses, work as a classroom aide and even substitute teach from time to time but unless and until one takes a fulltime job teaching for both discernment and critical formation, one does not know if one is truly called to it. Eventually one has to put it all on the line and take that job to see. Still,  I do think you are preparing and preparing well for eventually embracing the more radical break and risk required to enter into that particular discernment process at some point in time.

Overall then, I believe you are proceeding in just the right way and in the way you need to do for now. I am impressed with the way you are working on your prayer and penitential life and coming to know yourself (prayer, journaling, creation of a simple version of the LOH, commitment to spiritual direction, etc). More, I am very grateful that you would share this part of your journey here and allow me to comment on it. Thank you again.

Follow-up on Part-time Eremitical Life (Yet Again!)

[[Sister, I am a lay person and live in solitude two days a week; I consider myself a hermit. I read where you would not. I also see where you have argued against extending the term "hermit" to part-time hermits. Is your own solitude really so different than mine? Is it really so much better? Like an earlier reader, I am offended you would be stuck in outdated definitions and not be open to people opening up this category of life to people like me. I am also in disagreement that a vocation to solitude would take as much time to discern as you seem to believe it does. . . . Get over yourself!]]

Thanks for your questions and objections. To be frank, I don't think I can set forth any more clearly why I believe what I believe than I have already done --- and done in posts which it seems you have read yourself. My own solitude is "better" mainly in the sense that it may speak more clearly to those who have no choice regarding their circumstances, that is, those who find themselves isolated and alienated because of life circumstances they cannot change. I think that this is the only way I might use the term "better" in comparing the solitude I am vowed to live with your own. Otherwise, yes, it is different, and I think it is different in significant (very meaningful) ways.

The Place of Eremitical Solitude in Confronting oneself and in Self-Emptying

Besides being able to speak more effectively to those whose physical solitude is not chosen or needs redemption another piece of this difference is the fact that eremitical solitude is one which ensures that one discovers and confronts one's own essential poverty when left to oneself. Over time in silence and solitude one faces oneself in a multitude of inescapable ways; with prayer and inner work (which mediate the grace of God), one comes to exist more truthfully and transparently. God is central to this whole process because it is in extended silence and solitude that one comes to know God's love. It is this love which allows one to participate in the kenosis or self-emptying accomplished in the desert as well as in the process of perceiving and embracing the authentic covenantal identity God calls one to. In the desert, solitude is not a distraction from one's usual environment. Neither does it allow for much distraction, for distraction in the desert can be deadly. I believe eremitical solitude is the solitude of the desert where I believe yours is not. (Please see the articles on the difference between an experience of the desert and a desert experience.) Further, because the heart of eremitical solitude is union with God, the silence of solitude reflects both the environment and goal of the hermit's life where yours, it seems to me, represents either a respite from these or something which MAY contribute to them some but without being them.

The Total Demand of Eremitical Solitude

In reflecting on this notion of "part-time hermits" or of folks' inability to see the difference between a life of solitude and occasional periods of physical solitude I am reminded of a couple of passages from a Carthusian monk's notes for a conference given to new postulants and novices. Dom Joseph wrote: Many "try" solitude and come away in raptures. But they have never really experienced its total demand on human nature; whilst they were in cell, they knew that at the weekend they would be back home at the sea-side. But solitude is far from romantic.

After thinking of the applicants who had left, often during their first night in cell, Dom Joseph continued: Before entering, the postulant dreamed of closing his door upon himself and calling to Jesus the Beloved, but he did not dream that it would be a desperate cry for help. That is, the only prayer he now knows. It is just, "Jesus mercy, Jesus help" all day long. All his pretensions, all his confidence in self, all his assurance that he was strong enough for solitude, have gone long ago. MacGuire, Nancy, An Infinity of Little Hours (p 74)

It is the notion of total demand on one's human nature and the way one is cast upon God in complete dependence which defines the seriousness of a life commitment to "the silence of solitude." It also explains in part the reason that discernment can only occur over time frames which are ordinarily longer than those required by other vocations to consecrated life. When a hermit is canonically professed, for instance, the Bishop asks a series of questions regarding her readiness to make the necessary commitments in preparation for accepting the hermit's vows. He asks publicly if she is resolved to "give (her)self to God alone, in solitude and silence, in persevering prayer and willing penance, in humble labor and holiness of life". To be honest, I don't see how a person can answer such questions in an informed or affirmative way without an existential background in their meaning. This raises several points pertinent to your comments: 1) the Church understands the eremitical vocation as a serious and full-time proposition, 2) one must know that eremitical solitude is a LIFE call, not a transitional or therapeutic period leading to something else --- significant as these may be, and 3) the ability to say yes to such questions, to make a life commitment to them and to God in this way, requires one experience them over a significant period of time prior to such a commitment.

In other words, one needs to know the experience that Dom Joseph describes in his conference notes first hand, and I honestly don't think that spending two days a week in solitude allows for this. There is simply something different in an experience of solitude where one's time there is not going to end in a day or two, a month or two (or even in a year or two!), where the wrestling one does with one's own incapacity is not something one has the resources to end or resolve of oneself, where distractions are, in the main, something one is obligated by choice and by vow to avoid while one faces full on the things which cause us all to turn to distractions in the first place. There is a vast difference between solitude as respite and solitude as a committed way of intense encounter and life. We all know how different a difficult experience is when one can see a light at the end of the tunnel from an experience where there is no light, no real end in sight.

Tedium, Boredom, and Doing Battle with Personal Demons

Now, obviously I don't experience solitude as generally miserable or as bleak as all that (at least I hope it is obvious from this blog!), but rather as amazingly compelling and humanizing in its communion. It is ordinarily a source of joy in God. However, neither do I want to sugar coat the nature or difficulties of eremitical solitude. Even when one is sure that solitude herself has opened the door to the hermit and that the silence of solitude represents a life vocation, this does not mean that one's experience in cell is unending bliss. Prayer may be a joy, but it is also demanding, intense, and challenging in ways love and any genuine commitment to another is always challenging.

Beyond this, the tedium of one's day to day schedule (horarium) in cell means that boredom can be a real problem as can fidelity be in such instances. Stability and one's commitment to it demands that one live through the difficulties, not avoid them with this distraction or that, this shift in place, activity, focus, or that. Despite common misunderstandings of solitary life in a hermitage, it is not an extended vacation, nor a time to simply kick back and do what one likes. It is often less about peace and quiet than it is about doing battle with personal demons. One experiences peace and is able to rest in Christ, but entrusting oneself to Him is also demanding and something which one must grow in one's ability to do. Eremitical solitude, as I have said several times now, is a vocation and a way of life which, when lived well, is a gift to Church and World. Lived badly it is more apt to be an instance of our culture's (or sin's) exaggerated selfishness and individualism.

The Bottom line Questions

My bottom line questions to you (or to myself, for that matter) are, "Is there a way you can say definitely and concretely that your own solitude is a gift to Church and world? Is it consistent with the tradition of eremitical solitude in either Western or Eastern Churches before and even while it varies in some way? Does it speak in some prophetic way to any particular segment of the population?" And finally, "is it something worthy of giving your very life for --- not just abstractly, but in terms of every minute, and hour, and day, and month, and year for the rest of your life?" My own answer to these questions is yes --- even when I live that answer badly at this point or that. It is this affirmative answer and all it implies that allows me not simply to succeed in living this solitude, but to renew my efforts when I have failed to live it well. I suspect this too is a very big difference between the solitude you describe and the solitude I call eremitical.

Follow-up on Part-time Eremitical Life

Well, I've riled some feathers in responding to questions about the "Saturday-only" hermit. Mainly, I think I have been misheard or misunderstood so I am going to post the comments received and try once again to make clear what I am and am not saying.

[[For heaven's sake, the life of the monastic or hermit is not holy orders. I don't think you have the right to claim that if one's particular vocation in that mileau (sic) is not precisely what has developed heretofore (or, considering how canon law develops, which flavor or style of the life 'won out' over others) that they ought to go back and reconsider their baptismal vows. My goodness, what an uncharitable remark. My mother is a Ph.D. in nursing; is she a better nurse than a first year? She'd be the first to tell me, after 45 years in nursing, it depends on the nurse. All of your arguments in your responding post seem to follow the fallacy that more time in service or more closely aligned with a particular mode of canon law makes one a better hermit. Bah. Is my close friend, a Jesuit of 50 years a better priest than the newest member? Is a Saturday only theologian better than a 7-day-per-week theologian (frankly a closer analogy since neither involve a sacrament)?]]

I am honestly not sure what I said that was uncharitable in suggesting that anyone in the lay state (or for that matter anyone in any state) reconsider their baptismal promises and commitments. The situation I was addressing was this: there is a failure throughout the church to esteem the lay state, to see it as possessing the dignity it does. What has happened over time and for a number of reasons (including the clericalization of the church) is that when adults desire to make adult commitments to and in Christ they look not first to their baptismal promises (or even to their marriage vows) and to specifiying those vows as needed at this point in time, but automatically to the idea of multiplying vows (and so making private or public vows) as the only form of adult commitment possible besides ordination. Sometimes these even conflict with marriage vows as when married people seek to make vows of celibacy.)

Further, because the Church has consistently given the impression or explicitly stated because of a misreading of Thomas that the laity are in an inferior state of vocation, those who really desire to live the fullness of discipleship have come to believe it will only be possible for priests, nuns, brothers, sisters, monks, hermits, and consecrated virgins --- and not as lay persons. But this is untrue. Vatican II was clear about this. The lay state is part of a universal call to holiness, an adult and exhaustive form of holiness which glorifies God every bit as much as any other vocation or state of life. How it is uncharitable to ask people to START here, and if they are in the lay state to take responsibility for that and for the call to holiness and the dignity of this vocation, I really can't see. This has nothing to do with hermits or non-hermits. It is a problem in the church as a whole, and a quite serious one. We have hundreds of thousands of lay people who believe their vocations are second-class or juvenile and less exhaustive forms of discipleship than those of nuns, brothers, priests, etc. They live and are pained everyday by the sense that their call from/by God is an inferior one. I have simply said this is not the case. The Church has emphatically said this is not the case. So I don't see this as uncharitable but charitable.

I do not know why the discussion morphed into terms of better/worse or younger/older either. I have tried assiduously to reject characterizations framed in terms of better and worse. For instance, I have written time and again that consecrated hermits are no better than lay hermits, but rather that the rights and obligations they have in the Church because of their canonical standing are different. Again, I think we are seeing in your comments the deeply entrenched holdover from the misapplied scholastic language of "objective superiority". That is especially true of your comment that neither monastic nor eremitical lives are holy orders or matters of a Sacrament -- as though that makes them less significant. It does not. For certain, the better/worse language did not come from my posts because in regard to vocations and states of life I reject it absolutely. Thomas also rejected this language and so he drew careful arguments noting that an objectively superior state of life does NOT mean a subjectively better or more holy Christian. Today, the solution needs to be formulated differently than Thomas did; the various states of life are different from one another, with different rights, obligations, and responsibilities, but none are better than the others. Each one is rooted in a call by God and is invested with infinite worth and dignity. Again, different, not better.

Regarding younger/older and experienced/in-experienced, there is no doubt that we all grow into our vocations. Those who wish to be hermits may begin by building in silence, solitude, prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world. In and of itself this does not make them a hermit. At some point solitude herself MAY open the door to these people and a change takes place if they accept the invitation to enter. In such a case they are no longer solitary persons grappling with the individual elements of the canon or life. Instead, they are hermits in a fundamental sense now living the silence of solitude and allowing (or learning to further allow) everything else to flow from and support that life. Once the door has been opened and one has walked through it in response, growth continues (or should continue). Meanwhile, the central reality of these persons' lives -- the silence of solitude which is a short hand reference to union with God and the quies that flows from it --- will call for greater external silences, stricter separation from the world, etc. Again, not better or worse, but different!

[[And please, Sister, let's not use the straw man fallacy. Comparing a person's Saturday only eremitc life with a saturday only state of motherhood is pathetic. Sorry, it is. Do I need to spll (sic) it out? If one has committed one's heart to a solitary life as best as they are able, but it involves work outside the home, what is that to you? A mother and spouse have an entirely other promise--of course they don't get (much) time off. The point is that I am and many are pushing the meaning of words and of particular callings. You are not, and neither is canon law, the first or last word on what constitutes an eremitic life. You certainly are the last word on what it constitutes to you and those of your persusion or particular charism, but that's it. Period. Don't lay down roadbloacks to others. The fact that is that there IS a groundswell, a grass-roots movement of folks, in the married or other secular states looking for a deeper commitment to their spiritual development, with expression in their lifestyle and self-styling--they are allowed to use old words in new ways. Especially when they don't impinge on the nature of the sacramental forms.

I think the analogy holds. If a person babysits a child once a week, that does not make her a Mother no matter how badly she would like to be one. If a person lives an eremitical or desert day once a week, this does not make her a hermit or desert dweller no matter how much she would like to think it does. The illustrations can be multiplied: if a person leads a Communion Service once a week (or even several days a week) on his pastor's day(s) off, this does not make him a priest or pastor (though he may be very priestly and pastoral). If a person prays contemplatively once a week this does not make them a contemplative. A person who spends a day a week at a monastery or enclosed in their own house is not necessarily a monk or nun who lives a cloistered life. It is simply not appropriate or accurate to speak of a Saturday-only eremitical LIFE as you have done --- unless you are speaking about a hermit who is actually failing to live her call to a LIFE of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and separation from the world, etc. Here the distinction another diocesan hermit once drew might be helpful: many people are called upon to build in elements of eremitical spirituality in their lives, but this does not make them hermits nor argue that they are called to eremitical life per se. Put another way we could say that some people's lives have an eremitical flavor or cast without being eremitical lives.

You can and probably should feel free to push the meaning of words all you like, but in doing so you need to beware of emptying them of meaning altogether and making them incapable of communicating anything substantive. You should also not be surprised however when the onus of demonstrating the legitimacy of your usage falls directly on you. Whether we like it or not, the Church has a normative understanding of what constitutes eremitical life. Those of us who live that from the inside know the wisdom of this definition. We know from the inside what the struggles and joys of FULL-TIME silence of solitude, etc, mean -- as opposed to a single desert day a week -- for instance. There is simply no comparison. Both are good, but they are also not the same thing, and they require different names as a result. The Church's normative statement (Canon 603) has been formulated in a way which ensures certain non-negotiable and foundational elements even while it allows flexibility and diversity in expression. You are mistaken then if you believe canon law is not open to newness in this regard, and you are certainly mistaken if you say that I am not. However, to push words in ways where they may mean anything one would like is simply to ensure they mean nothing at all.

As I have written now a number of times, a hermit who needs to work outside the hermitage on a part-time basis is not ideal but this can still be made to work on a case by case basis. However, someone who needs to work FULL-TIME, especially outside the hermitage has, I sincerely believe, ceased in essential ways to live the fundamental elements which define the life. Meanwhile, back to the Saturday-only example which is even more troublesome:  one day a week of contemplative prayer, silence and solitude is NOT an eremitical LIFE. It is a wonderful and helpful thing, but it is not what Canon 603 (or the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the whole eremitical tradition) recognizes as an eremitical LIFE. The reason this is important is because the Church recognizes eremitical life as she discerns it is to be defined as a pastoral gift to the Church and world. (See  below.)

[[So, I think we should just agree to disagree. I guess it comes down to who is the more accepting here? What is the most compassionate response? For that matter, why don't you go back and consider your own baptismal vows---why weren't they enough? What makes your life intrinsically 'other' than other's? It doesn't sound very nice the other way, does it?]]

While we may agree to disagree, there is a distinction between being genuinely accepting and merely being uncritical and uncaring of meaning or truth. Compassion requires that we be truly loving, and it is not loving to allow a person to live a lie, or to empty meaningful terms of content when that content is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and World. Canon 603 is such a gift. It defines the nature of eremitical life in a world and at a time when dislocation, isolation, alienation, and the search for meaning in our isolation and alienation are rampant. Even so, it is a canon which allows for great diversity even while (and perhaps because) it clearly spells out foundational, or non-negotiable elements comprising authentic solitary eremitical life. It is the entire vision of eremitical life which it provides us which is a gift of the Holy Spirit to both the Church and world.

I will repeat my main point from the other post because this is the true answer to "What is it to you?" above as well. FULL-TIME hermits who have allowed isolation and marginality to be redeemed and thus transformed into the "Silence of solitude," can speak effectively to all those persons in our parishes, dioceses, neighborhoods and world who CANNOT leave their situations for time off one day a week -- those who are chronically ill, disabled, the isolated elderly, impoverished, etc. Hermits' lives are compassionate answers to many of the most significant questions these myriads of people have and are. These people need to know that their aloneness is not a sign of the senselessness of life or abandonment by God, but the ground out of which God can call them to the silence of solitude and union with himself. I don't think a person who is busy, engaged, working, socializing 5-6 days a week, and then takes a day for silence, solitude, and contemplative prayer can effectively serve in this way. Hermits, whether lay or consecrated, who live the terms of Canon 603 with the whole of their lives CAN minister to these people in a way I believe no one else can do quite as fully or effectively. I believe this ministry is part of the charism of eremitical life and a reason the life (not the avocation) is growing today. It is certainly a reason eremitical spirituality is growing today, but again, embracing elements of this spirituality does not make one a hermit anymore than my own embracing of elements of Ignatian spirituality makes me a Jesuit.

Finally then, on the question regarding my own call to something other than the lay state. This is not a new question and I have written on it before two years ago or so, so please check that out. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: My credibility regarding the Importance of the Lay Vocation My own discernment of this took several extended periods of time, and my discernment of a call to consecrated eremitical life rather than lay eremitical life took about 25 years. In answering that call finally (with perpetual profession and consecration) I did so because I felt called to accept rights and responsibilities that did not flow from baptismal commitments, but from a different call as well: I was called (both subjectively and objectively) to consecrated celibacy and a nuptial or spousal relationship with Christ, and I was called to witness to that publicly with a form of love which was more eschatological and universal than otherwise. I was called to be obedient in a way which specified my usual call to obedience with a legitimate superior, the elements of Canon Law, the Church's definition of eremitical life, etc, and again, I was called to do that publicly. The same is true of poverty. I felt called to a degree and kind of poverty which does not automatically flow from the baptismal or lay state. I found I needed this commitment to live freely what I felt called to.

But let me be clear, I did indeed live my baptismal commitments fully before this and I realized that I might well never be admitted to the consecrated state as a hermit if the Church did not agree that this was God's own Call for me AND FOR THE CHURCH. (In that case, I would need to come to terms with the idea that perhaps I had not discerned properly). In fact the Church DID agree, and mediated God's own call, my response and profession, and God's consecration to me. Had the Church said no, I would have remained in the lay state, a lay hermit, and tried to live this full-time life in a way which glorified God and gave honor to the lay state. It would have been a different life, one where I would still be doing much of what I am doing now, but with different rights and responsibilities in terms of the Church. (I need to say here that the fact that I DID come to terms with living as a lay hermit is important to who I am today as diocesan hermit and allows me to esteem lay eremitical life better than I think some do. It also allows me to appreciate the differences between the two forms of eremitical call. So again, as I well know --- these are not to be seen in terms of better or second-best, but different.)

Those different rights and responsibilities include the living out of Canon 603 with the whole of my life in as faithful a way as I can. Part of the responsibility means learning more and more about the forms and fundamentals of the eremitical life over the past @2000 years of Church life and why they are included in the canon. It means standing in that tradition and taking it on in ways which allow it to speak to the contemporary world. It does not mean emptying the term of meaning or trying to apply new senses to it before I understand from WITHIN the life and have thus accepted a personal responsibility for it. "Hermit" is not a word without history or meaning, and while the application of this meaning can certainly vary, like most things we need to accept the basic meaning and live it before we start jettisoning bits in the name of some sort of individual liberty.

I hope this clarifies some points of misunderstanding.

Saturday (or Part-time) Hermits Once Again: What's the Big Deal??

[[ I agree that full-time work is incompatible with the EXPRESSION of the eremetic life. The only caveat is that many folks are called to it but just can't swing it financially. As for them, their options are a monastic expression or simply a 'non-canonical' (if I'm saying that correctly) expression of their vocation without worrying about whether they are recognized by the Diocese/Bishop or not. I really don't understand the hang up about this. If you are able to be a hermit on Saturday only, want to wear a habit--go for it! I don't understand all the angst. Why do we look to some imprimatur from Mother Church for our vocations? The church has room for all of us. Just go out and live your life and stop worrying whether you are fitting under a particular canon or not. Mon Dieu! Are we Pharisees? Go out and preach the gospel in whatever way you must---whether or not there is an example for it---and, of course, if you dig down far enough, there are always champions of the church that have faced the same circumstances and made it work. ]]

Thanks for your comments. Let me be clear that when I write about eremitical vocations I almost always clarify them with terms like "diocesan", "Lay", or "religious", and sometimes as semi-eremitical as well. In the post you are commenting about I referred to diocesan hermits but I need not have. In this case I can't agree with you about "If they are able to be a hermit on Saturdays only, want to wear a habit, then go for it" (etc). What you have just described is not a hermit of any expression. It is a person taking a day off and playing dress-up in the process.


Someone who says it is possible to be a hermit only on Saturdays and that such a person should just wear a habit, call themselves a hermit, and just generally "go for it," does not understand the idea of an ecclesial vocation generally nor the idea of what a hermit truly is specifically. (Another alternative is persons who speak this way are really poking fun at my posts, and I certainly don't think that is the case here.) It is possible I am simply misunderstanding the point which is that everyone needs silence and solitude in their lives and taking off time on Saturdays to devote to this is a good thing. If this is what you are saying, then I agree but I would point out you are not really speaking about a person being a hermit.)

But let me be completely honest about how I hear your comments: what you have said seems to me to be analogous to saying to a woman, "If you want to be a mother and can only take care of children on Saturdays, then by all means do that! Change out of your business clothes, babysit a child (even your own!) on Saturdays, and feel free to call yourself a mother." Or perhaps the analogy to marriage would work here: "You want to be married but can only manage to do that on Saturdays? Well, put on the ring, grab the guy, make life vows (or not) and "go for it." Hermits are people who live eremitical LIVES for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Yes, there are different expressions of this, but they are expressions of something specifically meaningful and responsible in terms of a life commitment, not expressions of nothing (or just anything at all).

As for angst over whether the Church gives her approval or not, here the expression of eremitical life does matter. A person who wishes to live as a hermit without any of the specific rights or obligations of canonical standing can certainly do so in the lay or non-canonical senses. As I have written before, baptism itself gives such persons the right to do so and no further discernment or approval of the Church is required. This has certain limitations of course (including no right to publicly wear the habit, which is an ecclesial symbol), but it also has a different level of freedom with regard to others' legitimate expectations and so forth.

However, for diocesan, or religious eremitical life --- ecclesial vocations which the church herself is involved in nurturing, mediating, and governing --- then the Church's formal participation and approval is necessary at every point. This is because in these instances the hermit cannot discern such a vocation alone and lives her eremitical life in the name of the Church. She represents the eremitical vocation (and becomes responsible for personally continuing a long tradition) in a public and canonical (legal and normative) way. In none of these cases would a person just going off and "being a hermit on Saturdays ONLY" actually be a hermit. The only thing they would truly be doing as far as I can see is emptying the term of meaning and trivializing the lives of those who DO live full-time lives of assiduous prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world in the the silence of solitude --- especially those who have been publicly entrusted with and assumed all the rights and obligations which are part of such an ecclesial vocation.

You see, it is not merely a matter of "fitting under" a canon or finding one I fit under. It is a matter of discovering a vocation to eremitical life and then allowing one's life to be molded into a complete response to that. Beyond this initial determination, one would then need to discern whether one is called to do so in the consecrated state or not. If not, then one lives as a lay hermit. If so, then one is speaking not of a merely individual vocation, but an ecclesial one, and one would prepare to embrace this fully. If one then discerns a vocation to diocesan eremitical life rather than religious eremitical life one seeks profession under Canon 603 and in doing so, is both invested with and assumes all the rights and obligations which attach to to such a life. No one is forced to do this, but if they do, if the Church decides they are genuinely called to this and if such persons are admitted to profession in this way, then yes indeed, the Canon does define and govern their lives (as do a number of other Canons as well). Living the life with integrity means respecting and exploring this every day in every way, as the saying goes.

Why All the Angst?? The Pastoral Import of Canonical Standing

But, as you ask, why all the angst? I've written about this before under the idea of necessary expec-tations and charism, but let me draw out a picture of "why the angst?!" Let's take the two examples of eremitical life outlined in your own email and mine: 1) a person takes off on Saturdays for some prayer time, dons a habit, and calls himself a hermit even adopting the title "Brother." (What he does the rest of the week, exemplary or apostolic as it may be, I have no clue, nor does anyone else.) He then goes forth to proclaim the Gospel as he can. 2) a person lives the silence of solitude (and the rest of the elements of Canon 603) on a full time basis. She publicly vows her entire life to God (and so, to all those he cherishes) and is consecrated in a way which signals the grace to live this life. She is invested with the habit and given the right to the title Sister by the Church who recognizes the meaningfulness and import of these things. She then goes out to proclaim the Gospel within this context. Both persons identify themselves as hermits, one is a lay person and one is consecrated. One does so according to his own understanding of the term, the other according to the Church's understanding and traditional meaning of the term.

Meanwhile, their parishes have a large number of chronically ill and frail elderly on fixed incomes, most of whom are isolated from the parish as a whole or the surrounding communities in significant ways: none of them can work, few of them can drive or get away from their situations on a weekend, and none of them can take a day (or even an hour) off from their state of chronic illness or frail elderliness. What they do know is that they might be called to lives of prayer and solitude, lives which represent a kind of counter-cultural witness even. They are looking for someone who can proclaim the Gospel to them in a way which is specifically helpful in their situations. They think (and their pastor agrees),  that surely a hermit will be able to witness in a way which helps us makes sense of lives of poverty and isolation, whose witness will assist in negotiating the transition from isolation to solitude, who can reminds them that a life of physical, financial, and personal poverty can still be rich in God alone and all God makes possible.

So which hermit should the pastor call on to assist these parishioners in this? Which hermit should he call on as a true representative of desert spirituality? Which hermit has accepted freely and fully all the dimensions of the eremitical life which allows him/her to witness truthfully and EFFECTIVELY to these poeple? Which hermit knows intimately the struggles of full-time solitude or silence? Which one has dealt with these and does so day in and day out along with all the other demons which attack the solitary person from within our own hearts or from the surrounding competitive, workaholic, productive and consumerist world? Which one will be able to effectively proclaim the Gospel to these people? (And NB, I could have contrasted the Saturday-only hermit with any full-time lay hermit and most of the points would have been the same here.)

You see, going out and preaching the Gospel is not merely a matter of proclaiming a canned text or message to people one does not know. It is not a matter of proclaiming the unconditional love of God without applying that in the way one knows it intimately oneself AND in the way people NEED to hear it. Instead proclaiming the Gospel means proclaiming with one's life the TRUTH of the way God has worked and is working in it so that others might find hope and meaning in that. As St Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel; use words if necessary." Proclaiming the Gospel, I would suggest, also does not allow for pretense and the "hermit" in the situation you described appears to be all about pretense --- at least with regard to calling himself a hermit, donning a habit, etc. He cannot relate particularly to the situation these people are in or the good news they really need to hear. He does not live full-time solitude nor has he assumed any of the rights or responsibilities of such a life (the habit in the scenario you described is little more than a costume he takes up to play a role on weekends.) And yet, the habit and titles (Brother as well as hermit) give these people the right to expect he WILL BE ABLE to speak to their situation in a helpful way from his own life experience. They have the right to expect these things to mean something --- not least a counter-cultural life of total dependence on God lived on the margins of society in the silence of solitude.

This is why all the angst over Canonical standing. Such standing generally indicates the acceptance of rights and obligations by those who are discerned to have such a call, etc. It is not because we are Pharisees, but because law often serves love. It does so in this case. By the way, I would personally disagree that many people are called to diocesan eremitical life but just can't swing it financially. I do agree that those who are able-bodied and need to work full time are not called to diocesan eremitical life at this point in time, but then, as you say, they can enter a religious eremitical community --- something which is NOT ordinarily open to those who are disabled or chronically ill. Regarding the other points you bring up, benefactors, etc, I will hold those for another time.

All my best.

Followup Questions: Urban hermits and married hermits

[[Do your last two posts mean that you don't believe a person living in a city can live as a hermit? And why can't married people be hermits?]] (cf Married Diocesan Hermits and Nicolas of Flue)

Thanks for the questions. Let me see if I can clarify what I have written already. Regarding the first query, no, not at all. I have written about urban hermits in the past, about the unnatural solitudes of the cities Thomas Merton referred to and I believe very much that one can live as a hermit in such solitudes. (Of course I do that myself so it would be hard to believe it could not be possible.) In fact I believe it is important to do so so that people who have no choice BUT to live in such places and alone in all the ways cities and contemporary life imposes, can have a sense that such aloneness can be redeemed. That said, let me point out once again that some hermits DO believe that the term urban hermit is an oxymoron, and while I understand why they say so and agree that certain elements of the natural wilderness cannot be replicated here, I continue to disagree with their basic conclusion. My choice of setting in the stories I told in the other two posts was made simply to make it easier to illustrate a point. I could have used an urban setting, but it would have made the illustration more difficult.

Remember that I began discussing whether there could be part-time hermits. By that I did not mean someone who lives in solitude for a number of weeks or months and then travels to give retreats or something similar for a while, and who then returns to solitude. Neither did I mean hermits who may come together to pray Office, or celebrate Mass with others in their community during their day only again to return to their hermitage between times. These are both true expressions of eremitical life. What I was referring to by "part-time 'hermits'" were people who build a degree of solitude into their day, or week, but whose identity is not defined by that solitude, either because they are wives and mothers (or full-time teachers, etc), or because they merely go off to solitude "on holiday" at the end of the week or something similar --- and yes, I have heard both kinds of people describe themselves as hermits and insist they are right to do so.

What this discussion led to was a description of the difference between an experience of the desert and a true desert experience (there is a spectrum here, by the way). It also led to the assertion that a hermit is by definition a solitary, one who ultimately has only God to depend on and who chooses this identity because it is the way to human maturity and wholeness for her. Now, it may be that the urban hermit lives in a comfortable apartment, with books and stereo and maybe even a TV and computer. However, to the extent these are distractions or hinderances to her solitude, she will either forego or get rid of them. The urban solitary is always open to being called to greater poverty, greater reclusion, greater inner and outer solitude. She makes the renunciations required to be truly alone with and dependent upon God, and also to grow as profoundly as God wills and invites. But one must be a solitary. This is the sine qua non of hermit life, even life in a Laura or under the mentorship of an elder hermit. In contrast, it is not possible to renounce one's children or husband when one has a vocation to marriage and motherhood, nor to change the relationship to one of "just" two monks sharing their solitude, etc. Husband and Wife are one flesh, and the children are the fruit of that marriage; nothing changes that.

In pointing to married people becoming "one flesh" we have pointed out what defines them as people --- as "for others". By definition they are NOT solitaries. They give themselves totally to one another, body and soul out of love. They come to God together, and are called to bring one another to God. In all things they belong to one another, and are meant to. This is their God-given vocation and it is of immense significance and value. As noted, their children, if they have children, share in the dynamic of unity and themselves are brought to God in this way. The members of the family will certainly have desert experiences throughout their lives together, times of illness, dysfunction, bereavement, loss, but they are ALL in this together and that remains true even while one is off at work, or others are off at school. Thus, they will fall back on one another, and yes, on God, but they are not solitaries --- as lonely as they may feel from time to time. They live from, with, and for each other, and their relationship with God is a part of the way in which they are from and for one another. They share a family life and that remains true no matter if mom spends solitary prayer time during the day, dad spends solitary prayer time in the evening, or kids spend solitary time in their rooms or out in the driveway playing basketball.

As I suggested before, every person SHOULD build a certain degree of solitude (both inner and outer) into their days; that is only normal and good for personal and spiritual growth. Simply because a person does this does not make her a hermit, however. In the situation I am describing this person has wedded another, created new life with that person, and lives with and for her family. Even her time in solitude anticipates their return or includes them in ways that differ from people in the parish she may hold in her heart. The chores she does she does for and --- even if they are not physically present -- with them; the errands she runs she runs for and with them --- even if she is physically alone or prays and offers all this for various intentions. And of course, this is as it should be for this IS her vocation. Just as I have renounced certain things in order to truly be a hermit, so a woman who embraces marriage gives up certain other vocational possibilities as well: eremitical life is, by definition, one of these.

The hermit is in a very different position. Yes, she ordinarily has a parish community, and yes, they do indeed support her in her vocation. She may have relatively close friends in this parish (though no one she can actually hang out or spend extended time with), and the parish may certainly be "family" in the usual way we use that term of communities. But, when she leaves Mass, or the Cinco de Mayo parish dinner, or the Confirmation celebration, she returns to the hermitage where she is alone with God, and where she will sink further and further again into that special aloneness which constitutes the eremitical life. She continues to hold all the parish in her heart, and she replays and reflects on shared events in her mind to share with God, or she journals about them because they touched her and challenged her, but, apart from Christ, there is no spouse nor are there children to truly share her heart with in an ongoing way --- or in the way children natually occupy a Mother's heart. She has given up the right to these and this renunciation is part of her desert or solitary experience. If she is ill, she deals with this herself, if errands need running in the main she does the same again because this is who she is and who she has chosen to be. If it sounds lonely, in some ways it is, but it is never a malignant loneliness, never an anguishing to be with others, etc, for the truth is God is there, always and everywhere, and the hermit knows this and is consoled by it even when she does not experience God's presence.

Again, there are MANY MANY people in this world and in our church who live alone. Their spouses have died, their children have moved away, illness isolates them even further and claims more and more of their energy and time while as a result their lives seem to make little or no sense. These people have no choice about their solitariness. Nor is it a part-time or casual reality, but instead is something impacting them at every moment of the day and night --- even when they are visiting others. For these people the eremitical life might be really significant as a way to redeem their isolated solitariness (that is, with God's grace it can be a way of transforming this into a meaningful wholeness and communion). Solitude is not the same as isolated solitariness, although it might start there. But for this redemption to happen, we cannot allow the vocation to be co-opted and effectively emptied of meaning by those who are not even single, much less solitary --- those who still have a husband with whom they are raising a family, for instance. We cannot allow the term to be co-opted and thus emptied of meaning by those who are weekend-'hermits' in the same way there are "weekend-contemplatives," or "weekend parents" and thus empty the terms contemplative or parent of meaning.

I know I have repeated myself in this post, and perhaps it is simply redundant, but I don't know how to make the point clearer. Perhaps it would help if I described more what solitary existence is like and how it differs from marriage. Perhaps I need to go further into the theology of marriage vs the theology of solitary (eremitical) life --- especially in terms of eschatological significance. I suspect I really need to say more about contemplative life per se and too about how it is that the eremitical life culminates in a nuptial or spousal relationship with God that really does not allow for marriage to another. Finally, I have not really written at all about the dangers of using solitude to escape from the demands of community --- something hermits living in community recognize as a significant danger (as is using community to escape the demands of solitude --- something I have referred to already in recent posts); I suspect it is an even more acute danger in marriage. I will think about that. In the meantime, I hope this helps with your questions. Please get back to me if it does not help or raises more queries.

Part-time Hermits? Objections?

[[Dear Sister, you have objections to "part-time" hermits. You also are emphatic that the word hermit should not be used for just anyone. Can you please say more about your objections?]]


I am not sure how much more I can say about this topic, but yes, I will be happy to explain what I have written up until now. First, the use of the term hermit for just anyone: apparently there is something intriguing to people about the idea of being a hermit but what is focused on is the physical solitude, and not the underlying motivations for the life, the community or ecclesial aspect, nor that this is a contemplative life rooted in a relationship with God and all that he cherishes. What the hermit says with her life is that God alone is sufficient for us, and I mean that in two senses: 1) we are made for communion with and in him and all else (including all other relationships) is a piece of this, and 2) if we live with and for God alone, as hermits do, then that provides all we need for authentic human maturity and psychological well-being. Thus, hermits in their solitude affirm the first statement with their lives: God alone is sufficient for us, and they witness to others that the same is true for them. Of course others may also witness to this and be very far from being hermits. Every Christian, in fact, is called to make this statement with their lives, no matter their state of life. But hermits really accent the second statement, and no one else does so in the same way. It is what makes their lives eremitical: they live with and for God alone in a more literal sense (others are a significant piece of this because the hermit cherishes what/whomever is cherished by God), and that is sufficient for them and their achievement of human maturity and psychological well-being.

While the first aspect mentioned is critical to the quality of the eremitical life, it is this latter aspect of the eremitical vocation which makes it truly eremitical. The hermit vocation is the vocation of a SOLITARY, not merely an introvert or loner (indeed, the hermit may be neither of these), not someone who has a bit of physical solitude on the weekends or when the spouse and children leave the house for a few hours, but a true solitary --- one who has given her life, body and soul to God and witnesses to what life with God alone can be. Hermits are those persons who live with, in, and from God alone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. While their love for God, and his for them will spill over and touch and include others, there should be no doubt that the primary environment of their lives is both the physical and inner solitude peculiar to the hermit. There should be no doubt that their inner and outer lives consciously reflect an accepted identity as a hermit.

So, why is all this important? Why can't a mother who prays while others are out of the house call herself a hermit, and why shouldn't she? Why can't a person who goes off to solitude on the weekends call himself a hermit, and why shouldn't he? I may have used the term "truth in advertizing" before somewhere in these blog posts, but let me use it again. The first reason these persons cannot call themselves hermits has to do with truth in advertizing. They ought not call themselves hermits because they simply are NOT living contemplative lives in solitude (each word in this phrase is important to the definition of a hermit). The second reason is related and has to do with witness. Hermits are the ones in the Church who say with their lives that it is possible to live ALONE with God for the whole of their lives and that their lives are meaningful, and in fact, that one may come to human wholeness and holiness in this way. They say that while this is a rare vocation, the person who finds herself in physical solitude and cut off from others for whatever reason: illness, bereavement, etc, has a life which is still infinitely precious and significant, and can continue to grow or develop into greater and greater fruitfulness --- an almost unimaginable fruitfulness in fact. The hermit witnesses to this truth even if the person can no longer work, has lost friends whose lives move at a different speed and rhythm, or struggles with illness which seems to dehumanize and cut off all human possibilities for growth or life, because these things are merely one side of the equation; God's grace is the other, and the hermit witnesses to what is possible when human weakness and limitations are joined by the grace of God.

The hermit's life therefore speaks in a special way to these people, people who will not have a husband (wife) and children returning at the end of the day, people who cannot spend their days cleaning FOR husband and children or planning outings, or shopping for them, people who have no one to comfort them in their pain and no breaks in the continuing solitude of their situation. The numbers of persons who live like this today are phenomenal, and someone calling themselves a hermit when they no more live a solitary life without respite is insulting and insensitive not only to authentic hermits who do live healthy and truly solitary lives, but to those living in the unnatural solitudes of illness, bereavement, old age, abandonment, etc, without choice or options otherwise.

These reasons all have to do with the witness value of the eremitical life, but we need to look at the reasons which have simply to do with the nature and quality of the hermit life itself even apart from witness value --- and again, it is a matter of truth in advertizing. By definition eremitical life is solitary life, that is, life lived in, with, for and from God ALONE. Solitude (inner and outer) does its work over time, it develops, grows, changes the human heart only over time and in physical solitude. Consistency is necessary, and consistency here means long term ongoing physical solitude. This is not necessarily the same as complete reclusion, but to call oneself a hermit when one simply spends a few hours a day alone, but waits for the return of husband and children, or when one works with others all week (even if one never speaks to them), and then goes camping or fishing alone on the weekend is analogous to someone calling herself a mother because she baby sits several days a week a few hours in the morning and afternoon. I suspect any mothers reading this would merely laugh at how ridiculous such an idea is. The same is true when hermits hear of people who build a little solitude into their lives calling themselves hermits. We both know "these people don't have a clue" --- not about real motherhood and its unceasing demands and concerns, or about giving one's life (one's whole life) for these others, nor about solitude or what it means to live as a solitary, and certainly not about what it means to be thrust back on God as the sole source of strength and meaning in one's life --- the essence of Christian eremitism.

A few days of solitude is usually welcome for most people: time to rest, read, pray, reflect, and even then the first 24-48 hours might be very difficult as silence challenges them initially. A few hours of solitude a day can also be quite welcome, and can be used fruitfully for prayer, rest, chores, etc, but in each case the solitude is temporary and one does not need to deal with the dark parts of the human heart, with the demons which inhabit our personal worlds. These things can be put off, and may not even appear because after all, the solitude is only partial. As noted above, one is not completely thrust back upon God alone to make sense of one's life, one is not faced with ALL OF ONE'S SELF AND LIFE in an environment where it MUST be faced. Distractions one has left behind (TV, work, relationships, etc) may not fill the hours of solitude themselves, but they wait in the wings moderating the solitude, either because someone is coming home at the end of the day, or because one can return to one's REAL world if one just guts this relatively brief period of solitude out. One's life makes sense APART from solitude: marriage, children, work, etc, and solitude itself may be the real distraction (even prayer can be a distraction!).

The point here is that such part-time solitude is relative, and also that it is neither as deep nor as intense nor as all-claiming and challenging as is genuine eremitical solitude. A trip to the desert is simply not truly a desert experience if one arrives in one's RV and drives away at the end of the day or week, even if one hikes out for a few hours each day. One may experience the desert to some extent in this way, but it is not truly a desert experience. (That could be had if one hiked out a few miles and then realized one had forgotten one's compass, lunch and canteen and would need to spend the night out alone without food or shelter, for instance. THEN one begins to sense the difference between an experience of the desert and a desert experience.) You see the distinction I think. Similarly then, one may experience solitude without ever coming close to solitary experience, without ever being a solitary.

But this is not true of the hermit. Her life makes sense within solitude, as a solitary because her life says that these things are an essential function of her relationship to God and living with and for God alone. Her experience of solitude is a desert experience. It is in solitude that she comes to grapple with the darknesses of her own heart, with the demons that do indeed inhabit this desert in which she lives. Yes, there can be occasional distractions (a direction client, Mass (I use the term distraction here only to the extent this is not a solitary experience), an orchestra rehearsal, an occasional dinner with friends), but unlike the person whose "solitude" is merely part time, whose children return to tell about their days, whose husband comes home to eat together and share the same bed, the hermit's solitude always beckons, at meals, at bedtime, while one does laundry or cooks for oneself alone. Every activity, and even the distractions merely point to her solitary existence. She knows she cannot justify that existence with motherhood or marriage, or even with productive work. Prayer cannot be just an important aspect of her life, much less a pleasant distraction from her usual activities. It must be THE work of her life (the work of God in her), her very lifeblood which sustains her without question. Either her life makes ultimate sense in and through her solitude because God has called her to this WITH and in HIM, or it is the greatest and most tragic absurdity a person can devise. This is the risk the hermit takes in faith and the desert is the place this is lived out.

I think there is still a great deal to say here (especially since I have not spoken of semi-eremitism), and I had not expected that, but hopefully I have begun to answer your questions. We ought not allow just anyone to call themselves hermits because doing so empties the term of meaning. It strips away the boundaries which definitions set up. Definitions are drawn on the basis of experience, they are not arbitrary. There are many many people who live lives with some degree of time alone to pray. Every person actually fits (or should fit) this picture in one way or another. Do we call all these people hermits? Of course not, no more than we call teenagers who babysit regularly Mothers. These people have time for solitude and should take it, but they do not live solitary lives with all that means. On the other hand there are many people in our world living true desert experiences already who could find the word hermit gives meaning to lives that otherwise seem to have none in worldly terms, but that cannot happen if the word hermit is emptied of meaning by dilettantes.