Private Vows, Not an Act of Profession and Not the Way to Consecration as a Hermit

[[Dear Sister, if someone writes: that their vows were received by a Catholic priest on behalf of the Church and God Himself and that they are a consecrated hermit as a result, can this be the case? Can my spiritual director receive my vows and consecrate me in this way? I would rather do it this way than go to my bishop (just being honest!).]]

LOL!! I appreciate your honesty and understand what you are saying!! The answer to your question regarding intention is no, no priest or priest spiritual director unless specifically designated to do so on behalf of the diocese by the local ordinary, can receive vows or consecrate you in the eremitical life. The Church has only two ways for such a thing to happen: 1) she professes and consecrates you as a member of a semi-eremitical or eremitical congregation, and 2) using c.603, you make your profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop or his explicit designee. 

Both of these options involve public vows and a change in one's state of life. A priest can certainly witness private vows (a private dedication, not consecration) --- for these do not involve a public commitment, new rights and obligations, or a new state in life -- but (without acting on behalf of the bishop with regard to c 603) he cannot do so with the intention to consecrate nor to participate in an act of profession. (Profession, which involves more than the making of public vows, is, by definition, always a public act involving new canonical rights and obligations. If these new public rights and obligations are not involved, then the act is not profession even when vows are involved.) I've written a lot about this so check out labels re private vs public vows, etc., if you need more. 

Canonical versus Non-Canonical Hermit Life: Which is Harder to live Faithfully?

[[Hi Sister, given the rights and obligations of the canonical hermit do you think it is harder to be canonical than non-canonical? You said something about the greater freedom to be a hermit associated with canonical standing so I am a little confused. Why do you think non-canonical hermits don't think in terms or rights and obligations or see freedom in quite the same way you do? Is it really just  matter of education or formation? It seems to me that a failure to see things in these terms is a huge piece of the problem of wearing habits as self-assumed costumes. Likewise it is at the core of the problem of seeing nothing different between a public profession and private vows.]]

Thanks for the questions. In fact, I believe that in some ways it is harder to be a non-canonical hermit than to be canonical. You are correct in pointing to my comments on the greater freedom which I associate with canonical eremitism. There is no conflict. While there are greater explicit rights and obligations associated with canonical standing, the discernment and profession/consecration with and by the Church ensures that one also experiences a greater correlative permission to stand in the face of the values of the world around us and to be the person one is called to be by God in his Church. That permission is part of what leads to greater freedom to be oneself.  

Similarly, one experiences a sense of mission and understands one's vocation in terms of charism as a canonical hermit. These elements add to the richness and the purpose of eremitical life and so too, in my experience, they make it easier to live faithfully. The expectations of others in the Church (and larger world as well) work in the same way --- as does the role of those serving in spiritual direction or the ministry of authority. Finally, understanding eremitical life as a tradition that in some real sense "belongs" to the Church, and makes the hermit calling an ecclesial vocation, contextualizes an already meaningful life in a way that assures its communal nature and ecclesial significance even as it helps prevent the vocation from devolving into something less than authentic.

Non-canonical hermits must maintain the same relationship with God, the same stricter separation from the world, and the same values held by a canonical hermit, and do so in the midst of a world that militates against this.  They must choose to grow as a hermit and to continue growing as a hermit with all that demands (vows, spiritual direction, theological sophistication), and they must do so without anyone necessarily recognizing their needs or their commitments to do so. In a world that militates against eremitism and often substitutes individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, and isolation for authentic hermit life, it seems to me to be very difficult to live as a non-canonical or lay hermit.  Thus, while I recognize that hermits living authentic eremitical lives are rare whether canonical or non-canonical,  I believe canonical standing and the elements it ensures, makes it easier to live an eremitical life in today's world.

As to why non-canonical hermits do not speak much of rights and obligations with expectations in living their own eremitical lives, I do believe it is largely a matter of education and formation. When one is in initial formation and preparing for profession as a religious in community, one is carefully initiated into the rights and obligations of the life. These things are made explicit and, in fact, are the way one moves from candidacy to novitiate, to juniorate, and then to solemn or perpetual profession and full membership in the community. Moreover, one is introduced to the consequences of having been initiated into the "religious state" and begins to think in these terms. Nothing is left untouched by initiation into the "religious state" and young religious learn this. Unless such formation occurs I don't think one would think this way. Thus, lay persons who are unfamiliar with the nature of initial and ongoing religious formation are unlikely to appreciate the process or think in the same terms. 

Should such a lay person become a hermit with the accent on "eremitical freedom" and a private commitment which changes nothing in terms of rights and obligations, it becomes doubly unlikely they will understand such life in terms of  these things in either canon or proper law. (It is possible to see an example of the failure to think this way in discussions of "wearing a mask" vs "not wearing a mask" in today's pandemic. So many think of freedom as the power to do whatever I want whenever I want to do it, and not in terms of rights and obligations or ecclesial calling. They have been enculturated to understand freedom very differently than Christian theology requires, and they substitute license instead.)

Thus, I agree with you that it is the failure to either think or be able to  think in terms of rights and obligations that stands at the heart of self-assumed practices like those you mention. Another source of difficulty is the tendency to believe one is owed such rights, or can simply "consecrate oneself",  or assume the wearing of religious garb and title through one's own agency. A similar source of difficulty is the failure to understand that ecclesial vocations are never discerned by oneself alone; they must be mutually discerned and until and unless the Church extends God's call to one in a mediatory and juridical act, one cannot be said to "have" such a vocation, much less live it "in the name of the Church." Calling anything to do with canon law "legalism" is another piece of all of this. I wonder if it would assist folks if preparation for baptism included a section on the canonical rights and obligations of the baptized or lay state of life?  Just a thought.

The Beating Heart of Canonical Vocations: A Matter of Graced Rights and Obligations

 [[Dear Sister, thanks for your response. Am I right in concluding that when one leaves the consecrated state one leaves the rights and obligations of this state even though one is still consecrated by God? If there are no rights and obligations is there a consecration?]]

 I first added this to the last question you asked because it fits so well; however other  related comments have come my way so I am moving it to a new post and appending those comments. Yes, you are exactly correct. When one leaves the consecrated state even though they were once consecrated by God (something that cannot be undone), they also leave the rights, obligations, and also the expectations behind. A state of life is characterized and structured by the rights and obligations associated with it. The inner spirit of this state of life is illumined by the person's sensitivity to the legitimate expectations others rightly hold in her regard. When she is responsive to all of these elements, she lives a witness which is fruitful and contributes to the tradition her life is now a living part of.

It is important to be clear that one either is or is not in the consecrated state of life. Equivocal statements like, "I am part of the consecrated life of the Church" can be (and unfortunately, have, even recently, been) used to confuse and slide past the actual truth. When one has had extended to them, and when one has accepted the rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state of life, they exist in that state; when those rights and obligations have not been extended to nor accepted by the person, or, when one has relinquished these rights and obligations, one is no longer considered a "consecrated person" because they have left (or never been part of) this state of life. This is not meant to deny that (some of) these people were consecrated by God, but it is meant to underscore the nature of a state of life, and the importance of the rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state of life.

Meanwhile, your last question is very perceptive and follows logically! Consecration in the Roman Catholic Church is ALWAYS associated with public rights and obligations/expectations. To claim to be consecrated without being able to identify public rights and obligations (along with correlative expectations) is to claim a fiction. Just as profession is a broader and richer act than the making of vows alone, so too is the consecration of a person in the Church a broader act than we might think. To set someone apart as a "sacred (or consecrated) person" in the Church is not only to convey God's solemn blessing, but also to explicitly structure their lives in terms of public rights and obligations spelled out in Canon Law,  Rule, and/or Constitutions/Statutes.

[[Dear Sister, I do wish you had spelled out the rights and obligations of a diocesan hermit several years ago! This was the first time I truly understood the difference between a public and private commitment. It also helped me to understand what you meant a while back when you wrote about someone "having their cake and eating it too." It just never occurred to me that I actually have a right to hold expectations in your regard because your commitment is public, while not having the right to expectations on the basis of a private commitment. Also,  I think I understand better what you mean when you speak about a "state of life" or, "living a vocation in the name of the Church". 

Because I didn't understand what the rights and obligations were that were associated with your vocation, I thought having expectations in regard to your hermit life meant that I was overstepping my own rightful bounds and that calling yourself a Catholic Hermit was pretentious, particularly when you wrote that those without public profession could not do so. But  committing to live and living a vocation "in the name of the Church" implies much more than just being  a Catholic and living privately as a hermit! I think I really see that now. I just wanted to thank you for making this clearer for me!! Thank you! 

As I write this, I do have one question: do you think that hermits with private vows understand all of this? One who has written about this a lot seems to think the difference between canonical and non-canonical vocations is just a matter of formal approval. I don't think she gets there is a substantive difference made up of rights, obligations and related expectations. Do most lay hermits get this substantive difference?]]

I am glad you wrote. Thank you! In the years since I first began this blog I have become dependent on folks asking questions and that means that I don't always write about the things I need to. Sometimes I assume that if folks have a question they will ask. But that is not always true, not least because they may not have enough knowledge to raise the important questions and sometimes because they don't know how important the questions they have actually are. The rights and obligations associated with this canonical eremitical life may be among such important questions. For that reason I too am sorry I did not spell this out earlier! It really is up to me to see what is important and explain that --- though I love getting questions and am helped by them a lot!

I really don't know what most lay or non-canonical hermits do or don't understand. You are correct though in your observations that some do not understand my life or the lives of other c 603 hermits in terms of rights and obligations/expectations. At least they have usually not indicated such an understanding nor do they seem to have had it spelled out for them by those who have made such commitments. What does seem to be true is that many lay hermits (and some canonical ones as well!) do have a gut level resistance to others holding legitimate (valid) expectations of them. This is one of the things that gives their lives a distinctly individualistic shape --- and as you probably know, I believe an individualistic hermit life is inauthentic and antithetical to eremitical life within the Church. When some write about remaining anonymous, when they claim the title Catholic Hermit while also claiming they can remain entirely hidden, or when they can post all manner of disedifying things leading others to believe in the eccentricity and selfishness of this vocation, they demonstrate they do not have a clue about the way rights and obligations are extended to someone committing to live this vocation in the name of the Church.

The same is true with regard to those who treat canonical standing as though it is a matter of superficial formalism or legalism. The rights and obligations assumed by a hermit and extended to her by the Church are meant to govern and nurture a specific vocation which 1) proclaims the Gospel of God in Christ, and which 2) is meant for the inspiration and edification of others. The graces associated with a canonical eremitical vocation are the graces God gives which allow these two foundational elements to be lived with integrity and vividness. Canon 603 does this for the solitary eremitical vocation just as other canons do for semi-eremitical life (eremitical life lived in a specifically communal context with other hermits).

All of this points to one reason many bishops tend only to profess and consecrate hermits who have been formed and professed in religious life, namely, such persons understand what we mean by the consecrated state of life; they know what it means to live according to rights and obligations extended to them by the Church herself. They know what it means to have others hold legitimate (valid) expectations about the way they live their life, and they are prepared to accept the obligations as well as the rights that are part and parcel of a state of life. It is hard to get all of this merely from reading about it; one needs to have lived it. In fact, it is one of the most central qualities of religious formation ---readying a person to live a public vocation shaped by public rights and obligations and animated by the graces which make one responsive to these --- even if the life is lived in a cloister or hidden in the way eremitical lives are hidden. An individualistic life whose supposed "freedom" is shaped by selfishness and superficiality may look like eremitical life from a distance or at first glance, but the beating heart of an ecclesial vocation is vastly different than this. It is moved and shaped instead by the Love-in-Act we call God --- and thus too, is it empowered to accept and fulfill the public rights, obligations, and expectations associated with ecclesial vocations to the consecrated state.

I'll leave this here for now. Thanks again!

Rights and Obligations of Public Profession?

[[Dear Sister, have you ever spelled out the "rights and obligations" which make your vocation different from someone's with private vows or no vows at all? I can't remember you doing that and I thought perhaps it would be a help in coming to clarity for some, but also that it might be important for people discerning whether to live as a hermit in the lay state or the consecrated state, for example. I think that could be particularly true for hermits who fall more towards the individualist end of the eremitical spectrum. Perhaps you have already written about this; if so, my apologies.]]

This is a great request. Thanks!! I remember a friend,  another diocesan hermit (New Zealand), asked me about this once. She wondered if I could spell these out for her and I remember that we constructed a list at one point, but I am not sure I ever blogged about it.***That was several years ago now so I should consider doing it again in any case. The question of rights and obligations (and, let me add, the expectations others are allowed to legitimately hold in regard to these hermits) is the one piece of things that helps us understand what it means to be part of the consecrated state, for instance. It is the one thing which calls for an affirmation of difference between the lay and consecrated states while not allowing us to say one eremitical state is better than the other. It is also the piece of things that prevents anyone from cogently making the argument that solitary canonical hermits are all about externals. Hermits with private commitments are neither better nor worse than canonical hermits, but the two are vastly different in the rights and obligations associated with each vocation. Before I speak of these let me say that the most fundamental right and obligation of the canonical hermit is the right  and obligation (the privilege, that is) to give oneself entirely to seeking union with God. That is presupposed in every other right or obligation and expectation associated with her life.  The rights and obligations associated with the canonical state are meant to help structure and shape a life in which this central privilege can be realized for the sake of all God holds precious.

The Rights:

There are certain rights that come with canonical profession and consecration. The right to style oneself as Sister or Brother and be recognized as a vowed religious despite the fact that one is not part of a congregation or community is a right associated with c 603. One has the right to establish oneself/one's hermitage as a non-profit (301(c) 3), if doing so is actually helpful to one's ministry. (I decided this option does not assist me at all because I don't have retreatants or others coming for whom I might have expenses; nonetheless, I have this right). Canonical hermits have the right to call themselves Catholic Hermits and live this life in the name of the Church. In fact, they are commissioned to do so at profession. (Some have mistaken this as meaning the hermit speaks or writes in the name of the Church, but no, one lives eremitical life in the name of the Church and represents this vocation as best one can do with all the assistance the Church and Holy Spirit provides.)

When given specific permission by one's bishop, canonical hermits under c 603 have the right to reserve Eucharist in their hermitage, and wear a habit (though not the habit of an identifiable Order or congregation).  Additionally they may be given the right to wear a prayer garment (cowl, etc) publicly as a sign of their commission to undertake this specific ministry in the name of the Church and part of  their representation of a place in the Church's long eremitical history. Any other perks attached to civil law having to do with public vows of poverty, for instance, will also apply to the c 603 hermit. Finally, one has the right to expect one's local bishop (and/or the person delegated in this matter) to give one time to meet as needed, to take the time necessary to get to know the hermit and the way she lives this life. This means one (or one's Delegate) has a right to get an appointment with the bishop when needed --- something that others may not be considered to have a right to; this is so because canon 603 refers explicitly to mutual responsibilities entailed in the responsible "supervision" of this vocation.

The Obligations:

Far more important than the rights associated with canonical standing are the obligations. Some are attached to the rights already mentioned.  The right to style oneself as a religious or to wear a habit is associated with the obligations of a religious. There are a number of these: living a formal life of prayer and penance for the sake of others, giving one's residence over to God and to seeking God in all things, living a life informed and structured by the evangelical counsels and one's vows (which means living a life of material simplicity/poverty (which may or may not include a cession of administration), a life committed to loving God, oneself, and others as well as all that God has created, to seeing all of these with the eyes of God, and to proclaiming the Good News of God in Christ rooted in one's own experience of the resurrected and ascended crucified One. One is obligated to be obedient --- meaning one is obligated to be open and attentive to the life and will of God, and therefore to engage in an active way in discernment with directors, delegates, and others who are similarly committed.

Likewise one is obligated to participate in ongoing formation for the whole of one's life. As part of this one is obligated to engage in regular spiritual direction and the related inner work that might call for or include; similarly one is required to make retreat at least once a year, and simply to do all it takes to make that an organic part of  one's life --- not something exceptional to the rest of one's life. One is ordinarily required to make a will before perpetual profession, and to work out what one needs for care as one ages since the diocese does not provide for such needs; this can include nursing or retirement home care or something similar in a convent if this is available,  and one will fill out a durable power of attorney for healthcare or living will, and other similar arrangements. These are the basic obligations of anyone with public vows within the Church.

The c 603 hermit's obligations include all of these and all of those things required by c 603 and her own Rule or Plan of Life. She will live a life of stricter separation from those things which are resistant to Christ, of assiduous prayer and penance in the silence of solitude. This means she will maintain a context defined in terms of all of these things, and she will structure her life in ways which make sure she will embody the silence of solitude and become God's own prayer in the world. Where most religious are active and proclaim the Gospel by what they do (teaching, nursing, ministry to families, to the marginalized, etc), hermits testify in a particularly vivid way to the dignity and meaningfulness of each and every individual life. They witness to the completion and authentic humanity stemming from the relationship we each have and are with God. 

Thus, the obligations of eremitical life are reflections of the basic truth that God alone is sufficient for us --- not in the sense that we can and must exist as isolated monads --- but in the sense that that this single relationship is the heart and ground of all authentic humanity and the one thing without which NO ONE can be whole or their lives truly meaningful. (This relationship always exists, even when it is merely implicit or entirely denied.)  The hermit lives in a way which proclaims the richness and joy of a life with and in God, even when, paradoxically, one must let go of discrete gifts and talents to make this witness. Moreover the hermit will do all of this in a way which is Eucharistic and which speaks of both thanksgiving and the incarnational presence of God in all she says and does. (Eucharist will be central to her life, not just devotionally and liturgically, but in all the Eucharist symbolizes and makes  absolutely real in our world. cf. Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality)

The Expectations:

 Rights and Obligations imply expectations on the part of others. Because religious vocations (including c 603 vocations) are public and ecclesial vocations, this means that even when we are speaking of cloistered monks and nuns or hermits hidden in their hermitages, others both in the church and in the larger world have the right to hold expectations of such persons. Remember that religious during the Rite of Profession are called forth from the assembly; they answer some questions from the presider (bishop) re their readiness to embrace this commitment and thereafter the assembly witnesses as the vows are made, the consecration is mediated, the symbols of profession and consecration are given, and the vow formulas are signed and witnessed by (in my case), myself, the bishop, pastor, delegate, as well as being notarized by the ecclesiastical notary. All of this says, "What is occurring here is significant and you have the right to expect to be able to trust everything it says about these people, this commitment, and the God who empowers all of this." I cannot say that my life is private or hidden and for those reasons others may not have expectations regarding the way I live the elements of the canon, my vows, or my Rule.

It is true that I have a right to privacy (as does any other religious), but at the same time others have the right to expect I live my commitments as vowed. To some extent there must be trust that the individual will do this without external prompting, but there will also need to be trust that the relationships constituting " the ministry of authority" in supervising, or otherwise working with the individual are serving both individual and church as they ought. Let me be clear, the very fact that there is a structure of authority contributing to the individual's integrity and providing ongoing assistance and support, itself witnesses to the fact that others have the right to expect this vocation will be well-lived. If there are real questions about this occurring in a given case, then one has a right to bring those questions first to the person and then to those who are themselves responsible via the ministry of authority. This does not mean one can intrude on the person's privacy, but one does have a right to have serious concerns heard and responded to. 

That is a very different thing than is true of private commitments. For instance, if someone makes private vows of some sort, even if I know that person, I have no right to expect them to keep that commitment beyond the expectations of simple honesty and integrity. I  certainly have no  right to turn to their pastor or their bishop and complain that this private commitment may not be being kept! Yes, if they are a friend I may have a right to ask them how it is going; I can certainly pray for them, but, beyond a general expectation that a person will do whatever they say they will do, the fact of a private commitment does not create the right to have expectations regarding how or even whether the person keeps this commitment.

 So what concrete expectations do folks have a right to hold in my regard, for instance? Those who know me have a right to expect to see the fruits of a life of prayer, penance, and the silence of solitude in a fairly direct way. If they see me struggling in some way, they have the right to expect me to get the kind of help that assists in this struggle (say, for instance, medical help, financial assistance, or spiritual direction) --- or to accept reasonable assistance from them if they offer it. They have a right to see me living an essentially healthy life in conditions that are wholesome, no matter how spartan; they have a right to see that I am growing in my life with Christ and to some extent to benefit from that life in a more direct than indirect way. (In this regard I am thinking of doing homilies or reflections, leading Communion services, teaching Scripture, and doing spiritual direction, as well as writing or blogging; other c 603 hermits will specify different ways of directly benefiting their communities). Generally speaking people do not have the right to enter my hermitage or check out how I live my life, but they have every right to see evidence of the kind of life only the love of God makes possible, and to get hope from the Gospel my life witnesses to. They have the right to expect and see a life motivated by love --- genuine, passionate, and chaste love --- and thus too,  a life lived simply with a strong sense of what is truly central and essential for every human being. They have a right to expect professional competence and a generous sharing of that and whatever else I have to share within the limitations of eremitical life. (Remember, eremitical life will often mean letting go of discrete gifts and talents for the sake of the vocation itself.)

I have probably left some things out, especially in the sections on rights or obligations, but I think I have gotten the essentials. (I'll add to this piece if other things come to mind!) I am used to saying here that the term Catholic Hermit means one whose public vocation means they live eremitical life in the name of the Church. At this point I should also suggest that a Catholic Hermit is accountable in a catholic way through the structures of authority which ensure both freedom and responsibility. Thanks again for this question. As always, if this raises more questions or omits something you believe is important, please get back to me!

*** Turns out I have written about this before, once only a couple of years ago. Please see, Rights and Obligations Associated with C 603 Vocations, and labels associated with that post,

Once Again: "Perennial" Questions and Problematical Statements

[[Dear Sister, the Vicar for Religious in my chancery explained to me that the following passage was mistaken in some important ways. She explained why and also said I might want to read what you had written about this in the past. I just can't find what you said about this. Can you help me?]]

[[This is simple enough to comprehend. The three evangelical counsels are chastity in celibacy, obedience, and poverty. These professions may be made publicly but not always: they can be private professions. If public, there is the option to go the way of Canon 603 which more formalizes the profession. This option can be read more in depth in a guide that was compiled by a religious sister about ten years ago and which is being revised. In that guide are collected writings and suggestions for the hermit life, including some revised statutes for the eremitic life by the Bishops' of France, the citation of CL603, and other sundry aides such as possible rites and sample rules of life. 

This guidebook has been used as that--a guide--in some Dioceses. Or, if public profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession of promises or vows, Canon 603 does not need to be utilized or incorporated. If not, the hermit is publicly avowed and consecrated, but not bound by that Canon. Regardless of Canon 603 or not, a public profession is that: public. People know. If private profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession, the process is not known to others in general and sometimes not in specific. A priest or Bishop may receive the profession (vows and promises). Perhaps it is between the cleric and the hermit, or perhaps a witness or a few are present. A ceremony may be selected from the above mentioned guidebook of compilations, or the hermit may research and develop a ceremony for this private profession. A token may be used, a type of habit may be selected, a form may be signed and dated. But these would all fall in the realm of that which would be hidden from the eyes of others. It is private.]]

Ah, unfortunately, there are a number of different posts which speak to the issues in this passage; I have written about them all over the past decade, sometimes many times. The labels you should look under are included below in emboldened and italicized type. The guidebook being spoken of is one written by Sister Marlene Wiesenbeck (for the Diocese of La Crosse) so you might check the labels of this blog to see if I have referred to her in any posts. I don't remember doing so except that I am pretty sure I once mentioned my own diocese used parts of her guidebook in 2007 for my own profession. Sister Wiesenbeck's work in this had significant value when it was written and, while updating is necessary, still does today for those dioceses implementing canon 603, and for those seeking to be professed under canon 603. I should say that it is emphatically not the source of any of the problematical statements you have cited in the passage commented on by your Vicar for Religious.

One fundamental problem, as I have written about a number of times here, is with the mistaken use of the term public and the purported optional nature of canon 603. "Public" in regard to profession does not refer to the number of persons who do or don't attend; it refers to the fact that profession initiates one into a new (and public or canonical) state of life with additional public (canonical) rights and obligations. Strictly speaking private vows are not profession because they don't initiate one into a new (in this case, consecrated) state of life. Similarly, then, private means simply "A commitment which does not grant or embrace canonical (public) rights or obligations beyond those granted and embraced at baptism."

Such commitments are still quite serious personally but they do not allow much less call for others in the Church or elsewhere to have specific expectations of the person making the commitment as public commitments do. (A public vow of poverty, for instance, which is part of the larger act of profession, sets up public expectations on how the person lives in terms of consumerism, simplicity, dependence on God, etc. People have a legitimate right to expect someone who is publicly professed to honor their vow. This is not the case with a private commitment/vow.) A second fundamental problem is with the notion that one may become a solitary hermit who is professed (profession is always a public act) and consecrated but without using canon 603. Canon 603 doesn't just formalize a profession, nor is it optional for solitary consecrated eremitical life; canon 603 is the only way one can  make profession or be consecrated as a solitary hermit. There is simply no other option if one is talking about public commitments and/or consecration in the Roman Catholic Church.

While there is room for creative expression and personal choice in these matters, especially in terms of readings and music, there are also limitations; certain elements will be required by your bishop and canonists as part of the ceremony if you are admitted to profession. Please check with them on this. My own diocese used the Rite of Religious Profession which is normative for such things and allowed usage of a couple of the vow formulas from Wiesenbeck's Guidebook (one can write one's own; I chose not to use any of these because I already had a vow formula which I had lived for some time and loved; I made some minimal changes in it to reflect this new (eremitical) context).

Also, in reading your Rule, a canonist will very specifically read your vow formula to be sure you are actually making vows in the way which will be valid,  I remember our Vicar for Religious who was also the canonist that did this for me for perpetual profession explaining why I could not say "I will. . ." in addition to "I vow" at one point in my vow formula. It seemed nit picky, especially since it followed and modified but was entirely dependent on the phrase, "I vow", but once I understood the explanation it made a lot of sense. (To say "I vow"  is a performative act which makes the commitment immediately real and binding in the very saying of the words; to say, "I will" is temporally indefinite, even conditional, and raises the question of "When (and under what conditions) will you. . . Do you mean next week, or maybe when you feel like it?")  The passage you are citing is pretty dated, so I am not sure when I wrote about it as such, but please look for posts on public profession vs private vows, consecration vs dedication, canon 603, reception vs witness (a question you should have a sense of), and perhaps Guidebook on Eremitical Life and/or Sister Marlene Wiesenbeck. Labels are found in the right hand upper column of this blog.

If these aren't as helpful as you need, please get back to me with another question or set of questions and I will try to give you a more comprehensive response. Especially, I would suggest you compare your notes of what your Vicar for Religious told you and what I have written. I appreciate her comments seem to indicate general agreement, but if there are gaps, or if we seem to be saying something different from one another here or there, please do get back to me on these specific points. If they seem substantive and there is real disagreement, I would like to talk about them --- perhaps with your Vicar --- to be sure I understand her reasoning on them. That would be of real help to me and to this blog.

On Accepting Necessary Medical Assistance and Eremitical "Hiddenness"

 [[Dear Sister, Thank you for writing about chronic illness and the ways one might need to adjust or change their prayer because of it. I don't think I have ever heard anyone write about this before. It makes sense. I always just thought you (one) prayed as always when sick and then I got on my own case if I was unable to do that! It makes a huge difference when prayer is understood as God's active presence and our openness to that presence!! I have some other questions about what happens if you are disabled for some reason. If you need special assistance for a time because of your illness are you allowed to have people come into your hermitage? Are there any limitations on medical needs or assistance which apply because of a requirement that you remain hidden from people? How about for someone living as a hermit with private vows??]]

Thanks for your comments on my earlier posts. I think we need to do a better job educating folks about praying in various situations and developing a kind of repertoire of prayer forms and resources. Also we need to be sure folks understand that prayer is God's work within us and can certainly do that if we are ill or otherwise unable to follow our Rule or horarium. God is the supreme Consoler or Comforter so when we are ill if we allow God to be with us and rest in him what more could God will or we want?

Regarding special assistance in cases of medical need --- of course I am allowed to get what help I need so long, generally speaking, as my insurance will pay for it and my physicians/other clinicians order it. If it is medically necessary there is nothing in canon 603 or my own Rule which prevents this. Were my family located close by perhaps I would expect some assistance from them if and as they were capable of it. As it stands I would ask friends in my parish and from other venues to assist me as they could. Similarly, I would pay someone to come in to do necessary work if and as I could afford to do that. The point is that even (or especially) as a canonically professed hermit the Church would expect me to do what I need in order to heal well and to live as full a life as I am capable of. I remind you that hiddenness is NOT a canonical requirement of the eremitical life. It is an important but derivative quality describing a contemplative life lived in the silence of solitude and stricter (not absolute) separation from the world. This does not mean it is unimportant, but merely that the Church does not demand or require hiddenness as a primary characteristic; were it otherwise hiddenness would be listed in the canon (legal norm) defining the essential characteristics of the vocation.

Granted, I know I wouldn't like to be dependent on assistance to the level it might actually be necessary in situations of medial need, convalescence, etc, but morally I believe I am required to accept whatever degree of assistance is necessary in order to be well enough to live my vocation fully and fruitfully. For me this acceptance would be a bit of a cross I would need to embrace for the larger perspective of my own life and vocation itself. Thus, the acceptance of assistance by others is not just a medical requirement but an ethical one; to refuse it in the name of "hiddenness" is to place a relatively vague descriptive catechism term above the canonical requirements which define the legal and substantive contents of diocesan hermits' professions in the hands and name of the Church and have priority over pars 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

With that in mind it strikes me that it would be even less justifiable to make "hiddenness" (whatever this word actually means --- because it is never actually defined!!) as a reason for limiting necessary medical and social assistance for the non-canonical hermit living in the freedom of the lay state. This is not to suggest private vows are not significant, but it is to reiterate they do not create public rights and obligations which might be given precedence over one's rights and obligations as a lay person. (N.B. When a Rule is approved by the c 603 hermit's bishop and canonists one of the things looked at are places where the hermit is claiming or creating obligations which might be unhealthy or disedifying; such obligations would not, generally speaking, be allowed.) Moreover, when an unforeseen situation threatening a hermit's health arises, neither the hermit's delegate/Director nor her bishop would refrain from dispensing (mitigating or allowing the hermit to mitigate) at least on a temporary basis, whatever part of the Rule is necessary to allow genuine healing and appropriate medical care.

In situations which are equivocal and require discernment and discussion, it is the canonical framework which assures necessary discussions are had and appropriate discernment is reached. My own delegate assures I have someone with whom this can occur. To suggest (or be told by a privately dedicated (or vowed) hermit) that such a hermit might be "obligated" to forego the assistance and relationships needed to allow the same care/healing as a canonical hermit -- despite the fact that s/he has no public obligations beyond those binding any other lay person --- would be to suggest or be told something that has no basis in fact, law, or reason. Instead it represents an individualistic interpretation of a too-vague catechism term, which interpretation the Church would reject as contrary to canon and moral law. Of course, such an individual might decide to cut herself off from relationships, medical assistance, family ties, etc in the name of her own understanding of eremitical life, but this is not a matter of the Church obligating her in this way or accepting a public commitment which  might so obligate her in certain circumstances.

All of this points to another situation in which the assumption of public rights and obligations occurring with Baptism or beyond this with public profession and consecration is of critical importance and distinction from a private commitment, even when using vows. When, as noted in earlier posts, we speak of a stable state of life we are speaking of a life with stable structural, legal, relational and institutional elements. In light of this post, that can be expanded to include the fact that such stable states ensure that the life being lived in the name of God and the Church is lived according to divine, moral, and canon law. When questions arise as to which obligations have precedence, for example, stable states of life will ensure the capacity and obligation for adequate consultation and discernment. In point of fact, one central characteristic of a relatively non-stable eremitical life is an individualism (including the absence of canonical obligations beyond those of baptism) which therefore may not allow and does not sufficiently require adequate medical and pastoral consultation and discernment to ensure divine and moral laws are observed in a genuinely edifying way.

A point of clarification:

Please note, in what I wrote above about relatively unstable states of life I am not referring to lay life per se; again, lay life represents a stable state of life rooted in baptism characterized by a particular freedom marked by specific rights and obligations. I was specifically referring to instances of eremitical life lived in the lay state while claiming to be obliged to the requirements of consecrated eremitical life without ecclesial initiation into the grace or the support and institutional structures of this stable state of life.

To falsely claim to be bound, for example, to the "hiddenness" of consecrated eremitical life without also being obligated to the pastoral consultation or discernment inherent in the consecrated state, and to do so in a way which prevents one from getting adequate medical care and the social assistance genuinely consecrated hermits are allowed (or even obligated) to accept by way of mitigation or exception is to betray the stability of both the lay and consecrated states of life. One cannot pretend to be bound by (or graced in a way which allows one to be bound by!) the rights and obligations of the consecrated state unless one is bound by ALL of these, including the right and obligation to be obedient to the ministry of authority embraced, authorized, and exercised by legitimate superiors or the divine and moral law these individuals help serve in the consecrated hermit's life.

Diocesan Hermits are Hermits of and for the Universal Church

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I watched a video where Joyful Hermit said those professed "under canon 603 belong to dioceses and those who are privately professed belong per se to the universal Church". Is that right? If I got her right she also says that privately professed hermits have always been the way the Church consecrated hermits. I think she meant that canon 603 is a new way of doing this with some extra requirements that she seems to think represents a kind of legalism. Is this correct?]]

Well, I suppose it depends on what else Joyful has said in this specific regard, but generally speaking, with the quote you have provided it sounds as though Joyful Hermit is saying non-canonical hermits are recognized as hermits by and for the universal Church, but canon 603 hermits are recognized only within a diocese. If so, she is incorrect. Canon 603 hermits are diocesan in the sense that they are bound in authority at the diocesan level. They are hermits of a specific diocese (a local Church) which, in the hands of the local ordinary, professes and consecrates them on behalf of the Universal Church. Their vocations are ecclesial in a Catholic or universal sense, but they must be responsible at the diocesan level or their vocations could not be effectively governed nor could the hermits be genuinely responsible or accountable to the whole Church. The Roman Catholic Church relies on the principle of subsidiarity. Governance in this case proceeds from the lowest or most local level upward precisely to facilitate genuine governance and accountability.

Thus, as a "hermit of the Diocese of Oakland" (Bishop's Decree of Approval. . .) I would need to have another bishop accept responsibility for my vocation if I were to decide to move to another diocese (and I would need my current bishop to verify I am a hermit is good standing in order to begin such a move and remain a diocesan hermit), but the fact that I can move from one diocese to another, marks my vocation as valid in and for the universal Church. Similarly, since canon 603 is the universal norm/canon for solitary eremitical life in the entire Church, and since diocesan hermits are governed by and responsible for the vocation defined in this universal norm, we can affirm their vocations are universal vocations -- callings in and for the universal Church. Again, this vocation is supervised and "created" (discerned, professed, consecrated, and governed) at the diocesan level (at the level of the local Church) but this is the way governance generally takes place in and on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.

Privately vowed hermits (we don't use the term professed here because that implies a public rite involving a change in state of life!) have been the usual way of living eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church throughout the centuries but this was not recognized as "consecrated life" or defined as part of the "consecrated state of life". In fact, the Church never understood eremitical life as part of the consecrated life unless hermits were members of religious congregations (Camaldolese, Carthusian, Carmelite, etc). Some anchorites came under the auspices of local Bishops, especially during medieval times. Even so, I don't believe these anchorites were considered to be consecrated though, rightly, they were highly regarded by their communities (villages). In @ 1963 in an intervention at Vatican II, Bishop Remi de Roo sought to get eremitical life included in Canon Law as a "state of perfection" -- what today we call "a consecrated state" of life. Only a long 20 years later when the Revised Code of Canon Law was published in October 1983 and included c 603, was eremitical life included in universal Law at all. If, as Joyful Hermit claims, hermits were always consecrated using private vows and always considered to exist in the "consecrated state" of life,  Bishop Remi De Roo would not have needed, much less ventured, such an intervention in the language ("state of perfection") he did. Neither would the dozen or so hermits he came to oversee as "Bishop Protector" have been understood to have relinquished their consecrated state of life in order to become hermits after leaving their monasteries.

As I have noted in the past, Canon 603 is now the universal norm in the Roman Catholic Church for establishing a solitary hermit in the consecrated state of life. There are no other norms, laws, "institutes," rules, statutes, etc for establishing a solitary hermit in law, and thus, as a consecrated hermit unless one is a member of a canonical congregation dedicated to eremitical life or at least allowing for it in their proper law. The Roman Catholic Church simply had not honored the solitary eremitical life in this way for almost 1600 years. (Eastern Catholic Churches have always honored it.) The Desert fathers and Mothers were lay hermits, not consecrated hermits; their prophetic lives were significant and they remain a model for all hermits, both non-canonical (lay, non-consecrated) or canonical (consecrated). About one thousand years later, when Bishops took anchorites under their auspices it was done to make sure these individuals were acting in an edifying manner and living genuinely eremitical lives. (Too often individuals tried to validate all kinds of insanity and wackiness with the name "hermit". The Church needed to attempt some governance over such cases. Additionally, it is possible the Church regarded such vocations with some trepidation insofar as they represented truly prophetic vocations -- as had the Desert Fathers and Mothers.)

In my experience, canon 603 was formulated and promulgated for the significantly positive reasons Bishop de Roo put forth at Vatican II (cf The Heart of the Matter: Reasons for including Eremitical Life as a "State of Perfection"); moreover, it is carefully implemented by most dioceses for these reasons as well as to limit the kinds of wackiness and nutcases often associated with eremitical "vocations". Law in c 603 serves to allow sound vocations which are well-supervised and edifying to the universal Church. In particular, it does not allow the kind of individualism represented by autocephalic (or acephalous!!) vocations like that of the person you cite.

The ability to move from place to place without supervision or genuine accountability is not a sign of serving the whole Church; instead it does not tend to serve either the eremitical vocation or the Church well. St Benedict saw this clearly when he referred critically to monks who moved from monastery to monastery without accountability as "gyrovagues" (cf the introduction to his Rule).  The Church, in requiring that one entering the consecrated life be professed in a recognized and "stable state of life", is clear that all ecclesial vocations must be adequately discerned, mediated, and supervised. They are simply too precious, too valuable, and too responsible to allow them to languish in a headless, unstable and individualistic context, or to let them become skewed due to an individual's unguided and eccentric readings of Church documents and theology.

We don't tolerate folks identifying themselves as Catholic Religious (or as consecrated) who (on a relative whim) may don a religious habit (or not), and make some sort of private commitment without vetting or real preparation -- even if they do so in the presence of the Tabernacle or a parish priest. We call these folks "lay persons" because of the dignity of their baptism and "lay hermits" to honor any genuine dedication to eremitical life lived in the lay (baptismal) state without benefit of canonical profession or consecration. (It should be underscored that some lay hermits live genuine, even exemplary, vocations with preparation and serious discernment of course --- but many, because of ignorance, eccentricity, or simple inability do not.) If, however, lay hermits insist on calling themselves "Catholic religious" or "consecrated hermits",  the Church will note they are  ignorant of the Catholic theology of consecrated life, possibly deluded, or even outright frauds --- and rightly so.

The Church has been entrusted with vocations to the consecrated state. She does not (and cannot) hand authority for these over to the individual. These vocations "belong" to the Church herself; they are ecclesial vocations. Such vocations are vetted (discerned and evaluated in an ongoing way), mediated, and governed by the Church herself in the hands of legitimate authorities precisely because they are gifts of the Holy Spirit which are the responsibility of and fruitful for the entire Church. Unfortunately, as you can tell from the questions I get re: these, videos and blogs like those you and others have sometimes cited are a good example of the negative reasons the Church requires ecclesiastical discernment, profession, and supervision for something as potentially individualistic and disedifying as an eremitical vocation.

On Canonical Hermits and the Ministry of Authority

Donna Korba, IHM

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was impressed with what you said about your Directors exercising the ministry of authority as  a matter of love. I am also a Religious Sister (Saint Francis) and I don't think most people understand the requirements of religious obedience in this way. What was especially striking to me was the way you explained that your change in state of life affected others and called for this new form of love from them. When you write about ecclesial vocations or "stable states of life" the way others are implicated in your profession and consecration is what you have in mind, isn't it? I had not seen it as clearly until you explained about requiring obedience as an act of love on your Director's part. The way you described how intently and well your Director must truly listen to and know you in order to require religious obedience from you by virtue of your vow also made this much clearer to me. Thank you! Oh, sorry, I forgot to ask a question! Can you say more about this? I think I have understood you, haven't I?]]

Wow! really terrific comments and questions! Thanks!! Yes, you have it exactly right and I don't think I could have said it better. When we speak of a change in one's state of life or one's initiation into a stable state of life, or when I use the term ecclesial vocations or speak of the rights and responsibilities associated with the canonical state of consecrated life, I am trying to at least point to the way an entire constellation of relationships are affected; new relationships and roles are established and new ways of loving and being loved are effected and called for. This constellation of relationships is actually a piece of what makes living one's vocation possible. The example of religious obedience is important because to require obedience of another because one has been entrusted with "the ministry of authority" in her life and by the Church is first of all to commit to being profoundly obedient oneself. To listen profoundly to another in a way that allows them to come to the fullness of life God calls them to, especially in an exercise of legitimate authority, is to engage in a clearly and deeply loving, creative, act.

Because this specific way of exercising authority (that is, in requiring obedience of someone by virtue of their canonical vow) is so rare for my Director (et al) I only truly discovered how loving for me and demanding for her this specific ministry can be in the last several years. I made vow(s) several times over the years, most recently in my solemn/perpetual eremitical profession under canon 603, but only in the past three years have I experienced how profoundly implicated others are in the Church's decision to admit me to public profession and her reception of my commitment. 

I have long appreciated that others in the Church have a right to certain expectations in my regard by virtue of public profession, but the unique demands of the vow of obedience in this matter were not clear to me until I found myself truly loved and cared for by virtue of my Director exercising this ministry in my regard. Vows certainly help to create stability in a state of life, but above all, and especially in an ecclesial vocation, it is one's relationships with others and especially with those who exercise the ministry of authority in one's regard that stability is established and protected. (By the way, my Director exercises the ministry of authority in ways other than the narrow action I have spoken of in this paragraph; all of it is loving and creative; all of it is rooted in profound obedience on my Director's part, both to God and to my own being! As you well know, one shouldn't think requiring obedience in this specific way is all there is to the ministry of authority!)

I write here a lot about the besetting sin of our times (or at least one of these), namely, individualism. When I am asked about hermits whose vows are private or those who do not seek canonical standing I often comment on how difficult it must be to live this way. In part in making this observation I am recognizing that such vocations may well be inherently unstable; as I have noted before the world militates against such vocations but in part I am also recognizing that such vocations may well be inherently unstable because they are also unrelated to others in an institutional or structural way and, unfortunately, are poorly linked to the reality we call (legitimate or ecclesial) authority. If so, then they also lack the stability associated with the canonical hermit's consecrated state of life. 

(This is not to say that such hermits cannot build in the kinds of relationships that will provide greater stability and protect eremitical solitude from becoming skewed in the direction of individualism, but the vow of religious obedience implicates others who make a binding commitment to the hermit and the ministry of authority her vocation requires. What I think is often not recognized sufficiently --- not least because it is too rarely experienced, even indirectly, by those outside religious or consecrated life -- is that the legitimate exercise of authority which is part and parcel of empowering another to live their vocations in the name of the Church, is (or is meant to be) about acts of love which empower and set free.

Stereotypes of hermits abound, but so do stereotypes of those called to exercise the ministry of authority in our lives. One blogger I can think of regularly writes about how it is that some seek canonical standing because of pride or the need for some kind of prestige, a penchant for legalism, etc. Unfortunately, she writes from outside the canonical vocation as do others who also automatically associate canon law or the embrace of canonical standing with legalism or some unusual love for canon law, etc.. But as I have said here a number of times, "law (can and often does) serve(s) love"! Those who agree to serve in the exercise of legitimate authority in our lives have assumed an awesome responsibility, not because they are into power or pride (most are very far from these!!), but because they have accepted a call to assist God in loving us into wholeness; they have accepted the sometimes difficult call to assist one to achieve and live a disciplined, ordered, and personally integral vocational stability in their state of life.

We recognize relatively easily that someone accepting a role in congregational leadership is accepting a call to love in a unique and challenging way. But what is more generally true is that in the life of anyone entering a new state of life, people must step up and take on a similar role or that person's life will lack some of the stability it is meant to be marked by for the sake God's life in that person, her vocation, and the life of the Church. This is one of the reasons initiation into new states of life involves public commitments, not private ones. 

Canonical hermits live a life of the silence of solitude but, again, they do so within a constellation of relationships, some of which are directly implicated in making sure the hermit can and does live her vocation with the integrity she and the Church as such feels she is called to do, but also as the Church has allowed her to publicly commit to doing. This is the heart of what it means to be admitted to an ecclesial vocation. Again eremitical life is about a solitude lived with God for the sake of others. I should underscore that this solitude, which is never to be confused with isolation, is also empowered by the love of others for the hermit (and the hermit's love for them!); those exercising the ministry of authority in her regard are primary among these.

Public vs Private vows: Questions on the Nature and Breadth of Eremitical Commitment

Dear Sister, When a person commits to being a Consecrated Hermit/Hermit Sister, are they also making a commitment to being attached to a particular Church, to the Church in general, etc.? In other words, does it go beyond a marriage to God? I do realize that formally being under the obedience of a bishop would create that sort of tie. So, is the difference between being a private hermit and not “official” according to the Church mainly that those ties do not exist in the same way? This could be a deciding factor, down the road, with whether I might make private vs public vows. ]]

Good question. yes, diocesan hermits or other canonical hermits are embracing an ecclesial vocation in which they are granted certain rights while taking on specific obligations and expectations on the part of both the local and universal Church. The ties, however, are not simply those of obedience to one's bishop; obedience to one's bishop symbolizes deeper or more extensive ties within the Body of Christ.

You see, while one’s vows and espousal to God are very significant they are necessarily and profoundly embedded within a specific ecclesial context, namely that of the diocesan church (on behalf of the universal church), which both mediates and structures the vocation itself. This contextualization makes a very specific and profound kind of sense of the vocation. When one is consecrated in the RC Church, for instance,  one is initiated into a stable state of life. Stability here indicates more than the permanence and nature of one's relationship with God or the essential irrevocability of being set apart as a sacred person by God; it indicates all of the elements which help mediate and structure the divine vocation to this state: Rule, superiors (bishop and delegate), stability within the diocesan church (meaning one may not simply move to another diocese and remain a diocesan hermit without both Bishops' permissions), parish membership as a consecrated person (which gives other members the right to certain appropriate expectations), being subject to canon law re religious life or vows in ways lay persons are not, etc --- all of these and more are involved in what we call a “stable state of life” under canon 603.

One way of thinking of all of this is to understand that the vocation to consecrated eremitical life belongs more fundamentally to the Church than to the individual. The consecrated hermit lives eremitical life “in the name of the Church” who mediates God's consecration and thus she becomes a “Catholic hermit”. The Church discerns with but also admits to profession and consecration those she determines may have truly been graced with this call; she then mediates God's own call to the person in the Rite of Profession and she does so as an instance of the way the Holy Spirit is working in the life of the Church through this individual's vocation. The call is divine in origin but it is fundamentally ecclesial in nature. In other words, espousal to God (or consecration for that matter) is never an individualistic reality but ALWAYS shares in and reflects or images the more foundational and primary bridal identity and nature of the Church.

Personal espousal is thus always “derivative” in the way being a daughter or son of God in Christ is derivative. Christ is the only begotten Son and we are given a part or share of that identity in him within the Church. For instance, I and other c 603 hermits are espoused to Christ under c 603 (cf Rite of Religious Profession) and thus given a unique share and place in the Church's own espousal which we image in some way for the whole People of God. (That espousal, while real is ordinarily less explicit in terms of mission and charism than, for instance, the vocation of the consecrated virgin living in the world. Instead the hermit's charism is the silence of solitude and, while the two are profoundly bound together in her life, she is, I believe, called to witness to the silence of solitude more primarily than to espousal with Christ. In other words her espousal is revealed primarily in an ecclesial life of the silence of solitude while this eremitical charism is the gift she embraces on behalf of the Church whose espousal she thus shares and reflects.) If one wants to live eremitical life apart from specific ecclesial commitments and requirements then seeking consecration under canon 603 would not be the way to go.

It is true that a person with private vows is not initiated into the consecrated state of life. This means they are not espoused nor admitted to a stable state of life in the senses described above. Their commitment is entirely private and, while of course the person might never desire or decide to do so, they may walk away from their commitment at any time without in any way modifying or otherwise affecting their standing or various relationships in the Church; this is so precisely because there are no attendant ecclesial rights, obligations or expectations, no canonical standing --- beyond that associated with baptism itself --- neither is there ecclesial discernment or validation of eremitism as a vocation nor does one represent or live the eremitical vocation “in the name of the Church.” All of this is part of what we mean when we say one's vows are private.

Some hermits, however, in imitation of the  desert Fathers and Mothers (who were lay persons), want to live eremitical life with a private vow or vows as an expression of the traditional and profound prophetic character of the eremitical vocation. Their reasons are good ones, their decision to live eremitical life via a private commitment can be inspiringly courageous, and their vocation can make real sense in these terms. Some of us choose (and are chosen) instead to live the traditional  prophetic character of the eremitical vocation in a public ecclesial vocation as part of the Church's own gift and call to witness to the radically countercultural Gospel --- not only for the Church's  own sake but for the sake of a needy world. There are significant pros and cons to both.

I hope this is helpful. If it raises more questions or failed to answer your own please get back to me.

Reexamining an Earlier Suggestion: On Allowing Lay Hermits to Make Private Vows during Mass

[[Dear Sister Laurel, is it possible to celebrate private vows during Mass? I thought you wrote once it was and could be done as part of baptismal renewal, but in other places I see you don't accept such a practice. Did I misunderstand you or have you changed your mind?]]

On the Reasons I have Changed my Mind:

Yes, you are correct on both counts. I have been torn in the past by some lay hermits' sense of "not belonging" or having no real "place" or "context" for their private vows. I also wanted to stress that the lay hermit vocation is a significant one which needs better recognition. Because of that I argued for the possibility of making such private vows as a hermit within Mass at a general renewal of baptismal vows --- and ONLY there (that is, at no other place within the Mass). I tried to make clear why Mass was not ordinarily the place private vows were made and eventually hedged my suggestion all around with caveats. Unfortunately, since that post it has become clearer to me 1) that liturgically this was a bad idea, and even more perhaps, 2) it could not be done without significant confusion of the distinction between private vows and public profession or between the lay hermit living her life in her own name and the Catholic hermit living an eremitical and ecclesial vocation in the name of the Church. This was especially true for the assembly in general.

You see, I have since heard of or been asked about several situations in the US and elsewhere where lay hermits who did not make vows in a public situation would use vows made during Mass (if this were allowed them) to encourage or underscore the mistaken idea that they are "consecrated" or Catholic hermits; while I can understand why this occurs and sometimes sympathize with the person, the bottom line is the Church's general practice of not celebrating or witnessing  private vows during Mass is wise and prudent. Besides lay hermits who don't always understand or (sometimes) even accept the difference between lifestyles undertaken as private commitments and vocations lived in the name of the Church the simple fact is that the laity in general (and sometimes clerics as well) don't understand the difference or its significance either. Still, there is a difference and that has not only to do with the commensurate rights and obligations which attach to public profession and consecration, but even more importantly in this context, with the corresponding expectations the Church as a whole are given the right and even obligation to hold in regard to these hermits.

The Differing Witnesses and Expectations of Public vs Private Vows:

It is important not to give the impression that a person with private vows (dedication) is bound in the same way a person who is professed and consecrated. The expectations others in the Church and society more generally have a right to hold between those with either private vows or public profession differ and it would be unfair to everyone involved to confuse the situation. That way leads to disappointment and even scandal. As I have noted before, this is so because the graces which attach to  profession and consecration and necessary for living them out differ.  (Note that "profession" is not the same as "making vows" though it ordinarily includes making vows. Profession, a broader reality than this, is always a public (i.e., a canonical) act which initiates into a new state of life. Thus, despite common usage (or misusage!) private vows do not constitute profession; they are instead an act of dedication sans consecration, sans added canonical rights and obligations, and sans initiation into a new state of life.)

Because of the differing public rights, obligations, and expectations, the Church has discerned the public or canonical vocation with the hermit herself and assured herself as best she can that this is a God-given and ecclesially mediated vocation which is a true gift of the Holy Spirit. She entrusts it and responsibility for eremitical life more generally to this person after mutual discernment and she expects this vocation to bear typical fruit not only for the hermit herself but for the whole of the Church. She expects and canonically binds the hermit to live the evangelical counsels in a way which is edifying to all who know her or otherwise hear of this vocation, and she expects all of this (and has a right to do so!) because the canonical hermit's vocation is public and lived in the name of the Church under her formal supervision.

But with individual private vows there is no actual discernment of vocation on the Church's part. The individual may certainly believe she is called by God to live this way (and she may be entirely correct in this!) but the Church as such has not discerned nor does she otherwise validate this belief. This is another reason why private vows are witnessed by someone but not "received." Reception is an ecclesial act (an act of the whole Church )which includes the public attestation that these vows are part of a truly Divine vocation the Church herself (whether through Bishops and Vicars or religious institutes and their legitimate superiors) has recognized through significant discernment and public ministry. The fact that reception binds the person professing vows as well as the one receiving these in an ecclesial relationship, while 'witnessing vows does not, is a dimension of the Church's discernment, attestation, and mediation of the presence of a Divine vocation.  Bearing this in mind it becomes even clearer that celebration within a public liturgy is not appropriate for private vows, no matter how carefully done.

Private Vows are Private Matters:

So, while I continue to believe the lay hermit calling is a significant one, and while I believe private vows are a meaningful way of structuring such a life and committing (dedicating) oneself to the freedom it entails, I do not believe it is appropriate to celebrate these at Mass. What always remains true is that private vows are a private matter. While generally trusting the maturity of a person to make such vows, the Church in no way verifies the vocational nature or soundness of such acts of dedication. Persons with such vows are neither professed nor consecrated, nor have they been extended nor accepted the rights and obligations attached to public and ecclesial vocations. To allow such (private) vows to be made in a public liturgy actually lays expectations on the person she may be neither able nor appropriately experienced, trained, or graced to meet.

Moreover, it necessarily leads members of the Church generally to see this as ecclesiastical approval of the act; it is simply too difficult, I think, to prevent people from thinking the Church has approved this "vocation"  (if vocation it actually is) or that she is professing this person and commissioning her to live the life in her name when such a celebration is done at Mass. This would be true even if it were done as part of a renewal of baptismal vows and promises and it was naïve of me to think otherwise.

Additionally there is the entire liturgical dimension which must be considered: is an entirely private act (even this act of dedication) appropriate at a public liturgy? We do not allow others making private vows to do so at Mass; why would we do so for a lay hermit? Private commit-ments do not typically belong to a public celebration. Again, doing so would invite confusion which could be harmful or even lead to offense. I don't think this could be avoided --- whether in the mind of the one making the commitment or in the minds of the rest of the assembly. Later on when the person identifies themselves as a hermit "who made her vows during Mass" there would be no way at all of recognizing the entirely private nature of the commitment and, once again misunderstanding and unreasonable expectations would be created. The bottom line here is the Church's praxis in this regard has been prudent and must be retained.

I have considered removing the earlier post. The caveats added are not sufficient, especially given the existence of lay hermits who continue to mistakenly claim they are "consecrated" and the widespread (even if understandable) ignorance of the Church's teaching on initiation into the consecrated state of life. At the same time the post reflects esteem for the lay hermit vocation and life. It also attempted to answer questions by at least two people so I think allowing those to stand is important. I am sorry though if my opinion at that point was premature or insufficiently considered, and I hope it did not mislead anyone.