On Chosing Transparency

[[Dear Sister, it's me again! if someone wanted to live as a more physically hidden hermit than you do, maybe even as an anonymous hermit, would they be able to do that as a diocesan hermit? Would it be wrong to "out" them? I heard someone who is seeking canonical approval say they thought maybe they could do this to raise the falling standards of eremitic life. They said that would include being anonymous because that is a much more humble and hidden way of living the life. I wondered if that would be okay, partly because of what you have written about this vocation being a public one. Do people become hermits to show others how to do it? That just seems like a crazy idea to me --- not that someone shouldn't do their best, but become a hermit to show others how to live this vocation? Nope, that seems crazy to me.]]

Thanks for your questions. Canon 603 hermits write their own Rules of Life and in doing so they are the ones who define how they will live the elements of c 603. If a diocesan hermit wants to live a very strict hiddenness, if she believes this is what God is calling her to, she would make that clear in the Rule she submits for approval. The diocese would need to read and "vet" this Rule to see if it is truly liveable and consistent. If the life it describes seems unbalanced, for example, the formation team might ask the hermit to change that in some way; they will certainly pay attention to whether or not the person is capable of living a healthy eremitical life that is both in touch with, and capable of truly speaking to, the contemporary world. What you describe in the second part of your question is a known phenomenon with some folks entering religious life, but it doesn't really work there as a reason to enter, nor would it work with c 603.

Anyone who has been in religious life is apt to know someone who entered the community with the sense that they are going to change things. Usually, these are young adults "feeling their wheaties" (so to speak) after having been to college and/or graduate school and being stuffed full of new ideas on what community life should be and not be, how liturgy is to be celebrated, styles of leadership that are preferred, and any number of other things theological or spiritual. On the other hand, some may enter with the thought that they will single-handedly drag the community back to the "more traditional" way of life, their eyes fixed too exclusively on centuries past. 

Ordinarily, the candidate and then the novice (this happens especially during novitiate!!) comes to find out how little she has understood from the outside, how much she has to learn from those who have lived and sometimes struggled with the tension between contemporary life and tradition while listening deeply to the voice of God in the present, and how truly transparent a life of prayer requires one to be. Some of these folks make significant adjustments and do very well. Others find the learning curve too steep and leave after a relatively short time in formation because they lack the humility, flexibility, or docility the vocation requires. Should someone really try becoming a diocesan hermit to show others how to live as a "real hermit," I personally doubt any diocese would accept them, not least because the person would not be able to enter whole-heartedly into a substantive discernment/formation process. If anonymity is part of what they are trying to show others constitutes the "real hermit" way, the motive could be far removed from true humility!! Dioceses know how to look for motives and what drives the person to petition as they have.

You see, with c 603 life, the situation is somewhat different for at least three reasons: 1) the canon is not written in absolutes but, at least in certain ways, in relative terms (for instance, stricter separation from the world is not absolute separation from the world, nor does it refer first of all to the material world that is God's good creation); further, therefore, the terms of the canon don't usually have a single or univocal meaning, instead they embody not only differences but varying depths and degrees of meaning; 2) the vocation is a solitary one, not meant for a community of hermits; elements of the canon will be conditioned by the person's own history (and vice versa!), and 3) The Holy Spirit works with each hermit to inspire them in the way God wills. Since the hermit reveals the heart of the Church to the Church and the world, each hermit may do this in a different way to be effective. What is lifegiving and a means to genuine freedom for one hermit may not work well for another hermit. N.B., these points also provide the reasons the Church asks each diocesan hermit to write her own Rule of Life. At the same time they are implied in the church's position on c 603 vocations not being allowed to create a religious community of c 603 hermits while allowing them to come together in a laura that respects each hermit's own Rule of Life and individual eremitical path. 

The question regarding anonymity is one I have written about just lately so please check recent posts for more than I provide here. Yes, a diocesan hermit can remain hidden and very strictly so, however, if she should try to maintain a public presence of sorts (like I do with this blog), she will be required to provide a name and the diocese that professed and is responsible (or to whom she is accountable) for her hermit life. She is accountable not just to her diocesan leadership, but to the entire People of God for what she writes and says as a diocesan hermit -- so long as she claims publicly to be this. The choice is either to remain entirely hidden and anonymous or to claim one's identity fully and openly because this is a public vocation and folks touched by this life have a right to know who this supposed "Catholic Hermit" is. I'm not sure what you are imagining when you speak of "outing" someone, but I can imagine situations where someone is aware of the identity of a person who claims to be a Catholic Hermit and who might be obliged to provide at least the name of the hermit's Diocese so long as she is insisting on remaining anonymous. Of course, one would speak directly to the hermit before doing that!

As I have already noted then, this has to do with accountability for the vocation.  If one wishes to participate online, for instance, and does so while identifying herself as a consecrated Catholic Hermit, then she cannot remain anonymous. If one identifies oneself as a diocesan hermit, for instance, or desires to legitimately call oneself a Catholic Hermit, one is also obliged to identify oneself sufficiently to be accountable for the vocation and to the people to whom one is ministering because she ministers in the name of the Church. Anonymity and the public claiming of a consecrated ecclesial vocation cannot be exercised simultaneously. To the degree one makes such claims, one must be open about one's canonical identity.

 Speaking to parish at Mass during pandemic

There is a risk in this, of course, but those of us who maintain a public presence as diocesan hermits have weighed the costs and found them worthwhile in being true to our vocations,  to the Church who consecrated us, and the God who calls us to this life. For instance, five years ago a person writing under the Catholic Hermit designation (Joyful Hermit's profile and blog list) called my diocese and accused me of crimes. Her call was handed around to several people who neither knew me nor knew of me and then, she apparently received a return call informing her that I was indeed a diocesan hermit in good standing and if she really felt she had a case against me, she should take me to court. (The diocese is not responsible for me in those terms,*** but I also believe they knew Joyful had no true grounds for legal action.)  

I first read about this situation (and more as you will see!) in one of Joyful's blog articles. Here is one place that occurred (I am not sure now if it was the first place I read this in Joyful's blog but it is a main one.) I apologize for the ugliness of the speculation in this citation. A link is provided in case there is a concern I have twisted what Joyful actually said, or quoted her incompletely or out of context.

But I have not met anyone as persistently evil. hateful, and miscreant as this one who by trickery got me to email her over 16 years ago, and who since has been a nasty, derisive, and detracting, public voice ever since. We have so much not in common, sadly, but that could shift if not for the devils' influence, and a sickness of pride, presumption, and envy that has known no ceasing for over 16 years. No amount of prayers or various techniques offered to psychologically or spiritually get an alliance with her, for there is evil and hate in that person, a particular animus against me that has settled in the person. Her main beef seems my writing as a Catholic hermit, of which I am, of course. But she has a need to be superior, seems to resent competition of another Catholic hermit writing, or so say others who have observed this unChristian situation over the years.

But as had been my lived experience, Catholics tend not to stand up against such type of evil as they fear the devil to turn on them as well. Even her Vicar General who her Bishop's office (said they had never heard of her as a canonical hermit in their diocese!) did not want to intervene, not even find out who she is and guide her to not dox nor harass me using internet, given they are penal codes in her state. They suggested I take civil legal action against her.... So much for diocese hermits being directed and supervised by their bishops (or as she has added, by a "designee" and not needing to be a priest....

If not for the Catholic and hermit reality, I still think this person who represents so many Catholics, especially women, would continue the ugliness regardless, as long as I keep writing, for she uses what I write as her foil often enough, as her fodder to come up with a platform to "preach" and try to be "someone with status," thus her inventing precedents and giving herself impetus and note to what ought to be a hidden life of a hermit. So she puts me down publicly in order to try to build up what seems a spiritual emptiness, or a lack of inner security or healthy love of how God created her, or whatever issues going on--perhaps envy that I am heterosexual and have had a family, that I am educated with higher degrees, or that I'm a persecuted, suffering mystic and victim soul.  (Seeking Kind Catholics) 

Joyful (who has never met me personally, nor contacted me directly about her 16+ years' worth of concerns with me) is still telling that story about my diocese disavowing me, not only on her more recent blog (cf above link) but in her recent videos on Joyful Hermit Speaks, though without making clear the diocese's clarification that they do know me. (For example, Having Trouble, Moving On (cf, 20:51ff, but the whole video gives context.) Originally, it seems to me she wanted to call my credibility into question; most recently she has used the story to call into question the wisdom of c 603 and the fidelity of responsible bishops. I find (and, for a number of years, have found) the situation irritating, occasionally infuriating, and almost always deeply perplexing because of the groundless speculations that are thrown up as truth. At the same time, I have chosen to be present online in a transparent way and that means that, unfortunately, my diocese may occasionally get a phone call from someone like Joyful Hermit. That is the choice I made in identifying myself online as a Diocesan Hermit of and for the Diocese of Oakland, and as I look back at the past 17 years and the good that has come from them and as I move toward the anniversary of my consecration on 02. September, I would say that even in light of these kinds of personal attacks, my decision was a good one, and I am grateful to God for the way God has led me!

*** As noted before, on the day of her consecration (the day of her perpetual profession,) a diocesan hermit signs a waiver of liability so that should she leave the consecrated state she cannot sue the diocese for past wages, etc. As I have said before, I suppose that this waiver could also cover things like bail and fines, etc should a hermit get into legal trouble, but it is not primarily about that.

On Public Ecclesial Vocations: Rights, Obligations and the Responsibility for Transparency in Consecrated Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was wondering what it means for you to have a "public vocation". You claim that having such a vocation implies that it comes with certain public rights and responsibilities so let me see if I understand some of what that means. Let's say that I disagreed with the theology you provided, or that I thought you were not representing eremitical life well and thought it important enough to speak to you directly about it. It would be important that I have a way of reaching you, true? If I was not satisfied with your response to me, then I would be able to contact your diocese, wouldn't I? It might even be morally necessary for me to do that, true? Are these examples of what you mean when you say you have a public vocation? And what if you claimed to be a diocesan hermit but refused to provide your name or diocese? That seems like it would be a problem if you are responsible to the People of God for what you do or say in public. And yet, how about the Carthusian monks who write books and sign them anonymous? They have public vocations but remain hidden in this specific way; why doesn't this work for c 603 hermits? Is my analysis on point? I have more but I want to hear your response first if that's okay.]]

Wow, such great questions!! And yes, your analysis is pretty much on point -- with some nuances and expansions to be added. Also, of course you can come back with more. I'll email you this first answer and then you can reply with more. How does that sound?

So, ordinarily the rights and obligations identified as part of an ecclesial public vocation have to do with representing the vocation one has been commissioned to live in the Church's name and to do so well. The obligations refer to living the vows well, understanding, valuing, and conveying the nature of c 603 similarly, living one's Rule and the values that comprise its central elements well, and I would say particularly, giving evidence that one lives the Gospel of God in Christ in a way that convinces people that God really is of primary importance to oneself and also to any really compelling spirituality one holds. 

One should be a person of prayer, live from the Scriptures, reflect a vibrant sacramental life, be faithful to spiritual direction, mentoring, and any other disciplines necessary to live this life attentively and obediently, and do all of this for the sake of God and all God holds as precious (essentially, the entirety of God's creation)! At my perpetual profession and consecration, I assumed all of these obligations (and likely a few I haven't called to mind here); in doing so I gave the whole Church the right to expect that I would do all I could to meet these obligations faithfully --- including asking for assistance of those who might help me --- particularly in regard to my responsibility to grow in this vocation over the years.  

What I was given in exchange was the right to identify myself as a diocesan hermit, a member of the consecrated state in an ecclesial vocation bound publicly by the Evangelical Councils and a Rule of Life I had written and that was vetted by canonists and approved by the Bishop professing me. I was also given the right to style myself as a religious Sister, to wear a habit with my bishop's approval and a monastic cowl (after perpetual profession only). In other words, I was given the right to call myself a consecrated Catholic hermit who lives this vocation in the name of the Church. A year after perpetual profession, I was also given permission to use the post-nominal initials Er Dio as part of my signature indicating my identity as a consecrated c 603 hermit. And, although I have not used this right (and likely can't do so the way some might be able to), I was given the right in civil law to set my hermitage up as a 501(c)3 religious house. So, with that out of the way, let's get to your questions.

The Questions:

Yes, I would agree that if you found me posting bad theology you might eventually be required to contact my diocese, particularly if I had not been sufficiently responsive to your attempts to speak with me directly. Let me point out, however, that I should be culpable for something serious here and not a matter of a simple theological disagreement. And yes, you are right about the importance of my providing a way to reach me or my diocese so long as I claim to be a diocesan hermit. Part of the obligations I accept in claiming a public ecclesial vocation is a certain relinquishment of the right to absolute privacy. If I am going to express myself publicly and represent myself as a diocesan hermit, people should be able to verify my bona fides. That ordinarily means folks have a right to know my name, as well as the date and diocese of my consecration. If I should want or need to withhold my name for safety's sake, but still choose to express myself publicly, then I must identify the diocese to and through which I am responsibly professed. This would not be optional because my vocation is a public and ecclesial one. (Please also see, OnAnonymity and Accountability in c 603 Vocations )

As noted above, the right to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit comes with correlative obligations. This vocation, as ecclesial, is about more than just me and God alone. People in the Church and larger world have correlative rights and legitimate (valid) expectations re a consecrated person in the Church. This is one of the things new candidates for profession have to be helped to understand. It is not just that one can now be identified as a diocesan hermit. That right comes with correlative obligations to all whom one's life as a hermit touches! I am responsible not just for what I say or do; I have obligations to others to be who I say I am and that includes being transparent about my identity and canonical bonds within the Church. If I claimed to be a diocesan hermit and yet refused to provide my name or at least my diocese, then it would be a betrayal of the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation. The only way to remain anonymous would be to also refuse to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit; in such a case, however, one would be emptying a God-given ecclesial identity of any real meaning.

How About Carthusian Monks signing "A Carthusian?"

So what about the Carthusian monks whose books are signed "A Carthusian"? (I'm pretty sure they use this more than they use "anonymous.") Strictly speaking, they are neither remaining anonymous nor refusing to be transparent. They are providing the name of the Order they belong to and that Order is the responsible party here. That Order is publishing in a way that makes the entire congregation responsible to the Church and larger world for what is being published in their name. And that is the key to the situation, being responsible for what one says or does and who one is in the Church and larger world. But c 603 hermits do not belong to an Order. They are diocesan hermits, hermits admitted to public standing by a diocesan bishop and responsible to the People of that diocese as well as the larger Church for this public vocation. Can they remain anonymous? Yes, once professed, they could choose to make this part of their eremitical hiddenness (though it need not be). But let's be clear, they could not do that AND violate their chosen hiddenness by public expressions (blogs, videos, articles, publications) as a diocesan hermit! One simply cannot claim anonymity AND a public ecclesial identity at the same time. That is inconsistent, dishonest, and disrespectful of those to whom one is writing or speaking, as well as to the diocese that has entrusted one with this vocation.

On the internet, I sometimes find folks who insist on remaining anonymous and often tend to be dishonest, exploitative, and selfish. It is striking to me that they are free to publish almost anything they want, truth be damned, if that is what they desire, and they do it in the name of freedom. (It is really about license, not authentic freedom!) Were a c 603 hermit to claim anonymity while at the same time claiming to say or do what they say or do as a diocesan hermit, they would especially not be able to justify this claim in terms of eremitical hiddenness. Again, it would instead be an act of irresponsibility, perhaps even cowardice, and it would certainly fail to respect the persons who listen to or read their works. The only place this might be acceptable might be a situation where a journal (for instance) had taken responsibility for the quality of the hermit's published piece and the author's bona fides. But again, in this situation, as in the example from the Carthusians, someone is taking appropriate responsibility for readers, listeners, et al who have their own rights. 

Fortunately, diocesan hermits I know who had to deal with the question of not revealing their names or dioceses because of privacy and safety concerns chose to cease being active on the internet, while those who maintain a presence here do so openly and accept any reasonable risk. Both groups of individuals maintain an appropriate eremitical hiddenness (not an element of canon 603 in any case), a sufficiently protective privacy, and also a clear sense of respect for the public and ecclesial character of their vocations. I think you can see the striking difference between a public ecclesial vocation and a private non-canonical vocation, and also why I have insisted for more than 18 years that "public" in these matters is not about notoriety, etc., but correlative public and ecclesial rights and obligations.