Canon 603 Used as a Stopgap Rather than as Recognition of a True Eremitical Vocation?

[[Dear Sister, in light of your last post,  would you consider someone describing themselves as a "sort of monk-missionary" and their place of abode a "hermitage" to be a hermit? Also, if a priest had a history of difficulties with his bishop and parish ministry, does it make sense for his bishop to admit him to profession under c 603? (I know of a pretty public case where this happened and the bishop outlined the difficulties in a public letter and then admitted the priest to profession just 5 months later! That does not make sense to me!! Neither does saying: [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life. Isn't a hermit a contemplative no matter what limited ministry they undertake? Aren't they supposed to have discerned a contemplative vocation before they discern an eremitical one?)  

I have a couple of other questions because of your earlier blog post. Could you explain more about the difference between the promise of obedience made to a bishop and a vow of what you called religious obedience made to God in the hands of the bishop? Finally, could you say some more about the difference you see between the act of profession and the making of vows, and especially the making of a single vow? I didn't understand that part of your post and I thought it sounded important.]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me save the ones on profession as compared to avowal for another time. Your note on the priest's self-description makes me think we are speaking of the same rather sensational case. One of the reasons for a careful and relatively long discernment and formation process is to make sure the person really is a hermit, understands herself this way, and is comfortable identifying herself with this descriptor before the Church professes and consecrates her as a canonical hermit under c 603. Using the "hermit" label isn't initially easy for most of us. That is not only because of the rarity of such vocations and the need to work out the shape of such callings in our own lives, but also because of all of the stereotypes associated with the life and all of the nutcases similarly associated with this designation. 

It takes time for one to come to understand c 603 and the solitary eremitical vocation, and even more time before candidates are ready to assume a constructive, faithful, and creative place in the eremitical tradition of the Church. They must see themselves truly as a hermit before they can be allowed to embrace the specific rights, obligations, and legitimate expectations others have of those who are hermits in the consecrated state. Only at such a point would such a person be ready for profession (including temporary profession). What I mean when I say they must see themselves in this way is that they must resonate in their deepest core/self with the term "hermit" and know that God has called them to such a life and especially, that they will not be using c 603 as a stopgap solution for other reasons.

By the time one is professed either one is a hermit or one is not. What I mean here is that either one's profession represents the true self-gift of a hermit (even a novice hermit) or it is a lie. One is not, for instance, a "kind of monk/missionary", or a "sort of a contemplative", or "a kind of loner"; one is (or should be) a hermit and one is entrusting oneself to God to continue making one ever more profoundly into the hermit one knows oneself to be by the grace of God's call. If one begins one's professed eremitical life thinking one is a "sort of monk/missionary" rather than a hermit, (especially if this is the truth of the matter) one can and will grow into more of a "sort of monk/missionary" --- one who is neither this nor that, and certainly not more deeply into life as a hermit. Canonical profession and consecration as a hermit demands that one consciously represents an expression of a particular vocation with a rich and significant history. One may not (will not!!) be a perfect hermit, but one must honestly know one's deepest, truest self by this term.

This, by the way, does not mean one's eremitical life is identical to that of another's but it does mean that one lives a recognizable expression of canon 603 even when there are individual variations involving prayer, limited apostolic ministry, and spirituality more generally. Neither does it mean that one is not growing into one's eremitical vocation. One may be a novice hermit or a potential candidate for profession, and one may be a mature hermit involved in limited ministry within one's parish, for instance, but one is still growing as a hermit in one's core identity. It is this core identity that makes one a hermit, not the canonical designation per se. In other words, Canon 603 alone does not make one a hermit; it makes the hermit one already is a canonical (consecrated solitary) hermit. For one to describe oneself as a sort of "monk/missionary" is the self-description of someone who is not yet and may never become a hermit --- whether or not c 603 has been utilized.

Let me say too that as soon as I hear this kind of designation by someone whose Rule of Life has been approved by their bishop, I have to wonder what is going on. When the supposed hermit writes just 2 years before profession under c 603, [["That [improvement of my Mother's illness] was my indication that I was ready to move on to either religious life or [life] as a diocesan hermit or to take an[other] assignment [as a parish priest],". . . But no assignment came]], the use of c 603 sounds like a way of getting out of a difficult situation, not the mature discernment of a true vocation, much less one ready for profession and consecration, but simply another secular priest's "assignment". Thus, what is being described could be fraud at worst (or ignorance at best). In either case, the canon is being abused by the putative "hermit" and ultimately by his bishop for some reason other than what it is meant for. Whatever is vocationally true in this specific case, to misuse c. 603 in this way is disedifying at best and even scandalous at a time when the Church, and especially the episcopacy, is increasingly being looked to for a capacity to image the humble God of truth and scrutinized for abject failures to do so.

In the case you referenced your facts are correct. The letter outlining an apparently rebellious priest who cannot serve in parish ministry, who (according to his Abp's letter) will not show up for meetings with his superiors, and who 'bad mouths' that same bishop and his staff for being unjust, condoning illegal acts, etc., was written just 5 months before the same priest was reportedly professed as a diocesan hermit. (Yes, I checked with the diocese to be sure of the priest's status under c 603 and they provided his profession date.) Moreover, this "hermit's" Rule was only approved temporarily (for one year) in 2020, which means the priest in question was professed without an approved Rule, and perhaps, therefore, without having lived an eremitical Rule for several years before being professed. 

I too noted where this priest wrote recently; [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life.]] You are entirely correct in your objections to this comment; it is not an eremitical life he is describing nor does he seem committed to maturing in one. The usual and necessary pattern of growth into eremitical life is to first become a contemplative, then develop into a contemplative craving greater solitude and silence, and only then, if one discerns this is the way the call to the silence of solitude must be lived, does one move even more deeply into this reality as a hermit --- all of which happens long before one petitions to be admitted to even temporary profession under c 603. I continue to think that this priest and perhaps his bishop thought that as long as he was already a diocesan priest all he had to do was become a hermit in some limited  or nominal sense and could be professed under canon 603, making him a diocesan (priest) hermit and giving him some superficial but merely apparent grounds for not fitting into parish ministry or diocesan life.

Summary:

Tom Leppard, see posts

From what I have read by both the man and his bishop I continue to think this is the case because NO ONE was busy living canon 603, coming to understand it deeply, or discerning the vocation or ascertaining the adequate formation of a diocesan hermit. What the bishop, for instance, was busy doing was struggling to find assignments for this priest when folks kept sending him back to his diocese; the priest, for his part, was demanding to be assigned somewhere or to something including religious institutes or eremitical life under c 603! For awhile this priest identified himself as a diocesan priest hermit. On the diocesan clergy role where the man's assignment is ordinarily given, this priest's name is now followed by "Diocesan Hermit." Treating c 603 as something one can "assign" an intractable priest to would make sense of the lack of discernment, lack of adequate formation or understanding of canon 603, etc. 

If I am correct and this had merely been treated as a bishop's assignment with an abbreviated "profession" (if I can use that term) consisting of a vow of simplicity (whatever this means!) merely added to a priest's already extant promises of celibacy and obedience to his bishop could also make a weird and limited sense --- though not in terms of canon 603 or the profession required by the Rite of Religious Profession ordinarily used in this regard! And all of this would indicate that neither the bishop nor the priest involved were treating an eremitical vocation under canon 603 as a serious vocation. Everything published on the situation makes it seem that c 603 and eremitical life itself was merely seen as a canonical slot from which a difficult or troublesome priest could carry on as before, free from parish responsibilities with a new standing in law and (perhaps) with a somewhat more contemplative dimension to his active life. It seems to have been a way to accommodate an abject individualism which is exactly contrary to solitary eremitical life. 

This is the only way I could make sense of the time frames and things I read from those involved. It also appears there was more arm twisting or extortion in all of this than I have discussed here, but the bottom line for me is that c 603 appears to have been abused in this case and whatever putative profession was made is disedifying for that reason and may well be invalid. Had I been able to find any article by the priest's diocese explaining the vocation, the longer than usual discernment and formation which it requires, the admittance to profession, and something of the reasons this priest felt called to pursue this, the situation might have seemed differently to me. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any celebration and explanation of such a significant public event. (If anyone knows of such, please send it on and I will correct this post as appropriate.)

Questions on Priests Transitioning to Eremitical Life Under c 603

[[Sister Laurel, how common is it for dioceses to profess diocesan priests as hermits? Are they expected to go through the same process of discernment and formation as anyone else, or are they given a kind of special entre to profession/consecration because of their priestly vows? (I am thinking here of a kind of shortcut or abbreviated profession like adding a vow of "simplicity" to the vows already made as a priest.) If you were looking at a priest candidate for c 603 profession what would you be looking for? Thanks]]

Thanks for the questions. I have omitted the questions on a particular priest and diocese for the moment. I believe the case you raise is significant and I will try to answer your questions, but I wanted to go with these more general questions first. It is always tragic when there is a disedifying use of (or refusal to use) c 603 by bishops who really may not understand either the canon, its history, or solitary eremitical life itself, particularly when they use it to shoehorn someone into this vocational option despite their manifest lack of suitability, preparation, and discernment, but it does happen. So, let me answer the above questions first, at least until I have done what I can to ascertain the facts in the specific case you raised. Some of these repeat responses I have given others in the past so be sure and check past posts as well.

It is not common for dioceses to profess secular priests, especially younger ones, under canon 603. There are several reasons. First, during seminary training a significant program of pastoral work and discernment is undertaken. By the time one reaches the point of readiness for ordination everyone is pretty clear that the young man is called to an active apostolate whether or not he has a contemplative bent or not.  in light of this there must be really significant signs of a different vocation to change the young priest's heart and mind on the matter and those of his bishop, et al; this will take a similarly significant time to reveal itself and even then all kinds of steps will be taken to help ease the young priest's dis-ease with his parish assignments. 

After all the time, energy, and expense, spent in the original discernment and formation processes no prudent bishop or priest is going to jump (or allow a priest to jump) into life as a hermit, much less profession and consecration under c 603, nor should the Office of Consecrated Life allow a precipitous move from active priestly ministry to consecrated eremitical life. It is not fair to anyone involved in such a case, nor is it an appropriate use of the canon. Moreover, it is offensive to dioceses and diocesan hermits who have spent the requisite time and energy in truly discerning hundreds of such vocations since the canon was published in 1983 --- just as it is unjust and offensive to those who petitioned in good faith for admission to profession and consecration and, for whatever good reasons, were eventually refused.

Generally speaking, then, yes, a priest candidate will undergo the same formation and discernment process as anyone else in preparation for admission to a life of the evangelical counsels lived in the silence of solitude. After all, as I have pointed out a number of times over the years, this is a uniquely significant and rare vocation, and very few, relatively speaking, are called to human wholeness and holiness in such a vocation. It deserves care and attentiveness by all concerned. Secular priests with promises of obedience to their bishops will need to prepare for a vow of religious obedience to God in the hands of their bishops and anyone the bishop delegates to serve in this way. Similarly c 603 requires profession of the Evangelical Counsels including religious poverty and chastity in celibacy. In my understanding of these vows they are richer, grounded differently in different realities, and thus require a different preparation than do, for instance, the commitment to the discipline of celibacy or a life given over to some form of "simplicity". 

If you are asking whether a vow of religious poverty could simply be added to the commitments of celibacy and obedience made by secular (diocesan) priests, my sense is no, canon 603 and the Rite of Religious Profession used for Canon 603 professions require public vows (or other sacred bonds) made to God of the Evangelical Counsels. These are not identical to the commitments (promises) made by secular priests to their bishops. Remember that the three evangelical counsels together make up the lion's share of an organic profession or self-gift to God; they must be similarly grounded in a love which demands that God and God's Kingdom be primary in matters of wealth, relationships, and power (thus, religious poverty, chastity in celibacy, and religious obedience).  Also, it is important to remember that profession itself is a broader act than the making of vows, as central as vows may be to the act of profession. This means that one does not reduce it to the making of vows and certainly not to an act in which one adds a single vow to other varying commitments; profession is an exhaustive and  ecclesial act of self-gift which, when definitive (or perpetual), will also include God's consecration of the person.

You ask what I would be looking for as I assessed a priest candidate for c 603 consecration. In light of what I have already said, I would be looking for a contemplative who had been successful in his active ministry as a parish priest but who had developed as a contemplative over a period of years. I would look for someone who, again for a period of years (at least 7-10), had developed a life given over to substantial silence and solitude and who had discovered an undeniable call to eremitical life rooted at every point in the charism of what c 603 calls "the silence of solitude". 

I would look for a priest who had worked with a spiritual director regularly and over a period of years to develop a life of prayer nourished in this context and always calling him back to it in ways which led everyone who knew him to recognize a potential hermit -- not because he could not live his priestly vocation and active ministry, but because these things had absolutely required what is for him this form of deeper love and were ultimately fulfilled and perhaps transcended in it. (For any hermit engaged in limited ministry I would always look for the ministry to be rooted in the silence of solitude and lead the hermit back to it in an integral way; the silence of solitude always needs to be primary and the lifestyle contemplative. A "hermitage" is not merely a base of operations from which to launch an essentially active lifestyle, nor is it to be used as a way of controlling (or appeasing) problematical priests who simply "don't fit" in parish ministry or the diocesan culture. 

Despite, or maybe precisely because a hermit's life is characterized by its "stricter separation from the world" (which does not merely refer to the world outside the hermitage per se), hermitages are not escapist; they are a paradoxical and profoundly loving way of engaging in and on behalf of the life of the diocese and parish. I would argue that priests who may ultimately discern with the church that they are being called to life under c 603 must demonstrate a long history of loving both parish and diocesan life while struggling to love it more deeply from a contemplative perspective. 

Thus, I would look for a priest whose greatest success in his vocation to a priestly apostolate was the evolution of his love of God, self, and others into the solitude of authentic eremitical life, not into some ideological excuse or individualistic isolation. After all, his very life in the silence of solitude must itself be a prayer; it must itself be a ministry --- indeed, the hermit's primary ministry and the ground and source of any other limited ministry. It must be a witness to all but especially to the marginalized left isolated by life's circumstances that such life can be redeemed by God's love and transformed into the wholeness, personal quies, and communion hermits know as "the silence of solitude". It ordinarily takes careful and long discernment and formation to be sure enough of such a vocation to admit one to consecration under c 603; for priests already publicly called and ordained to an active apostolate at least as great care should be taken as for any other candidate for consecration.

Can a Priest Be a Diocesan Hermit in One Diocese/Country and Live As a Hermit Under A Second Bishop in Another Diocese/Country?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am a priest intending to become a diocesan priest hermit. I will not be living in my own home diocese, however, but will go to a neighboring country. I know that I will have to make profession before the bishop in order to become a proper hermit. I do not intend to change diocese, or become incardinated anywhere else. I will simply be living in another country. The question is this: Can my own bishop give permission to the bishop in the place where I will be living to receive my vows? Is that permitted by Canon Law? It's wonderful to know that there is someone like you willing to help people in these situations. Thank you in anticipation for any help you can give.]]

 

Dear Father, Thanks for your question. It is gratifying that you would write. My understanding is that under c 603 one must live in the diocese in which one is professed. Remember the canon is explicit in this, the hermit makes profession "in the hands of the local bishop". I suspect this language is what prompted your question, but it is for this reason that c 603 hermits are called diocesan hermits. A person may move to another diocese and remain a diocesan hermit if and only if the new bishop agrees to receive his/her vows. When this occurs he becomes the hermit's legitimate superior and also has agreed --- at least in principle --- to be open to discerning and professing other canon 603 vocations in his diocese. (Remember, not all bishops/dioceses have opened themselves to implementing canon 603.)

 

The situation you outline is very different and is, though not intentionally perhaps, capable of being perceived as a way of sidestepping both the stability of the vocation, the sense that this vocation is a gift of God to the local Church, and the ability of either the remote or the local bishop to act effectively as legitimate superior. It could be remarked that the situation you are describing also tends to weaken the ecclesial nature of the vocation and would, at least potentially, set a destructive precedent or at least be unhelpful to those persons in the beginnings of considering or discerning vocations as diocesan hermits.

Let me point out that canonical profession is not needed to be a "proper" hermit. We have lay hermits and priests living as hermits --- both without public vows (and often without private vows either). Canonical vows (part of the larger act the Church recognizes as profession) are needed to live and represent eremitical life as a Catholic Hermit, that is, in the name of the Church. If you wish to live as a hermit your bishop can give you permission to do so; strictly speaking you do not need to be professed as a diocesan hermit under c 603. You could, if you desired, make private vows with your bishop as witness (though he would not be "receiving" these vows in the name of the church; that would require profession under c 603). One problem with this option or the next is that in my experience, bishops are generally very reluctant to give permission to diocesan priests to become hermits; not only does the priest shortage make this difficult but the long period of discernment and preparation in one being admitted to the Sacrament of Orders strongly suggests that, short of a life-changing event or circumstances, eremitical life is contrary to the person's true vocation. 

Difficulties aside, if you wish to be a diocesan hermit, that is, a solitary canonical or solitary Catholic hermit, you could do that by making profession in the hands of your local bishop if he were to give permission; if you wished the second bishop to subsequently receive these vows and change your residence he would need to agree. Were you simply to move out of the professing diocese without required approval of the receiving bishop, your vows would cease to be binding due to a material change in the terms of profession. If you were to continue living in a different country and make profession in the diocese of incardination, the requirements of c 603 ("in the hands of the local bishop") would be violated and your profession would likely be invalid.

Also, I believe as a matter of true governance (and your own responsibility), acceptance of responsibility for your vocation and vows by the second bishop would also require your incardination in the new diocese. What I cannot envision is incardination as priest in one diocese and profession (or reception of one's vows/vocation) and consequent standing as a diocesan hermit in another. In such a case you would be a single subject attempting to live under the canonical authority of two different bishops and that strikes me as incoherent with neither bishop really having true jurisdiction. I doubt a bishop can simply relinquish authority in the way you have described.

Since I am not a canonist, however, I will refer you to one whom I know and trust with particular expertise with canon 603 but also in matters having to do with ordained and consecrated life more generally. While I believe I have given you accurate information, a second opinion might be of assistance. Meanwhile, I hope my response is helpful both as a direct answer to your question and as a way of thinking further about canon 603 vocations. Whether private or public commitment, whichever option you choose, I wish you good luck in your journey to/in eremitical life!

N.B. The canonist mentioned above commented on the submitted question and essentially noted that it was a matter of jurisdiction and that a priest could not be bound in obedience to two different bishops in two different dioceses. Incardination binds a priest in obedience to the local ordinary; so does canon 603. The first bishop has no jurisdiction over affairs in the second diocese and so, cannot act to delegate authority or give permission in the way described in the question --- something I had not thought of at all myself!

Mentally Ill Priests as Hermits? Once Again on the Illegitimacy of Stopgap Vocations

[[Dear Sister,
      Our parish has a priest who has serious mental health issues. Because he does less pastoral ministry than other priests he says he is a hermit. This raises a number of questions for some of us here: 1) is hermit life a good option for the seriously mentally ill? 2) if a priest has a busy pastoral ministry how can he live as or call himself a hermit? 3) Do dioceses use canon 603 to profess and consecrate these priests? 4) How often does this happen? A number of parishioners have begun to think that hermit life is a kind of fallback "vocation" for when someone is unable to live their real commitments. I know you have written about "stopgap" and fallback vocations but also vocations to chronic illness so I wonder what you think about this. I think it detracts from the hermit vocation.]]

Thank you. Your questions are typical of those I sometimes receive from other diocesan hermits and also from priests who would like to maintain a full pastoral ministry but also live as hermits. Some are interested in building in a more substantial contemplative dimension to their pastoral and spiritual lives and (mistakenly I think) believe that eremitical life is the way to do this. Only occasionally have I heard about situations such as the one you describe where serious mental illness is involved and eremitical life really does seem to be a potential stopgap or fallback position for those who are unable to live their canonical commitments. (I say potential because in some rare instances a priest may well transition into eremitical life and do well at it when he cannot meet other obligations. Vocational paths can change and God can certainly call us to a new way which uses our very weakness as a revelation of graced strength.)

The Temptation to Misuse Canon 603

However, the accent there is on the word rare. I'm afraid the temptation to misuse canon 603 or eremitical life more generally is more common than some of us would like to think, not only because the canon (and the eremitical life it defines) is little understood but because these are not valued; the actual charism of the vocation is not appreciated. As a result some chancery officials and many faithful believe it is a kind of empty (contentless) category into which all kinds of "failures to fit in" can be poured or situated. Before discussing the different situations you named I think it is important to recognize this temptation or tendency and to make it very clear that canon 603 specifically and eremitical life more generally are defined in the Church in a very clear and definite way: it is a LIFE of assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the silence OF solitude, profession of the evangelical counsels lived according to a Rule of Life the hermit writes him/herself all lived under the supervision of the local bishop (and implicitly, regular and competent spiritual direction). It is not an avocation or way of validating mediocrity or simple inability. (The redemption of inability or weakness is another matter!!)

The elements of this life are important because the entire constellation comprises a life which can witness in a special way to the unique and fundamental truth that God alone is sufficient for us. In our world this particular message is a crucial one. So many are alone and alienated even as they yearn for love and completion. So many hunger to believe their lives are meaningful or of real value and have no way to do that if forced to compete merely in "worldly" terms. And of course whole cultures are built on the misguided drives to wealth and power, domination and individualism of every stripe including narcissism. The hermit reminds us that there is one basic truth that counters the anguish and anxiety associated with all of this, one foundational relationship that is the real wealth and source of power in authentic human living: viz., God alone is sufficient for us. To use canon 603 or the term "hermit" for any lone individual, especially as a way of creating a stopgap means to validate a failed or otherwise dysfunctional vocation is an essentially careless and dishonest usage of the canon and a trivialization of the term "vocation"; it is therefore also a way of denigrating the gift of the Holy Spirit solitary eremitical life represents.

I have been writing about the tendency of individuals and even some chancery officials to misuse canon 603 out of ignorance or a failure to appreciate its gift quality here for a large part of the last nine years. While I do see a lessening in the incidence of such abuse or misuse in a general sense, the temptation to use the canon to profess non-hermits or to consecrate lone individuals who sometimes actually show no knowledge of the canon much less experience of the life it defines and codifies is still alarmingly prevalent. The situations you asked about constitute some of the thornier instances that occasionally crop up. And yet we would not accept such an approach to any other form of consecrated life!

Canon 603 and the Seriously Mentally Ill:

In general I don't support eremitical life for the seriously mentally ill. In an earlier post I wrote the following which I still hold: [[My general answer to the first part of your question is yes, some mentally ill persons COULD be hermits, but not all and not most. Regarding the second portion of the question, those that COULD be hermits are those whose illness is well-controlled with medication and whose  physical solitude definitely contributes to their vocations to wholeness and emotional/mental well-being. There should be no doubt about this, and it should be clear to all who meet them. It should assist them in loving themselves, God, and others rather than detracting from this basic responsibility. In other words, solitude should be the context for these persons becoming more authentically human and maturing in that fundamental or foundational vocation for the whole of their lives. With this in mind I am thinking too that some forms of mental illness do not lend themselves to eremitical vocations: illnesses with thought disorders, delusions, hallucinations, fanatical or distorted religious ideation, and the like are probably not amenable to life as a hermit.

On the other hand, some forms of mental illness would (or rather, could) do quite well in an eremitical setting so long as the anachoresis (that is, the healthy withdrawal) required by the vocation is clearly different from that caused by the illness and does not contribute to it but instead even serves to heal it. Certain mood disorders, for instance, cause a defensive or reactive and unhealthy withdrawal, but it is not the same as the responsive anachoresis of the hermit. The person suffering from clinical depression who also wishes to be a hermit should be able to discern the difference between these two things and this requires a lot of insight and personal work. However, if a person suffers from clinical depression (or has done in the past) I would say it should be pretty well-controlled medically, and no longer debilitating or disabling before the person is allowed to make even temporary profession as a diocesan hermit. At the same time, provisions for adequate ongoing and emergent care and treatment should be written into this hermit's Rule of Life.

In any case, I think the decision to become a hermit when mental illness is a factor is something which requires the candidate and her spiritual director, her psychiatrist or psychologist, along with the diocesan staff to work together to discern the wisdom of. Mental illness per se should not always automatically preclude this vocational option, but there is no doubt that eremitical silence, solitude, prayer and penance can exacerbate rather than help with some forms of mental illness. Even in the completely healthy person eremitical solitude can lead to mental problems. Ordinarily we are made for a more normal type of communion or social interaction with others, and this is a particularly significant area for caution when dealing with mental illness.]]  Eremitical Life and Mental Illness

Canon 603 as a Stopgap solution:

But let me be very clear here. A diocese or individual must discern a vocation to eremitical life FIRST of all; they must be aware of how it is mental illness works against this discernment and vocation, how the vocation to the silence of solitude assists in personal healing and the special care required to deal with an illness which could otherwise thwart such a genuine eremitical vocation. WHAT THEY CANNOT AND MUST NOT DO is treat this canon on eremitical life as a way of disposing of a troublesome priest or situation, a way of isolating a difficult personality, or in any other way treating eremitical life as a stopgap solution which minimizes demands on the diocese or its presbyterate to truly care for this priest and find ways to allow him to minister as normally as possible. In this situation as in any other a hermit is NOT JUST A LONE individual much less an isolated one who doesn't fit in anywhere else! If a diocese must relieve a seriously ill priest of his pastoral role and/or faculties and allow him to live on his own, then let them do that BUT they MUST NOT facilely attempt to validate this by calling the man a "hermit." He is not. Instead he is a mentally ill priest separated from active priestly ministry and made to live alone.

What is important to understand I think is that a hermit dealing with some form of mental illness is not the same thing as a mentally ill person separated off from social contact and active ministry either by their illness or by their superiors. That is true even when the mentally ill person is asked to continue a life of prayer --- though in such a case an eremitical call might eventually be revealed. Eremitical life is defined in terms of the character and quality of one's life with God in the silence of solitude. The question which must be asked is, "If someone (a non-priest or lay person) came to the chancery seeking to live as a hermit under canon 603 because they have bi-polar disorder or a form of psychosis, for instance, and cannot function well, would the diocese profess and consecrate them as a canonical hermit on these grounds?"

My sense is in the vast majority of such cases a diocese would refuse --- and rightly so. In that remaining small fraction of cases it is possible the person will discover he is really called to a desert life of the silence of solitude, but this discovery takes significant time, discernment, and formation. The Church recognizes the eremitical life as a significant gift of the Holy Spirit, one which is capable of producing profound fruit at every level of the Church and in the world. To thumb one's nose at this truth while treating eremitical life as though it were the ecclesiastical equivalent of a back ward of a psychiatric hospital into which one might shunt all manner of difficult or problematical characters is not merely an injustice or abuse on every level (not least for the individual suffering from mental illness!) but, in its dishonesty and lack of genuine charity, a blasphemous one as well.

Priests and the eremitical Life More Generally:

I do get emails relatively regularly from priests with very full pastoral lives who would like to become hermits. In general they seem to use the term hermit to describe a contemplative or at least more contemplative life than the one they are managing to live now. What they must remember is that while all hermits are contemplatives, not all contemplatives are (nor are they called to be) hermits! It is very rare for dioceses to allow diocesan priests to become consecrated hermits and generally speaking these cases require a significant degree of additional discernment before a chancery would allow them to do so. Remember that priests undergo a significant degree of training and discernment prior to ordination. Dioceses are pretty clear that someone they are admitting to Orders has a call both to priesthood and to active ministry. Psychological testing and interviews are part and parcel of the discernment process and while some kinds of disorders might be missed, serious mental illness ordinarily would not. Even for situations in which the diagnosis is missed prior to ordination medical management and appropriate trials of psychotropic meds combined with therapy would be a first line of treatment long before considering perhaps someone has a vocation as a hermit. (And notice I am speaking of discerning a VOCATION as a hermit, not to shunting someone off into an isolated residence and "calling it" a hermitage!)

Occasionally newly ordained and entirely healthy priests have difficulty adjusting to the demands of parish vs seminary life, for instance. This does not mean they are called to become hermits though any more than it means a graduate student who has difficulty  transitioning from years of more solitary research and dissertation writing to a full-time teaching position is really called to be a hermit. The newly-ordained priest certainly needs to find assistance to manage his time and provide for adequate prayer, study, and recreation; he may also need the support of other priests and perhaps even therapy or counseling to assist him make the transition, but generally the seminary personnel will have discerned carefully with the seminarian and finding he is really called to be a hermit within a few years of ordination is unlikely in the extreme. What is true for the healthy newly ordained is actually even truer for the mentally ill priest.

Summary:

The bottom line in all of this is the same as I have written before and as you yourself have concluded. Eremitical life in the Church is a divine vocation with a character and value which are gifts of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it is a radical, demanding, and dangerous vocation for those not called to it. It is not a "stopgap" or "fallback" vocation for those unfit or unsuited to vocations in which they have been ordained or professed, nor is it a label given to those MERELY living prayerful lives alone --- especially if they are also mainly active or apostolic. Eremitical vocations are desert vocations, calls to the silence OF solitude. Such vocations must be discerned and formed with all the care and dedication given to any other ecclesial vocation. A number of us with chronic physical illnesses, for instance, have discovered and embraced a vocation to eremitical life but this discovery and the discernment it required was genuine; it was not a way of validating our inability to undertake lives of active ministry (or a way of dignifying our illness-rooted isolation!) but instead a way of fully or radically revealing the truth that "God's power is perfected in weakness" as well as that "God alone is sufficient for us" and embodying these in our Church and world.

In a world which needs especially to hear the latter truth ("God Alone is Enough") and which thus needs to see that hermits live and are called to live radically full, whole, and holy lives in the power of God, it would be a disservice to all involved and an offense against the Holy Spirit to misuse eremitical life as a stopgap. Better solutions must be found for cases like the one you mentioned --- more honest solutions which do justice to the persons and to the vocations involved and which witness unequivocally to God and the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ. Either we believe in eremitical vocations or we do not (and some chancery personnel do not). If we do believe God calls people in this radical way then we do not betray the reality or our own belief by trivialization and destructive compromise. If we do not believe in eremitical vocations then we certainly must not trivialize the lives of the ill or relatively incapable by facile equivocations. To do either in the name of the Holy Spirit strikes me as immoral.