Question on Consecration vs Dedication

[[Sister Laurel, you speak of consecration and being "initiated" into the consecrated state as though it means more than the person making vows or dedicating his life to God. You also refer to something "objective" happening besides what happens "subjectively." Doesn't this make of religious profession something kind of "magical"? . . .]](I will need to answer the rest at another time. My thanks for your patience.)


Yes, in recent posts on the former HIOL, and in others over the past three years I have spoken in this way. I would suggest you look at labels having to do with "dedicare vs consecrare" for instance for more detailed discussion of the topic than I will give right now. Let me summarize it this way: despite the common use of the term consecrate (for instance: "I consecrate myself to God. . .") the documents of Vatican II were very careful in distinguishing between this less accurate and the more proper usage. Therein, VII INVARIABLY used terms like dedicare or in mancipare for the HUMAN element in profession, and consecrare for the DIVINE element.

In the rite of perpetual profession there are correlative moments: 1) After the Word of God and Homily the person is called forth formally and replies "You have called me, Lord. Here I am." (or something similar), 2) she is examined on her readiness to answer/accept this call in all of it aspects with and for the whole of her life, 3) she prostrates while the entire Church in heaven and on earth are called upon to witness and participate in what is about to happen to her through the Church's mediation (the Litany of the Saints is sung here), 4) with her hands on the book of the Gospels she makes her profession of vows in the hands of a legitimate superior (for the hermit it is her Bishop), and the vow formula is placed and signed on the altar 5) the Bishop, with hands extended, prays a prayer of solemn consecration over her thus mediating God's own consecration of her, and 6) the insigniae of profession and consecration are given to her.

The entire rite is meant to mediate God's call to the person in an effective or performative way and to receive the person's vows (part of the mediation process and dynamic), but please note the central elements, ## 3,4 and 5. In the rite of profession for temporary vows there is no prostration and no prayer of consecration though there IS a prayer for God's grace in its stead. In the rite of perpetual profession this then is replaced by the "Solemn Blessing or Consecration of the Professed". (Note that consecration is only referred to here, not at the profession of vows per se.)

In the Rite of Consecration of Virgins the distinction between dedication and consecration is even clearer. Here the virgin makes no vows at all. She is asked several questions regarding readiness to follow Christ and then she is asked if she is resolved to accept solemn consecration as a bride of our Lord Jesus Christ. Note the rite in no way suggests the person is consecrating herself to God. There is a prayer and statements of resolution to follow Christ in perfect chastity. Following this there is a long prayer of "Solemn Consecration" followed by the presentation of insigniae. For diocesan hermits who choose to dedicate themselves publicly without vows, but instead make a public resolution, oath, or some other form of sacred bond, this is also received by (made in the hands of) and followed by the formal or actual consecration by their Bishop.

I don't think there is anything magical here in the sense I believe you mean it. But mysterious and awesome? Yes. The Church has discerned this vocation with the person. In light of this she acts to mediate God's own call and "setting apart" of this person as a sacred person. Only God can make sacred. Only God may consecrate. Only God may hallow. These are the verbs which are proper to God himself. When the Church acts "in his name" she acts in the power of his person and allows God to act through her. This is fundamental Catholic theology and ecclesiology. Thus, similarly to what happens in baptism, the person is objectively changed by what occurs in public perpetual profession or the consecration of a virgin. (This is why religious profession has often been treated as a new baptism or as sacramental in character.) The point though, with regard to HIOL and private vows is that only the dedicare portion of the equation occurs there, not the consecrare aspect. This certainly means the dedications and professions of evangelical counsels by HIOL members was serious and sincere. But they were not ALSO consecrations in the sense that Vatican II and the Rite of Religious Profession uses the term.

On the Use of the term "Vowed"

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Archdiocese's treatment of Hermit Intercessor's of the Lambs

One person wrote me the following email which raises, among others, the question of how the church (namely, the Archdiocese of Omaha) has treated Nadine Brown, and by extension, members of the HIOL. One other question it raises which is significant is the notion of discerning a vocation and how that happens with ecclesial vocations --- those which are effectively mediated by and are lived in the name of the church.

[[. . .All of this scandal is a tragic end to the loving ministry of Mother and the intercessors. Where can she go now that the church has abandoned her? They stripped her of her cloths, her life's vocation; and suppressed her voice. She must feel that there is a scarlet letter on her forehead. Where can we go and to whom can we ask for prayers by email from someone who does not know who we are, who will respond immediately with gentle love and kindness? Many, many, blessings were received through IOL ministry. ]]

First let me say how very sorry I am that the members of the former HIOL have suffered the loss they have. It is always difficult when, for instance, a person is required to leave formation in religious life, or religious life itself, the ordained priesthood, etc. And of course the HIOL situation was both more abrupt and unexpected than these usually are. What is true though in all these cases is that whenever we attempt to discern ecclesial vocations, we are never sure that we have such a vocation unless and until the church herself agrees and calls us forth officially for consecration. This is because the discernment in such situations is always mutual. One cannot do so on one's own -- crucial as that part of the process is. God's own call in the heart of the person is incomplete until the Church herself clarifies, affirms, and even mediates that call as well. Beyond this, because ecclesial vocations are not simply identified by rights and responsibilities that come from baptism alone, one must be admitted to profession (public) or ordination, to acquire new rights and responsibilities and the church has every right to govern and supervise these vocations.

As an example of what I mean let me use my own vocation to eremitical life. At one point and because of something which had nothing to do with me personally, my diocese ceased considering professing anyone under Canon 603. In a sense that left me hanging, however it did not nullify my own discernment in the matter completely. I was called by God (directly or in an unmediated way) to eremitical life, but what I had to accept was that perhaps this was not a call to diocesan eremitical life. Thus, until and unless my diocese discerned the reality of this vocation and admitted me to perpetual public vows I could not actually say I had been called to C603 life. More, until the very liturgy of profession where I was called forth in the name of the diocese and my parish, was examined, allowed to make profession, and received consecration and commissioning at the hands of my Bishop, I would have to consider that the very vocation (the call of God) itself was incomplete and objectively "uncertain" no matter what I felt in my heart (subjectively). In part this is because during the profession liturgy the actions of church and individual are effective. That is, in the calling forth of the candidate, the speaking of the vows, the praying of the prayer of consecration, etc, something comes to be that was not the case before. This thing comes to be in the very act of speaking. All of these events together constitute the definitive mediation of God's own call to the individual via the Church.

None of this, I am sure, eases or mitigates the pain being felt either by Nadine Brown or those to whom she ministered and who rightly came to value her assistance and life so, but it does argue that the church has not deprived her of anything (especially a vocation) that was hers apart from the larger church's own discernment and mediation, and certainly I don't think they have abandoned her in any way. In the first place, Nadine Brown's vocation was not sure. Both she and the HIOL were discerning the nature of their call along with the Church in the form of the episcopacy. They were a public association of the faithful but they were NOT an institute of consecrated life. Thus the vows held by all of those professed were private or non-canonical vows which did not initiate them into the consecrated state. Whether that consecration would or even should ever happen was an as-yet unsettled question and discernment of the matter was not simply the responsibility of Brown or other HIOLs; it was something the Church herself was ALSO responsible for.We have to understand then that the actual mediation of such a call had not occurred though the steps taken in moving from private association to public one with the intention of perhaps moving to ICL gave serious reason to believe it COULD happen one day if all went well.

Nadine Brown (or any of the HIOLs) still has the option of making private vows at any time, though it is true she/they cannot do so as part of the HIOL. A world of certain possibilities has been foreclosed to them for the moment, but they all have rights as a result of their baptism. None of those has ceased, and while it is surely difficult to start over (or continue simply as a private association of the faithful) it can be done.

The Treatment of the Hermit Intercessors by Archbishop Lucas and the Archdiocese



Despite what I have read about a rush to judgment and your own language of abandonment, etc I think it is really important to see just how generous and compassionate the Archdiocese of Omaha is being with regard to the HIOL. To provide clothing, a place to stay, counseling and direction is simply not something that is usually done even with vowed religious. The idea that a diocese will work with members of a lay organization (in the same category as the Knights of Columbus) until they figure out what they are going to do next, and what sounds like the possibility of supporting the former HIOL's in reforming in some way is literally (and unfortunately) almost unheard of. Unless Nadine Brown has allied herself with the lay board which is said to be resisting the reforms the Archbishop required, she would be part of this group with whom the diocese is working. So, "abandonment" is certainly too strong a word here.

I will say that personally I don't see where any scandal need attach to Nadine Brown from the actions of the Archdiocese. They required the group to get new leadership and so Brown resigned her role at that point. There is nothing necessarily insulting or offensive in that. There are many stories of Saints throughout the centuries who were not the best Abbots, Abbesses, etc, or were not the best at a given point in time in the congregation's history! One of the signs of a community that is ready to become an institute of consecrated life is its ability to accept new leadership and to grow from that rather than simply being demoralized by and falling apart or becoming seriously polarized because of it. So, there is no reason simply because of the Archdiocese's actions to see Nadine Brown as having a large red letter painted on her forehead. Unless she has done something truly scandalous herself. . ..

Finally, I hope you will look for others who can serve in the way Nadine Brown and the HIOL did. In fact, there is no reason she herself cannot carry on a private ministry of the kind you believe you have lost, and no reason you cannot assist in this, though again privately or perhaps through a parish, for instance. She is a lay woman as she has been right along during her time with the IOL. She has gifts and you (plural) have needs. Help each other continue to bring those together for the good of the whole Church and the world. Nadine Brown is part of the Body of Christ. That has not changed. The immediate context for her ministry has changed, but the ministry itself need not.


Addendum: 27.October.2010: Please note that the Archdiocese of Omaha has published a statement clarifying a distinction between the Association of Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and an allied group known as the Intercessors of the Lamb. Thus, I am changing most of the IOL references in my posts to HIOL because they refer to the once canonically approved public association, not the secondary group which was never canonically approved. This can also have an effect on my comments regarding Companions of the IOL. If the Companions are simply a lay group associated with the IOL, Inc and not the HIOL, then as I have now noted above, they might well be able to continue --- though in my opinion maintaining the name Companions of Intercessors of the Lamb seems imprudent at best, and will likely be confusing, counterproductive, and possibly disedifying to the rest of the Church.

Question on Private vows: Consecrare versus Dedicare

[[Sister O'Neal, you have written about the difference between private vows and public vows as the difference between a person consecrating themselves to God, and God consecrating the person. Are there actual church documents that indicate such a difference? Isn't consecration consecration whether private or public? (I have private vows so the question is important to me.)]]

Your questions are excellent and they point up an area where my own writing and speaking here has been imprecise. In part, in earlier posts I drew a distinction between active and passive consecration because of the work of another writer on consecrated life, but that may not be adequate. This is because I had not looked at the original language used in several church documents in some time, so your question gave me the chance to do that. The results are significant and will actually cause me to change the way I speak about this matter in the future. In particular, I will no longer speak of a person consecrating herself to God, and try to reserve the term consecration for an action of God only --- for in the strict sense making holy or setting apart as a member of the consecrated state is something only God does; consecration is a divine and not a human action. (Accepted common usage allows one to speak of consecrating something or oneself to God though, but this is really misleading and confusing. What remains true, whatever usage one eventually adopts is the two kinds of ACTION must be distinguished from one another.)

It is in the documents of Vatican II where one finds a clear distinction between what is a divine action and what is a human action. In Lumen Gentium and Perfectae Caritatis, for instance the verb consecrare and noun consecratio are never used for the human element in profession. When the human element is meant, these documents use terms like, se devovere, mancipare, and dedicare. (I have not looked at JP II's Vita Consecrata closely or in the original Latin in this particlar regard, so I can't yet speak to that.) As noted above, what is clear though is that the pertinent documents of Vatican II draw a distinction between consecration, which is something God does, and dedication (etc), which is the corresponding human action involved in profession. Now, if this latter usage is true of the human element in public profession, it is equally true in private profession. At the same time, what is missing in private vows besides the calling forth in the name of the Church is the entire prayer/rite of consecration which is part of perpetual or solemn public profession. This is true whether or not one uses "consecration" in the broad and common sense of dedication or not.

When one is consecrated to and by God through the mediation of the Church in a formal and juridical act, one is set apart in a new state of life ("status"), viz., the consecrated state. Through ecclesial mediation one is changed; it is sometimes spoken of as analogous to the change being effected in the consecration of bread and wine. (I have seen this analogy used by dioceses and archdioceses in explaining the nature of the consecration of a woman in regard to the Consecration of Virgins and, though I would define this change in the person cautiously and specifically in terms of being made fit to receive the graces, rights and obligations of a new state of life, I adopt it here.) Private vows do not involve such mediation by the church or such an act of transformation even though one is (presumably) led by God to make such vows. What this essentially means is that private vows ordinarily mark a continuing lay vocation (that is, it involves no change in state of life); public vows mark a vocation to the consecrated and/or religious state (status). Both involve the significant dedication of self to God and are meaningful and important vocations; both are presumably embraced as responses to the Holy Spirit, but they differ at the same time.

Your own private vows are a specification and intensification of your baptismal vows; your dedication to God is significant, and I personally hope you will reflect on and find ways to share what they mean for the lay vocation. It is actually too bad that while we have the reality of private vows and many lay people with such vows, most of the writing and reflecting about such things are done by priests and religious! This is especially true, I think, in a world so thoroughly secularized and needing the witness of those who resist this secularization while remaining firmly within the world of ordinary temporal affairs. However, it is also true because while the church esteems the lay vocation, she has a long history either of not doing so adequately or of mainly leaving the reflection on it to those who are not part of the lay state. The result is a failure to hear how truly important the lay vocation is from the inside of that vocation --- and that is always sadly inadequate. If, for instance, I write about the importance of the lay eremitical vocation it always raises the question of why it is I did not choose to live as one then. The same inadequacy results often when some people make private vows because on some level they are actually not affirming their own lay vocation; instead they are affirming they do not believe it is "enough"; religious life is better, lay life (they believe) is an entry level vocation only. Unfortunately, until Vatican II, the Church made this way of thinking all-too-easy. So, again, I hope you will find ways to reflect on and write about your own vocation. I believe both it and your own doing this are critically important to many more people than you might know.

Whether one adopts the distinction between passive and active consecrations mentioned in Centered in Christ (Roberts, OCSO), continues to use "consecrate" in the broad and common sense of dedicating to God, or adopts the less ambiguous and (I think) theologically more adequate conciliar linguistic distinction between consecrare and dedicare (etc) to underscore the differences involved, what remains true is that in private vows one is not initiated into the consecrated state. This particular setting apart requires an act of God, and that is one which the church clearly teaches is always mediated by the Church in a public and juridical (canonical) act; it is another (and even the primary) reason vocations to the consecrated state are called ecclesial vocations.

I hope this helps. As always, if this raises more questions or is unclear in some way, please get back to me.

Can Canonical Eremitical Profession Be Kept completely Secret?

[[I was told recently that a hermit was anticipating accepting canonical profession and consecration but that if s/he did so, it would have to be completely secret. By this s/he meant unknown to parish, family, etc. (As far as I could tell, it was the hermit who insisted this needed to be the case, not the Bishop.) Can you explain how this can be so? Thanks.]]

I am afraid I cannot explain what s/he means by this. It simply makes no sense except possibly in countries where there is pronounced and widespread religious persecution which might mean that consecrated life must grow underground. By definition canonical profession and consecration is a particular and public gift or charisma of and for the church and world. It establishes a person as a public person therein and, as I have noted before, entails certain rights and responsibilities as s/he acts (lives, prays, ministers) in the name of the church. It involves public promises and therefore, it is meant to be a public witness (not least to the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church) even though the majority of the hermit's life is hidden. Even so, people are to KNOW there is a consecrated hermit in their midst, look to them as a source of prayer and a kind of spiritual presence or even center in the parish and diocese, and also be able to turn to them within established limits to meet spiritual or other legitimate needs.

A Gift With Necessary Expectations:

Beyond this, the parish and diocese are allowed certain necessary expectations of the diocesan hermit, not least that they publicly witness to the fact that a life of  the silence of solitude, prayer, and penance lived in God's grace is possible and says certain things about the human capacity for God AND for authentic humanity; this means it says certain things about the relationship of nature and grace, and that the meaningless human isolation, estrangement, or alienation so often experienced today can be redeemed and transfigured into the almost infinitely meaningful reality of true solitude by the grace of God. The same is true of lives lived ensnared by what Thomas Merton calls the myths and fixations of a consumeristic, secularized society.

Other expectations which necessarily attach to public profession and consecration, as I have written here before, involve personal integrity, spiritual and personal (that is moral, emotional, and psychological) health, adequate and ongoing spiritual formation, the quality of the Rule of Life which is officially approved as part of the process of canonical approval and admission to profession, adequate education and training to carry on in this life and minister in the occasional ways legitimately open to the hermit, and above all, that the person accepted for profession, called forth publicly and professed and consecrated publicly, is motivated by love of God and others and is responding to a Divine call the church herself has also discerned.

On the Vocation's Essential Hiddenness:

The eremitical life is one of essential hiddenness, but that does not mean it is secret, and it certainly does not mean that a public commitment (canonical profession and consecration) can or should ordinarily be kept secret. The fact is that though my own life involves the free and public commitment to a life of eremitical hiddenness and people are apt not really to know what that looks like, etc, they still know who and what I am, and that I am in their midst. No, a secret canonical profession and life is not simply a contradiction in terms, it is completely wrongheaded and shows one has not thought sufficiently about the reasons for seeking (or being granted) canonical status. Additionally, in a church where vocations to the consecrated or religious states are suffering, and some wonder if God is working in his church in this way any longer, it hardly makes sense to admit someone to the public rights and obligations of canonical status and then allow them to keep the whole thing secret. Again, hiddenness and secrecy in this whole area are different and, in some significant ways, contradictory realities.

I personally can't imagine a Bishop going along with such an arrangement (except in the condition first mentioned re religious persecution). It seems far more likely he would simply ask the person to remain non-canonical if s/he had such "conditions." But again, Canonical profession and consecration are, by definition, public commitments. While this does not entail notoriety, and may well involve relative or absolute reclusion for the hermit, these persons ARE known to exist and to have been professed.

On Recluses: Hiddenness Without Secrecy

In the Camaldolese Benedictines there have been recluses (there are none right now as far as I know)**. These hermits never see the public, are free from the obligations of attending community liturgies, meals and the like. The community supports them in their reclusion as a special instance of the eremitical vocation. However, this kind of reclusion is not secret. Everyone knows the monks exist and that their vocation is a special gift to the community, church, and world.

We note or mark all of this in a number of ways. Publicly professed/consecrated hermits' participation in public liturgy is marked by the wearing of a prayer garment or cowl and ring, for instance, and everyday life by the wearing of a habit (though this latter is not essential). Even if the hermit never attended public (parish) liturgy (and I admit I don't know how this would be possible unless the hermit is also a priest), the parish has a right to know who and what s/he is for s/he is "theirs" and serves them precisely as hermit. As mentioned above, one of the things which allows us each to be faithful to our own calls are the expectations the church as a whole, and the people in our parishes and dioceses in particular are allowed to have of us. We serve them, and their expectations serve our vocation as well. Public profession means a public life of service EVEN IF that life is mainly hidden in a hermitage.

** Excursus. A fellow Oblate informed me that there are apparently two recluses associated with the Monte Corona Camaldolese (Er Cam) living at this time. One, Fr John Mary, lives outside Padua, Italy. The second, Fr Nicolas lives at the hermitage in Ohio. In the Roman Catholic Church only the Camaldolese (OSB Cam and Er. Cam) and the Carthusians are permitted to have canonical recluses or anchorites; thus, as rare as canonical hermits are, canonical recluses or anchorites are far far rarer. It is true, however that the OSB Camaldolese have no recluses at the present time. Until just recently New Camaldoli Hermitage in Big Sur, California did have two canonical anchorite (recluses), however both died relatively recently. The most recent to die (April 8, 2005) after years of reclusion was Fr. Joseph Diemer, OSB Cam. So, are such lives hidden? Absolutely, but CERTAINLY NOT secret!!

Once again, On the Differences between Public and Private Profession and Consecration

Dear Sister some suggest canon 603 is the refinement of older canons. They also suggest public profession is merely the legal formalization of a private commitment. [[ And in 1983 these [norms] were refined further for those whose superiors desire them, or the hermit desires or is led by God, to a public profession. That formalizes the profession through Canon Law 603.]] So, my questions, 1) does canon 603 profession merely "formalize" a private consecration or profession? and 2) can a "superior desire a person to profess vows according to canon 603"? Also one person said, [[The Bishop really is the determining voice as to private or public profession in the consecrated life of any eremitic. There is no point in trying to do this or that to change the profession status, as the Lord sees through the eyes of His Bishop, and speaks through his voice.]] Is that the way aspirants to eremitical life see things?

Why Public Profession/Consecration?

Let me take the second question first because this has come up before. At that time it was apparently suggested one's Bishop could insist one make vows according to canon 603. The answer has a couple of points, 1) without a public vow of obedience one HAS NO superior. One may have a pastor, confessor, or Bishop (we all do, afterall) but without the vow of obedience the Bishop (for instance) is not a legitimate superior and ought not be called a superior in the way which confuses that issue. 2) No one may insist a person make public vows. The idea that a Bishop would say he wants (desires) a person to make such vows, especially if they do not feel called to do so and have not asked to be admitted to such profession, is simply nonsensical. One is admitted to public profession only after requesting this, and the request is the signal that one has discerned a Divine calling to such a thing. The admission to public profession signals that the church herself agrees and actually assumes a role in mediating God's own call to the person. Now, if one already has public vows, then one might well discern a call to eremitical life, but in such a case, one must deal with the current vows canonically before being admitted  to new ones (there are various options for doing this so one may live their vows until they make eremitic profession). In such a case it is the individual who must initiate the process by requesting admission to eremitical profession and consecration. It makes no sense to suggest someone's superior (one to whom one is bound in such a way in a legitimate relationship through public vows) would desire someone to make another public profession/consecration.

As for the first question, the answer is no. Canon 603 certainly formalizes the norms and characteristics of the eremitical life, but it does not formalize a private consecration and profession, nor is it the way to do so. (Private dedication -- is "formalized" by private vows, and here private does not mean simply done in relative secret or with a lack publicity! Here "private" means the vows do NOT change the juridical or canonical status of the person, nor do they acquire new public rights and obligations.) Canon 603 profession is a different kind of profession and consecration in which the person becomes a public person (in this case, a diocesan hermit) in the church, acts in her name, has legitimate rights and responsibilities she did not have before, and becomes a member of the consecrated state of life (which, as I have noted before, does not happen in private vows or the private consecration of the self to God).

In public profession and consecration we are not dealing simply with the addition of more formalities as though this is the same reality as private profession/consecration but simply with more bells and whistles, and certainly, it is not the formalization of private vows. We are dealing with something that is qualitatively different than private profession and consecration (dedication of self), something where the person experiences both active and passive consecration in the name of the Church. (cf Augustine Roberts OCSO, Centered on Christ, A Guide to Monastic Profession) In private consecration there is active but not passive consecration, that is one consecrates oneself to God but is not herself raised to the consecrated state.** It is significant that the Church has always seen public profession/consecration as a sacramental act, a kind of second baptism, and of course, though an extension and elaboration of baptismal consecration, a new and different consecration as well. This is simply not the case with private vows.

By the way, on one blog devoted to vocations, "Do I Have a vocation?" the author, Therese Ivers, JCL, writes that it is therefore wrong for the person making private vows to call themselves consecrated. I would tend to agree that we should reserve the term consecrated to those entering the consecrated state. Baptism involves the consecration of the person, however, we would not ordinarily call a baptized Christian, a consecrated person in the church because they have not entered the consecrated state. If she lived as a hermit, we would not call her a consecrated hermit even though she has private vows. Normal ecclesial usage reserves the term consecrated for those who have entered the consecrated state. Ivers makes a similar point regarding those calling themselves Catholic hermits: [[ Since (s)he is not a member of the consecrated state, (S)he should refrain from speaking of (her)self as a Catholic hermit as that implies canonical status as such. Rather, (S)he should explain to those (s)he may encounter that (s)he is a lay person drawn to solitude with its implication of prayer and penance.]] Now these are not my opinions only, but the observations of a canonist.

The second comment was also problematic: [[The Bishop really is the determining voice as to private or public profession in the consecrated life of any eremitic. There is no point in trying to do this or that or that to change the profession status, as the Lord sees through the eyes of His Bishop, and speaks through his voice. ]] It raises the following questions: 1) do private vows need to be accepted by one's Bishop? 2) if the Bishop accepts them, do they have the same weight or character as public vows made in his hands? 3) Can the Bishop specify that a person makes private rather than public profession? and 4) Should a person seek to move from private to public profession and consecration if that is what they determine the Lord is calling them to or should they give up on such an idea because one Bishop refuses to admit to profession?

First let me say that when one approaches a diocese requesting to be admitted to public profession under canon 603, it is the case that the diocese is the determining voice as to whether this will occur or not. If a Bishop REFUSES to admit one to public profession one can, even then, ALWAYS make private vows in the presence of one's director, pastor, or even the Bishop himself (though I have not heard of this happening). Of course, a Bishop may also suggest that private profession might seem the way to go when he is unwilling to admit one to profession under Canon 603. But again (per question #3), he cannot say, "I have determined God is calling you to private profession." No one can really do this, not confessor, spiritual director, or Bishop. They may suggest one consider it, but nothing more. (We are not speaking of calling a St Ambrose to the episcopacy afterall!) Further, private vows need not be accepted (and in fact they are not truly or formally "accepted" or received by anyone in the church). They are made in the presence of, that is they are witnessed by, someone significant, but that person does NOT receive the vows nor, more particularly, are they made in that person's hands. (The phrase "in one's hands" recalls the old feudal practice of the serf (or knight) putting his hands in those of the noble and entering into an act of fealty and a relationship of service; the Church adopted this symbol/form of public profession to signal the new relationship that comes to exist in the act of profession between the newly professed and their legitimate superior (or community/Order, etc)).

Thus, the second question does not make sense; it is an overstatement and misleading to say the Bishop "accepts" or even "receives" private vows. Even if we allowed a common usage of the term "accepts" (and I argue we should not), one has to then clarify that he especially does not do so in the name of the Church which again, sets up legitimate relationships, consequences, rights and obligations for all involved. In the case of private vows there is no difference between a Bishop, a parish priest, or a lay spiritual director witnessing such vows. One cannot inflate what has happened by referring to the Bishop in this case. Further, his merely being apprised that they have happened in his diocese or parish does not constitute acceptance or approval, much less reception. As for the next part of the question, No, when private dedication via vows is made the dedication, despite similar content, does not have the character of public vows. Again, public profession and consecration is a qualitatively different reality than private vows/dedication.

Let me reiterate, this does not deny the seriousness or validity of private vows AS PRIVATE, but it remains the essential truth of the matter that in the first instance one is consecrated by God through the mediation of the church, whereas in the second one dedicates oneself to God and there is no objective change in state. 

As far as the fourth question goes, yes, if one sincerely discerns one is called to public profession and consecration, then one should petition for admission to this even if one already has a private commitment of some sort. Obviously, there is no guarantee the Bishop (or those who review and recommend the petition prior to the Bishop's even seeing it) will agree in their own discernment, but one should still initiate the process. Moreover, unless the diocese is very clear they believe one is simply not suited to this vocation, if one truly feels called one should continue to discern even if the petition is initially denied. This is true not only because one needs to come to humble (lovingly honest) terms with this denial, but also because sometimes the decision from the chancery will change in time. Sometimes the diocese is simply not ready to profess anyone as a diocesan hermit and the denial is not an indication that the diocese feels the person is unsuited (or lacking a call) to the vocation. (The diocese may indicate the provisional nature of the denial or not; that is entirely up to them.) Sometimes the individual herself is completely unready for public profession, but one may suspect she could have such a vocation, and so puts her off for a time with recommendations for personal work, therapy, formation in monastic or eremitical life, more regular and competent spiritual direction, etc before she is seen as a serious candidate for admission to first vows.

One always needs to take an official decision seriously as the will of God, but we need to determine in what sense that is the case; also the denial may or may not be the will of God for the person in the long term. The individual needs to continue the discernment process while living their life with integrity. In a situation where one is denied admission to public profession this COULD mean that one would need to continue living as they are and continue to discern seriously in the matter; one might re-present one's petition at another time if that seemed to be God's will. Of course, it could also be the will of God absolutely and for all time! In either case one must continue to discern on an ongoing basis.

As I have noted several times before, both public (canonical) profession and consecration and private (non-canonical) dedication are serious commitments. One cannot say one is "better" than the other, but one must recognize the essential distinction between the two and not confuse the issue by ignoring canon law or the theology of public profession and consecration in the process of affirming the seriousness and validity of private vows and non-canonical dedication. The Church recognizes that both are possible (valid) ways of pursuing the eremitical life. Non-canonical eremitism, as far as I can see, is an important lay vocation while canonical or diocesan eremitism is an instance of the consecrated state which, like private profession, is both an extension of the baptismal consecration all believers participate in, but different from this as well. It is my sincerest hope that non-canonical hermits will take the time and effort to explore and appreciate the differences in charism and character their eremitical lives have from diocesan hermits. We need the lives and witness of both, for, as I have said before, they are both unique gifts to the church, and I think they are, or at least should be, uniquely challenging and edifying to one another.

(**I believe the distinction between active and passive consecration mentioned above is confusing, apt to lead to misunderstanding, and therefore, should be replaced by the distinction between consecration, a Divine action, and dedication, a human action. Vatican II maintained this distinction throughout its documents with one ambiguous exception. We should be instructed by this overwhelming usage.)

More questions: Canonical Status, may a Bishop insist one make vows according to Canon 603?

I received a couple of related questions from someone confused by something they read from a non-canonical hermit online. Because I have already dealt with these issues generally (Canonical consecration vs non-canonical dedication) elsewhere in some depth, I am sharing the things that concerned the reader and answering them again, though I think in less depth; still, I apologize for any redundancy here. One question in particular, however, was completely new and somewhat disturbing in its implications, so readers will find this covers new ground. The questions were as follows:

[[I read in another hermit's blog that the church considers a hermit with private vows part of the consecrated state, and that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly and simply says this. The blogger indicated there was no real distinction between private and public consecration. Because of this he also claimed that Canon 603 was optional and that he could make vows in the hands of his Bishop without it. Are these things true? I ask because you have written about differences in the past. Also, there was a reference to the person's Bishop insisting that the blogger make vows under canon 603, though he was resisting the idea and had told him he was clear he was called to remain other than a canon 603 hermit. Is it possible for a Bishop to do this?}}

Assuming you have quoted accurately, the first statement is not strictly true. While it is true a person may privately consecrate (or better, dedicate) themselves to God and thus live a life which is privately set apart for God as a hermit, they do not become part of the consecrated state in so doing; they remain in the lay state. That is, the Church does not "raise" the person (sorry, but as I have said before, that's the verb used most often) to the consecrated state as is done in perpetual public vows. As I have noted before, what both the Catechism of the Catholic Church states and the revised Code of Canon Law makes very clear is that admission to the consecrated state requires public profession of vows. However, the paragraph from the Catechism being referred to in your question is somewhat ambiguous because it is listed under the heading "the Consecrated Life." Still, the entire section begins by pointing out that admission to the consecrated state is by public vow (CCC 915b refers to admission by vow to a permanent state of life; cf Code of Canon Law below).

What I think the authors of the catechism also wished to indicate in the paragraphs your question referred to (probably CCC 920-921), is that a serious eremitical life dedicated to God as a specification of one's baptismal consecration, can be lived whether one enters the consecrated state or not. That is part of the reason for saying, "while not always making public profession of the evangelical counsels. . ." (Another reason, however, is that diocesan hermits MAY publicly make other than vows per se.) Any ambiguities are largely cleared up if one reads these paragraphs in context, and also if one reads the Code of Canon Law on the matter. That is especially true of Canon 603 sec 2 " A hermit is recognized in law as one dedicated to God if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan Bishop and observes his or her plan of life under his direction."

As far as your second question then, Canon 603 is not optional if one wishes to be canonically or publicly professed and consecrated as a hermit by the Church and become a member of the consecrated state of life. Neither is it one option among others if one is going therefore to publicly assume the rights and responsibilities of such a state or live the eremitical life in the name of the Church. If one makes private vows in the presence of a Bishop (which is NOT the same as doing so "in the hands" of one's Bishop) that is similar to making private vows in the presence of any other priest or one's spiritual director. What makes the vows PUBLIC is the fact that the Bishop legally/canonically admits the person to such profession, and accepts these vows as public in the name of the Church. In the rite of (religious) profession in such an instance he also affirms the hermit in this specific charism, chooses her for this consecration and, after receiving her vows prays the prayer of consecration over her, again all in the name of the Church. Because one makes such vows in his hands, he (and his successors and designees) become the hermit's legitimate superiors (or superiors in law). In this way a mutual relationship is set up in law between hermit and Bishop and this is indicated by the phrase "in his hands." The hermit acquires a new standing in law which is not done in private vows. All this pomp and ceremony is thus not merely a way of celebrating the same thing as private dedication and vows --- only just more elaborately. Instead it says that something different is happening here than happens when a private person (even a Bishop!) receives private vows or witnesses someone making a private dedication of self to God.

If one is a complete neophyte hermit, or contemplating becoming one, and is still considering how to live out one's baptismal consecration then in this very limited sense one can say canon 603 is an option (or, more accurately, a potential one since others must also discern such a vocation for canon 603 to actually come into play). Also, if one has lived as a non-canonical hermit for some period of time one might discern one is called to canonical consecration (or at least that one thinks one is, since again mutual discernment is involved in this); in such a case canon 603 remains an option which could be pursued. Perhaps this is what your blogger meant. But if he stated or implied that private vows and public vows are completely equal options, both functioning in precisely the same way in admitting to the consecrated state, then no, he was in error.

I suppose it is easy to make mistakes on these differences (especially given the ambiguity of the Catechism when taken out of context, and given the two distinct meanings of the term "consecrated life"). That is especially true if one ignores the glossary to the CCC (cf "consecrated life"), or the more specific Code of Canon Law on the necessary relation between public vows and the consecrated state. Your last question, however, refers to a much more serious and misleading matter which is not subject to linguistic ambiguity or confusion. Let me be clear: NO ONE IN THE CHURCH MAY INSIST THAT A PERSON MAKE VOWS under canon 603, or any other canon or set of canons. The idea that a Bishop would "insist" when, as you say, the individual claimed to not want or feel called to such profession or consecration is nonsensical, and of course, any vows made in such a case would be invalid (cc 573.2), not to mention a travesty. Vows are not thrust upon a person, nor can one be obliged in obedience to make vows. The entire idea misunderstands the theology of vocation and profession underlying them which requires the individual call be freely (not to mention clearly) heard, freely mediated by the Church, and freely accepted and embraced in a sense of certainty by ALL PARTIES INVOLVED that this is where and HOW God himself is calling the one concerned .

I admit to feeling pretty strongly about this matter because I occasionally hear stories from hermits who, despite being clear that they ARE CALLED TO THIS SPECIFIC CONSECRATION, are denied or postponed admission to Canon 603 profession simply because it is still relatively new, the diocese does not want responsibility for such an arrangement, or because they don't see the need for canonical profession or question the validity of the eremitical life more generally. (I am not referring to those not admitted because the diocese involved decides they are not actually called or have other substantive valid reasons.) Thus, to hear in light of this, that someone has suggested that their Bishop might INSIST they be professed under Canon 603 when they claim to have a different (e.g, a non-canonical eremitical) vocation and not want this for themselves is really problematical and disturbing. This is especially true when the charism of the diocesan hermit may differ in some ways from that of the non-canonical hermit. Were it true that someone was professed because their Bishop wanted it when they really did not, it would also be scandalous to those witnessing the vows. However, I don't believe for a moment any competent Bishop would do such a thing. Instead, (and again I am assuming the questioner has cited the person accurately), it would seem to me that whoever stated this has either misunderstood the situation vis a vis his Bishop, or, for some other subjective reason has seriously misspoken and mischaracterized the objective situation.

One final comment. As I have written here before, Hermits may clearly be non-canonical or canonical and whichever form of the life one is actually called to is meant to be a blessing to the church in its own way. One hopes anyone would be able to come to terms with the unique way God is calling him or her. Both forms of eremitism are significant vocations and should be esteemed. However, one does not do this by blurring the distinctions which do exist between the two. For instance, private consecration allows the non-canonical hermit to remain solidly amidst the laity and signals clearly how silence, solitude, prayer, and penance are important in the life of every person in the church. It also witnesses to the need for any adult to make more specific their own baptismal commitment and consecration. Public consecration as a diocesan hermit can and should witness in this way too (afterall, it is a public vocation despite its hiddenness), but it is also apt to speak more clearly to monastics and religious of these things, and call others to consider the consecrated state as a possible vocation. Both forms however, are characterized by greater separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, and thus are similar gifts to the church.

The Unique Charism of the Diocesan Hermit

I received a question about the issue of canonical status, specifically why is it some hermits seek canonical status --- viz, isn't it a matter of pride, of self-aggrandizement and the refusal to live the hiddenness appropriate to the eremitical life? I would like to answer this question, but I would also like to frame my answer in terms of the unique charism of the diocesan (C 603) hermit. It does no good to simply deny the truth of the assertions in the question. Instead it must be seen that canonical status fosters a particular charism in ways non-canonical status does not.

As I have written a while back, it is not unusual to hear stories about hermits or aspiring hermits who approached their dioceses requesting to be admitted to eremitic profession under canon 603 (the ONLY way for a solitary hermit -- as opposed to one belonging to a congregation --- to make public profession), and who were told "no" for a variety of reasons. Some of these are completely legitimate, relating as they do, to the hermit herself, her competencies, maturity, stability, spirituality, and so forth. Others are much less legitimate: "one does not need to be professed to be a hermit," (this is strictly true but may be misleading) "canonical status is contrary to the statuslessness of the real hermit," "you can do and be the very same thing by embracing solitude as a non-canonical hermit," etc. While it is surprising to hear diocesan officials (who usually ARE canonical themselves in one sense or another!) saying such things, these assertions do raise a number of questions, not only about canonical status and the nature of public profession and consecration, but about the unique charism of the diocesan hermit.

Public Profession or Private, Canonical Status or Non-Canonical, Does it Matter?

It might be well to deal with some basic questions first then. What is the difference between public vow and consecration and private vows and dedication? Well, to begin with this is NOT simply the difference between vows made in a darkened, relatively empty church and those made in one filled with people! It is not about notoriety or lack thereof. Private vows are undertaken by making vows in the presence (not in the hands of) one's priest, spiritual director, et al, in which one commits (dedicates) oneself  to God to live according to specific values. The commitment is serious and real, but it does not cause the person making it to enter a new state of life (religious or the consecrated state of life), nor does it constitute them in a new juridical standing under canon or civil law. One can be dispensed from the vows at anytime by one's pastor, and one lives one's life as a private person --- not in the sense of remaining behind the scenes, so to speak, but in the sense of living and acting or ministering in one's own name, not in the name of the church or as a public representative of this life. In a private profession one dedicates one's self to God (a significant act!) but one is not consecrated by God via the Church, that is, one is not permanently set apart by God in this particular way through the mediation of the Church.

In public profession and consecration the situation is different. First of all "public" does not merely refer to the presence of the public at the ceremony --- although it is appropriate that the profession be attended by the public! "Public" here does not point to or imply notoriety just as "private" does not point to the lack thereof. It points instead to a profession which establishes the professed in a public role with legal rights and responsibilities. One has a right to represent the religious or consecrated (in this case, the eremitic) state publicly and in the name of the Church in whose authority the professed was admitted to vows and had those vows received. For the Sister living in community, for instance, with public/canonical profession she acquires specific rights within the institute or congregation (voting rights, right to hold office, to be entrusted with certain tasks, etc). Further, while one professes vows publicly during perpetual profession the person is consecrated by God. Again, both the individual's dedication of self and Divine consecration mediated in each case by the Church are present during perpetual public profession. Not so in private vows or dedication.

A note on the term "Canonical Status"

The questions which prompted this blog entry are not uncommon. Recently I read a blog piece which attributed the motives of pride and a love of notoriety to those hermits who specify they are diocesan or canon 603 hermits, or who seek this standing. These hermits were played off against those who supposedly more authentically accept the hiddenness of the eremitical life and seek not to be "somebodies" but to be "nobodies." I think this kind of characterization is unfortunate, but there is a common misunderstanding about the term "status" in the phrase canonical status at the root of such analyses. In ordinary usage, "status" refers to a relative ranking in church or society. One has status if one is ranked higher than others, for instance. But this is only one meaning of the term and it is NOT what is denoted in the phrase "Canonical status." Instead the word refers to a kind of standing under the law; it means literally, "canonically legal standing," or "standing in canon law." This is the case because it comes from the Latin status which refers to "state" and points to a new state of life. Hermits who have gone through the often protracted process of discernment and been admitted to profession under canon 603 share a new standing in the church. Not only have they entered a new state of life, but they represent this state and the eremitical vocation in an official way in the name of the Church.

Note well, that the church herself recognizes the existence of both non-canonical and canonical hermits. She does so in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not a matter of one kind of hermit being better than another kind of hermit, or one having greater relative ranking over the other, etc, but it IS the case that one has a public and legal standing under canon law, while the other does not. While it may be difficult to eschew the idea that one is of a higher rank than the other, it is something we should consciously try very hard to do. In any case, even if it is difficult to avoid this altogether, it is a misunderstanding we should try dilligently at least not to exacerbate.

Legal Standing: A Matter of Obligations, Responsibilities, and Rights.

The question this all raises for me is this: "In light of public profession and consecration, and canonical standing, what can necessarily be expected of the canonical hermit which IS NOT necessarily expected of the non-canonical hermit?" I think this particular question reframes the issue of public vs private and canonical-vs non-canonical in a more positive way. It also points to the fact that solitary hermits with canonical standing, despite all the similarities in fundamentals, have a somewhat different charism than those hermits who live in community or as non-canonical hermits. It is a charism which is related directly to the rights and responsibilities which attach to their state. In reflecting on my New Year's resolutions a few entries ago I wrote:

[[ The diocesan hermit does NOT belong to herself or even only to God; she belongs in a special way to her parish and diocese.) The Camaldolese describe this part of their own charism as "living alone together." For me I suppose it is more a matter of being alone together since I do not live with parishioners and yet, I am joined in communion with them in several different and profound ways.]]


So what is it my diocese and parish, my Bishop and Pastor, et al have a RIGHT to EXPECT from me BECAUSE of public profession and canonical status? First, they have a right to expect me to live my Rule of Life with real integrity. In that Rule I make certain claims about eremitic life, about silence, solitude, prayer, penance, and the grace of God --- as well as a commitment to a life that is ordered accordingly. They have every right to expect my life to embody the truth of those claims and commitments in a way which is edifying to them. (I should note that since the Rule itself is approved by the Bishop, people have a right to expect it to be soundly based both theologically and spiritually, and capable of being adopted by others as well.) I also made vows of poverty, chastity and obedience which characterize the content of my life in terms of Jesus Christ and a mutual responsive and responsible love which will not (and will not be allowed to) die, and which also summons every Christian to something similar. They have every right to expect to be able to see the truth of these vows in all that I am and do. They have a right to expect to see me growing in these (or at least to trust that I AM doing so!), reflecting on them and sharing the fruits of this reflection in whatever way is appropriate not only in the parish, but in the diocese and the wider church community as well. And of course, they have every right to have my life be of direct fruitfulness and benefit to the diocese and parish. More about this in a bit.

More generally, parish and diocese have a right to expect the following characteristics of me: 1) wholeness --- psychological, spiritual, and personal. The vocation to eremitism is a vocation to wholeness, personal maturity, compassion, reliability, stability, and authentic sanctity rooted in the incarnation. It is not a vocation to eccentricity or instability, misanthropy or personal indulgence and selfishness. It is reasonable to expect I will take advantage of every resource necessary to attain and maintain these characteristics. 2) professional competence --- every hermit has a mission and a ministry even if these are only evident in her prayer per se. Above all, it may be reasonably expected that the hermit is a woman or man of prayer, that s/he is a contemplative for whom the life of prayer is primary and underlies, supports, and informs everything else. It is never an afterthought, never a postscript to a life of apostolic or pastoral zeal and activity. This said, most hermits, however, do come in contact with others in additional pastoral capacities. Canonical status says the Pastor, the Bishop, and indeed, anyone who approaches the hermit has every right to trust that the hermit is spiritually sound, and trained adequately (or capable of determining the need for more training or education) in whatever areas of endeavor she engages: spiritual direction, adult education, retreat work, etc. They have a right to expect that simple prayer requests will be met, and met with compassion, discretion, and sensitivity. (Obviously one impaired under #1 above, would be unable to meet these simple requirements.)

They also have the right to expect: 3) appropriate spiritual and theological formation: for those hermits who write, publish, are involved even in limited catechesis or faith formation, or do retreat work or spiritual direction, these are essential. Of course, they are essential in the hermit's day to day life in cell as well. Without them the hermit is apt to go off the rails entirely in one way or another. Spirituality requires good theology, good theology issues in and is supported by mature spirituality. The two go hand in hand and the hermit needs both if she is to touch others' lives fruitfully, and also of course, not only to survive the struggles of the hermitage but to mature into sainthood there.

4) Oversight, direction, and accountability: A canonical hermit is responsible directly and/or legally to several other people.There is her pastor who, while not a legitimate superior, ordinarily does assume oversight regarding her activities in the parish, and extends opportunities to her on the basis of need as well as her own interests and competencies. There is her Bishop who has canonically approved the hermit's Rule and is her legitimate superior to whom she is bound by a vow of obedience; (the vow is made to God but in the hands of the Bp and for this reason the hermit is responsible to him). The Bishop may delegate the day to day responsibility for the hermit's integrity, well-being, growth, etc to another (religious, Vicar, priest, etc) and thus, establish them as superiors or quasi-superiors. Evenso, the hermit meets with the Bishop regularly, maintains interim contact by email or post, and generally keeps him apprised of her situation. The canonical hermit is accountable both generally (to God, the universal and the local church) and more specifically to whomever assumes the role of legitimate superior in her life. There is her spiritual director who, like the pastor, has ordinarily recommended the hermit for perpetual profession and consecration, who meets regularly with her, and who therefore understands her and assists her to grow in and remain faithful to her vowed commitments, prayer, personal development, etc. Finally, if the canonical hermit has affiliated with a Congregation, Institute, or monastery, as an Oblate or Associate, she will be responsible in a more casual way to her prioress, abbot, oblate chaplain, associate director, etc. To all of these people in various ways, and with varying degrees of legality, etc., the hermit is accountable.

And finally, the members of my parish and diocese have the right to expect 5) that a life lived for God more generally will be a life lived for them specifically. I believe the members of my parish (and diocese more generally) have a right to expect my vows to God to signify my willingness and availability to give my life for them, not only in prayer, penance, silence and solitude, but in whatever ways my gifts allow within this specifically eremitic framework. The corollary here is that my vows make me a public person, no matter the essential hiddenness of my life, and that, I personally believe, gives my pastor the right to call on me in ways which are appropriate to a diocesan hermit. The same is true of my Bishop. For instance, if there was a candidate for eremitic profession who needed mentoring or occasional contact, and together we agreed this would be reasonable for me to undertake, I believe it would be a part of the charism of the diocesan hermit.

All of these expectations point to the gift the diocesan hermit is to the Church and world. They point to a life lived for others and meant to assist in their redemption. They point to a person who has assumed a life in solitude to reveal God's presence there. They focus especially on the richness and generosity of the life because eremitical solitude contrasts so completely with the narrowness and self-centeredness of isolated living. They remind us that many many people exist in physical separation from their dioceses and parishes and yet belong intimately. Many of these pray regularly and even assiduously in ways which allows the Church to continue her mission in the world. And for those who have not yet discovered the difference between isolation and solitude, or who have not yet discovered the way God's presence can transfigure human isolation, the diocesan hermit especially is a gift who lives out this particular good news. In short, these necessary expectations serve the gift the diocesan hermit is to her local and universal church.

In saying this, I think I have my finger on the unique pulsepoint that marks the heartbeat of the diocesan hermit as somewhat different than that of monastery-based or non-canonical hermits. While it is true that everyone would need to exercise real care and discernment in taking advantage of this dimension of the vocation, I genuinely believe this is part of the unique charism of the diocesan (canon 603) hermit. Overall, I see the diocesan hermit as a RESOURCE for the diocese and parish, not only as a still point of contemplative and intercessory prayer (which they should assuredly be in every instance), but as an official representative of a unique and rare vocation to consecrated life which proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Church --- a church which needs it, and needs to know it consciously. She will represent this vocation to others, not only in fundamental and essential hiddenness, but publicly. (Note that part of the public consecration of the diocesan hermit, as I have also commented on in other entries here, is the canonical granting of (or clothing with) the cowl or other prayer garment. At every liturgy she attends this garment marks her in a way which symbolizes essential hiddennness, but ALSO in a way which says she is here in the midst of the assembly as "their hermit". It is a paradoxical symbol I think, one which says both hiddenness and availability in one breath. Ideally, the cowl (or prayer garment) sets the hermit apart and recalls the essential solitude of her life, but not as a wall or hedge which shuts others out. Instead it points to something very old being made new and embodied in new and relevant ways to a Church which needs both dimensions, the ancient and the new, the solitary and the communal, the contemplative and the apostolic or evangelical. The diocesan hermit includes these others in her life even while maintaining an essential hiddenness and solitude)

Let me reiterate (because it is so easy to misunderstand on this point) that I am not implying, much less saying that the canonical hermit is better than the non-canonical hermit. Neither am I saying she necessarily represents the eremitical life better than a non-canonical hermit might well do. But canonical standing does say to others that this person represents this vocation on behalf of the church, or in her name. It does say that this SPECIFIC vocation (not the eremitic vocation generally, but THIS person's vocation) is authentic and tested, that it has been discerned by many people over a period of years and is of God. It says that this person has accepted this call and committed herself to living it out faithfully, and that further, there is every reason to believe she will really do that with the grace of God over the span of her entire life. Finally, it says that she will live her life FOR the others who are her parish and diocesan community. A non-canonical hermit may do all of these things, but there is nothing in her situation per se which obligates her in the same way public profession and canonical status do, or which necessarily allows others to look at her commitment in the same way they MUST be able to do with one canonically professed and consecrated.