Some Reflections on Why Canon Law is Important to the Diocesan Hermit

[[Hi Sister, have you always been interested in Canon Law? Do diocesan hermits have to have this kind of interest or knowledge? (Suppose I couldn't care less about this kind of stuff, could I still be a hermit?) One friend said that hermits usually don't care about laws, their freedom is contrary to that and everything I have read about hermits stress their freedom. Is there some way in which he is right or are consecrated hermits kind of "law and order types"? Are those hermits who do their own thing misrepresenting this vocation?]]

Have I always been interested in Canon Law? Nope, definitely not. My own interest is very limited and circumscribed, namely, it is confined to canon 603 and to the life defined there. In a broader sense that and my own history means being interested in the canons on religious life as well; after all a number of those apply to those professed as c 603 hermits, but I can't say canon law per se holds much interest for me apart from the life I have been commissioned to live in the name of the Church. Theology is a much more compelling and pervasive interest for me and my interest in this canon specifically often has to do with the theology and spirituality it seeks to express and protect. Often this involves ecclesiology (theology of the Church) and the way individuals are made responsible for embodying theological truth.

Thus, my interest has also grown over time. It has been spurred by several ideas which are integral to canon 603, not least, 1) the ecclesial nature of the vocation, 2) the amazingly beautiful combination of non-negotiable elements and individual flexibility c 603 codifies, 3) the responsiveness of this canon to history and its capacity to reflect and protect the solitary eremitical tradition as part of the Church's own patrimony, and 4) the lesson that canon law follows life and law serves love. I don't think we necessarily always see these things clearly in canon law (or any law for that matter) but we do see it in the case of canon 603. Especially important here and with regard to #1 above is the way the canon (and canonical standing more generally) creates stable relationships which are essential for ecclesial vocations. The idea that the canon legislates, establishes, and protects those relationships necessary to live this life well and in a prophetic way was tremendously surprising and impressive to me.

While canonical hermits do not usually need much of this kind of knowledge (we have canonists and Vicars who handle canonical details with regard to vows and other things), some, like myself, are interested to the degree that c 603 is new and codifies in universal law a new form of consecrated life. Thus, we tend to be interested in this canon, how it came to be, why it exists, and so forth, and some few of us reflect on the way the canon works in our own lives and the vocation more generally; as noted above we are interested in the relationships it establishes in law, the purpose of these, what we would be living apart from the canon and how it differs because of the canon and things like this. Because as hermits our need for legal recourse or canonical consultation is rare at best once we have been admitted to perpetual profession we are ordinarily otherwise completely free to follow our own Rule of Life without worrying about canonical matters. On the other hand, most of us do have an interest in the canon and its normative character when this is being denied or contravened publicly by folks pretending to represent consecrated eremitical life. In any case at least one diocesan hermit here in the US is a canonist working for a diocese so an interest in canon law is at least not antithetical to the eremitical life!

Am I a Law and Order Type? 

I don't think I am particularly a "law and order" type, nor are most of the hermits I know. Of course we respect law and see its importance in society and the life of the Church. We are not antinomians or anarchists. Rather, we recognize that c 603 is an historic canon and those I know do feel both honored and obligated to live our lives with a real cognizance of what is finally possible in universal law because of it. There is something really startling and humbling when one realizes one is part of a long-awaited and fought for extension of an ancient tradition into a contemporary situation, and therefore, that one is part of a relative handful of hermits now living a new ecclesial vocation in the name of the Church. Personally, I believe the eremitical vocation has the capacity to redeem (heal and give meaning to) the lives of many people who are isolated by life's circumstances and I feel proprietary about the significance of the canon for this reason as well.

Sister Ann Marie OCSO signs Solemn Vow Formula

Especially clear to me is that if the canon is to be used in this way however, it needs to be mediated by the Church and cannot simply be one more occasion of the divisive, individualist, "do your own thing" tendency of our modern world. As far as I can see, that tendency only leads to greater isolation and greater need for redemption. We all know how empty a life of merely "doing your own thing" can be. Imagine how that is exacerbated when one is already searching for meaning, or already feels isolated or as though they do not fit in! My own experience of this vocation says that whether lived canonically in the consecrated state or non-canonically as a hermit in the lay state, for instance, the eremitical life lived in the heart of the Church witnesses to a solitude which is dialogical and contrary to any individualistic isolation. Canon 603 recognizes this clearly when she defines the life as one "lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." If the eremitical vocation is allowed to be degraded into another instance of "do your own thing" or "don't give a damn about the Church's laws or decrees", etc, then we will have lost one of the really unique gifts of the Holy Spirit!

Misrepresenting Facts to the Vulnerable, A serious Pastoral Matter

Thus, when a person who neither understands canon 603 nor lives under it or in an institute of consecrated life, but still falsely claims to be a "professed religious" and "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while writing, [[Perhaps it is best for all of us, and maybe especially us consecrated Catholic hermits, to not get too caught up in the ins-and-outs of the temporal Catholic rules and laws and the raft of interpretations of those rules and laws]] it strikes me as particularly self-serving and pastorally insensitive. (Neither is it particularly accurate; a single  two paragraph canon is hardly a raft of laws nor is c 603 exactly a hotbed of interpretive controversy.) It especially says to me this person has not really understood the reason the Church takes care whom she consecrates and how, whom she professes in this or that vocation and why. In my experience people searching for a way to belong, a way to redeem their own isolation, a way to ensure the meaningfulness of their lives are legion in our world --- and perhaps especially in our culture. They are also more vulnerable to people offering a less difficult or at least more individualistic way to embrace religious life.

We do these persons no favors when we tell them to do whatever they wish, call themselves whatever they wish and never mind about the "temporal laws" of the Church. We do them no favors when we misrepresent facts, misread texts, or treat Canon Law as though it is an option we can ignore while arrogantly calling ourselves "consecrated Catholic hermits" and thus claiming under our own authority a designation only the Church herself can permit us to use. Especially we do these persons no favors by encouraging them to embrace pretense in the name of the God of Truth.

In the end to do that is to betray their deepest longings and treat them as though they are either too unimportant to God to be called to live a significant (meaningful) vocation, or simply too weak to bear the vocation God truly HAS extended to them. This is so because in the Church, standing in law ("status") is always associated with the gift and challenge of responsibility. We do not recognize a person's real dignity nor show genuine respect for them by extending standing (much less allowing them to pretend to standing which is) without commensurate responsibility. In any case, while the institutional Church is not perfect, generally speaking she uses canon law to order and protect her charismatic life, not to stifle it. She uses law to make certain that freedom is not degraded into an irresponsible license. The diocesan hermit does something similar with her Rule and, of course, Canon law, legitimate superiors, and the other mediatory structures and relationships of the Church. These things ordinarily help INSURE the freedom of the hermit, they do not hinder it.

Authentic Freedom:

You see, authentic freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be in spite of limitations and constraints. In the diocesan hermit vocation, or any vocation to the consecrated state in the Church God calls the person and that call is mediated through the structures of the Church. The charismatic dimension of the Church is always mediated in this way. Catholic hermits are not folks who simply do whatever they want (your friend's more commonly held sense of what it means to be a hermit sounds like more of a stereotype to me); they are persons who do what God wills; Catholic hermits are those who live an eremitical freedom (the will of God) as that is mediated not only in solitude, but in and through the structures of the institutional Church.

In my own experience the Church's canon law here provides some of the necessary structure permitting a person to concern themselves wholeheartedly with prayer, the silence of solitude, and the rest of the eremitical life without concern for whatever the world says, believes, values, etc. Moreover, they do so within the very heart of the Church. That is true whether they do so as canonical (consecrated) or non-canonical (lay).  In fact, that is true even when they are fighting for a new way while accepting the current truth of their situation. (The monks who accepted secularization while struggling for something like Canon 603 and living under the protection of Bishop Remi De Roo are exemplars of this kind of creative and risky freedom.) Freedom involves constraints. License is a different matter.

Doing your own thing may pass for freedom, at least for a time, but such persons tend to find they are marginalizing themselves and exacerbating their own sense of unfreedom and meaninglessness. In theological terms they are opting not for the way of the Kingdom and the Life of the Spirit but instead for the way and spirit of the world. The irony is that such persons are therefore more apt than those living fully within the Church's constraints and structures (canonical, liturgical, theological, etc) to be in a destructive bondage, whether that is to insecurity, shame, their own personal failures in life, a fear of meaninglessness, loss, grief, illness, or whatever drives a need to define themselves; whatever creates and grounds this kind of arrogance is not a symptom of freedom but of slavery.

Living Eremitical life inside and Outside the Church:

But let me be clear. A person who truly lives the hermit life without doing so under canon 603 is still a hermit and can live the life in a completely authentic and exemplary way for others --- whether those folks are hermits or not. In this these hermits would be in line with the Desert Abbas and Ammas who actually lived their lives in protest to the worldliness of the Church that had allied itself with the State after Constantine's Edict of Milan. If one has not been consecrated through the mediation of the Church as part of an Institute of Consecrated Life or under c 603, one can certainly still live eremitical life as a lay hermit, a hermit in the lay state of life (or, if one is a priest, in the clerical state of life).

One could also leave the Church and pursue an eremitical life in open protest to what one might see as the Church's compromises with worldliness (and the way some folks write of Canon 603 and the Church's use of law more generally seems suggest they see these as a terrible compromise with worldliness). I personally think this is unnecessary and misguided; I would not understand it but it is a choice I would respect at the same time for its honesty. What is not okay, what I personally cannot respect, is effectively thumbing one's nose at the Church's clear understanding, law, and sacramental structures while fraudulently calling oneself a "Catholic Hermit" and thus, claiming one is living this life in the very name of the Church. I do think that is a clear misrepresentation of this vocation. Of course, if any person claiming to live eremitical life in the name of the Church is also not really living an exemplary eremitical life but instead is merely trying to validate personal isolation and failure, that, it seems to me, would also be a serious misrepresentation of what the Church understands as the eremitical vocation.

Consequences of Unfaithfulness: Canonical vs Non-Canonical Hermits

[[Dear Sister, I wonder if the blogger from [link omitted] is even really listening to you or reading your posts in a thoughtful way. She really doesn't seem to understand anything about religious or consecrated life, much less about canon 603. I don't think you are going to change her mind or educate her. The heart of her difficulties seems to be treating the paragraphs from the Catechism as equivalent or even superior to Canon Law. She believes what she wants to believe and uses words like she wants to use words. Who cares if the Church doesn't use them the way she does? Not her! I would encourage you not to waste your time trying to explain!

But other than all that, I have enjoyed your recent posts and learned some things too. The posts about bonds and the explanation about how bonds come to be or the freedom needed to enter the consecrated state were very interesting to me. You have stressed a number of times here that the canonical requirements are meant to establish and protect relationships. I heard that again in what you said about these things and it was even clearer to me. Impediments mean things that get in the way of the relationships that need to be foundational. Right? While I know you regard the lay eremitical vocation what do you really think about private vows? There is such a difference between making a private commitment and a public one but you reject the idea that one vocation is "higher" than the other. How can you do that? One question you haven't answered yet is what happens if a publicly professed hermit fails to live her Rule or her vows vs what happens if a privately dedicated hermit fails to do so. Since the consequences are very different doesn't it argue that one vocation is higher than the other?. . .]]

Thanks for your questions and comments. I am going to respond to some of what you have written. I had never thought of impediments in quite that way before but I think you are right that impediments are those things which will prevent the necessary foundational relationships from being formed or which prevent the relationships from achieving maturity and appropriate fruitfulness. We are more used to thinking of impediments with regard to marriage but in consecrated life we find them too. Insufficient age, affective immaturity, co-dependence, the presence of another exclusive bond, ignorance of what the commitment requires, the inability to enter whole-heartedly into formation, etc are impediments to profession --- though only some of these are noted in canon law.

What Happens to Canonical vs Non-canonical Hermits Who Fail to live their Commitments?

Anyway, on to your other questions and comments. My own regard for the lay vocation I hope has been clear throughout many posts, but it is very true that the questions the other poster put up about the consequences for infidelity to one's commitments have very different answers for the lay hermit and for the consecrated hermit (or, in other words, for the non-canonical hermit and for the canonical hermit). If I am unfaithful to or cannot live my commitment a number of things will happen on several levels, personal, parish, diocesan and perhaps even beyond that if that seems like it is necessary or could be helpful. On the other hand, with an entirely private commitment the resolution would come on the personal level with the help (perhaps) of one's confessor and/or pastor. Nothing more. If we contrast what happens in either case it looks like this: 

Diocesan Hermits:

 If the diocesan hermit  is perpetually professed and consecrated and she fails to live her life as she is responsible for doing, then attempts are made to work with her so that she can again live her Rule. This will involve consultation with her director and /or her delegate as well as the Bishop. It may also involve consultations with physicians or therapists if the situation is due to some extraordinary change in health or stress levels. It is likely to include consultation with the hermit's pastor as well if he knows her well. If the hermit's Rule needs to be changed to accommodate changing circumstances so that the elements of the canon are appropriately expressed in new ways she will do that. Apart from this, however, the diocese and hermit might be able to work out an extended period in a monastery or other religious house where the hermit could experience the support of others living lives of prayer, solitude and penance similar to the one she is committed to.

After some time here the solitary hermit might feel ready to live her commitments again in the rigors (and the temptations!) of her urban hermitage, for instance. Or she might decide she needs to live the same vocation in another context. There are many possibilities here and they will be explored or even tried until and unless the hermit discerns she needs to request a dispensation from her vows. If the hermit's inability or failure is occurring due to illness, then a diocese could conceivably find a way to temporarily suspend her obligations or even grant something akin to an indult of exclaustration which frees the person of her obligations and often the rights that came with canonical standing. Such an indult would be given for a period of time (up to 3 years though there is some provision for an extension) and give time for the hermit to get well while her obligations as a hermit have been lifted. The hermit herself would need to request some such action be taken. In cases of illness occurring after one has made perpetual profession I don't believe the diocese can act against the hermit's will to dispense her vows, but I would need to check on that.

Permanent Canonical Solutions:
 

However, if illness is not the problem it is an even more serious matter and more permanent canonical steps may also be taken. If the person fails or refuses to live her profession faithfully in such a case and she cannot or will not work out a resolution she will be given a canonical warning to which she has the right of response or defense. A second warning can be given if she does not respond which advises that she will be dismissed from the consecrated eremitical state and her vows dispensed. Her right of defense remains. If there is no change forthcoming and all avenues toward this have been exhausted, then her vows will be dispensed. In such a case she does not cease to be consecrated (that was the action of God and cannot be undone) but she is released (or dismissed) from the consecrated state of life, meaning that her standing in law reverts to that of the lay state (vocationally speaking) and she is no longer bound by (or entrusted with) the canonical rights or obligations of the consecrated state of life.

Non-canonical or privately dedicated hermits:

In contrast, what happens to a privately vowed hermit who does not live her Rule? Nothing. No more than happens to any lay Catholic committing a private sin or habitual fault. Conceivably she will confess her sin, repent and reform her life, but if she continues to fail in this matter there are no other consequences really because her commitment was an entirely private matter. I would think a confessor could strongly encourage her to accept the dispensation of her vows in serious situations (any pastor can do this), but even if she were to do that, she could also remake these vows as easily --- and perhaps as imprudently --- as she made them in the first place if she could find a priest or other person to witness them.

In any case, no one but God, the hermit, and her confessor would even know she has failed to live her commitment. Again, her's is a private dedication with no public rights or obligations and no specific expectations on anyone's part but the hermit and God. This does not make such vows unimportant, much less invalid, but it does underscore their private nature. (In general the Church expects anyone making a private vow to live it with fidelity and integrity; she esteems the commitment but doing that is up to the individual with the vow(s) and no one else. Again, in canonical commitments relationships are established in law and several people have obligations in such a situation. Not so with private dedications or vows. Certainly in the normal course of such things a Bishop is not going to be concerned except as he is generally concerned with the well-being of all his faithful. Think subsidiarity here. Such matters are handled at the lowest appropriate level. No diocesan or canonical involvement is necessary because none have been involved to this point.

My Own Feelings About Private Vows:

I think private vows can be very helpful in a person's commitment to spiritual growth, especially in areas or regions where there are few people who understand the commitment the person wants to undertake. However, I don't think lay persons generally need vows of the evangelical counsels, for instance, because they are committed by Baptismal promises to these though in unspecified ways. My own preference is that a person look at the things we all promise when we renew our baptismal commitments and then specify for themselves what that means in concrete terms in their own life today.

l would encourage someone to write themselves a Rule of life which includes the values one wishes to live in a methodical way and add a commitment to live this Rule in a faithful way. Such a plan can include reading Scripture or other lectio, provisions for prayer and penance, allowances for recreation which control one's exposure to TV, computer games, media of all sorts, etc. It can also help one include physical exercise, intellectual projects, etc. It might also include a budget and savings plans which help control spending, cut back on shopping trips or online shopping for those for whom these are problematical, and ensure resources for emergencies. With such a Rule a vow of obedience would not be necessary because the attentiveness and listening one wanted to commit to is included. One does not need a vow of obedience unless one is making a vow of religious obedience which binds to God through legitimate structures and superiors. The same with poverty. In religious poverty there is ordinarily a communal dimension involved, a "we are in this together" sense where all are similarly committed and sacrifice for one another and the sake of witness and ministry to those outside the institute. Chastity is something one in the unmarried state is already obliged to so there is no need for this sort of vow either.(We don't make vows for things we are already obligated to!)

Some lay people write about having a vow of obedience to their spiritual director but to be honest, I would never want a client to do that nor would I relate to them as a legitimate superior. This would be dishonest and in my understanding of spiritual direction infantilizing. Legitimate superiors know obedience because they have lived it themselves. They know what it means and does not mean, what it should and should not be in a "subject's" life. Moreover they know the person bound in a vow of obedience is properly prepared and deemed ready for such a vow. A demand that one obey by virtue of their vow is exercised rarely and with discretion these days. The situation is very different when people assume that they will owe their director obedience as they might a legitimate superior and neither one is in a legitimate (bound in law or "lawful") relationship!

Spiritual directors build a relationship of trust and a unique intimacy with their directees. In mature direction relationships between religious (which are usually long-standing), one of these persons (if in the same institute or congregation) may actually be given and assume the role of the legitimate superior to the other --- though not in her role as director per se; in such a case a vow of obedience is unlikely to be problematical. Its use will be rare and generally limited to matters of the external forum --- matters which are externally verifiable and sometimes visible to everyone, matters that do nor depend on the confidential disclosures that occur in spiritual direction. Such vows of obedience will, according to c 601, also be governed and limited by the religious' "proper constitutions", those constitutions "proper" to their congregation.

In any case I support the use of private vows in limited situations, but not of the evangelical counsels. If someone wants to live these values within a secular context I hope they will find a way (baptism calls and commissions them to do so), but I don't want anyone pretending they are something they are not or embracing values which may actually conflict with the ways they are called to be responsible in terms of money, power, and relationships. That is why I prefer they write a Rule which includes these values worked out in an integral way.

Higher Vocations?

I have said a number of times that every vocation is a call to exhaustive holiness. Given that fact there is no way to speak of one being higher than another. Similarly the Church is clear that members of the consecrated and religious states of life may be drawn from laity or clergy but that this state of life is not part of the Church's hierarchical structure as a third class or level. In that sense too then we must conclude that the canonical eremitical life is not a higher vocation than the non-canonical. What does differ in these vocations are the rights and obligations and the canonical relationships and structure which apply to consecrated (canonical) eremitical life but not to non-canonical (lay) eremitical life. In a sense, Thomas Aquinas' language of "objective superiority" certainly applies here --- but not as that term came to be translated subsequently. We tend to think "objective superiority" logically means "higher" or "above" but that is not the case here and never in the calculus of the Kingdom.

The diocesan hermit's vocation is canonically defined, protected, and supported. She makes her commitment in law and lives her life in the name of the Church. She has legitimate superiors (Bishop, delegate, Vicars if needed during a Bishop's illness or the interim between successors) and her life of solitude is esteemed even if it is not always understood. She is entrusted with the right to wear religious garb, use the title Sister (etc.), and to live a public vocation in the heart of the Church. She has what she needs to live a life of holiness and to grow in that (time for prayer, silence, solitude, Scripture, access to the Sacraments, --- often including reserved Eucharist, etc). These are the sorts of things Aquinas was referring to when he spoke of "objective superiority". Some vocations have "built into them" access to so much that is necessary for growth in holiness. But this does not translate to the word higher! She has greater responsibility for the eremitical vocation in some ways than the non-canonical hermit, but also greater help, greater freedom, and fewer obstacles to live it. The bottom line here is that in the Church legal constraints lead to greater freedom from the expectations of the world around us. Similarly, greater responsibility in certain areas is granted only so that one may serve or minister to others more effectively than one might be able to otherwise. I don't think we can therefore use the term "higher" for such a vocation.

Private and Public vows, an Unofficial Terminology?

[[Dear Sister Laurel,  what you have said about private vows and public vows is clear to me. The first is a completely private commitment; the other refers to one where one takes on public rights and obligations in law. Is this your own personally coined terminology or is it official? I ask because one blogger said, [[To recapitulate, the distinguishing difference in the unofficially coined terms "private profession" and "public profession" of vows is as follows. The former profession of vows are not required by Church law to be professed in the hands of the hermit's local ordinary. . .while the latter profession of vows is thus required, and thus becomes a public record per church law.]]

Unofficially coined?? No, the usage is both longstanding and normative in the Roman Catholic Church;  the 1983 Code of Canon Law reads as follows: [[Can. 1192 §1. A vow is public if a legitimate superior accepts it in the name of the Church; otherwise, it is private.]] Please note: this normative usage has absolutely nothing to do with notoriety or lack of notoriety (i.e., anonymity). Legitimacy (whether something is binding in law or not) is the key here. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law both private and public vows were also possible. One source summarizes the matter as follows, [[ According to their juridical form, they [vows] may be private or made with the Church's recognition. . .]] The phrase "Church's recognition" refers to "recognition in law" and the extension of canonical (that is, public) rights and obligations in law through the Church's reception of such vows just as was the case in c 1192 of the 1983 revised Code.

I will say that the Church does not officially use the term "private profession" though, and that this is a bit more canonically obscure a matter than the simpler usage, "private vows" and "public vows". That is because the definition of profession is the making of a commitment which initiates one into a new and stable state of life. In other words, the public and canonical nature of the commitment is part of the very meaning of the term itself. In any case, since private vows do not initiate into the consecrated state of life, it is not really accurate to speak of a private profession (though I have also made this mistake, and did so until just a few years ago). By the way, profession is more global than the vows themselves; it is a definitive act of commitment or dedication of self which ordinarily uses vows as the "most solemn and binding way to express. such a [dedication]". (Schneiders, Selling All) Thus Canon 603 hermits may use other sacred bonds to express their definitive dedication of self.

Postscript: When canon 603 speaks of making vows (etc) "in the hands of" the local Bishop, this indicates that he is or will be from this moment forward her legitimate superior. The symbolic action "in the hands of" is historically based and reminds us of times when members of a society made an oath of fealty, for instance, in the hands of the Lord or King. Today public vows are made in the hands of legitimate superiors whether this occurs in religious institutes or with Canon 603. Both parties are bound in a covenant relationship though only the individual making the vows (sacred bonds) is bound by these specifically. The symbolism is one I find quite powerful, especially when stripped of feudal overtones and connotations to be replaced with those of mutual respect and even affection.

Followup Questions: The Meaning of "Institutes" and other things

[[Hi Sister, so when c 603 says, "Besides institutes [not the institutes] of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life," she is specifically recognizing solitary hermits who are publicly professed to be religious? Is this part of the reason c 603 hermits are not allowed to form into communities? Do some people fail to recognize c 603 hermits as religious? Is it usual for communities to call themselves institutes? It is not a terminology I am familiar with and the blog you referred [readers] to seems to understand "institutes" as meaning some kind of statute or law or something. She misquotes the canon with "Besides "the institutes" of consecrated life. . ." and also writes, "CL603 has some additional requirements beyond what all consecrated Catholic hermits must live per the institutes of the Catholic Church," and "all Catholic hermits must profess the three evangelical counsels according to the institutes of the Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." [Also] why if we are all consecrated does the phrase "consecrated life" or "consecrated religious" only refer to those with public commitments?]]

Really excellent questions! Yes, when canon 603 speaks in this way it is outlining the specific new canonical reality known more commonly today as the solitary consecrated or diocesan hermit. In this canon the Church is saying, as commentators made clear in the Handbook on Canons 573-746, that for the first time hermits with no ties to a congregation or institute are to be considered religious. These hermits have entered the consecrated state of life through profession (which is defined by the church as the making of public vows) whether they come from the lay or clerical states; they live according to an approved Rule of Life and under the supervision of the Bishop who is their legitimate superior. Other canons will apply to their lives therefore, but c 603 defines the central or "constitutive" elements of the solitary canonical eremitical life.

In other words, canon 603 is not a set of "additional requirements" added to other "institutes" of the Catholic Church (I agree this does sound as if the person you are citing believes "institutes" are like statutes to which the elements of c 603 have been added but the use is unclear; unfortunately the error is made less ambiguous in a later post where she mistakenly writes, "The two previous posts cited the appropriate institutes and laws. . ." so it seems to me this blogger is possibly confusing the term "statutes" with the term "institutes"). In any case c 603 is instead a new canon defining a new though also very ancient form of consecrated life for the first time ever in universal law, namely the solitary diocesan eremitical life which stands side by side with Institutes (communities) of consecrated life. Religious who are publicly professed under other canons (CIC, 573-746) and their institute's proper law are not bound by canon 603 at all. Nor are lay hermits though they may well find it instructive and helpful in structuring their own lives .

You see, persons desiring to enter a semi-erem-itical institute were already able to do that apart from this canon while those desiring to create actual communities (groups with common Rule, common superior, common constitutions, common habit and finances, etc) will find the processes by which they can do so also exist apart from canon 603. As you rightly point out, canon 603 is not meant for the establishment of institutes or communities in this sense; lauras (colonies of already-professed diocesan hermits) can be formed so long as they do not rise to the level of an institute or community. In such lauras the hermits will retain their own Rule, their financial independence, and so forth while accommodating and contributing to the needs of the group as is reasonable. Individuals professed as members of an institute do not retain their vows should the institute dissolve or be suppressed --- though transfer to another institute is possible. Hermits professed under c 603 retain their vows and obligations should a laura dissolve or be suppressed. They cannot transfer these to an institute. Thus, they must retain the elements of c 603 (their own Rule, etc) as individually worked out even when they form a laura. (cf posts under label, canon 603 Lauras vs Communities) By the way, canon 607.2 defines an institute this way: [[ A religious institute is a society in which, in accordance with their own law, the members pronounce public vows and live a fraternal life in common. The vows are either perpetual or temporary; if the latter, they are to be renewed when the time elapses.]] Thus c 603 hermits are solitary hermits who exist as religious beside (as well as and alongside members of) institutes of consecrated life.

It tends, as far as I am aware, to be the case that the term "institute" shows up in official documents like consti-tutions and things. Most of us have never heard anyone ask a religious, "What institute do you belong to?" We are used to hearing and using terms like community, congregation, or order for instance. But institute is a universal term which allows canon law to speak of the conditions which bind every canonically founded group or community in the Church without getting bogged down in their differences. It also has the value of indicating this is a reality founded by human beings with an institutional structure as well as a charismatic nature. I don't know much more about the history of the term than that. In any case, in c 603, the reference, "Besides institutes of consecrated life. . ." does not mean besides other canons or statutes referring to consecrated life. It means besides (along with) congregations or communities (etc) of religious, the Church now recognizes diocesan hermits or anchorites in law.

While every baptized person in the Church is consecrated in baptism, relatively few enter what is called the consecrated state of life. This means that the person takes on additional legal and moral rights and obligations besides those which come with baptism. Today we refer to those consecrated in baptism as laity because in baptism they are consecrated as part of the Laos tou Theou or "People of God". To say one is part of the laity is an incredibly important statement which identifies a commission of tremendous significance. This is not merely an "entrance level" vocation. The "consecrated state of life" or "consecrated life" is a reality one enters first by the combination of self-dedication (profession) and Divine consecration and through these, by taking on additional public (legitimate or canonical) rights and obligations through public profession and/or consecration. This is not a "step up" from baptismal consecration if "step up" means "superior to". Instead it is a public specification of one's baptismal commitment centered on a specific and "second" consecration by God in which one is enabled to respond to the specific grace of this way of living within the People of God or Laos tou Theou.

To speak of lay hermits is to speak of those living the eremitical life by virtue of their baptismal consecration alone either with or without private vows. To speak of a consecrated hermit is to speak of those who have thereafter entered the consecrated state of life through public profession and this new or second consecration (which is solemnly celebrated only with perpetual profession). As I have said a number of times here, the consecrated hermit is also referred to by the terms "Catholic Hermit" because s/he is explicitly commissioned by the Church to live the eremitical life in the name of the Church, or "diocesan hermit" because his/her legitimate superior is the diocesan Bishop. While she of course still belongs to the Laos and is laity in one sense (hierarchically speaking she is not a cleric so she is lay), vocationally speaking she is also a "religious" or "consecrated person" as a lay person with private vows alone would not be.

(By the way, I don't know anyone who currently denies c 603 hermits are religious. As noted above, canonists in the Handbook on Canons 573-746 make it clear that canon 603 extends the use of this designation to those without a connection to an institute. When canon 603 was first promulgated hermits professed accordingly were distinguished from religious hermits, that is from hermits belonging to communities or institutes of consecrated life; one would read canonists who said "canon 603 hermits are not religious", but over time usage has changed and greater clarity has emerged on this issue by virtue of analysis of all the canons which apply to c 603 life and the similarity of this form of vowed life to that of all religious.)

Because those in the consecrated state of life are commissioned to live a specific form of life (eremitical, religious, consecrated virginity) in the name of the Church and because this is associated with specific public rights, obligations, and expectations on the part of the whole People of God (and the world!), the term "consecrated life" tends to be reserved for these forms of life alone (also cf CCC paragraph 944, [[The life consecrated to God is characterized by public profession of the evangelical counsels. . .in a stable state of life recognized by the Church.]].

What's the Big Deal?

 [[Dear Sister, why is it so important to make clear that there is a difference between consecrated hermits or canon 603 hermits and lay hermits? There is one person [cf., A Catholic Hermit] who claims to be writing for hermits who wish to be consecrated religious hermits by making private vows. She says, "This nothing hermit has also reflected and been reminded to encourage all aspiring Catholic hermits, to keep in mind we are consecrated religious eremitics called to live and keep our valid private vows. Regardless which of the now two Church-approved paths (privately or since 1983 publicly expressed vows), we ought prayerfully live daily and nightly the three evangelical counsels, and all else asked of hermits, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church."  Shouldn't she just be allowed to do this? I mean what does it matter? What harm can it do? They would still be hermits.]] (emphasis added)

Because I have already explained the difference between private and public vows in other posts here I really don't want to do that again.  It seems though that some of this is still unclear. The central issue is not merely about whether or not vows are expressed privately or publicly. In fact that is not the issue at all since private vows can be made in front of many people and public vows can be made in relative secret if the need exists. To continue to insist or imply this is the essential difference between public and private vows, as the person you have cited does, is to perpetuate a distortion of the truth. Instead the central issue is whether vows lead to new legitimate rights and obligations or not. What is at issue when we speak of private versus public vows is whether they establish the person in a public vocation or instead represent a private commitment. In other words, in distinguishing these two forms of vows the Church is concerned with whether or not, through the mediation of the Church, the person is initiated into another state of life (religious and/or consecrated life) for which they are publicly (that is, both morally and legally) responsible.

The person you are citing (who does read this blog, by the way) does and is certainly entirely free to disagree with what I write about many things, but in this matter I am not merely expressing my own opinion. What I have explained is simply factual and centers on the way the Church herself uses the terms "consecrated hermits", "professed religious", "profession", and so forth". What the Catechism of the Catholic Church writes about "consecrated Life" and hermits has to be understood in light of the glossary which provides definitions of fundamental terms that might otherwise be misunderstood (cf especially "vows", and "consecrated life) ; the definitions there make it clear that paragraphs 920-921 which fall under the heading "consecrated life" refer specifically to those entering the consecrated state of life as solitary hermits, not to lay hermits. These hermits always make their commitment via public profession but they may not always use vows of the evangelical counsels to do so. Some may use "other sacred bonds" to make their profession. Some may use the classic monastic vows (stability, conversion of life (which includes poverty and chastity), and obedience rather than the more typically Franciscan triad. Since 1983 these publicly professed solitary hermits exist as religious besides (along with) already recognized institutes of consecrated life.

I have also explained that there are three paths in the Church today to pursue eremitical life, not two: 1) publicly professed and consecrated life in a community (that is, an institute) of hermits (Camaldolese, Carthusian, Sisters of Bethlehem, etc); this "semi-eremitic" option has existed for more than twelve centuries, 2) consecrated life under canon 603 (solitary diocesan eremitical life); this establishes in universal law what many dioceses anticipated and allowed through the authority of the local Bishop throughout Church history; these hermits are solitary hermits and are not professed as part of an institute of religious life (the Church's term for a congregation, community, or Order); finally there is 3) lay eremitical life (extant in the church since the 4C). The first two of these require public vows (which can be made without any notoriety, especially in countries where the person would be persecuted if their profession and/or consecration were known) and they establish the hermit in a public vocation no matter the hiddenness of the life, The third is a private commitment (even if made in public before hundreds of people) and does not change the person's state of life. If they were a lay person before these vows, then despite the unquestioned validity of the (private) vows, they remain lay persons afterward. (Similarly, if they were clerics they remain clerics and if already religious they remain religious.)

Because the canonical rights and obligations of these forms of eremitical life differ despite the fact that they are each truly eremitical it is important that people seeking to live this life be able to make a wise and accurately informed discernment on which of these is truly what fits one's own vocation. Some people have absolutely no desire to live their vocations in the name of the Church, some have no interest in representing or extending a living tradition in the contemporary world, many have no desire to have their lives supervised by the church or to live under superiors or with regard to canon law; others refuse to jump through the hoops necessary to become publicly professed and consecrated hermits, and some simply are not able to do these things in a representative and credible way, for whatever reason.

What's the Big Deal with Distortions of the Truth?

This is not the first time I have been asked, "What's the harm?" What you are asking, whether you realize it or not is, "What's the big deal with allowing distortions of the truth?" You are also asking, "What harm can living a life (or encouraging others to live a life) of pretense do?" You see, so long as the way to becoming a consecrated or Catholic hermit in the Catholic Church is invariably through public profession and (with perpetual profession) consecration overseen and mediated by the Church, the person you cited is perpetuating a falsehood. So long as initiation into the consecrated and religious states of life is ALWAYS mediated by the church in a public act and represents an ecclesial vocation, the person you referenced is living and fostering a lie.

Moreover, so long as this person is distorting language and texts to read in ways the Church did not intend simply because she believes she has the right to her opinion on the meaning of these same terms and texts and then writes that her individualistic understanding and praxis can be considered appropriate for others, she has crossed the line into a seductive fraud --- a fraud which she hopes and encourages other vulnerable persons to adopt while unaware of the truth. The point is the notion that someone can become a consecrated religious hermit or a "professed religious" or a "Catholic Hermit" merely by making private vows is simply not true. When this notion is perpetuated, and especially when it is done by someone falsely claiming to be a Catholic Hermit, that is a hermit living her life in the name of the Church, it can mislead others and hurt them, just as believing in and acting on lies often hurts those who have done so --- except that here the Church has been nominally and wrongly implicated in the lie.

We are sensitive today to people acting in the name of the Church committing crimes, hypocrisy, immorality of all sorts. And rightly so. When someone appends Catholic to their vocation, workplace, project, or whatever, the Church herself can be smeared by anything offensive associated with that enterprise; for that reason she has a say in whether their use of the characterization Catholic is acceptable or not. That is why the Church has legislated in Canon Law that no one will use the name Catholic without explicit permission from the appropriate authority. It is why we sometimes see online radio or TV stations deprived of the name Catholic by the local Bishop. If a Catholic priest does something seriously wrong then the Church herself is besmirched; if a Catholic theologian writes against the resurrection then the Church herself is implicated in his/her actions because s/he acted in her name and she is responsible for the mission that allows this theologian to call him/herself a "Catholic Theologian". The same is true with Catholic monks, nuns, religious sisters, brothers, and hermits. All of these have been publicly commissioned to live their lives in the name of the Church. All of them are supervised by the Church and are specifically answerable to the entire Church. Moreover, they are careful of hypocrisy in their own lives and sensitive to frauds within their ranks; they are equally sensitive to more overt frauds pretending to be religious living and acting in the name of the Church.

So, my answer to your first question is no, the person you cited should not simply be allowed to encourage others to pursue or live a lie without at least an attempt to correct the falsehoods and distortions she perpetuates. She should especially not be allowed to do so while claiming the credentials, "professed religious", "consecrated hermit," "consecrated religious", or "Catholic hermit." To do this is to potentially distort peoples' discernment processes with false information. It is at least potentially, to waste months and even years of their lives in following a lie. It is to set these people up for marginalization and rejection. It is to encourage them to be seen as incredible, as frauds, or even as deluded persons, or as those who could not pursue an eremitical vocation in the usual ways and so, made something up instead. It is to lead them to believe the Church herself sees them as consecrated religious when this is not true. More, it is to encourage them to deny the very vocation God may be calling them to, namely lay eremitical life. In an age of the Church which is recovering a strong sense of the significance of baptismal consecration and lay life of all sorts it is seriously misguided to encourage others who are, vocationally speaking, lay persons to think of themselves as consecrated and professed religious. Because this person's understanding of the eremitical vocation (cited in your question) doesn't even recognize the existence of lay hermits, it implicitly says that being a lay person is not really good enough even though the person decides either not to pursue or is not discerned to have another vocation which is entered through a public commitment besides baptism.

Similarly, others who have a vocation to consecrated eremitical life might never even pursue it because they think they are already living it. A life given over to such a foundational pretense, though it might instead have been one of significant ecclesial witness, could be unlikely thereafter ever to be admitted to such a position of trust by the Church. Similarly, catering to someone's desperation to be allowed to live a religious life or "to belong" or "have a niche in the Church" or whatever it is that drives them to embrace these kinds of fictions will prevent them from dealing maturely and effectively with the roots of their need. It is simply not charitable to encourage people to embrace and live a lie. It is neither charitable to them nor to those to whom they seek to minister. It is not respectful of them or their real vocations. It is not respectful to the truth or the God of Truth who gifts us with both lay and consecrated vocations; nor is it respectful of the Church which is responsible for mediating these varied gifts through baptism and the public professions and consecration of those called to live them in credible and pastorally responsible ways.

They Would Still Be Hermits:

You write that they would be hermits anyway. Perhaps. Perhaps not. With private vows this is less certain. I have said before that because many self-defined lay hermits are not supervised, may not be formed in the life or committed to ongoing formation, may have insufficient direction and knowledge, etc., they may simply be living a pious life alone --- a life that differs very little if at all from that of others who live alone and pray before meals and bed. In such a case calling themselves hermits perpetuates a destructive fiction which makes the vocation itself incredible.

Even more problematical are those lay hermits who mistake isolation for solitude or whose spirituality is a thinly veiled "celebration" of self-hatred, bitterness, and rejection of God's good creation in the name of a misunderstood notion of fleeing or hating "the world". Some aspiring "hermits" I have spoken to spend hours watching TV, others use the designation "hermit" as an excuse to spend their days painting or writing or just kicking back, etc. (Many true hermits ALSO write or paint, etc. I am not referring to these! They are hermits (or monks and nuns) first of all and their writing or painting is integrated into this, not vice versa.) Others simply want the garb or the title or desire a way to "belong" in the Church they have already been baptized in. While it is sad when a person cannot accept themselves or a lay vocation, none of these things mean the person is called to be a hermit much less do they make the person a hermit, lay or otherwise.

At the same time however, I know several lay hermits who are paradigms of the eremitical vocation. I expect there are many more. These hermits inspire and challenge me. At least two of them were religious and received their formation, both initial and ongoing, over a period of years. The others spent time studying theology, spirituality, and prepared themselves for significant ministerial roles in the Church before discerning a call to eremitical solitude. Each of these meets regularly with a director and has done so for years. Each is integrally connected to the Church, whether through a parish, monastery, or retreat house. Each of them knows firsthand what it means to be a hermit and how this differs from being simply a lone pious person. Each of them understands themselves as part of a profound and ancient tradition and feel responsible for continuing that in our contemporary world. Because I know these individuals and because I know many people, including a number of isolated elderly, or chronically ill persons who would be wonderful hermits if they only knew the vocation is a vital and contemporary one, I value the lay eremitical vocation and its potential. But I am not unrealistic about its limitations or challenges. As with many things, these limitations may allow exceptional individuals to succeed beautifully while the rest of us need the help and challenge associated with public standing, but equally, they may merely lead to an exceptional failure.

Credibility is the Bottom Line:

My sincerest desire is that I never have to write about the distortion of language involved when lay hermits call themselves consecrated religious, "Catholic Hermits" or "professed religious" again. But unfortunately, so long as people are blogging this way, people who do not know the language very well are going to be seduced by the prospect of avoiding the hoops canonical hermits must negotiate or the scrutiny and constraints they must embrace and still call themselves "consecrated religious hermits." When these same writers submit that canon 603 is a departure from and even a betrayal of the eremitical tradition, then from time to time I will probably continue to get questions from their readers --- and I will probably need to respond yet again.

Canonical hermits, whether professed in community or as solitary hermits under c 603, and whether they come from the laity or the clergy make significant sacrifices in order that their lives are credible representations of a living eremitical tradition and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The constraints on their lives --- canon law, Rule, constitutions, legitimate superiors, commitment to regular and competent spiritual direction, ongoing formation, and public vows --- as well as their commitment to the life giving sources of the Church (Scripture, Sacraments, etc) are all traditional necessities they have freely embraced to be sure their lives are credible and lived with integrity. For most of us these things are also sources of great joy, graced resources which help nurture the maturity and fruitfulness of lives consecrated by God and commissioned in the name of the Church. Even so, for someone to forego all of these and still claim the name "Catholic Hermit" even while ignoring and distorting the way the Church herself uses this term is offensive and dishonest. It is also the very essence of the self-centered and individualistic worldliness which the consecrated hermit is publicly committed to reject with her entire life.

Private Vows and the Lay Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, how do I make private vows to become a consecrated religious hermit without joining a community?]]

Hi there. Thanks for writing. I am also  including someone else's question below this one since the subject is related. I think there is some confusion in your own question. To become a consecrated religious hermit (that is, a hermit in the consecrated state of life), you cannot do so with private vows. You see because this is an ecclesial vocation you must do so through the formal (and canonical) mediation of the Church. You can only do this via a public profession.This requires 1) a petition to your diocese followed by  2) a mutual discernment process if your diocese sees you as a good candidate; then, if admitted to profession by your Bishop it will mean 3) public vows received by and Divine consecration mediated by the Church. The key here is public profession and consecration (which only comes with perpetual public vows) made in the hands of the local Bishop. The consecrated hermit is publicly commissioned by the Church in the person of the local Bishop to live her life in the name of the Church. She is literally then a Catholic hermit (not simply a Catholic AND a Hermit) and (after perpetual vows) a consecrated religious. Thus it always involves a public commitment and solemn consecration. You might consider this after living as a lay hermit for some time, especially if you live private vows for some time and work out a workable Rule of Life.

If you wish, on the other hand, simply to live as a lay hermit (not publicly professed and consecrated) and eventually make private vows you are free to do that by virtue of your baptism, but there is no formal procedure for doing so. Remember this would be an entirely private commitment. To make such a commitment in a meaningful way your life as a hermit really requires regular spiritual direction and you need to have lived as a lay hermit for some time (at least a couple of years would not be unreasonable to expect) before even considering making private vows. Until you and your director believe you both need and are really ready for these you should prepare by considering what your baptismal commitment requires of you in more specific terms.

Renewing and Specifying one's Baptismal Commitment as Either an Alternative or Preparatory Step to Private vows:

(Please note my opinion on using any setting during Mass has changed. Please read my explanation of this in Reexamining an Earlier Suggestion)

For instance, you may find they require you to live the evangelical counsels in some way and you will want to shape a commitment including these expressed in a way which really fits your life. Your baptismal commitment requires a sound prayer life as well so you will want to spell out what this means for you. The same is true of silence, solitude, and penance. Being a disciple of Christ requires some degree of all of these and you can specify what you feel yourself called to at this point in your life as someone already committed and consecrated in baptism but without entering the consecrated state of life. Your pastor could certainly help you to work out a brief ritual where you renew and specify your baptismal commitment in terms of lay eremitical life.

It seems to me (with a lot of caveats!!) that if this was what you decided to do you could renew your own baptismal commitment and further specify that commitment during Mass within the context of the parishioners' own general renewal of baptismal vows. This is the ONLY situation in which I would suggest such vows might conceivably occur during Mass --- that is, as part of a renewal of baptismal vows. Such a commitment would have to make clear in a very explicit way that this is a lay commitment and that you are not assuming any additional canonical rights or obligations such as are associated with religious life, but if this could be done, it could be quite a lovely and meaningful commitment. It could also be of immense value to your parish and even beyond parish boundaries. Your parish would know you as a lay (but not a consecrated or Catholic) hermit and you would have some chance to share what that means with them. Some, especially the elderly and chronically ill, might want to do something similar; the difference this could make in their lives could be immense.

(Again, I have rethought this position although I continue to wish for ways to celebrate lay eremitical lives within the parish. I believe the Church is absolutely correct in not witnessing the vows of a lay hermit during Mass. Because of this ambiguity, I have kept the post up rather than simply removing it.)

At the same time you would model the lesson that we need to think about and make concrete the kinds of demands our Baptismal vows require of each of us. That is rarely done, I think, and it is important; often we do not need additional vows but we do need to specify and commit to the ways our baptismal promises are meant to be lived here and now. In preparing for this step what you will actually be doing is constructing an informal Rule of Life which covers prayer, penance, evangelical counsels, silence, solitude, lectio, and other essentials in the hermit's life. Over time you will probably want to rework or even rewrite this. Though it may take you some time to do this, and especially to do it while truly living as a lay hermit with the aid of your director, working in this way can prepare you for meaningful private vows as well as strengthening your baptismal commitment itself. However, let me be very clear, if there was the slightest doubt or the least impression given that this was not a specification of an entirely lay vocation and NOT entrance into the consecrated state of life, the vows should not occur at Mass. It may be that this cannot occur without misleading others. If that seems likely then this idea would not work and needs to be relegated to the trash heap.

If You Decide to Make Private Vows

If and when your director agrees with you on your own need and readiness for a temporary private dedication as a lay hermit (say, for a period of three years or so) she can witness these for you at any time. Your pastor can also witness these. As already indicated, the Church does not celebrate private vows at Mass because she does not wish these to be confused with public vows which are associated with ecclesial vocations lived in the name of the Church. These are also associated with legitimate superiors and (with perpetual vows) with entrance into the consecrated state, as well as with other legitimate (canonical) rights and obligations.

Because private vows are undertaken as a private (as opposed to public or canonical) commitment, they do not lead to any additional rights or obligations not already associated with Baptism. This is another reason they ordinarily take place apart from Mass. (If your pastor agrees, for instance, you might well make them after Mass though which would allow some friends and family and interested parishioners to attend and witness this private dedication.) At the end of the duration of these vows (three years or whatever you have chosen) you will need to discern whether or not you are being called to make this commitment a perpetual one or perhaps approach your diocese with a petition to become a consecrated Catholic or diocesan hermit. (Private vows can still be dispensed at any time by your pastor and others as well without any formal paperwork; if you were admitted to public profession private vows would also cease to be binding as soon as you made public vows.)

Getting Ahead of Ourselves:

But this is getting a bit ahead of things. Again, you will need to live as a hermit in a focused and conscious way while under regular spiritual direction for at least a couple of years before you can really meaningfully consider such a private dedication. (This might differ if you have already lived as a religious and been through formation with a canonical group.) Remember that even if you have been living alone for a while this is not necessarily the same as living an eremitical life. When you understand the difference on the basis of your own experience and can articulate this for your director you may be close to readiness for private vows. In this I recommend you listen carefully to your director and her reservations or concerns; then discern what that means for you and work on whatever it requires. The same for your pastor if you desire him to witness such a dedication. (The preparation for public profession is much longer (at least five years before first vows) and commensurately more demanding in terms of discernment --- which is undertaken with the diocese, not merely on one's own.)

The Problem of Language:

There has been a lot of confusing use of language by some lay hermits today. Your own question conveyed some confusion about terminology which you may have gotten from some of these persons, a couple of whom have several blogs. While you may not be interested in this particularly, your question is an opportunity to address this problem. Especially, it is time to remind  readers of how the Church  uses various terms. After all, when a person calls herself a Catholic Hermit, but is not using that term in the way the Catholic Church does it is at least incoherent and sort of an absurd practice. The basic principle is simple: we enter states of life through the Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, and Orders) and through public profession and/or consecration (Religious life, consecrated eremitism, and Consecrated Virginity). There is no other way. Each initiation into a new state of life is mediated to us by the Church in a public and graced juridical act.  Private vows never initiate us into a new state of life. Neither does any consecration (dedication) of self. Only consecration by God received in a public rite mediated by the Church does this. This is part of the reason we call such vocations ecclesial vocations.

For instance, a consecrated person is one who is in the consecrated state of life. She has been consecrated by God through the mediation of the Church and except in the case of consecrated virgins, has made public vows (or other sacred bonds for some c 603 hermits), these involve additional canonical rights and obligations as well as the formal and legal relationships required to fulfill these. Thus people who have entered the religious or consecrated states of life have legitimate superiors and public (canonical) vows of obedience. The same is true of the term consecrated religious or just religious; the church uses these terms to refer to a publicly professed and ecclesially consecrated person who exists in the consecrated and religious states of life. Consecrated  and Religious life always imply the public assumption of additional legitimate (canonical) rights and obligations besides those which come with baptism.

Consecrating oneself to God is rightly called dedication; it is not the same as being consecrated BY God through the mediation of the church. When one 'consecrates' oneself to God (dedicates is absolutely the preferred term for this act) one does not enter the consecrated state of life. The Church does not call consecrating oneself  "consecrated life" because there is not change in state of life. A hermit who consecrated (dedicated) herself to God is not a consecrated hermit; she remains a lay hermit who is privately dedicated. This means not every Catholic living as a hermit is a Catholic hermit nor are they consecrated. If one is living the life and is commissioned to do so in the name of the Church in the hands of a legitimate superior, then and only then is one considered a Catholic hermit. For a lay Catholic living as a hermit under private vows, she remains and is called a lay hermit because she lives her eremitical life under or according to the very same canonical rights and obligations which came to her with baptism into the lay state.

[[Sister Laurel, if I have doubts about whether someone is a Catholic Hermit or not is there a question I should ask which will give me an answer the person can't waffle about or dance around?]]

 I am adding this question which I received a few days ago because much of what I have just said  provides an explanation of my answer. My first inclination was to say the critical question is, "Have you been  publicly professed and commissioned to live as a hermit in the name of the Church?" A friend pointed out that a person intent on dancing around the question might still be able to do it or might just lie. She suggested the bottom line question regarding whether someone is a Catholic Hermit  or a consecrated religious should be: "Who is your legitimate superior?" A similar question (a kind of corollary)  is "In whose hands did you make your public profession?"

For diocesan hermits the answer to either question will be their Bishop, a specific Bishop with a name! (It will not be the person's spiritual director, even if that director is a priest and it will especially not be a director in a different diocese! A delegate may serve as a quasi superior but will do so on behalf of the Bishop and diocese.) For a hermit belonging to a canonical community it will be the superior of her house or of the congregation. If you are really concerned about the standing of someone claiming to be a Catholic Hermit or a consecrated hermit/religious then ask them about their legitimate superior. No one responsible for a public and ecclesial vocation will hesitate to answer explicitly. Meanwhile, if this is an additional step you feel is important to take you can contact the person's diocesan chancery. Diocesan hermits' chanceries will generally verify that a person is a publicly professed and consecrated hermit in good standing and may even include the hermit's date of perpetual profession in their response to your query. They will not provide any information beyond these basic facts.

Also the consecrated hermit will ordinarily be given a document identifying them as a consecrated hermit in the diocese on the occasion of their perpetual profession and consecration. It will be signed by the Bishop in whose hands the hermit was professed, the Vicar for Religious or ecclesiastical notary and sealed with the diocesan seal. It is equivalent to a Sacramental certificate and while hermits don't have any obligation to show these on demand to any casual questioner they are official documents which indicate the hermit's canonical standing and underscore the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation.

May a Diocese take a "More Private Path" to Consecrating Hermits?

Dear Sister O'Neal, I am confused by something I read online about hermits and private consecrations. You have given the impression that if a Bishop receives a person's vows as a hermit, he will do so under canon 603. You have also said that c 603 is a universal law which replaces any specific diocesan statutes on eremitical life locally. Is it possible for a diocese to decide not to go along with canon 603 but to use private vows instead? What I read is this: [[ I also respect the reasons and desires for those who God wills to have very private consecrations, even if their Bishops have received their vows privately or held by designes [sic, designees] in the Diocese. God and each hermit, and each hermit's Bishop and spiritual guides, ascertain the chosen path, through God's will. . . . My Diocese takes more the private route, and this is not that they do not go along with Church law which provides for a public profession. Their view of hermit life is that of the more private path. I am in this Diocese, and I have no need to move to find one that is otherwise; both forms are valid and credible.]]

There are some inaccuracies and possibly even attempts at misdirection in what you have cited so let me try to clarify the basic choices in front of a diocese and candidates for eremitical life. First, there are four options for such a person: 1) publicly professed and consecrated (canonical) eremitical life in community (semi-eremitism), 2) publicly professed and consecrated (canonical) solitary eremitical life under canon 603, 3) privately dedicated eremitical life whether in a non-canonical community or as a solitary lay hermit, and 4) solitary lay hermit without private vows or dedication.These four options include two public eremitical vocations (one solitary and one communal) and two private eremitical vocations (one with private vows and one without). A diocese per se ONLY deals with public or canonical professions and consecrations. Private acts of dedication do NOT involve the diocese per se.

Given this basic outline, I understand the confusion you experienced. You see, what you quote makes it sound like the Church consecrates hermits and does so either publicly or privately. It seems to be saying there are two routes to consecrated eremitical life in the Church and that dioceses may choose one or the other. But this is simply not the case. If one is consecrated as a hermit (that is, initiated into the consecrated state as a hermit with an ecclesial vocation) it will ALWAYS occur at a public (that is, a canonical) rite of perpetual profession and consecration. If there is no public rite, and the vows are a private act of devotion and dedication, then one does not become a consecrated person in the church nor a religious or religious hermit. One (presumably) remains called by God to live their eremitical life as a lay person witnessing to the richness of lay life (which also specifically and assuredly resonates with the spirit of the desert elders of the 4-6th centuries) in the Church.

A lot of the confusion in the above quoted passage is rooted in the use and misuse of the term "private". While the common meaning has to do with lack of notoriety, when we are speaking of vows as private we mean vows which do not imply the extension of legal (canonical)  rights and obligations to the candidate beyond those of baptism. These would be private vows and a private act of the individual. The Church as such neither approves nor disapproves such actions per se. When we are speaking of a public profession we are referring to vows via which the Church extends additional legal rights and obligations to the candidate which are assumed by her in her profession.  Private vows do NOT involve the extension or assumption of legal rights. Public vows do. There can be lots of notoriety or none at all. This does not change the nature of the profession. Perhaps the following will make some of this clearer. Let's say, for instance, that a diocese wants to profess and consecrate someone in a country where this ecclesial action  could get that person killed or otherwise make them a target for persecution; in such a case, the rite of profession might be held privately (that is, quietly and without notoriety) but it remains a PUBLIC (canonical) RITE of profession and consecration. 

In other words. to speak of public vows is to mean the persons professed become "public persons" in the Church and representatives of the consecrated (and religious) state even if this is lived out in hiddenness. (Hermits do so with the eremitical life.) With private vows or the dedication of self (popularly referred to as consecrating oneself) no new state of life is assumed nor are the correlative legal rights and obligations which are part and parcel of a new state. The reference to "those whom God wishes to have very private consecrations"  confuses public in the sense of notoriety (or that which is contrary to hiddenness) and public in the canonical sense of "assuming public rights and obligations".

Thus a person who claims their diocese wants to use a more private route than canonical (public) profession in an attempt to suggest they choose their consecrated hermits to be more hidden has either got something wrong somewhere or is trying to obscure the difference between lay and consecrated vocations. A diocese wishing to have only lay hermits (that is, no consecrated solitary or diocesan hermits)  may well decide it is unwise to profess anyone at all under canon 603 but this means they simply allow individuals to pursue eremitical life privately and as lay persons. No diocesan approval or permission is implied in such a case. The lay hermit is doing privately what she has every right to do as a Catholic lay person. Similarly, the use of the term "private consecrations" is also mistaken. The proper term is "dedications". If a diocese decides there will be no public professions and consecrations under canon 603, then private dedications which the person makes herself are the only option. These are not consecrations in the sense that public rites of consecration are because with a private dedication one does not enter another stable state of life; again such acts of dedication are an entirely private matter which do not involve the Church in the public mediation of the call; neither do these result in the individual's profession, consecration by God, or any associated assumption of legal rights and obligations --- which are always publicly mediated by the Church.

To summarize: While some dioceses may refuse to use c 603 yet, NO dioceses as such takes "the more private path" because there is no "more private path" for a diocese as such TO take. Either a diocese will profess persons they discern are called to this canonically (publicly) or they will not do so at all. Those who are not admitted to public (canonical) profession may make private vows and live eremitical life privately. Private vows are always the act of an individual acting independently of the diocese per se. It is an important dedication of self but it is one in which the person is not initiated into the consecrated state nor does one's Bishop (or one's spiritual director) choose this for the person or give one permission for this.

On Making the Transition from Lone Person to Hermit and then Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister, I have the impression that you did not choose the circumstances that eventually led you to become a hermit. I also get the impression that you stress that those circumstances weren't enough to make you a hermit or to discern a call to eremitical life. What was it that made the difference for you personally? Did your circumstances change? How did you make the transition from being a lone person to being a hermit "in some essential sense," as you put it, and then, a diocesan (Catholic) hermit who embraced not only an individual vocation but a place in fostering the eremitical vocation in the Church? Is this typical of diocesan hermits?]]

Wow, I am impressed! You have managed to summarize so much important stuff in a few sentences, some of it stuff I have not really written about directly here. Your impressions are spot on too. Add to that your questions are good ones and I have to give you kudos across the board! Thanks! But that being said, the question about making the transition from being a lone person to becoming a hermit in some essential sense is not an easy one to answer. That is true because it is not about any one thing that was helpful, but about a number of things which all came together to confirm a call to eremitical solitude. Anyway, great questions. Let me give them a shot!

No, I did not choose the circumstances which eventually led me to become a hermit. As an adult (and while still a Franciscan) I developed or manifested an adult form of  mixed seizure disorder (Epilepsy) which later proved to be both medically and surgically intractable. Coupled with that, probably because of injuries that occurred during seizures, I developed chronic pain, eventually diagnosed as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy or (the preferred term these days) Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Both conditions isolated me from others (including from Mass attendance, or contributions to parish and diocesan life), prevented me from pursuing the career I had been educated and trained for (mainly teaching systematic theology but some clinical pastoral work as well), and caused me some serious and extended questioning about the meaning and value of my life more generally. Today the seizure disorder is better controlled for several separate but mutually contributory reasons (including physical solitude and silence!) while the chronic pain remains a daily reality which requires medications and adjunct therapy "to keep the fire down." While this was enough to isolate me from others, including from the local faith community and most friends, you are correct that it was no where near enough to conclude, 1) I was actually called to become a hermit, nor (much less!) 2) that I was actually a hermit in some essential sense! A transition was required!

Making the Transition from Lone Person to Eremite:

The first real shift occurred in my prayer. Over time I began to develop a more contemplative prayer life and I began to trust that more and more. By the early 80's besides my own doctors who continued to try to control both the seizures and the pain, I was working regularly with a spiritual director and was developing the tools I needed to work through the various bits of healing required by having my life sidetracked by illness and injury. At the same time she helped me begin to trust the various ways God was working in my life and I began to imagine this thing called eremitical life as a result of reading canon 603, which had been published in October of 1983, and then Merton's Contemplation in a World of Action and LeClerq's Alone With the Alone. Merton's work especially fired my imagination here. More and more my work with my director had to do with essential wholeness in the face of disability and my work with doctors became less about control of seizures and more about dealing with disability. While I continued medications, etc, for the medical stuff, the work I was doing with my director became far more important in freeing me to embrace life and become open to seeing the good God would bring out of the situation.

I had begun to experiment with living as a hermit in a conscious way and it began to be the focus of reading, discernment, research, and so forth. Early on in this process I began to write for publication (mainly Review for Religious) so it became clear that as a context for my life eremitism of some sort was truly fruitful in these terms and would lead me to contribute to the life of others and to that of the Church more generally.

Within this context then several things happened. Among them, I embraced a contemplative prayer life marked out by monastic regularity and liturgy, I undertook the lifelong work of regular spiritual direction in a focused way which led to my own increasing and essential wellness in spite of disability, I began to understand the importance of a vocation to be ill within the Church as potentially a way of proclaiming the Gospel of God (whose power is made perfect in weakness!) with a special vividness. This meant that I had begun to see my life and prayer as an important opportunity to make God manifest to others where in the past I would not have seen disability as anything other than an obstacle to a life of such significance.  In time I began to consider and write about Chronic illness as vocation and, for some relative few, as a potential call to eremitical life. Additionally then, I began to understand the main focus of my prayer as being there for God's own sake; solitude took on a distinctly communal hue, the silence of solitude assumed a more Eastern and Desert Elders cast of quies or hesychasm, while ministry to others seemed the natural expression of the compassion empowered by the silence of solitude. Thus, over time I also came to understand the terms of canon 603 radically differently than I had in 1983. All of this growth and integration was spurred by reflection on the eremitical life outlined in Canon 603 and expanded on in other texts.

Throughout these years (@1983-1995+) then, my life shifted from being mainly about myself and my own disability along with the lost opportunities or potential associated with disability and grew in this new perspective. The focus on the illness, and all it brought in its wake had been necessary for a time but now it needed to become more of a subtext in my life -- even as it continued to bring a degree of pathos and gravitas to my life. That is the shift that occurred during this period.) It became very clear that whether I eventually lived my life as a lay hermit or continued pursuing perpetual profession as a diocesan hermit,  eremitism was truly the vocational path which made my own life fruitful and other-centered. Thus, I continued to reflect on and research canon 603; I did so within a Camaldolese context now because I understood the threefold good of the Camaldolese (community, solitude, outreach or evangelization) to be a dynamic expression of the very best that eremitical life could be, not only for hermits but for the whole Church and world-at-large as well.

In other words, eremitical life began to be not only the context of a life of essential wholeness and communion with God which embraced disability and transformed it into an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel with my life, but it was the vocational pathway which made essential wholeness as well as real generosity and concern for others possible. It drove my reading and my theology to some extent (though my theology, which centered on the cross in Paul and Mark, supported this vocational pathway at every point), and it challenged me physically and spiritually to become both more truly solitary (in an eremitical sense) and contemplative as well as more open to community. In short, it engaged me on every level in a constructive way; it made me more compassionate and capable of love, more genuinely dependent on the grace of God for the meaning and shape of my life, and, while it did not bring physical healing, it deprived illness of the power to define, fragment, and dominate my life and over time would even make a gift of disability and limitations. It is what allowed me to eventually write here:

[[In the power of the Spirit and from the perspective of the Kingdom --- it is all of a piece:  Mountaintop experiences and years in the desert; a power made perfect in weakness; a  bit of human brokenness and poverty made a gift to others by the whole-making grace of God; mute isolation  transfigured into the rich communion and communicative silence of solitude; a life redeemed and enriched by love. It is all of a piece ---  epilepsy and ecstasy. I am grateful to have learned that. In fact, I am grateful to have needed and been called to learn that!]] Ecstasy and Epilepsy: It is all of a Piece

When I look back at the main stages this journey required it involved (in a pretty simplified form) movement from 1) being a lone or isolated person who merely imagined what being a hermit might mean to 2) being a hermit as the Church herself understands the term, and finally to 3) being a hermit who lives the life in the name of the Church. Each stage was either preceded or accompanied by significant and entirely necessary theological preparation and spiritual formation. This process has taken 31 years so far and exploring the last stage, both in terms of communion with God and the ecclesial implications of the vocation as I continue to grow personally, will no doubt occupy the rest of my life. I am grateful to God for what (he) has done; God is indeed a master story teller who, from the perspective of absolute futurity, weaves amazingly coherent tapestries with the most inadequate and broken threads!

Transition to Diocesan Eremitical Life:

The last question you ask has to do with the last piece of transition, namely embracing canon 603 life in a way which allowed me to be concerned not only with my own vocation, but with the eremitical tradition itself and diocesan eremitical life as a piece of that living reality. I pursued canon 603 profession beginning in 1985 or so and continued doing so right through perpetual profession in 2007; this is a complicated story and there is no reason to detail it here or now. What is important is that until a few years prior to admission to perpetual profession in 2007 and the years immediately after that, I did not have a particularly strong sense that I was part of a living eremitical tradition, much less that I would have some (small but very real) place in handing on or nurturing that tradition.

Oblature with the Camaldolese certainly was important here but I found that with perpetual canonical profession one comes to know that one has been gifted with rights and obligations beyond baptism; this sense developed especially as people asked questions about the difference between private and public vows or between personal dedication to God and public consecration by God. The difference between validating one's isolation and allowing God to redeem it so that it is transfigured into eremitical solitude was another huge piece of my developing sense of the gift and obligation held in my own eremitical life. It also developed for me as I became more sure I not only understood canon 603 but embodied it in my own way.

Something similar happened with regard to the Camaldolese charism as I moved from understanding it intellectually to having the sense I was a living expression of it and the dynamic within the threefold good which is so characteristic of it. (My life in my parish during the past 8 years contributed greatly to this bit of internalization and integration; in fact it would be hard to overstate its importance here.) A final piece of all this, and one which is not yet solidified within me has to do with my own Franciscanism and where that actually fits. You see, St Francis lived as a hermit for a time and wrote a Rule for hermits which is pretty different from the monastic approaches to eremitical life. I have the sense that my own Franciscanism is stronger than I realized and I am freer to explore that now that I have not only understood but internalized the Camaldolese charism in a foundational way.

I don't know how this Franciscan piece of things will actually shake out but it is part of my own history and life which I am currently examining more closely; in one way or another it will be another piece of becoming responsible for the living tradition we call eremitical life in the Church. It seems to me this concern with the vitality of the tradition itself is really a normal culmination of the movement in my adult life. I moved from an active and largely other-centered life of ministry and preparation for ministry, to a life isolated by chronic illness and concerned with making sense of itself; from there my life shifted again to a solitary and contemplative one which, through the context of eremitical life, was empowered to be lived for God and others in the silence of solitude. Next my life shifted to one which consciously embraced and reflected the place of the Camaldolese charism in achieving this movement, and finally, it involved canonically and publicly embracing eremitical life more generally as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the entire Church and world. Many things mediated the grace of God and brought me to embrace eremitical life; it is this vital if rare and fragile tradition which has made a gift of my life. I am responsible for it both morally and legitimately (in law) --- a responsibility I accept with real joy and not a little awe.

Is this Typical of Diocesan Hermits?

To be honest I don't know if there is a "typical story" for diocesan hermits. I do know that a number of us contend with disability and chronic illness of various types and severity. I also know that none of those with whom I am acquainted believe it is enough to be chronically ill or disabled and isolated in the way this can bring about to conclude one has a vocation to eremitical life! Still, over time each of us discerned that eremitical life created the potential for significantly meaningful and fruitful lives when our illnesses militated against that. We each recognize that eremitical life allows us to live an authentic religious life which is not self-centered even while it requires signifcant physical solitude. Moreover my sense is that each of us has come to an essential wholeness and even holiness in which illness is deprived of its capacity to define and dominate our lives despite the symptoms that trouble us every single day. (This is one of the reasons I personally have very little tolerance for self-labeled "Catholic hermits" for whom eremitical life is little more than an opportunity to justify and wax endlessly about their own "God-willed" isolation and unrelenting physical problems.) Here as in everything in Christian life the truth is, "By their fruits ye shall know them!" --- that reflection of what God has done in one's life in the desert is, perhaps, the only really typical (and compelling!) piece of any genuine hermit's story!

I hope these answers are helpful. It is unlikely I will write about some parts of this again very soon. Still, if I have been unclear or raised additional questions, I hope you will get back to me with those.