Some Not-so-Preliminary Conclusions about Canon 603 and this Blog!

My recent focus on ecclesial vocations is something prompted by several different factors. Two are most important: 1) my work with c 603 candidates and on a guidebook for discernment and formation of such vocations, and 2) the clear way the Holy Spirit has been working not only in my own life and vocation but also in the lives and vocations of those I work or collaborate with in one way and another. 

 The thrust of eremitical vocations is often thought to be individualistic and selfish. (Even, or perhaps especially, the quest for personal holiness can lead us badly astray without a strong ecclesial context, sense, and commitment.) When c 603 hermits struggle against the stereotypes and biases that mark what most folks believe about solitary eremitical life, it is most often a struggle to provide an understanding of the vocation that clearly stands against those who view these vocations as irrelevant or as marked by selfishness, personal failure, and isolationist tendencies.*** Unfortunately, some hermits (both canonical and non-canonical), usually inadvertently, strengthen the case against understanding the vocation as meaningful in terms of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or significant in the way it moves the Church towards a stronger focus on and representation of the Kingdom of God. Such vocations put a premium on privacy (which is not the same as stricter separation or withdrawal from the world), are focused on a too-individualistic notion of personal holiness, are unconcerned and sometimes entirely uninvolved with the Church's mission in this world, and are often isolated from the faith community we identify as "primordial Sacrament."

Canon 603 counters all of these tendencies by establishing vocations that are public and ecclesial. It is critical that dioceses and those they profess as c 603 hermits understand and appreciate these two dimensions of the vocation and come to terms with them in spite of the hidden nature of the vocation and its humbleness. These two dimensions introduce new tensions into the vocation and some critics treat these as though c 603 life is a betrayal of "traditional hermit life"; in truth, however, they are the source of a fresh sense of the vocation's humble generosity and other-centered meaningfulness. These two dimensions serve to allow eremitical life to truly exist as an expression of the Church's loving, sacrificial, Christ-centered, and Christ-shaped heart. Without faithfulness to all of the canon's foundational elements, but particularly these two dimensions of the vocation, eremitical life would fall inexorably into a selfish individualism, isolation, and disengagement with others making it instead, a vivid example of the worldliness true eremitical life seeks to disavow and stand against.

Over the past almost two decades I have contended off and on with one relatively isolated lay person; over the course of that time and partly because of the energy marking this contentious relationship, I have been able to explore more and more the importance of the Holy Spirit calling some hermits to public and ecclesial vocations, vocations that serve the Church and are normative of all authentic eremitical life while protecting the life from falling into all of those stereotypical distortions so prevalent in the stories of hermits throughout the centuries. Though I regret I have not always done so, I have mainly managed to keep my writing focused on issues rather than persons, and over the same period, the issues raised by this lay hermit's interpretation and praxis of eremitical life have helped me to see beyond some ways eremitical life misses the mark in serving the Gospel and the Church that is called to proclaim it. Moreover, with God's assistance, this relationship has pressed me to explore why c 603 was so important in the history of eremitical life, how this canon in its ecclesiality honors the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and how necessary it is in nurturing and protecting healthy solitary eremitical vocations. For that, I owe God who works to redeem such difficult situations, my profoundest thanks!

So, I am excited to continue to explore c 603 and its central elements, along with its foundational public and ecclesial dimensions. All of these make clear that these vocations and the canon that governs them are the will and gift of God for the sake of the whole of God's People and in a special way for hermits. I feel blessed to be able to appreciate and write about this. To that end, I will continue to eschew making my posts personal. I will not presume to speak about someone's supposed motivations or behavior, presumed gender preferences, putative personality disorders, or any other personal trait or condition one simply cannot truly know remotely. I have been the subject of all of these things over these years, indeed they are still occurring, and I will not perpetuate the same. (Because God can and does transfigure something deeply unworthy into a grace or blessing does not mean we choose what is unworthy to get all the more blessings!! As Paul concludes in Rom 6:2, God forbid!!) At the same time, I recognize that occasionally I will need to identify a specific hermit or wannabe hermit to prevent misunderstandings and the belief I am speaking about a whole group of persons. The bottom line here is that if I do not use a person's name, please do not presume I am speaking about any particular person!! The hermit world is far larger than that and one who proceeds in this way will only appear insecure and foolish!! My concern in this blog is the issues that face solitary eremitical life in the Catholic Church because of God's gift of c 603 and its vocations, not, in the main, with their representatives, adversaries, or exemplars. 

Camaldolese Symbol, Today: Monks and Oblates,
consecrated and laity as partakers
of the same cup and sharers in the same charism

With regard to lay or non-canonical hermits generally, as I have already noted several times, I believe they are and will always represent the lion's share of hermit vocations in the world and Catholic Church. They can and maybe meant to serve a significantly prophetic role therein. What the Archdiocese of Seattle is doing with these vocations is positive and (I believe) critically important in helping us all to understand the reason for vocations with a strong ecclesial sense, even when they are not specifically considered ecclesial vocations. These vocations may also be instructive in terms of developing effective discernment and formation processes for c 603 hermits. Thus, a third factor prompting my focus on ecclesiality beyond the two mentioned above, is my recent education on the way the Archdiocese of Seattle is handling the situation of non-canonical or lay hermits. That continues to work in me as a kind of leaven and to bear surprising fruit. My thanks to Paul, the Catholic lay hermit from the Archdiocese of Seattle, who wrote me just after last Pentecost for his assistance.

*** At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe that canonical vocations are necessarily marked by pride, a desire for prestige and authority, and necessarily violate the hermit's call to humility. I will discuss this end of the spectrum in another article.

Who can Live Canon 603 and in what sense?

[[Sister Laurel, can someone who is not professed under c 603 live the canon?]]

Thanks for writing! Because I believe the vision embodied in c 603 is normative of eremitical life in the church, my answer is yes, they can. At least, that is, the first section of the canon can be lived by any hermit in the church, no matter their canonical state or form of eremitical life. However, a non-canonical hermit and a canonical hermit in an institute of consecrated life would not live the second section of the canon. I recently cited that second section, but let me put the text of the entire canon up for you to see what I mean.

Can. 603 §1. In addition to institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance. 

§2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his supervision.

Members of institutes of consecrated life including those properly termed semi-eremitic, are canonical, but they do not fall under the second section of the canon. This is because their professions, consecrations, legitimate superiors, and canonical standing are rooted in other canons and the proper law of their institutes. Non-canonical hermits can fulfill all of the terms of c 603.1 but do not have standing in law as a hermit, nor do they live a "proper program of living" in a strict sense because in c 603.2 this means an approved Rule that serves as their own proper law that is lived under the supervision or direction of the local ordinary.

I've written this before but please note that "proper" in 603.2 is not a Britishism meaning "well or appropriately done" like when someone can make a "proper cuppa" tea for their guests. Proper in the c 603.2 sense refers to proper law and is approved, as an institute of consecrated life has approved constitutions and statutes that form their own proper law in addition to the requirements of universal or Canon law.  (The hermit's Rule is given a Bishop's Decree of Approval and becomes legally binding on the day of profession.) On the other hand, any person could certainly write a Rule that serves as a vision of and means to live their own personal way of eremitical life. It would be considered proper to them alone even though it is not an officially approved Rule; it would just not meet the conditions of c 603.2, however.

Evaluating a Little of What I have Learned from the Past Couple of Months

The past couple of months have been particularly challenging both here at Stillsong and in this Notes From Stillsong blog. I have written at least once every day or two and responded to some difficult questions I would rather not have had to deal with. At the heart of it all is a subject who contends she would like to be made a c 603 hermit despite having reviled the vocation for at least fifteen years on various blogs and in a series of YouTube vlogs. As you might imagine, the situation has generated a lot of questions (only a few of which I have posted) which, personalities aside, can serve to help sharpen the process of discernment and formation for c 603 hermits presently being developed for dioceses that might make use of it. So, these couple of months (and a lot of the past 17 years) have provided lots to think about, surprises with problems I never could have foreseen or perhaps even imagined, and opportunities to explore the ins and outs of c 603 for the sake of the Church --- which makes this all a joy.

The most important things that have been underscored for me during these weeks have been the foundational aspects of c 603 vocations: these solitary hermit vocations are public and ecclesial. I have said this again and again through the past almost two decades, and the importance of these two elements in forming the candidate's sensibilities concerning eremitical life generally and consecrated c 603 life particularly cannot be overstated. Related to this is the candidate's understanding that public or canonical means public rights and obligations the Church extends to the candidate which s/he embraces. S/he must approach profession, consecration, and life after these performatory "moments" and within the reality they create in a way that is both uniquely responsive to the Church's mission in the contemporary world and sensitive to and reflective of the ancient eremitical tradition s/he now represents. There are some questions and concerns that have been raised particularly during this time, and my sense is dioceses must definitely raise these with every candidate they consider for profession and/or consecration during the first couple of sessions they hold with the candidate.

For instance, it is important to ask directly what the person knows about Canon 603. How has its existence and its essential elements shaped his/her eremitical journey? (We need to ask about each of these elements individually in this regard.) What is its history (both remote and immediate) and why was it established? Does s/he understand, for instance, that it was not primarily established to deal with abuses in eremitical life, but rather because the Universal Church had finally come to esteem this vocational gift of God? Does s/he understand why and how this vocation is prophetic and a gift to the Church, and to every person making up this body --- particularly to the marginalized, the chronically ill and disabled, the poor and elderly?  Is s/he ready to take on that role and to grow in it even if s/he must (perhaps) change some ingrained ideas about the eremitical life itself?  Does s/he understand that ironically, the canon's constraints provide a realm of freedom the Church extends to him/her so that s/he may grow in communion with God for the sake of others, or does s/he see the canon as some kind of straightjacket used to hem in the hermit or a penal code mainly meant to correct errors? If the hermit sees the canon in the first light it can be a joy to him/her and his/her eremitical life; if it is seen in the second light, s/he may never be empowered to discover its depths and beauty with his/her own eremitical life. These questions are important for those discerning such vocations as well.

Similarly, does the candidate have at least a glimpse of the canon's charism? Does s/he perceive and appreciate the way the vocation-as-canonical is a gift to the Church and serves in the proclamation of the Gospel? How does s/he relate to this gift quality? Does s/he understand the defining elements of the canon as doorways to worlds s/he is called to explore with and in God, or are they instead perceived as narrow gates to a single rigid meaning with little relevance to most people's lives? Does s/he approach the life under c 603 with the heart and mind of a beginner or as someone who believes it has nothing to teach him/her, nothing to surprise him/her with, and nothing to delight him/her day by day? These questions themselves lead to questions regarding the candidate's theological sophistication or lack thereof. It is important that there be real competence, not that the hermit needs to be a theologian, but that s/he is able to negotiate traditional sources of spirituality and eremitical life in light of contemporary voices and scholarship and the light of his/her own prayer as well.

A penultimate question (at least for tonight!) that must be asked as well is about the hermit candidate's use of media, social and otherwise. For instance, if the hermit candidate has a public-facing presence (blogs or vlogs), then these need to be checked out and discussed with the candidate. It is especially important to do this when there are several blogs that correspond to different periods of the candidate's life and relationship with the Church. Patterns of behavior and personal difficulty that might not be entirely evident otherwise can be perceived when these avenues are explored. A particularly crucial question that may sometimes go unasked is, "Why are you seeking to be professed under c 603?" In recent weeks, that particular question became particularly urgent and problematical for some who wrote me in light of so much blog and vlog material denouncing and reviling c 603, the motives, character, and fidelity to c 603 itself of c 603 hermits, or of the bishops who approve such vocations. After at least 15 years of this kind of material, as well as an obstinate insistence that one is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, it becomes a compelling question those discerning the vocation standing before them, must know to ask!! In fact, it is this question that calls for all of the other ones I have mentioned here.

My thanks to those who have written this month and last with questions and concerns. You have helped me in my own vocation (especially my vocation within a vocation) and contributed to the ongoing project I am working on regarding the discernment and formation of c 603 vocations. Individual situations with c 603 candidates come and go, but the ability to help the Church learn from them is important and you have been especially helpful in that. It truly has been a fruitful if challenging number of weeks! Again, thank you.

Canon 603: A New Way of Being a Hermit?

[[ Hi Sister O'Neal, Because of the videos you have linked readers to, I have checked out Joyful Hermit Speaks. She talks about the traditional way of becoming a hermit, that is, one just goes off and does it. So I was wondering if your own vocation is a new vocation, a new way of becoming and being a hermit? Would this solve some of the arguments you have with Joyful if it were seen this way?]]

Thanks for your questions! I suppose one could say this is a different way of becoming a hermit, but only so long as we don't also affirm it is an entirely different way of BEING a hermit. What I mean is that in insisting that this vocation is public and ecclesial we begin to identify what was truest in the very best and most authentic forms of eremitical life associated with the faith. (There are other forms, of course, but I am not referring to those here.) Those associated in some way with the faith belong first of all to and/or are lived for the sake of the Church; secondly, they witness to the content and power of the Gospel in substantive ways and are therefore associated with specific rights and obligations that allow others to have meaningful expectations of the hermit.

In the very best examples of hermit life we see eremitism as an expression of faith and of the Faith. The Desert Abbas and Ammas lived what they did for the sake of Christ, his Gospel, and the well-being of a Church whose newly granted civil status led to mediocrity rather than to martyrdom. That was true of many hermits and anchorites through the centuries in the Western Church and is the reason eremitical life is associated with the label "white martyrdom". It represented a bloodless form of radical witness to the faith that challenged all Christians to live something more substantive than the mediocre Christianity acceptable to Constantine and his Edict of Milan**. At the same time, many "hermits" were the rugged and radical individualists of their day and their way of life conflicted with vocations that were at least implicitly ecclesial. Largely, this is where the stereotypes and caricatures of authentic eremitical life come from throughout history. Faith was not at the heart of these "hermits'" lives, nor were concerns with the Church or the Gospel she had been entrusted with.

Over the centuries the Church, especially via the local or diocesan Church began to take more of a hand in assisting hermits and anchorites to live authentically Gospel-centered lives. These lives anticipated and became more representative of ecclesial vocations, but without being validated by the universal Church. In other words, these vocations were, to some extent, seen as ecclesial vocations, but not with the fullness of eremitical life lived in certain Orders and congregations, or under c 603 for solitary hermits. Thus, when I think of c 603, I see the Church finally accepting God's gift of eremitical life, taking responsibility for and becoming responsive to authentic solitary eremitical vocations in a way that allows these vocations to be considered true and full expressions of ecclesiality. Implicitly, I think we can say the lives and vocations of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, for instance, "belonged to the Church" and these hermits lived their lives on her behalf --- but without the institutional Church ever truly recognizing or embracing this fact or the vocation represented. With c 603, I think we see a vocation now fully claimed by the Church in a way that allows hermits to truly be the heart of the Church and who call her to be something more than the world around us allows her to be. At the same time, c 603 leaves behind individualistic and stereotypical eccentricity and selfishness that was never truly edifying.

In this sense, c 603 vocations are ecclesial in a way that is new despite earlier anticipation of a full ecclesiality by other forms of eremitism,. For that reason, yes, they are a new way of becoming and being a hermit; at the same time, they find their roots in Elijah, JnBap, Jesus and the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and so, are quite an ancient vocation. The elements of the canon are the elements present in any authentic eremitical vocation including non-canonical expressions of the life: stricter separation from that which is resistant to Christ, persevering prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the Evangelical Counsels, a Rule of life the hermit writes herself based on her own relationship and life with God, and a life lived for the praise of God and the salvation of others; what is added for canonical hermits is the fact that all of this occurs in the hands and under the supervision of Church representatives (i.e., the bishop and/or the one he delegates to do this service to the diocesan and universal Church). Canonical vocations are those in which the public and ecclesial dimensions of the vocation are fully realized. In this realization, the Church also embraces the fact that she is always in need of reform and conversion ("ecclesia semper reformanda est") as Vatican II clearly affirmed, and the Desert Abbas and Ammas knew!***

My sense of Joyful's take on eremitical life is that it is highly individualistic and that she believes the Church has messed with something it should not have messed with in creating c 603. I am not sure the idea of solitary eremitic life as a public and ecclesial vocation figures at all in Joyful's thought. She likes to call herself a consecrated Catholic Hermit, but until last month had relatively nothing good to say about c 603 nor, as far as I can find, has she spoken at all about the reality of public and ecclesial vocations (which means vocations lived in the name of the Church). While I understand she is now petitioning to become a canonical hermit under c 603, I am waiting for her and her theology of eremitical life to embrace these two foundational characteristics of this vocation and shift from the more typically individualistic perspective she holds. That will be necessary if she is to become a responsible canonical hermit. At the same time, unless and until that all shifts, I don't think our arguments on eremitism will begin to be resolved.

** The edict of Milan ended persecutions of Christians by declaring that it was now "permissible for Christians to be". This meant it took less courage to become a Christian, but also that faith that was demanding in its living was replaced by something that made mediocrity and merely nominal Christianity both more common. and acceptable In fact, Christianity became the state religion and with this mediocrity was almost institutionalized. This led in turn to an increase in emphasis on unhealthy ascetical practices.

*** It is thus understandable that at the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Remi de Roo made his intervention for the recognition of the solitary eremitical vocation as a state of perfection, and thus too, as an ecclesial vocation. I am unaware of anyone drawing attention to this correlation between the potential establishment of the eremitical vocation in universal law and the Council's affirmation of the Church as always in need of reform (granted, this correlation may have only been nascent or yet subconscious at the time of De Roo's intervention); still, it seems to me a significant one.

On Anonymity and Accountability in c 603 Vocations (Reprise from 2015)

v

While this reprises some aspects of a recent discussion on anonymity, hiddenness, and public, ecclesial vocations, it also does a better job of looking at anonymity as potentially irresponsible.

[[Dear Sister. What are your views on anonymity for hermits? I read an article today by a Catholic Hermit who has decided to remain anonymous since that helps her prevent pride. You choose not to remain anonymous so I am wondering about your thinking on this.]]

It's a timely question and an important one not least because it points to the responsible nature of ecclesial vocations. The first thing to remember is that if one claims to be a Catholic hermit, that is, one who lives an eremitical life in the name of the Church via profession (always a public act) and consecration, then one has been commissioned to live a public ecclesial vocation. If one claims the title "Catholic Hermit" or "consecrated hermit", etc., in creating a blog or other website, for instance, then one really doesn't have the right to remain entirely anonymous any longer. This is because people who read the blog have commensurate rights to know who you are, who supervises your vocation, who professed and consecrated you and commissioned you to live this life in the name of the Church. If they have concerns with what you write, they must then be able to contact you and, if really necessary, your legitimate superiors.

Ways of Maintaining Appropriate Accountability:

One thing that is possible, of course, is to say that this blog (etc) is the blog of a "Diocesan Hermit of the Diocese of Oakland," for instance, without providing one's given name. In doing so I would still be maintaining accountability to the Church for this vocation and what comes from it.  If there is ever a serious concern, then the Diocese of Oakland (for instance) will know whose blog is being referenced. (In this case, they may not ordinarily concern themselves with my everyday writing because they do not micromanage my activities --- my delegate would tend to know more about my blogging, I think --- but they will know whose blog this is and deal appropriately with serious complaints or concerns that might arise.) However, it seems to me one still needs to provide a way for folks to contact one so the chancery isn't turned into the recipient of relatively trivial communications which are an actual imposition. (I, for instance, do not usually provide my hermitage address, but people who prefer not to email may write me at my parish. This would work even if I did not give my name but used "Diocesan Hermit" instead because the parish knows precisely who I am and provides a mailbox for me.)

A second solution is to blog or whatever the activity without claiming in any way to be a Catholic hermit, Diocesan hermit, consecrated person, professed religious, etc. As soon as one says I am a Catholic Hermit (or any version of this) one has claimed to be living a vocation in the name of the Church and the public writing one does, especially if it is about eremitical life, spirituality, etc, is something one is publicly accountable for as a piece of that living. So, the choice is clear, either write as a private person and remain anonymous (if that is your choice) or write as a representative of a public vocation and reveal who you are --- or at least to whom you are legitimately accountable. Nothing else is really charitable or genuinely responsible.

Some may point to books published by an anonymous nun or monk, books published with the author "a Carthusian"  (for instance), as justification for anonymity without clear accountability, but it is important to remember that the Carthusian Order, for instance, has its own censors (theologians and editors) and other authorities who approve the publication of texts which represent the Order. The Carthusians are very sensitive about the use of the name Carthusian or the related post-nomial initials, O Cart., and they use these as a sign of authenticity and an act of ecclesial responsibility. (The same is true of the Carthusian habit because these represent a long history which every member shares and is responsible for.) The Order is in turn answerable to the larger Church and hierarchy who approve their constitutions, etc. Thus, while the average reader may never know the name of the individual monk or nun who wrote the book of "Novices Conferences" for instance, nor even know the specific Charterhouse from whence they wrote, concerns with the contents can be brought to the Church and the Carthusian Order through appropriate channels. This ensures a good blend of accountability and privacy. It also allows one to write without worrying about what readers think or say while still doing so responsibly and in charity. Once again this is an example of the importance of stable canonical relationships which are established with public profession and consecration --- something the next section will underscore.

The Question of Pride:

It is true that one has to take care not to become too taken with the project, whatever it is, or with oneself as the author or creator. With blogs people read, ask questions, comment, praise, criticize, etc, and like anything else, all of this can tempt one to forget what a truly tiny project the blog or website is in the grand scheme of things. But, anonymity online has some significant drawbacks and a lack of honesty and genuine accountability --- which are essential to real humility I think --- are two of these. How many of us have run into blogs or message boards that lack charity and prudence precisely because the persons writing there are (or believe they are) anonymous? Some of the cruelest and most destructive pieces of writing I have ever seen were written by those who used screen names to hide behind.

Unfortunately, this can be true of those writing as "Catholic Hermits" too. I have read such persons denigrating their pastors (for supposedly having no vocations, caring little for the spiritual growth of their parishioners, doing literally "hellish" things during Mass, etc), or denigrating their bishops and former bishops (for whining, lying, and betraying the hermit to the new bishop) --- all while remaining relatively anonymous except for the designation "Catholic Hermit" and the name of her cathedral. How is this responsible or charitable? How does it not reflect negatively on the vocation of legitimate Catholic hermits or the eremitical vocation more generally? Meanwhile, these same bloggers criticize Diocesan hermits who post under their own names accusing them of "pride" because they are supposedly not sufficiently "hidden from the eyes of" others.

Likewise, over the past several years I have been asked about another hermit's posts which have left readers seriously concerned regarding her welfare. This person writes (blogs) about the interminable suffering (chronic pain) she experiences, the lack of heat, and the serious cold she lives in in the Winter months which causes her to spend entire days in bed and under blankets and that left her with pneumonia last Winter; she writes of the terrible living conditions involving the ever-present excrement of vermin --- now dried and aerosolized, holes in walls (or complete lack of drywall and insulation), continuing lack of plumbing (no toilet) or hot water despite her marked physical incapacities, the fact that she cannot afford doctors or medicines or appropriate tests and may need eventually to live in a shelter when her dwindling money runs out. Unfortunately, because all of this is written anonymously by a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" presumably living eremitical life in the name of the Church, it raises unaddressable questions not only about her welfare but about the accountability of her diocese and the soundness and witness of the contemporary eremitical vocation itself.

This poster's anonymity means that those who are concerned can neither assist her nor contact her diocese to raise concerns with them. Here anonymity conflicts with accountability. While it is true diocesan hermits are self-supporting and have vows of poverty readers have, quite legitimately I think, asked if this is really the way the Church's own professed and consecrated hermits live. Does the Church profess and consecrate its solitary hermits (or facilely allow them to transfer to another diocese) and then leave them to struggle in such circumstances without oversight or assistance? Is this the kind of resource-less candidate the Church commissions to represent consecrated eremitical life? Would this be prudent? Charitable? Is it typical of the way consecrated life in the church works? Does a hermit's diocese and bishop truly have or exercise no responsibility in such cases? How are such hermits to be helped?? Unfortunately, the combination of this poster's relative anonymity and her lack of accountability, prudence, and discretion can be a serious matter on a number of levels.

In other words, while pride may be a problem (or at least a temptation!) for those of us who blog openly, it may well be that anonymity itself may lead to an even greater arrogance whose symptoms include writing irresponsibly and without prudence, discretion, or real accountability. Thus, anonymity can be helpful so long as one still exercises real accountability. Importantly, one needs to determine the real motives behind either posting publicly or choosing anonymity. Simply choosing anonymity does not mean one is exercising the charity required of a hermit. It may even be a piece of a fabric of deception --- including self-deception.  For instance, if one chooses anonymity to prevent others from learning they are not publicly professed, especially while criticizing the "pride" of diocesan hermits who choose to post openly, then this is seriously problematical on a number of levels.

At the same time, some authentic Catholic hermits choose to let go of their public vocational identities for a particular limited project (like participation in an online discussion group or the authoring of a blog) and write as private persons. This is a valid solution --- though not one I have felt justified in choosing myself --- because one does not claim to be a Catholic hermit in these limited instances. And of course, some of us decide simply to be upfront with our names, not because we are prideful, but because for us it is an act of honesty, responsibility, and charity for those reading our work or who might be interested in the eremitical vocation. The bottom line in all of this is that anonymity may or may not be a necessary piece of the life of the hermit. For that matter, it may be either edifying or disedifying depending on how it protects an absolutely non-negotiable solitude or privacy and allows for true accountability or is instead used to excuse irresponsibility, disingenuousness,  or even outright deception.

Summary:

The hiddenness of the eremitical life is only partly that of externals. More importantly, and much more centrally, it has to do with the inner life of submission to the powerful presence of God within one's heart. Sometimes that inner life calls for actual anonymity, and sometimes it will not allow it. Since the vocation of the Catholic hermit is a public and ecclesial one, any person posting or otherwise acting publicly as a Catholic hermit has surrendered any right to absolute anonymity; they are accountable for what they say and do because they are supposedly acting in the name of the Church.  The need for and value of anonymity must be measured against the requirements of accountability and charity.

Subtle Distinctions in Evaluating Canon 603: A Hiddenness that serves Revelation and Should be Celebrated

[[Sister, I read someone online who claimed she was "upset about the trajectory of the hermit vocation increasingly to the historic and traditional hermit path and way of life being demeaned and essentially replaced by a 1983 canon law that has already proven faulty in the basic conception of public vows in public Mass and public reception and public announcement and public proclamation of the diocese hermit." ]] Why would she be upset, and in what way has canon 603 proven faulty?]]

I think you should probably ask the person who said this to explain what she meant. I don't know anyone who considers canon 603 faulty if by that we mean it needs to be scrapped because it establishes solitary eremitism as a public (ecclesial, consecrated) vocation. Implementing it is challenging (discernment is an art!) and the church must take care in learning to do so appropriately. Some canonists consider it deficient because it doesn't spell out time frames and similar requirements. Still, my own take on the matter is that they have yet to look at either the 1) individuality of the canon or 2) the content of the vocation and the canon that governs it themselves. 

An example of what I mean is represented by the canonist who advised the Bishop of Lexington in the Matson case. When asked about using c 603 to profess Cole he pointed out certain legalities: it could be used for males or females; it was lived in relative quietude and remoteness, etc. What he did not apparently consider were the substantive elements central to the canon, the character of the vows and what they called for from the one professed, the history of the canon, or the reason the canon required the candidate to write his/her own Rule and what this entails. In other words, his focus was on only the most superficial realities associated with c 603 to provide a legal loophole; he seemed unaware and careless of the very heart of the vocation outlined in that canon.

On the Perspectives Necessary to Truly Understand this Canon:

Once one begins to look at the canon from theological and pastoral perspectives appropriate to vocations rather than from one dominated by law or legalism in search of a loophole, the canon itself does not look deficient in any way. Paradoxically, it may require supplementation to help chanceries see its scope and depths and implement it wisely, but this is because of the canon's richness and completeness, not because of any deficiency. Discerning such vocations will be demanding and challenging, but not because the canon lacks anything. Rather it is because the solitary eremitical vocation being described is focused, intense, and particularly rare, countercultural, and counterintuitive.  What needs pointing out quite often is the fact that canon 603 is at least as much surprising vision and invitation as it is a norm. Hence the way canonists suggest "completing it" often misses the point and even prevents the canon's intelligent (and in this I mean authentically Christian) implementation.

I have already written that canon 603 was meant to raise eremitical life in the church to a new dignity precisely to honor it. cf., C 603 Paradigm for All Hermits. It seems to me that the person you are quoting misunderstands the nature of the term public and sees it in terms of notoriety or something that transgresses the hiddenness of the vocation. That's a shame because in my experience it doesn't really do that. "Public" here has to do with public rights and obligations assumed by the c 603 hermit and entrusted to her by the church. These rights and obligations give the whole church the right to hold certain expectations of these hermits and of the vocation itself. Since the vocation is given by God and entrusted to the care of the Church, and since the hermit witnesses to the very heart of the church that is prayer in the silence of solitude --- a vocation in which every Christian shares --- it is important and completely appropriate that this vocation was raised to a state of perfection or form of consecrated life. It does not replace anything. Instead, it serves all eremitical life, whether non-canonical, solitary canonical, or semi-eremitical as a guide to the essential elements of such a life. Similarly, while it establishes and recognizes some eremitical life as normative, it also affirms the value of all genuine eremitical life.

On Celebrating Professions and Consecrations Publicly at Mass:

Yes, eremitical life is essentially hidden, but it is important that the existence of eremitical life in the church is known and celebrated just as we do with all other gifts of God. Thus, our professions and consecrations are celebrated during Mass --- the most solemn and paradigmatically communal setting we know for the most solemn and communal acts in our lives. Nothing about this demeans the eremitical vocation nor does it detract from its hiddenness. Instead it points to the nature of this hiddenness, namely hiddenness in Christ the Incarnate One of God. During Mass we find the deepest mystery of God's Incarnation both hidden and revealed under the species of bread and wine, in the person of the presider and the assembly, and also, of course, in the proclaimed Word of God. Revelation is shot through with hiddenness and in such celebrations, eremitical hiddenness becomes known for its inextricable connection to divine humility (hiddenness) and glorification (revelation). How appropriate then, that a vocation given to the whole faith community and defined in terms of the revelation of the hidden heart of the church be celebrated during such a liturgy!

In the situation in Lexington, one grace we could point to is that it allows significant attention and reflection on c 603 vocations and the appropriate and inappropriate uses of the canon by a much wider audience than usually discusses or opines on such things. Meanwhile, one of the criticisms made by Catholics reading about the story for the first time, was that the Diocese of Lexington had kept the professions attempted by Bishop Stowe and Cole Matson secret when they were meant to be public matters. These commentators were exactly right in this; they knew the importance of public witness and celebration as well as the betrayal secrecy constitutes. 

I believe what was done in Lexington dishonored the vocation in its hiddenness particularly, and it dishonored all those whose own lives are marked by relative obscurity and humbleness and would benefit from the vocation's witness. This is the flip side of the paradox outlined above where hiddenness is intimately linked with revelation and public celebration underscores the normal silence and solitude of the vocation. In this case, however, secrecy was actually a betrayal of the vocation's hiddenness. After all, what the Church proclaims in her public celebrations of eremitical vocations is not the supposed secrecy or anonymity of such lives, but rather, the profound Mystery that is both revealed in and lies hidden at their heart.

Canon 603: a Paradigm for all Hermits

[[When we examine the now two Church-allowed hermit paths, we can see the challenges in each, but the greater challenge to me has remained that of living as a hermit unknown, unnoticed, non-acclaimed. Yet despite many trials and errors, I remain God’s beloved consecrated hermit--and a Catholic hermit. Indeed, some have stated that a privately professed hermit must not call him- or herself a “Catholic hermit” if not a diocese CL603 hermit. It does not matter, other than why cut off all the Church’s hermits who have lived and died living this more rare but special vocation when until recent times, there was no created church law establishing other than what always had been?]] 

Hi Sister, I wondered if you had seen this post and if you had any opinions on it. I wonder how the author can say "It does not matter" while it sounds like it matters a lot to her! Does Canon 603 cut off all who have lived and died as a non-canonical hermit? Was there no church law regarding hermits before c 603? I remember you saying there was but not universal canon law. Is this so? Thanks!]]

I have seen this passage before, yes. I agree that the assertion of an identity as a "consecrated Catholic hermit" despite never having been admitted to consecration as a Catholic hermit by anyone in the church with that authority and/or intention, does seem to matter a lot to the author. She is a Catholic and a hermit but does not live her eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. This is because using the term "Catholic hermit" to indicate a normative quality to the vocation requires someone with both authority and intent to establish one in law as a Catholic hermit. That, in turn, means extending the legal rights and obligations of a canonical (or public**) vocation to someone and the person to whom such rights and obligations are extended must also embrace these in law; this all occurs in the Rites of canonical Profession* and Consecration mediated by the Church in the person of the local ordinary. That the author has not met these requirements is significant given her claims. What is unclear to me is the reason she presses these claims since the Church recognizes all authentic forms of eremitical life in whatever state of life (lay, consecrated, or clerical) as laudable.

Before Canon 603, the main canonical provision for eremitical life was to join a congregation of Catholic Hermits (Carthusians, Camaldolese, some Carmelites, et al.). As you note, in individual dioceses in some centuries bishops did approve the lives of anchorites and cared for them if benefactors failed. During the Middle Ages there were local (diocesan) canons from place to place to regulate things in some ways (there was no universal Canon Law at this time). Otherwise, except for the orders/congregations of canonical hermits, the "traditional" form of solitary eremitical life was lay, not consecrated. Vocationally as well as hierarchically speaking, the Desert Abbas and Ammas were lay hermits --- they lived eremitical life in the lay state. So was every hermit who lived as a solitary hermit (that is, who was not part of a religious congregation) until 1983. Canon 603 recognized the value of solitary eremitical life after Bishop Remi De Roo intervened at Vatican II to ask for such recognition. De Roo requested that the eremitical vocation, which was so positive in his lived experience, should be recognized as a state of perfection, just as all religious life was recognized and established. 

But it took time to do this. There was the need to reflect on the lives of notable hermits and develop a list of characteristics a solitary hermit would live, just as there was the need to create a normative way of governing this life so it was truly exemplary --- not perfect, of course, but exemplary. Almost 20 years after Vatican II ended, the Church published a revised Code of Canon Law and for the very first time in the history of the Church, the solitary eremitical life was recognized in universal law as a state of perfection (that is, it was included as a consecrated state of life with those so consecrated recognized by the Church as Religious); thus it was defined in a normative way in Canon 603.

It is not that non-canonical hermits are being cut off, diminished, or disregarded. That seems to me to be a cynical and inaccurate representation of the facts. The long history of exemplary holiness and prophetic presence of such hermits is precisely what called for a Canon recognizing the value and dignity of this calling as an ecclesial vocation belonging to the Church. These hermits taught the Church this and made the way for Canon 603 as an eventuality!! The normative portrait of eremitical life in Canon 603 is drawn from the lives and wisdom of such hermits; in fact, it honors them!! At the same time, the Church is careful in discerning and governing eremitical vocations not only because these are significant gifts and more difficult to discern than vocations to life in community,  but also because the history of solitary hermits is ambiguous with evidence both of great holiness and disedifying or even scandalous eccentricity. 

The Church wants hermits to live this vocational gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and she recognizes the support and guidance of the Church are important if individuals are to live such vocations well. After all, eremitism is neither about being a loner nor a too-common, sometimes rampant individualism. Instead, it is lived within the dynamic and demanding context of the ecclesial community with its long history of non-canonical hermits as well as canonical eremitical congregations and (now) solitary canonical hermits. At the same time, the Church knows that hermits of whatever stripe can be a prophetic presence challenging the Church herself to an ever more radical living out of the Gospel. Canon 603 celebrates and witnesses to this as well. 

This became clear as the Church recognized the significance not only of the Desert Ammas and Abbas but also of both the anchoritic and eremitic vocations on a diocesan level through various eras of her history. Bishops created statutes and devised liturgies recognizing and embracing these vocations because of this recognition. (For instance, recall the rite praying for and blessing the anchorite and her cell, as well as closing her within her anchorhold; note the ways diocesan bishops exercised responsibility for the upkeep of the anchoress when the local community or benefactors failed to do so; consider also the way the right to wear a hermit's tunic or the license to preach and solicit from others as a hermit, came in these same centuries, from the local ordinary.)  Still, what was necessary to truly demonstrate that all such vocations were valued throughout the church in all eras was the hermit's recognition in universal law. 

Bishop Remi De Roo

That only occurred in 1983 with the promulgation of Canon 603. Still, the majority of hermits will likely remain non-canonical. I would argue that it is now easier to live as a non-canonical hermit precisely because the church recognizes the eremitical vocation as such canonically and has made these instances of it a normative and consecrated state. With canon 603 every eremitical vocation, whether non-canonical or canonical is raised to a new visibility and valuation in the Western Church. Canon 603 is still under-utilized and likely will be so for some time to come. Not everyone will or should become a canon 603 hermit or thus live this vocation in the name of the Church, but those who live their eremitic vocations as non-canonical hermits can be grateful that for the first time in almost 2 millennia, the Western church has honored the eremitical vocation in universal law. 

This requires that canonical hermits live the normativity of their vocations well and humbly for they do so for all hermits. They reflect on the terms of Canon 603 for the benefit of every hermit, whether canonical or non-canonical. If canonical, they have embraced ecclesial responsibilities in making Profession and accepting Consecration through the church's mediation, and each one will demonstrate aspects of the life any hermit should be open to learning from. Of course, non-canonical hermits must also live their chosen callings well and humbly. If they choose not to be canonical hermits or are refused admission to canonical standing, I believe they must still let themselves learn from Canon 603 and those professed and consecrated accordingly -- as well as from hermits in eremitical congregations. From before the time I first knocked on the chancery door seeking profession (@1985) to consecration in 2007 (about 23 years), I reflected on c 603 and learned from it despite having been given little hope my diocese might ever implement it for anyone. I also learned from the Camaldolese and others. 

Whether living as a non-canonical or canonical hermit, it was the vision of eremitical life the Church recognized as normative that was important for my own faithfulness and growth in the eremitical vocation. I hope that all hermits can understand the importance of both the Canon and those exploring eremitical life in a canonical/consecrated state. They do this not only for God and the Church more generally, but for all hermits, whether canonical or non-canonical. Because C 603 represents the normative vision of what the Church considers to constitute eremitical life,  to live this life canonically is not about prestige, but about responsibility. This is the meaning of status in the phrase canonical status or standing. Acceptance of this standing and correlative responsibility is reflected in the right to call oneself a Catholic Hermit and such rights and obligations are never self-assumed. Again, they are given by the Church to those whose vocations they have also discerned.

* Profession is a broader act than the making of vows. It is a public act of and for the Church in which an individual commits him/herself to the rights and obligations of a new state in life. Usually, this is done through the making and reception of canonical (public) vows. In final, perpetual, or definitive profession, through the reception of the individual's vows and the prayer of consecration, the Church mediates God's consecration of the person. This sets him/her apart as a sacred person and constitutes his/her definitive entrance into the consecrated state.

** Public in this context refers to the public rights and responsibilities undertaken in a public (canonical) commitment, not to the place this commitment takes place, nor to the number who attend it. Likewise, private means that legal (public) rights and obligations are not extended to nor undertaken by the hermit involved.

On c 603 Vocations and Bankruptcy

[[Dear Sister, if a person is discerning a vocation as a diocesan hermit but has had a bankruptcy, how does this affect their petition to be admitted to public profession and consecration?]]

Brand new question for me! Thanks. I would say that unless there is a reason for the diocese to doubt one's ability to support oneself adequately and prudently as a hermit, I can’t see any reason a bankruptcy would affect the discernment of such a vocation. If, however, this (bankruptcy) bears on the candidate's ability to vow and live religious poverty, to deal with (and avoid) significant debt, to prioritize and moderate one's spending (some expenses are necessary for the diocesan hermit when they might not be for the lay hermit), and other similar issues like assuring adequate medical insurance, housing, formation, etc, then one's diocese might well be concerned by it.

The candidate will know the reasons for the bankruptcy and the diocese, I think, has a right to know what these were or are. Similarly both the diocese and the candidate will need to discern the candidate's capacity for living religious poverty and supporting herself as a diocesan hermit. Insofar as the bankruptcy is a matter of the past alone it should not matter. To the extent it reveals things about the candidate and her relationship with money, or her ongoing needs, impulses, habits, priorities, etc, it will bear on the mutual discernment she and the diocese undertake.

I should note that as I understand it, bankruptcy wipes out significant debt, but also ruins one's credit-worthiness for some time. This takes care of the problem of significant debt --- hermit candidates cannot be admitted to public profession with significant debt; however, it may also cause the diocese some legitimate concern that the hermit will be able to manage finances, house themselves, take care of medical expenses (especially unexpected expenses) and the like. If the bankruptcy is recent a diocese may decide prudentially to prolong the period of discernment for several years until the candidate has established a good track record with finances and so forth. Hermits sign a waiver of liability on the occasion of their perpetual profession which makes it very clear that their dioceses are not responsible in any way for financial support. Still, and partly for this very reason, dioceses must be certain a hermit can and will live religious poverty (which is not the same as simply being materially poor) and that she be able to support herself accordingly without significant debt and/or default. This is only just since these are things the hermit will be called upon to witness to in her life as a consecrated religious.

I hope this is helpful! Be assured of my prayers. Please remember me in your own.

On the Validity of Conversations Regarding the Vocations of Catholic Hermits

[[Dear Sister Laurel,

       Is there a lot of squabbling about who should be a canonical hermit and who should not? One consecrated Catholic Hermit (?) says there is a lot of judging going on regarding who should and who should not be, what is and what is not eremitical life. Apparently some have also said that Bishops who have consecrated some hermits ought not to have done so and should withdraw these people from their vocations. I think she is talking about you in some of this and also a canonist who is a friend of yours.  She writes: [[What are the judges accomplishing in taking it upon themselves to be authorities--not just writing out conditions and specifications which can be a good exercise if done for their own consecrated life reminders, but in doing so with the intent and purpose of determining who is valid or not, who should be withdrawn from the vocation by his or her bishop, who is or is not credible or living the life of a consecrated Catholic hermit according to these very persons' own judgments--based a whole lot on personal opinions, not fact.]]

Ah, yes, some of that is familiar but it was written about a year ago when a friend of mine who is a canonist wrote a blog piece about full-time work, especially outside the hermitage being contrary to the nature of eremitical life and to the canon which governs  it for solitary hermits (c 603). I don't recall what part of the blog you are citing was actually asked about then or whether someone asked about Therese Iver's article on full-time work itself, but I have written about the legitimacy of canonists opining about what is a contradiction of canon law at the time. (cf, On the Deadly Sin of Individualism in Eremitical Life)

I have also written about 1) how it is that anecdotal wisdom based on lived-experience of the eremitical life provided by canon 603 hermits is something bishops hear regularly, and 2) that the Church as a whole either benefits or suffers and is disedified by those hermits claiming to live eremitical life in the name of the Church.  This will naturally mean that in some ways the Church approving such lives as instances of genuine and well-discerned eremitical vocation becomes disedifying or even scandalous to others as well. When that happens the credibility of both eremitical life, the Church, and the Gospel itself are impugned. We are concerned that does not occur. Stated more positively, we hope that through our eremitical lives and our reflection on them (and on counterfeits or distortions of them), the Church has what she needs that God may be glorified and the good news of God's Christ be powerfully proclaimed by all hermits, both consecrated, lay, and ordained.

Canon 603 is both relatively new (October 1983) and used relatively infrequently.  Partly this infrequent use is rooted in  1) the absolute rarity of the vocation itself, 2)  heightened cautiousness due to the episcopacy's general lack of familiarity with authentic eremitical vocations, 3) stories about dioceses' bad experiences with hermits in their purview, 4) the practical problems accompanying the implementation of the canon in a diocese (formation, discernment, material needs, role of Bishop, etc), and 5) from a misreading of canon 603 (or candidates knocking on the chancery door) which seems to support vocations to heightened individualism and a spirituality of selfishness.

Since the very word hermit comes freighted with associated stereotypes and problematical connotations (misanthropy, eccentricity, narcissism, isolation --- including from the Church herself), and since the canon itself must be read from within the desert eremitical tradition (it cannot be read merely by looking up the words used in an ordinary dictionary in the vernacular), the only solution to all of these difficulties requires dialogues between the episcopacy, canonists, canonical hermits living the life defined in canon 603, and others who are expert (or have relative expertise) in the eremitical tradition. 

So, no, there is not a lot of squabbling going on about who should be a canonical hermit or not. So long as the general intentions and specifications of c 603 are honored by dioceses whenever they implement the canon, the discernment is entirely theirs. However. in these early years of the canon's history there is also no doubt that dioceses have used the canon for a number of persons who showed no sign of having or sincerely discerning an eremitical vocation and they did so because they neither understood the life nor appreciated the charism it described, or because they didn't care about or believe in the specific vocation being described therein. (Personally, I believe the failure to understand the specific gift represented by eremitical life is the key to inadequate discernment and formation or the tendency to use canon 603 as a stopgap means of professing individuals apart from religious congregations. If bishops and candidates understood the silence of solitude as charism of this vocation, indeed, if they understood the vocation IS a charismatic reality in this way, many of the difficulties in implementing the canon would simply disappear.)

Canon 603 versus Episcopalian Counterpart:

The simple truth is Canon 603 is different than its Episcopalian counterpart. It does not merely outline characteristics of a solitary religious life vowed to discipleship through profession of the evangelical counsels lived outside of community --- much less merely allude to such vocations as Canon 14 does. (In the Episcopal Church only about 5% of those professed under their canon for solitary religious are thought by some to be living a truly eremitical life.) Instead, c 603 defines a specifically eremitical life, a desert spirituality of stricter separation from "the world", assiduous prayer and penance, and the silence of solitude (a rich phrase that represents not only the external context of the life, but its goal and charism as well) lived for the sake and indeed, the salvation, of others.  In other words, c 603, unlike its Episcopal counterpart is not meant to be used as a stopgap means to profess individuals who either cannot or desire not to be professed as part of a religious community but who at the same time, are not called to true eremitical life. And this makes c 603 more demanding, not only in the lives of hermits living its vision but in its implementation by dioceses.

Thus, mistakes have been made --- most often in complete good faith, but sometimes in what seems a serious disregard for the nature and requirements of the canon itself. Without experience of successful and genuinely edifying solitary eremitical vocations, the Church will not be able to avoid significant mistakes in the future. These will mainly be of two types: 1) dioceses will refrain out of a surplus of caution from professing and consecrating anyone as a solitary hermit, (we already have seen this in a number of dioceses) which means genuine vocations will be denied and missed. Alternately, 2) they will continue to profess and consecrate some authentic hermits and more individuals who are not truly called to an eremitical life of the silence of solitude. When this happens what is really startling is the degree of disedification associated with these latter lives. 

When one tries to live a truly human life in full-time silence and solitude despite not being called to this, the result is often and understandably tragic. Not only will one be missing the vocation to which God actually does call them, but they may well decompensate to pathological degrees. Destructive stereotypes will be underscored and distortions of both one's humanity and the vocation itself will occur; meanwhile, the spiritualities and implicit theologies which can and do result from such situations are at least equally pathological and dangerous. While every person needs some degree of silence and solitude, and while in some senses solitude is the most universal of vocations (there is an inevitable and inescapable existential solitude we each know), we are social beings who, for the most part, come to genuine humanity only in society and communion with others; it requires a Divine and relatively exceptional vocation to come to fullness of humanity and communion with God and all that is grounded in God while living one's life full time in the silence of solitude.

The Reason for Continuing Conversations in the Church:

The conversations going on on various levels in the Church today regarding canon 603, as I have noted before, are meant to nurture and protect the eremitical tradition that stands as part of the Church's great heritage. They are meant more immediately to assist dioceses to discern and accommodate genuine solitary eremitical vocations which themselves are instances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the redemption the Christ Event brings through the mediation of the Church. From my perspective they are meant to explore canon 603, to see how it can best be understood and implemented in the 21st Century so that that Gospel is proclaimed with integrity and relevance by those truly called to this profoundly compassionate and ecclesial life of the silence of solitude.

For instance, it is not unusual for canonists to draw on the work of hermits and the history of eremitical life to come to a fuller understanding of the dimensions of canon 603 and to ensure better implementation. The canonist criticized by the blogger you cite is doing a dissertation for her doctorate in Canon Law on a central element of the canon (viz., the silence of solitude as reflected in the Rules of Diocesan Hermits) and she is drawing on some of the Rules produced by diocesan hermits as well as work done on the nature of the canon and life itself (including, I suspect, some of the occasional writings found in this blog) to complete this project.  All of this will become part of the ongoing conversations ultimately protecting the proclamation of the Gospel by those seeking to live solitary eremitical lives which truly glorify God.

Meanwhile, let me note that those claiming publicly to be a consecrated Catholic Hermit, whether they are doing so legitimately or not, are apt to find themselves drawn either directly or indirectly into the Church's own conversation about this vocation. This will especially be so if they write or speak publicly about canonical eremitical life, the significance, wisdom, and prudence of c. 603, if they approach parishes as Catholic Hermits or otherwise represent themselves in this way on social media, etc. Still, through the observations of bishops, delegates, and others who know and supervise legitimate vocations and keep something of an eye on those who are not, even hermits living relatively hidden lives will be part of the conversation to the degree their lives witness or fail to witness effectively to the redemption mediated by Christ in solitude.  

To claim a public vocation (and the use of the designations Catholic Hermit, consecrated hermit, professed religious eremite, etc, represents such an act) is to claim the rights and obligations of such a vocation as well. If one does not want to become part of the examination of such vocations done by chanceries, canonists, bishops, theologians, other hermits reflecting on the life, and the faithful more generally, one should not embrace, much less illegitimately claim an identity which will naturally (as part of its very nature) be scrutinized and reflected on by the whole Church. To sharpen this point even further, those claiming to be Catholic Hermits or a hermit in the consecrated state of life within the Church, should be aware that their lives are likely to be looked at to see whether they are representative and edifying examples of contemporary eremitical life or not.

If one illegitimately or illicitly claims to have embraced a public vocation (even if one claims to have done so in a private ceremony) one cannot then complain that what is really a private matter is being examined and discussed by those in the Church with an established stake in the vocation itself. While none of us who are publicly professed and consecrated live this life perfectly, and while neither the Church or our brother and sister hermits expect this of us, we each know that the witness and mission of our lives can generally become part of a completely valid ecclesial conversation regarding such vocations occurring at various levels in the Church.  To complain that such general attention to our lives is invalid or even somehow nefarious is to have missed part of the import of really being a Catholic Hermit.

Communal Vocations: Reclusion versus Isolation, Solitude versus Individualism

[[Dear Sister, you wrote that hermits should be open to greater degrees of reclusion should God call them to that. How does a person discern this and how does it differ from what you called "unhealthy " withdrawal or isolation instead of "eremitical solitude"? What if a mistake is made? Would strict reclusion make one less a "good" Catholic? I am assuming it would not but if a regular Catholic [a lay Catholic] thought they were called to reclusion would that look different than the reclusion of a diocesan hermit? It appears to me that if someone stopped attending Mass or receiving the Sacraments on the grounds that God was calling them to be a recluse they would be more likely deluding themselves and leaving the Church than discerning a divine call.]]

I have written about the caution and care with which the Church approaches reclusion here in the past so please check those posts. In them I discuss the congregations allowed to have recluses, the constraints and continuing obligations that pertain, and the legal (canonical) relationships which are necessary for a hermit to embrace reclusion. Above all I think these stress that reclusion requires mutual discernment and the support of the faith (including the religious) community. So please check those out for the stuff I don't cover in this post. Much of it is presupposed in any answer to your own questions and I will repeat some of it here for context.

Reclusion: Mutual Discernment for a Communal Vocation

A call to reclusion would have to be mutually discerned and supported by the faith community. It cannot be the result of a whim on the part of a hermit, much less a non hermit or novice hermit. It cannot even be merely individually discerned despite being much more than a whim. Partly this is because the diocesan hermit who seeks to become a recluse is changing the nature and, to some extent, the witness of her life. She has a responsibility to the Faith community in whose name she is commissioned; that reason alone would be sufficient to establish that her discernment must be serious and take place in the heart of the Church. However, her vocation is also meant to be a gift witnessing to the Gospel and for that reason too serious discernment must take place in the heart of the Church. Meanwhile, the faith community bears an important responsibility for the hermit's continuing ability to live an integral faith -- though not as directly as the hermit herself. The pastor (or other priest) will have a role in coming for the Sacraments of reconciliation, and anointing of the sick when needed; he will need to come to say Mass occasionally at the hermitage itself (once or twice a month). Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers would need to bring Communion from daily and Sunday Masses more frequently than they might otherwise --- though the hermit would likely continue to reserve Eucharist for the days in between these visits.

The hermit's spiritual director would need to visit regularly (though this might be a continuation of a standing practice) and possibly more frequently than usual --- especially early on in the discernment process. Provision for meetings with the hermit's delegate and the Bishop would also need to be made --- especially if the hermit cannot go to the chancery herself. (In my experience some Vicars and the hermit's delegate tend to come to the hermitage; annual meetings with the Bishop might be done the same way in the case of reclusion.) Meanwhile, it might be an important piece of the necessary arrangements to be sure the hermit is regularly present in the prayers of the community ---- just as she prays for them.  In my own parish I would probably find ways to write reflections, bulletin pieces, etc which would then be available to the parish at large while other forms of ministry would need to be curtailed. And of course practical concerns must also be taken care of: shopping, transportation to doctor's visits, errands, etc. This would all need to be worked out if the hermit-recluse was to live an integral faith life as a Catholic recluse.

Moreover, there needs to be initial agreement on the part of the hermit's delegate and Bishop. They will have needed to have heard the reasons the hermit believes she is being called in this direction and worked through any initial senses that the hermit is mistaken or misguided in this particular move. Similarly there must be a determination that this vocation will serve both the diocesan and parish churches without being an imposition on, much less a stumbling block for them. (Probably this can be assured by meetings to explain the vocation to those in the hermit's parish especially, and perhaps neighboring parishes as well.) The Bishop or delegate may need to speak to the pastor, and certainly the hermit will need to do so to request his cooperation and support. The point in all of this is that reclusion as lived in the Roman Catholic Church is a communal vocation. Yes, it focuses on the individual and God, on utter dependence on God and the completion that comes from one's relationship with God, but it is also lived in the heart of the faith community and with some very real spiritual and material dependence upon that community. In such a case mistakes are less likely, but they can also be easily discerned and rectified. The hermit who is not called to reclusion simply resumes and continues to live her normal eremitical life.

Why not simply go off and do it all oneself?

Your first question was whether or not reclusion would make one less than a "good Catholic". I have stressed the communal nature of the vocation to reclusion for the publicly professed and consecrated hermit because I think it is clear that when the vocation is lived in this way --- the way some Order hermits and any diocesan hermit would necessarily live the vocation in the name of the Church --- there is no question but that one would continue to be a "good Catholic". But notice that reclusion here is not an excuse for isolation, narcissism, or radical individualism. A vocation to reclusion has got to be a profoundly contemplative vocation but this means it must be a loving vocation --- one where God is loved, of course, but also one lived for the sake of the faith-commitments and lives of others.

The word often used in something like this is "edifying"; especially in a culture of exaggerated individualism where too often license replaces freedom, reclusion must be able to speak to the need as well as the made-for-community quality and profound interdependence of the entire creation. A vocation to reclusion must build up the Church and witness to the Gospel for the sake of the Kingdom while the perfection sought therein must reflect the completion to which God is drawing the entire creation. Since most of this is merely implicit in most hermit's lives the hermit must do what she does in conjunction with the whole church, but especially her pastors, theologians, bishops (teachers), and others who reflect on the profound but often obscure relatedness and prophetic witness of her vocation which is her gift to the Church making it explicit to the rest of the Church..

A hermit who chooses to go off on her own, to turn her back on her parish and diocesan church, to treat others as though their spirituality is of a different nature than her own, to live without the Sacraments or serious discernment with others, does God, herself, and the Church a serious disservice. (cf., Hermits and Sunday Obligation) If we live in union with God we will also live in union with those who also have God as their source and ground. If we have a vocation to essential hiddenness we can only honor such a gift in relation to others who will explain it, celebrate it, and make it known in a world which hungers profoundly for it. One way the church assures that this necessary mutuality and interrelatedness is maintained is by her recognition that baptized Catholics have canonical rights and obligations they need to honor --- whether as lay persons, priests, or as religious. A consecrated Catholic Hermit, whether diocesan or the member of an Order assumes new rights and obligations in addition to those embraced at baptism but she does not relinquish those that came with baptism.

These rights and obligations are not icing on the cake but the necessary rights and obligations for life in a faith community committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ --- whether we are speaking of the community of the larger world, the Universal Church, a Religious Order, or a diocese and parish. Thus, as you suspect, there is some difference in the way reclusion would look and work for the lay person living a private dedication and for the person living the silence of solitude in the name of the Church; however, both would be called to do this within the Church and with some degree of ecclesial assistance. For both, reclusion is something lived meaningfully and integrally only within the significant constellation of relationships constituting the Body of Christ. (For hermits who are not part of the Christian tradition we usually see reclusion reflecting a strong sense of the significant constellation of relationships marked by one's common humanity and one's place in nature. In fact, all authentic hermits tend to share this profound sense of relatedness to the whole of creation precisely in their solitude.)

A Matter of Deluding Oneself?

I think you are right that someone living a life of reclusion without at least some of the central structures and forms of relatedness mentioned here is likely deluding themselves. To say to oneself, "God is calling me to this; God is calling me to exile" (as I have recently heard this characterized) and to essentially turn one's back on the entire Church and her mediatory structures and relationships, one's baptismal commitments, rights, and obligations may be, potentially at least, delusional at best and arrogant to the point of apostasy at worst. Once upon a time this form of hermit life was acceptable but the Church's rules changed with continued reflection on the importance of a regular sacramental life in community with others.  Today it is a theologically and humanly incoherent response, especially by someone claiming to be a Catholic Hermit. It is one thing for a Christian to try significant reclusion for temporary periods with the support of the Church and entirely another to embrace it as a way of life when it means a form of churchless (and sometimes anti-Church) individualism.

Thus Paul Giustiniani wrote: [[Indeed this solitary way of life was considered more perfect (even if less safe) than that of the cenobites at the time when no law of  Holy Church forbade living a life in complete solitude. But at the present time ecclesiastical laws oblige all the Christian faithful . . .  to confess their sins often, to receive Holy Communion, and to celebrate or attend Mass frequently. . .Now since all these things are hardly possible in this [entirely solitary] kind of life, it would seem to be wholly prohibited. So it is held to be less safe (or rather completely illicit) for a Christian to attempt it, or more exactly, to persist in it.]] Rule of the Hermit Life.  "Three Types of Hermits"

God resides in and speaks to the human heart. Of this there is no doubt. But much of the time God's voice is not the only voice we hear.  Our own insecurities, vices, fears, ignorance, biases, and so forth make themselves heard there and often mimic or distort the voice of God in the process. Learning to hear the voice of God in the depths of our own hearts and achieving the healing that is required so this voice sings with a clarity which resonates throughout our whole selves takes time and requires the presence of others who know us well, know God in their own lives and hearts, and can be counted on to lovingly call us to accountability. Directors, pastors, Sisters and Brothers in the faith and in religious life -- as well those who serve as delegates and legitimate superiors -- all  assist the hermit to be truly discerning regarding how God is speaking and what God is calling the hermit to. To merely "go it alone" is foolishness --- and more importantly, it is apt to be uncharitable and ungrateful foolishness.

For those who experience "ecstasies," "locutions," and other possible signs of mystical prayer associated with "private revelations" the paradoxical truth is that they require even more contact with others, even greater oversight and mutual discernment. Private revelations must be measured by competent persons according to the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church as such.  Moreover, to whatever degree these experiences are genuine they belong to the Church as a whole, not to the individual. 

This is why "going it alone" especially over the long term is ungrateful foolishness. To whatever degree they are the voice of illness, an extravagant imagination, hypnosis, chemical influence, etc, they require others (and especially other contemplatives --- often with the help of professionals) to help discern what is actually going on. Eventually the Church herself may need to weigh in on the authenticity of such experiences and more, their edifying or disedifying nature. It requires others to look past the sensible experiences themselves to the growth and maturity of the person who experienced them. Besides the one experiencing these, others need to evaluate the fruits of these experiences or, at the very least, reflect back to their subject what they themselves are seeing. Otherwise, such experiences are worth little or nothing --- and perhaps worse than nothing.

The bottom line is that both eremitical solitude and reclusion in the consecrated state are ecclesial vocations; both are communal in their very essence and are lived in an ecclesial context. In a less formal way the same is true of lay reclusion. The ecclesial context and communal elements cannot be severed from the vocations themselves nor vice versa. To do so is to make a bad beginning and ensure continuing mistakes all along the way. Of course it also makes it much more difficult to rectify one's simple and sincere mistakes even as one is tempted to compound them because of embarrassment, pride, arrogance, personal dishonesty, and so forth.

Because the consecrated Catholic recluse is a rare and powerful symbol of the Church at prayer, because s/he is a vivid symbol of the Church whose very heart is the dynamic presence of God who is at work perfecting reality by loving it into wholeness through the mediation of this same Church, again, the recluse's vocation belongs to the Church not to the individual alone. Outside the confines of the Church, and especially when there is an element of turning from or repudiating the Church to do this, the recluse may well become a symbol of sinful, and isolated existence instead. I don't think there is any middle ground here for the baptized Christian and especially for the Catholic Hermit who lives her vocation in the name of the church.