More on Hermits and Private vs Public Obligations, Relationships and Witness, etc.

[[Dear Sister, am I right in saying you are in charge of determining how much solitude is healthy for you, or how much is allowed while maintaining other ecclesial obligations? What if you wanted to spend three months or more in absolute reclusion? Could you do that? How does that work? Your own life is governed by a Rule which you wrote. Could a lay hermit (I mean a hermit who is not a canonical hermit) write a Rule which allowed her to be completely reclusive and not go to Mass regularly? Would this be an example of the competing obligations you spoke of earlier today? My guess is this wouldn't work even though she is doing it to be a hermit --- a good thing and pleasing to God as the Catholicam blogger wrote! I say that because it seems kind of elitist to me.]]

Really great questions and points, especially because they tie into yesterday's posts and the discussion begun on two other blogs and continued here.

Yes, I am largely the one responsible for discerning how much solitude and what kind God is calling me to, what I need for a healthy eremitical life as well as what degree and kind of solitude honors other (sometimes competing) ecclesial and personal obligations. However, neither do I do this alone --- nor could I. I couldn't even say that God alone and I determine this without need for others because it is so easy to delude oneself about what is of God, what God is saying, etc. That was one of the reasons people like Peter Damian and Paul Giustiniani had a healthy caution when it came to the solitary eremitical life which they both esteemed; they saw this life as fraught with peril. One really does need to discuss things, consider what others see and hear (especially what they observe in terms of growth in the hermit's own life and the fruitfulness of her solitude), weigh the consequences, engage in mutual prayer, and so forth. The stable relationships canonical standing creates are necessary for truly discerning what God is calling one to. When a large change like that of reclusion is being considered (and even for a diocesan hermit already living substantial physical solitude reclusion is still a significant change and commitment, and not just for the hermit herself  --- more about that below).

You see, complete reclusion is difficult for a diocesan hermit because she really is responsible for her own upkeep, shopping, errands, and sometimes a limited degree of ministry. For me that means I do regular spiritual direction and assist at the parish for a brief time about one morning a week. However, if I were to determine that I really needed to do something like what you suggest, what I would be likely to do to begin anyway, is to 1) take one or two days a month to see clients during the three month period (I cannot responsibly stop working with people while I am discerning this matter), 2) ask for others in the parish to take on what I am doing there while I continued doing maybe one morning a month for that three month period (if someone can take over that day as well, then that would be fine), and 3) request parishioners to help me by shopping for me, bringing me Communion for the week (there are some alternatives to this but something needs to be worked out), etc. I would probably also elect to meet with my own director at least once or twice during this time. This would not be complete reclusion but it would be the closest to which I could responsibly come right now; if after this kind of period of discernment I determined I was being called to even greater solitude for a longer time then I would need to find ways to achieve that. But, again, all this needs to be discerned.

I have written here before that one of the things a diocesan hermit must be open to is the possibility that God is calling her to reclusion and I am quite serious about that. If I were to discern a call to reclusion, then my Bishop would need to agree and an arrangement with my parish and pastor made to ensure regular reception of the Sacraments, occasional Mass here in the hermitage, and some way to get provisions and have errands run. My expectation would be the diocese and parish would assist with some of this but, as you can see, a lot would need to be worked out and other people would need to make commitments to enable my reclusion. A hermit can never forget the love and faith of those who allow  and often help support and empower her to live solitude in their midst; the situation with reclusion is, again, even more dependent on others as she is given the freedom to explore communion with God. Remember that when, and to whatever extent, we are in union with God we will be called and empowered to regard and treat our brothers and sisters with greater love and solicitude, not with less, and certainly not with a mere abstraction of the word love (e.g., "I love humanity; it's people I despise!" "I love souls, but embodied historical persons are not my concern!") even as we spend our time navel-gazing in the "contemplation" of our own existences! Communion with God fires our hearts and focuses us outward even as it draws us in and requires a real and creative introspection. In my experience, that introspection is meant to be at the service of a greater outward focus toward real people.

Private vs Public Commitments, Rights and Obligations

I am sorry if I was not clear regarding what happens when a lay hermit takes on private obligations (as opposed to the public obligations assumed in public profession); let me repeat some and try to clarify as I go. Since a lay hermit is a baptized Catholic she will have assumed and been charged with the public rights and obligations associated with that commitment. The obligation to attend Mass (Sunday obligation) is part of this. These rights and obligations are legitimate ones meaning the person is bound in law to make them a true priority in her life. If a person makes a private dedication as a hermit she or he remains in his/her current state of life and assumes no additional (or potentially modifying) rights and obligations. Additional rights and obligations are extended to a person by the Church and assumed by that person in public professions and consecrations as well as in ordinations and marriages (!). In Public (canonical) vows the Church mediates God's call and the person's response in a way which binds both the person and the Church in a public act and a new ecclesial relationship.

This means that if a non-canonical or lay hermit decides to write a Rule which demanded she miss Mass on Sundays, for instance, she would be putting an entirely private commitment over a public and ecclesial one she has already accepted as a life obligation. She would be putting an entirely private commitment over a public (legal and moral) one she accepted freely and was charged or commissioned with by the Church. One could not do this apart from other really significant extenuating circumstances and remain a Catholic in good standing --- at least not without seriously deceiving oneself. In such a case, the extenuating circumstances would themselves need to be serious enough to permit the person to miss Mass; being a lay hermit who is privately dedicated to solitude simply wouldn't be sufficient in this way.  In other words, public rights and obligations trump private rights and obligations while legitimate or canonical rights and obligations trump non-canonical rights and obligations in this regard. Because of the differing weights or seriousness of the person's commitments (that is, some that are public and canonical or legitimate, and some which are entirely private) this would not be a good example of what I was speaking about when I mentioned competing obligations; in my usage about that I was referring to competing public and canonical or legitimate obligations all of which publicly (legally and morally) bind the canonically professed hermit.

Public Commitments, A Matter of Relationships and Witness

The reason public vs private are "weighted" in this way is important because of the correlative relationships and witness which attach. Private commitments are, while not unimportant, of less social consequence. After all they are called called private for a reason!  Public commitments issue in public responsibilities to live one's ecclesial commitments in an edifying way and thus, with integrity and with an eye toward how one's actions affect others; this is true even of the hermit whose life is essentially hidden! They involve others, not least in the expectations they allow others to necessarily hold in the committed person's regard; further they are either a witness to others or they represent a betrayal of one's responsibility to witness appropriately to those others. If an avid soccer fan (and a Catholic) sincerely believes God is calling her to watch every game of the World Cup no matter her obligations to spouse, or children, or parish (Church) or God via these other relationships, and decides she is justified in this way, she is lying to herself in one way or another.  Nor is the example she is giving particularly edifying.

To take a  more serious example, if a wife decided she no longer wished to take part in marital relations, nor to care for her family because God was calling her to embrace celibacy and live as a hermit, once again she would be lying to herself and others and failing to witness to the sanctity of marriage and sexual love as she has PUBLICLY committed herself and been commissioned by the Church to do. The Church no longer effectively devalues the Sacramental and legal state of marriage nor profanes marital love in the name of religious life or celibacy as higher values. What then of someone who is legitimately allowed by the Church to call herself a Catholic Hermit and who, without the mutual discernment or approval of legitimate superiors, thereafter claims that God has blocked her way to participate in any significant way in normal ecclesial life (including Mass and the Sacraments) or who contends that the abstract (bloodless) "love of souls" takes the place of concrete love of others? Is this really the message of the Gospel entrusted to the Church? Does this constitute an edifying example of Christian witness? Does it even witness to the vocation of the Catholic Hermit and the way the Church understands that today?

You see, what is also true is that the public commitments in each of these situations is presumed to be an expression of God's will! This is especially so because, as ecclesial realities, they are sanctioned and blessed by the Church. That means there must be pretty significant indications when one proposes changing them for what one privately experiences as the will of God! It also means in some way these private experiences and determinations need to be corroborated or affirmed by others in the Church (meaning pastors, Bishops and their delegates, etc) as well. In the situation you referred to --- a privately dedicated hermit determines she is called by God to reclusion and to cutting herself off from the Sacramental and ecclesial life of the Church symbolized in the minimal obligation of Sunday Mass -- I  was not struck so much by the elitism of the determination (though I certainly agree this person would never allow other Catholics to make the same determination in the name of private revelations and discernment) as I was struck by the extreme individualism, and even narcissism of the situation.

Canon 603 allows for the first time ever in universal law for individuals who are not part of religious communities and congregations to live and explore the depths of the vowed life within the realm of eremitical solitude (communion with God), that is, a life which says God alone is sufficient for us human beings. But it does this with ecclesial vetting, oversight, and support. Far from getting in the way of the individual's relationship with God the structures and relationships set up in canonical standing create a realm of freedom where the individual may truly live a life of assiduous prayer and penance without real concern that she ought to be about something else, some more active ministry, some money-making project for the sake of others, etc.

But the paradox is that this solitary enterprise is taken on for the sake of others and as a specifically ecclesial reality. While other people do not occupy the hermitage with the hermit, their faith and support make this life possible; moreover they look to the hermit for a witness which illumines some dimensions of the Gospel in a particularly sharp or compelling way. The Church has given the faithful this right when it called, professed, and consecrated this hermit from their very midst and then established her hermitage there as well. The bottom line truth here is that the hermitage is a still point in an often chaotic world and this is not for the hermit's benefit alone! She is there at the service of God and others. Not all hermits' lives are good and pleasing to God. A misanthrope's (or other individualist's) isolated shack is not the same as the hermit's dwelling which is always situated in profound relationship to God and others in the heart of the Church.

Seeking Eremitical Consecration When one's Director Disagrees

[[Dear Sister, I am a lay person and would like to become canonically approved as a diocesan hermit but I am not sure my spiritual director thinks it is something I should go ahead with. I wouldn't want to go against his wishes in this. Do you have an opinion?]]

Thanks for your question and for waiting the past several days for an answer. First of all, petitioning for canonical standing (standing in law) means asking the Church to admit you to public profession and allow you to accept the public rights and obligations associated with the consecrated (and in this case, the eremitical) state of life. It means petitioning to be allowed to live eremitical life in the name of the Church and so, being publicly responsible not just for your own vocation, but for the living eremitical tradition as well.

If you are accepted and admitted finally to solemn (perpetual) profession and consecration as a diocesan (c 603) hermit, you become responsible for continuing this stream of the tradition in a normative way which allows an ancient vocation to be lived in inspired and fruitful dialogue with the contemporary situation;  again, you do so in the name of the Church. It is a significant public responsibility and while there is some degree of "approval" more fundamentally canonical standing is about being given a place of trust in the public (and the hidden) life of the Church. (By the way, this is also why only publicly professed hermits, whether those that live in community or those professed under c 603, are called Catholic hermits. The use of the term Catholic here points to the public, normative (canonical), and ecclesial nature of the vocation one has both been admitted to and assumed, not to the individual's membership in the RC Church.)

The language of "approval" as in "(a) canonical or bishop's (stamp of) approval" is therefore misleading and superficial in this regard and I would suggest you mainly avoid it. I have really only heard one other person use this language routinely and she did it mainly to trivialize the vocation and to criticize hermits who desire "status" and "approval" --- as though seeking canonical standing (standing in law) was merely (or mainly) a matter of personal aggrandizement or pride. A consistent theme in her posts and videos was a downplaying of the ecclesial nature and responsibility of the vocation in order to focus on more superficial notions of "status" (as prestige) and approval. Your own language reminds me of these posts in which the nature of canonical standing was so badly misrepresented so I want to address this issue as well as those you asked about specifically. In general this language represents a perspective which actually prevents one from understanding the nature and significance of this vocation as ecclesial or the real nature of standing in law.

Similarly, your post reminds me of this person's posts and videos in the way you speak of your spiritual director. In my experience competent contemporary directors do not assume the kind of responsibility you are describing. I know I do not, nor does my own director (as director) or any of those with whom I am familiar. I am not my clients' legitimate superior nor do I tell them what I think their vocation is. I may certainly have opinions about a person's readiness or lack of readiness to pursue a particular vocation but I do not tell them to either pursue or not pursue it. That is beyond my purview as a director and the directors I know feel the same way about this. More importantly, however, the fact that you are considering not exploring something you apparently feel called to because your SD may disagree with you about it may actually suggest that you are really not ready to pursue consecrated life generally or consecrated eremitical life specifically.

You see, this life is a mature and independent one where every day one is called on to listen to and follow the voice of God in one's heart of hearts. A director can accompany you in this and assist you in learning to hear and respond appropriately to this voice of God --- which is why you of course should listen carefully to what she has to say in this regard and pray seriously over her concerns --- but s/he cannot (and really should not) replace this entire dynamic by telling you what you should do. That way encourages a juvenile approach to life and discernment, not authentic or mature obedience. By the way, the relationship between a legitimate superior and one bound by a public vow of obedience is more complex than (on the subject's part) simply doing as one is told or (on the superior's part) simply telling someone to do things. Instead both parties are bound to listen closely to God's will in this person's life as well as in the life of the community, diocese, eremitical tradition, etc, and for that reason the vow means careful work together motivated by love in Christ. It is actually relatively rare today for a legitimate superior to simply tell a person bound by a public vow "what to do."

In any case bear in mind that simply petitioning to be admitted to canonical profession and eventual conse-cration does not mean this will happen. It means that you are seeking to enter into a process of mutual discernment with members of your local chancery, first Vicars and/or vocation personnel and then, if that goes well, the Bishop. (They will, of course, request a reference from your director and they might possibly seek her recommendation or at least listen to concerns she might have.) Because canon 603 life is an ecclesial vocation it is not one you can embrace all by yourself; neither does your own sense of call ensure a call exists nor therefore, that the diocese will agree in this matter. The discernment MUST be mutual and your diocese may decide to allow you to enter into such a process or they may determine that you are not ready to do this. They may even determine you are not suited to the vocation or they may actually be unwilling to profess anyone at this point in time. If you are admitted to a process of discernment which eventuates in profession and consecration, actual admission to even temporary vows is likely several years in the future -- so be prepared for that.

By the way, if your director is pretending to bind you in obedience or expects you to simply do as s/he says in the way you have described (since you are not a religious and since this person has no legitimate authority over you this can only be pretense) I would personally suggest you look for another director or, at the very least, see if the relationship cannot be significantly modified in this regard. I have never heard of competent contemporary directors relating to lay clients this way but I have sometimes heard directees speaking of their directors in these terms when those same directors really do not encourage it or relate to them in this way. While I am not saying you are doing this (I honestly don't know of course) it is important if you ever want to be a diocesan hermit that you have internalized a truly adult model of obedience and ways of relating to authority in your life --- legitimate and otherwise. Because diocesan hermits' legitimate superiors are their Bishops it is really unusual for them to meet with one another more than twice a year at most. Once a year is much more typical so one can hardly "wait for permission," or "wait to hear what he thinks" until one sees her Bishop. To assist in this situation diocesan hermits tend to have diocesan delegates with whom we meet more frequently (four to six times a year or so as possible); these persons serve as quasi-superiors but they also tend not to encourage the hermit to turn to them for permissions or approval, for instance, except in very occasional and significant matters.

Questions on Male version of Canon 604

[[Dear Sr. Laurel, I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. I know about Canon 604 and how certain women can be consecrated virgins, and this consecration can never be dispensed with. But can laymen be consecrated celibates? Is there such a thing? Or would they just make a private vow of chastity? E.g., I know someone who was promiscuous for a number of years, came back to the Church, and made a private vow of chastity. I don't know if he took it a step farther and went through any ceremony with a bishop or priest, but he is a layman and not married, and plans on remaining unmarried. He refers to himself as a "consecrated celibate."]]

The answer to your first question is no. At this point in time there is no vocation for individual lay men who would like to be initiated into the consecrated state in a way similar to consecrated virgins. Rome is said to be talking about reprising the vocation which existed in the early Church (men consecrated in this way were generally called Ascetics), but as far as I know, no steps have been taken to do this. (By the way, a similar vocation has been proposed for widows, and a few Bishops have "consecrated" Widows in this way, but as yet, the vocation has not been ratified by Rome and c 605 which refers to new forms of consecrated life and  demands Bishops' openness to these requires that this ratification occur before it can be considered a new form of consecrated life. Until it does, we do not have consecrated widows either.) Canon 603 governs eremitical life and it is possible for a single lay man to discern an eremitical vocation, but again, this would be vastly different from the vocation of canon 604 or that of ascetics in the early Church. It is emphatically not, as some have reportedly said, the male counterpart to c 604.

If a person decides to remain celibate they may make a private vow. In such a case, they are, for the length of time the vow is kept, dedicated celibates, but not consecrated ones. Despite the wide misuse of the terms consecration or consecrate today as actions referring to one's self-disposition, it remains the case that only God consecrates, only God makes holy or sets aside as holy, only God through the public mediation of the church initiates one into the consecrated state of life. Vatican II was very careful to refer to the human action in profession with terms like dedication, etc and reserved the term consecration for the divine action in such a commitment. Additionally, therefore, its usage is reserved for initiation into the consecrated state of life. To use it otherwise is confusing at best. You see, since initiation into the consecrated state implies public rights and obligations along with new legal relationships as well as necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church (this is one of the reasons this is considered a public commitment), it is unhelpful to use it to refer to someone who has not been formally and publicly called to or accepted those rights and obligations. (By the way, it can and has been argued that no consecration can be dispensed, but the public obligations, rights, and legal relationships attached to the vows and to the consecrated state of life can be dispensed.)

Finally, your friend might have had a priest or Bishop witness his private dedication (or even receive these vows AS PRIVATE), though this is not strictly necessary,  but there is no provision in canon law for the public reception of such a vow by an individual. For this reason, their presence would not change or have changed the entirely private and dedicatory nature of the vow itself. It remains a significant but still-private act of personal dedication.

I hope this is helpful.

Canon 603 as a Way to Correct Abuses?

Dear Sister, are you aware that there are different versions of the origins of canon 603 out there on the internet? One version I read recently said, [[The Canon lawyer discussed Canon 603, of 1983 and explained it was a revision of the 1917 Canon regarding eremitic life. He said that laws are created due to abuses and also because of desire by some to have "official stamp" of approval. Perhaps there have been those, he pointed out, who said they were going to live a life of stricter separation from the world or in prayer and fasting, but did not. The law provides for the Bishop to step in and correct the abuses, if the hermit has been publicly avowed, and those vows received by the Bishop. 


He said it is a legality, of publicly approving the hermit in the name of the Church, of it being of public record, regardless of how many were actually at the profession of vows. He said that may be just the hermit and the Bishop. But it is done in the name of the Church, with the Bishop saying he receives the vows on behalf of the Church. As for vows being made publicly but not received by the Bishop, that could not be in the name of the Church. This is what must be made clear, for this was the stumbling point. In St. Colette's time, she made vows publicly, and she was generally known as the anchorite, and her life exemplified this. Now, a person would not be seen as a hermit in the name of the Church. The public aspect today is that of the law, of the Bishop receiving the vows in the name of the Church, on behalf of the Church.]] So, who's right, you or the canonist?

Hi there,
      yes, I am very much aware of some of the misinformation available out there on the internet. I have actually responded to questions about this very passage in the past. You can find it here: canon-603-misunderstandings-of-origins-and-nature.html. Because your own question is repetitive, I am answering it again here partly because I am trying to learn to do internal links (and I especially apologize to regular readers for the repetition if this experiment fails!).

      Generally, what I discuss in that post is that I think the canonist is correct about the way some canons generally come to be as a response to abuses, but in this case (assuming the lay hermit quoting him has done so accurately) he is simply wrong. Not only is he mistaken about the history of the vocation by speaking as though canon 603 is a revision of an already-existing canon and by omitting any mention of Bp Remi De Roo or Vatican II (cf Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Visibility and Betrayal of the c 603 Vocation under section, "The Heart of the Matter) but he has not thought out this notion of bringing hermits under control by granting them canonical standing.  You see, this latter makes no sense for hermits who are privately dedicated; why give them standing in law when leaving them without standing actually significantly limits the impact of any abuses they may have embraced? (The positive affects of such a life are a different matter!) Such hermits are relatively few and far between. The contemporary Church is not overrun with them or with hermits of ANY stripe! Were this the case then indeed, the Church might want to create a canon regulating them. However, we still have to ask, if they are not canonically consecrated, what kinds of abuses could they possibly be committing? They have not accepted the public/canonical rights and obligations of the life (including a detailed Rule of Life and responsibility to superiors and community) so what could they be abusing?

      After all, without canonical standing the person is living a private vocation as hermit; they are not Catholic Hermits, and nothing they do as a hermit per se is done in the name of the church. A lay hermit might be eccentric or an adherent of a strange theology and spirituality. As baptized Catholics some of this might become a matter of concern to Church authorities who have the right to act appropriately in their regard, but this would occur because this person is a baptized Catholic, not because they are a lay hermit.  Of course one would hope that such hermits live their lives well in an edifying way, but their commitments are private matters and to be frank, they can be as eccentric or strange in their spiritualities as they like without significant impact on the ecclesial eremitical life itself. Let me give you an example. Recently another diocesan hermit sent me a story from his own area about a "hermit" (a person who lived in solitude) who stole regularly to allow himself to live. We both agreed that this guy gives hermits a bad name. However, at the same time this person in no way reflects on the eremitical vocation in the Church and diocesan hermits do not feel he reflects on their calls. He DOES represent part of a host of stereotypes diocesan hermits have to combat with their lives though.


      Of course it is hard to imagine the contemporary Church giving such a person canonical standing to correct his abuses!!! However, were the Church to do so by professing him publicly as a Catholic hermit, then indeed, everything he does would reflect on the vocation and his diocese. Moreover had this been a diocesan hermit the church would need to take action to correct his abuses --- and in serious circumstances like this she would most likely do so by dispensing him from his vows and removing his canonical standing as a hermit. So again, my answer to your question is that assuming this canonist was correctly quoted, he is incorrect. The Church does not give canonical standing only to immediately remove it again as a censure. She does not extend canonical rights and obligations to a small group of persons to gain control over miscreants. Canonical standing is a gift to the individual and to the Church insofar as it helps nurture and protect authentic eremitical vocations; that is the real bottom line here. The history of Canon 603 attests to this gift-quality as the origin of this vocation.

I hope this is helpful to you!

Public vs Private Profession or Profession vs Commitment: Followup questions

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, As a lay person who has made Simple, Personal Vows to God which were witnessed by the parish priest, and as a lay person who has written and observes a personal Rule, it seems that my actions are strictly between myself and God, and that no special obligations or relationship exists between me and any official part of the Church, and in no official capacity, and that even though my vows were witnessed by the priest, I have not accomplished a "Profession". Am I correct? It would seem I am truly on my own, and not obligated to the Church in any official way, which leaves me free, but obligated to live a good and moral life and loyal to the Church. I hope to have the help of the Church, certainly Her prayers and blessings as I may have the good fortune to receive them, but that I am not in a "consecrated STATE" as far as the Church is concerned.

Thanks very much for your questions. I realize asking them indicates both understanding and substantial personal pain. I am breaking them up and placing them throughout this post, but let me try to answer in a way which brings out not only the distinctions involved between public and private profession (or, what some, more accurately, call profession vs dedication) but also the seriousness of what you have indeed committed to.

As noted in the last post, Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, defines profession as a formal, solemn, and public act by which a person undertakes a state of life, and when looked at that way, your vows are indeed a dedication but not a profession. In what I have written on this blog I have tended to a usage which distinguishes between public and private professions while implicitly linking these to differing states of life. Sister Sandra's usage in making state of life an explicit part of the definition of profession is less ambiguous and for that reason, perhaps significantly more helpful than my own in avoiding misunderstanding and the obscuring of important distinctions; still, I think we are in essential agreement. Your vows are private and that means that while they are a personally significant expression of your baptismal consecration (for you are indeed consecrated in that way), you remain in the lay state to live out that expression. As is true of any person in the church, you, as baptized, are obliged to live out the evangelical counsels in some way in that state and your vows express this explicitly. What remains true is that the Church which you help constitute both needs and expects you to live out any commitments you make with integrity and seriousness. She has affirmed that baptism constitutes a universal call to holiness and that holiness is no less exhaustive or significant than the call experienced by someone in the consecrated or ordained states.

It is true that, as you say, your private dedication of yourself via these vows does not cause you to enter the consecrated state of life and does not lead to the same kinds of legitimate (canonical) relationships an ecclesial vocation with public vows does. You do not have legitimate superiors, for instance, do not belong to a congregation or religious community by virtue of this commitment nor do you enjoy additional rights, obligations or protections which are part of such relationships in order to support the stable state of life for which they exist. While you are expected to live out your baptismal vows (the laws which bind every Catholic are indeed binding on you and hold you accountable for this) you have assumed no additional legal rights or obligations nor entered into the additional legal (canonical) relationships which obtain in public profession. However, the values you live out in those vows are personally binding on you nonetheless because they are real specifications of your baptismal consecration. Your dedication (i.e., your private vows) commits you in a serious and real way until you discern either that you are no longer called to this or until you determine you need no additional vows to live out your baptismal consecration and act to have these vows dispensed by your pastor, for instance.

The Importance of Private Commitments

[[This is an important distinction because there actually would seem to me to be a consecration of sorts present by virtue of trying to fulfill what I believe to be God's desires in my life; it would seem necessary in order to fulfill them. I am obligated to obey the Church by the wording and intent of the my (sic) vows, as much as I am obligated to fulfill my vows to God to whom I made them, and a blatant refusal or deliberate failure to do so would be a sin. I had the intent of living by the vows I took forever, but it seems the Church does not see my vows that way in spite of what I may have intended. Which makes me wonder then, what is my obligation to my Lord if having made vows with the intent of permanency and solemnity the Church does not see things that way? If I were a younger person it might be easier to resolve the issue by entering a religious order or lay institute and making profession; unfortunately, it seems that time is past.]]

Both God and the Church expect you to live out the private vows you have made as part of a significant Christian commitment, and to do so with integrity. The Church expects you to lead others in taking their own baptismal commitments with absolute seriousness as well. She also takes your private vows seriously --- which is one reason she provides for their dispensation by your pastor, Bishop, or others designated to do so in case you discern you are called to something else (c.1196), for instance. She does not simply say, "Oh, just move on --- forget about them! They are insignificant" They are not. They are significant commitments to God. However the church, who had no part in discerning the wisdom of or mediating your vows, does regard them as private commitments which can be dispensed without additional legal steps and without directly affecting your relationships with others in the church should you discern that is the right course of action. (For instance, when a religious seeks dispensation of her vows this affects others in direct and significant ways, whether they are her superiors who participate in what is often a painful process of discernment and cease to be legally responsible for her or her vocation), her community more generally (who love her and, though retaining profound friendships, lose her as a Sister in religion and important member of the community or congregation), or the church as a whole (who now welcome her as a lay person), etc.) Should you ever seek dispensation of your vows others are not similarly affected because your commitments, while personally significant, are private and made privately to God.

Even so, what does not change in all of this for you is your baptismal consecration and your responsibility to live out an exhaustive holiness accordingly in ways which are paradigmatic of and for the lay state. This IS a formal, solemn, and public sacramental consecration for you and affects many people and the life of the Church more generally. It is the power of this consecration which I believe is behind your sense that some consecration is necessary to live out your own private commitments. Your baptismal consecration grounds and empowers your living out the will of God in your life.

A larger question regarding the place of private vows for the baptized or married

Whether this applies in your specific case or not, one of the issues your questions raise is the remaining effects of a theology of religious life and vocation which effectively treated baptism as an entry level position in the church and other vocations as higher levels and more exhaustive forms of holiness. We have to encourage people to take their lay (baptismal) consecration and commitments with absolute seriousness. We have to be clear that every Christian is called to the evangelical counsels in some sense and we have to find ways to communicate that. Too often people seek to make private vows in an attempt to express their sense they are called to a self-commitment and holiness "more" exhaustive than their baptismal consecration involves.

For instance, they may make a vow of obedience as "listening" and commit to reading the Bible or listening to the Word of God in other ways when in fact these are generally things EVERY Christian is obliged to by virtue of their identities as Christians. They may make a vow of poverty in terms of a simplicity and detachment which are themselves something every Christian is obliged to by virtue of their baptism.

Sometimes, as I have mentioned before, I hear from married persons seeking to make additional vows --- usually of poverty and obedience, though sometimes also of chastity. When we talk about the matter and examine why they feel this way and what it is their marriage vows call them to in this place and time, there is usually no need for additional vows. Further, given the relationship between wife and husband there is usually no real place for vows which are private and bind only one of them. What was needed in such cases was a clearer idea of how significant and demanding are the public vows (baptism and marriage) they have already made. The significance and nature of these vows as public vows which are a means and call to achieving holiness and union with God, and in the case of marriage vows, a call to such holiness and union through this union with another, had slipped from sight. So had the need to reflect on and grow in their understanding and living out of these vows --- just as Religious routinely reflect on and grow in their their own.

The Church has contributed to this problem through the centuries. Vatican II took a decisive step away from the theology which engendered and exacerbates it. But we have a long way to go in implementing Vatican II in our lives and allowing it to guide our theologies, especially in this area. While wonderful and essential, it is not enough that lay people are moving into areas of ministry that were closed to them before. A fundamental change in our appreciation of what the lay vocation is and demands is still necessary so that people do not continue to feel they have only been called to an entry level vocation and cannot give their whole selves to God in this way.

Saturday (or Part-time) Hermits Once Again: What's the Big Deal??

[[ I agree that full-time work is incompatible with the EXPRESSION of the eremetic life. The only caveat is that many folks are called to it but just can't swing it financially. As for them, their options are a monastic expression or simply a 'non-canonical' (if I'm saying that correctly) expression of their vocation without worrying about whether they are recognized by the Diocese/Bishop or not. I really don't understand the hang up about this. If you are able to be a hermit on Saturday only, want to wear a habit--go for it! I don't understand all the angst. Why do we look to some imprimatur from Mother Church for our vocations? The church has room for all of us. Just go out and live your life and stop worrying whether you are fitting under a particular canon or not. Mon Dieu! Are we Pharisees? Go out and preach the gospel in whatever way you must---whether or not there is an example for it---and, of course, if you dig down far enough, there are always champions of the church that have faced the same circumstances and made it work. ]]

Thanks for your comments. Let me be clear that when I write about eremitical vocations I almost always clarify them with terms like "diocesan", "Lay", or "religious", and sometimes as semi-eremitical as well. In the post you are commenting about I referred to diocesan hermits but I need not have. In this case I can't agree with you about "If they are able to be a hermit on Saturdays only, want to wear a habit, then go for it" (etc). What you have just described is not a hermit of any expression. It is a person taking a day off and playing dress-up in the process.


Someone who says it is possible to be a hermit only on Saturdays and that such a person should just wear a habit, call themselves a hermit, and just generally "go for it," does not understand the idea of an ecclesial vocation generally nor the idea of what a hermit truly is specifically. (Another alternative is persons who speak this way are really poking fun at my posts, and I certainly don't think that is the case here.) It is possible I am simply misunderstanding the point which is that everyone needs silence and solitude in their lives and taking off time on Saturdays to devote to this is a good thing. If this is what you are saying, then I agree but I would point out you are not really speaking about a person being a hermit.)

But let me be completely honest about how I hear your comments: what you have said seems to me to be analogous to saying to a woman, "If you want to be a mother and can only take care of children on Saturdays, then by all means do that! Change out of your business clothes, babysit a child (even your own!) on Saturdays, and feel free to call yourself a mother." Or perhaps the analogy to marriage would work here: "You want to be married but can only manage to do that on Saturdays? Well, put on the ring, grab the guy, make life vows (or not) and "go for it." Hermits are people who live eremitical LIVES for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Yes, there are different expressions of this, but they are expressions of something specifically meaningful and responsible in terms of a life commitment, not expressions of nothing (or just anything at all).

As for angst over whether the Church gives her approval or not, here the expression of eremitical life does matter. A person who wishes to live as a hermit without any of the specific rights or obligations of canonical standing can certainly do so in the lay or non-canonical senses. As I have written before, baptism itself gives such persons the right to do so and no further discernment or approval of the Church is required. This has certain limitations of course (including no right to publicly wear the habit, which is an ecclesial symbol), but it also has a different level of freedom with regard to others' legitimate expectations and so forth.

However, for diocesan, or religious eremitical life --- ecclesial vocations which the church herself is involved in nurturing, mediating, and governing --- then the Church's formal participation and approval is necessary at every point. This is because in these instances the hermit cannot discern such a vocation alone and lives her eremitical life in the name of the Church. She represents the eremitical vocation (and becomes responsible for personally continuing a long tradition) in a public and canonical (legal and normative) way. In none of these cases would a person just going off and "being a hermit on Saturdays ONLY" actually be a hermit. The only thing they would truly be doing as far as I can see is emptying the term of meaning and trivializing the lives of those who DO live full-time lives of assiduous prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world in the the silence of solitude --- especially those who have been publicly entrusted with and assumed all the rights and obligations which are part of such an ecclesial vocation.

You see, it is not merely a matter of "fitting under" a canon or finding one I fit under. It is a matter of discovering a vocation to eremitical life and then allowing one's life to be molded into a complete response to that. Beyond this initial determination, one would then need to discern whether one is called to do so in the consecrated state or not. If not, then one lives as a lay hermit. If so, then one is speaking not of a merely individual vocation, but an ecclesial one, and one would prepare to embrace this fully. If one then discerns a vocation to diocesan eremitical life rather than religious eremitical life one seeks profession under Canon 603 and in doing so, is both invested with and assumes all the rights and obligations which attach to to such a life. No one is forced to do this, but if they do, if the Church decides they are genuinely called to this and if such persons are admitted to profession in this way, then yes indeed, the Canon does define and govern their lives (as do a number of other Canons as well). Living the life with integrity means respecting and exploring this every day in every way, as the saying goes.

Why All the Angst?? The Pastoral Import of Canonical Standing

But, as you ask, why all the angst? I've written about this before under the idea of necessary expec-tations and charism, but let me draw out a picture of "why the angst?!" Let's take the two examples of eremitical life outlined in your own email and mine: 1) a person takes off on Saturdays for some prayer time, dons a habit, and calls himself a hermit even adopting the title "Brother." (What he does the rest of the week, exemplary or apostolic as it may be, I have no clue, nor does anyone else.) He then goes forth to proclaim the Gospel as he can. 2) a person lives the silence of solitude (and the rest of the elements of Canon 603) on a full time basis. She publicly vows her entire life to God (and so, to all those he cherishes) and is consecrated in a way which signals the grace to live this life. She is invested with the habit and given the right to the title Sister by the Church who recognizes the meaningfulness and import of these things. She then goes out to proclaim the Gospel within this context. Both persons identify themselves as hermits, one is a lay person and one is consecrated. One does so according to his own understanding of the term, the other according to the Church's understanding and traditional meaning of the term.

Meanwhile, their parishes have a large number of chronically ill and frail elderly on fixed incomes, most of whom are isolated from the parish as a whole or the surrounding communities in significant ways: none of them can work, few of them can drive or get away from their situations on a weekend, and none of them can take a day (or even an hour) off from their state of chronic illness or frail elderliness. What they do know is that they might be called to lives of prayer and solitude, lives which represent a kind of counter-cultural witness even. They are looking for someone who can proclaim the Gospel to them in a way which is specifically helpful in their situations. They think (and their pastor agrees),  that surely a hermit will be able to witness in a way which helps us makes sense of lives of poverty and isolation, whose witness will assist in negotiating the transition from isolation to solitude, who can reminds them that a life of physical, financial, and personal poverty can still be rich in God alone and all God makes possible.

So which hermit should the pastor call on to assist these parishioners in this? Which hermit should he call on as a true representative of desert spirituality? Which hermit has accepted freely and fully all the dimensions of the eremitical life which allows him/her to witness truthfully and EFFECTIVELY to these poeple? Which hermit knows intimately the struggles of full-time solitude or silence? Which one has dealt with these and does so day in and day out along with all the other demons which attack the solitary person from within our own hearts or from the surrounding competitive, workaholic, productive and consumerist world? Which one will be able to effectively proclaim the Gospel to these people? (And NB, I could have contrasted the Saturday-only hermit with any full-time lay hermit and most of the points would have been the same here.)

You see, going out and preaching the Gospel is not merely a matter of proclaiming a canned text or message to people one does not know. It is not a matter of proclaiming the unconditional love of God without applying that in the way one knows it intimately oneself AND in the way people NEED to hear it. Instead proclaiming the Gospel means proclaiming with one's life the TRUTH of the way God has worked and is working in it so that others might find hope and meaning in that. As St Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel; use words if necessary." Proclaiming the Gospel, I would suggest, also does not allow for pretense and the "hermit" in the situation you described appears to be all about pretense --- at least with regard to calling himself a hermit, donning a habit, etc. He cannot relate particularly to the situation these people are in or the good news they really need to hear. He does not live full-time solitude nor has he assumed any of the rights or responsibilities of such a life (the habit in the scenario you described is little more than a costume he takes up to play a role on weekends.) And yet, the habit and titles (Brother as well as hermit) give these people the right to expect he WILL BE ABLE to speak to their situation in a helpful way from his own life experience. They have the right to expect these things to mean something --- not least a counter-cultural life of total dependence on God lived on the margins of society in the silence of solitude.

This is why all the angst over Canonical standing. Such standing generally indicates the acceptance of rights and obligations by those who are discerned to have such a call, etc. It is not because we are Pharisees, but because law often serves love. It does so in this case. By the way, I would personally disagree that many people are called to diocesan eremitical life but just can't swing it financially. I do agree that those who are able-bodied and need to work full time are not called to diocesan eremitical life at this point in time, but then, as you say, they can enter a religious eremitical community --- something which is NOT ordinarily open to those who are disabled or chronically ill. Regarding the other points you bring up, benefactors, etc, I will hold those for another time.

All my best.