Putting "Redemptive Experience in the Silence of Solitude" at the Center of Definitions of Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, thank you for answering my question about the meaning of "being a hermit in an essential sense". I think I get it now. I always have thought that a hermit is someone who lives in solitude and maybe too in silence but you are saying it is the redemptive experience which defines the essence of the term hermit for you and also for the church. Does the canon (603?) also say this? Is this what is implied with the term "silence of solitude"? (I think you have suggested this.) Are you at all concerned that you are narrowing the meaning of the word in a way most people will not have thought of and that may not coincide with the dictionary definition of the term "hermit"?]]

Thanks for following up. You will note I condensed your email a little. What I have been saying is that while all hermits live in silence and solitude, not all those who live in silence and solitude are hermits  --- at least not as the church defines the hermit, yes. You've got that too! As I have written here many times over the years, not every form of silence and solitude is eremitical and not every form of life that has been called "hermit" over the centuries has either the character or the dignity and meaning of the life the Church identifies as eremitical. Some are transitional forms of solitude occasioned by grief or depression, for instance; similarly then, some are necessary to get one's bearings and come to know oneself anew as one prepares to move on in one's life. Others are forms of misanthropy, or are rooted in personal failure and fear of living, for instance. Some are matters of temperament, or dictated by personal woundedness alone. Others are defined by artistic and literary pursuits of various kinds. None of these, of themselves, are eremitical and several can never become  authentically eremitical.

Similarly, not all forms of silence are eremitical. Some are rooted in personal muteness --- in the inability to address or be addressed by others --- whatever the etiology; some are a form of despair and a related inability to be related to others or, therefore, to oneself and the dialogue with God, others, and self which authentic human life actually is. Thus too, not every form of withdrawal is eremitical or worthy of eremitic life with its characteristic anachoresis. Some is unhealthy (see other posts on this) or outright pathological, cynical, and embittered. While the dictionary definition of hermit may have the effect of lumping all of these forms of life together with the life c 603 identifies as eremitical, and while the stereotypes we all know regarding what a hermit is, how they behave and are motivated, do the same, I don't think this serves the vocation of hermit. We can neither understand nor appreciate the eremitical vocation, whether communal or solitary unless we draw a strong red line between common definitions and the more narrow one I am using. Especially we cannot know eremitical life as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world unless we take this more finely defined notion as our criterion of understanding.

What distinguishes all of these various forms of solitary and silent life at this level is the redemptive element and experience which either stands at or is missing from the heart of each of them. I do believe canon 603 points to this reality even though it never says "redemptive experience" in so many words. What it does say however is, "the silence of solitude" rather than silence and solitude, and also "for the salvation of the world". Both of these phrases point to something which is greater than the sum of either their parts (as in the case of the silence of solitude) or all of the central elements of the canon as a whole (i.e., vows, Rule of life, assiduous prayer and penance, silence of solitude, stricter separation, and supervision by bishop/delegate). Both phrases point to something which all of the central elements in the canon serve, support, and allow to emerge both in the life of the hermit (especially there) and for those to whom the hermit witnesses. I believe what they serve, support, and allow to emerge is the redemptive experience which is central to eremitical life in the silence of solitude.

I am not concerned that my way of understanding the meaning of "hermit" or "eremitical life" is narrower than a dictionary definition's might be. Remember that common dictionaries provide descriptive meanings --- that is meanings which describe how most people use these terms. They are not primarily prescriptive --- that is, they do not prescribe how words must be used. In some areas (faith, theology) common dictionary meanings significantly betray the more accurate meaning of terms because what is given are "the ways most folks understand and use these terms." If you ask someone (or a common dictionary) what a parable is you are apt to get the following, "a brief  religious story with a moral". But in the NT, Jesus' parables are decidedly not stories with a moral. Similarly, some dictionaries might define faith as "belief without evidence" or some form of unreasonable assent. Again, however, in Christianity, faith is neither of these but a profound and "transrational" form of  trust involving both knowing and being known. In the case of the term "hermit" I am speaking of a vocation summoning one to wholeness in Christ which is sought and lived on behalf of others as opposed to a choice for isolated existence "off the grid" which benefits oneself alone. In the case of the Catholic hermit solitude is a profoundly related and interrelated reality and a generous one as well. We point to this truth when we identify it as an ecclesial vocation. 

I am also not concerned with with what could be construed as a narrower way of defining hermits and eremitism because I believe this definition is 1) consonant with and rooted in an explication of c 603, which 2) I have come to from my personal experience of living the life (rather than from merely reading about it for instance), and 3) as note above, this definition reflects the gift this life is from the Holy Spirit to the church and world, and allows the eremitical life to be truly esteemed as a healthy, lifegiving, genuinely kerygmatic, and inspiring way of life. Again, it is a vocation which can console and challenge many and I believe it speaks especially to the chronically ill, those who are living alone after losing a spouse, for instance, and many others who might be wondering if their lives are meaningful because they can't or don't compete according to this culture's dominant paradigm of success or achievement, prestige and power. Stereotypes of "hermit life" and more common notions of what a hermit is cannot do this.

I hope this is helpful. Blessings on your Lenten journey!

Authentic Eremitism vs Stereotypes and the Source of Stereotypes

Dear Sister, I think I understand why you insist that in discerning an eremitical vocation there must be a redemptive experience at the heart of everything. If a hermit's life experience is mainly a desert or wilderness experience then life in physical solitude can just be about escaping or not fitting in unless there is a redemptive experience which transforms all of that, right? Most religious vocations require someone to be physically well but you write about chronic illness as vocation and about that maybe even leading to an eremitical vocation. At the same time something has to transform chronic illness into something more which speaks of wellness and that's where redemption comes in. Do you think the stereotypes associated with hermits came to be when the redemptive experience or element, as you put it, was missing?

Really great question. I never saw it coming as I read the comments that led up to it. Almost everything I write about eremitical life depends upon the redemptive element you spoke of and yes, that certainly includes my impatience with and rejection of stereotypes. The stereotypes I can think of have to do with rejection of others, escapism, an individualism which is antithetical to life in community and often to the generosity it requires; they can involve an emphasis on the difficulty of life in solitude without any focus on the answer it represents for the hermit and all of those living with/in desert situations, and also a piety which is superficial and tends to devotionalism, but not to the prayer and deep love of God, self AND others which profound spirituality makes possible. Stereotypes, it seems to me, take one part or side of eremitical life and runs with it while excluding the completing and paradoxical elements or side which a strong commitment to Christ brings.

Eremitical life is rare but it is not bizarre or essentially inhuman; it can be difficult but its deep meaningfulness makes it a life of genuine joy as well. Hermits go away or withdraw from "the world" (i.e., that which rejects Christ), but not simply to be apart from others; they do it so they can come to communion with God, themselves and with others. They do it so they can grow in their capacity for love and proclaim the Gospel with their lives because this is the way solitude works for them; it is a goal toward which these lives are moving. For any of this to be true means there must be a redemptive experience at the heart of hermits' lives, something which transforms all the superficialities into something deeper and more "real". In my own eremitical life I work hard with my Director, and at all the aspects of eremitical life (prayer, lectio, study, etc.,) not because I am (or am looking to be) some sort of spiritual prodigy (I am not!) but because Christ is the answer to the question I am and comes to me in a silent solitude which will eventually be transformed into "the silence of solitude" and a genuine gift to the Church and world.

In my experience, the physical solitude of eremitical life helps sharpen and bring to expression the question each person is while (when turned to assiduous prayer) giving God all the room God needs to become/be the answer in love and abundant life. That is  the very essence of monastic and eremitical life, the very essence of desert spirituality, the heart of Christian theology's "Theology of the Cross". But without the redemptive experience Christ brings to the desert a (putative) hermit is left like a JBap proclaiming repentance without any sense of the Messiah who will succeed and transcend the significant word of repentance he brings himself. We can find examples of such hermits throughout history and even online. They are often little more than stereotypes and caricatures, voices crying in the wilderness witnessing only to their own pain and inadequacy, their own "spiritual" experiences, but living an isolation that gives the lie to their catholicity. A hermit will know suffering and pain -- of course! But yes, as you say, without a profound and abiding sense of redemption of all of that, they will not be hermits in the sense the Church defines this vocation. The answer they seek must also have come to them in the silence of solitude if they are to witness to more than a sterile silence and loveless aloneness.

Without the redemptive element -- and by this I mean without a participation in the Christ Event in a way which brings wholeness out of brokenness, personal wealth (a fruitful and abundant life) out of poverty, meaning out of absurdity, and a loving humanity out of sinful inhumanity --- the hermit can witness to only one side of the human equation, the side of the lone, sinful individual in search of love and the ultimate healing of emptiness and estrangement. It is out of this milieu that we get stereotypes that disedify and make the eremitical vocation irrelevant at best. All of the essential elements of canon 603 I have written about on this blog over the years, but especially "the silence of solitude" as a unique communal reality, depend on our seeing eremitical life in this way. It must be informed by and witness to the redemption of the human person and transformation of the human heart which comes to us in Christ or it is worse than worthless --- especially in a world of rampant individualism, cocooning, and even misanthropy.

Again, great question; thanks very much for that. The Church understood well what eremitical life was and was not about when it composed this canon Thus, those claiming to be hermits (whether lay or consecrated, canonical or non-canonical) cannot speak only (or even mainly) of pain or struggle; there must be a sense that in Christ isolation is transformed into solitude and the pain and struggle present has been (or is on the way to being) transfigured into the joyful silence we call shalom and stillness the tradition knows as hesychasm. This, unlike in apostolic or ministerial religious life, is the very purpose of eremitical life. Canon 603, after all, describes a redeemed and essentially generous life, not a selfish one dominated by struggle and suffering and certainly not one populated by stereotypes! It is about who we are when God alone is truly allowed to be sufficient for us. It is the hermit's life and who she is made by God to be that is the gift, not the ministry (even that of prayer!!) she does. It is not merely or even primarily about what she does (not even a life of piety and devotionals or suffering and deprivation); these, by themselves, are the makings of disedifying stereotypes. Instead it is the prayer that sings of God's victory over sin and death that she is made by God to be that is the essence of an eremitical vocation.

On Canonical Standing and Responsible Freedom

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you write that one of the reasons some hermits choose canonical standing is because of the freedom it gives them from being concerned with peoples' opinions about them was this your own reason for seeking canonical standing? I am asking because it seems kind of petty to be concerned about what people think of you or your vocation.]]

Thanks for your question. Yes, it can be petty to be concerned re what people think about you or your vocation, I agree. But the situation I was responding to in my other post seemed to me to be about more than that. It involved what I heard to be an intensely critical attitude of others which, in my own experience, is an intensification of an entire constellation of beliefs and attitudes which we might call "the world". Namely, the person writing me found that much of his choices regarding prayer, silence and solitude, his likes, attempts to be faithful to his deepest self, and so forth, were being criticized and more, actually conflicted with much of what the world around him considers "normal" or perhaps, "healthy" (although that is not a word he used in his questions). When this sort of global "attitude" is what one meets at every turn in one's attempts to be faithful to one's call, it can be destructive as it eats away at one's confidence in the soundness of one's discernment. Thus it leads to temptation, mainly the temptation to conform oneself to the beliefs, attitudes, activities and general culture of those surrounding one but potentially at the expense of one's integrity and deepest self.

At such times, having one's discernment confirmed by those in leadership in the Church can result in a form of freedom. As a result of such confirmation one is able to trust in one's discernment even in times of difficulty and doubt and this is immensely empowering. In the solitude of the hermitage one continues to pray, work, and study in silence with and in the presence of God; over time one will find one's certainty of one's vocation deepens and pervades every moment and mood of one's life but there must be this essential freedom to disregard the culture that has, until this time, defined a whole constellation of what was considered normal and worthy of being aspired to. Canonical standing, which always comes only after a significant period of mutual discernment and which is accompanied by the assumption of public rights and obligations, is incredibly important in establishing a person in a vocation which is little-understood, less-esteemed, and often caricatured with the help of stereotypes and those who live the vocation badly or just eccentrically. So yes, I affirm canonical standing as an important context allowing hermits, especially those who must live in urban and other populated settings, to persevere and mature in their vocations.

However, while this is a valid and important reason for seeking canonical standing, I don't think it is a sufficient reason for doing so. Instead I think there are two other reasons which are more important: First,  the eremitical vocation I live is an ecclesial vocation. It "belongs to the Church" and was entrusted to her by Christ. This vocation recognizes "the silence of solitude" not only as the physical context of the life, but also as the goal of the life (we are to come to the stillness and peace of life in God, and thus to the fullness of human existence where God alone completes us), and the unique gift or "charism" hermits bring to the Church and world. Second, the ecclesial hermit is meant to witness to the Gospel of God in Christ; she is called to witness to the way in which the Gospel saves. Ecclesial hermits will have had a an experience in silence and solitude which is profoundly redemptive and will need to witness to this movement of the Holy Spirit. (cf., On the Redemptive Experience at the Heart of the Eremitical Vocation)

In my own life I embraced eremitical life and especially canonical eremitical life for these three reasons. The most important one, to my mind, is the need to witness to the redemptive way God has worked in my life in the silence of solitude. It is important to note that as I understand it, this cannot be separated from the ecclesial nature of my vocation, nor from its public nature; instead, it makes this public and ecclesial context essential. The Gospel is entrusted to the Church. It lives and works first of all in her midst and is the very reason for her existence. For me personally, seeking canonical standing was the only way to continue living such a vocation and meet the requirements of eremitical life in real and literally responsible freedom. I hope this is helpful.

On the Redemptive Experience at the heart of Eremitical Life (Followup to last two posts)

[[ Thanks for answering my follow up question. What happens if a person has already had the kind of life-changing redemptive experience of God's love before they decide to become a hermit? Does your criterion for discernment still work? I am thinking of the way canon 603 came to be with the dozen or so monks you have written about who had to leave solemn vows in order to pursue eremitical life. It seems they must already have had a life-changing redemptive experience which happened prior to eremitical solitude don't you think?]]

Really great questions! In the case you mention, monks who come late to a sense of an eremitical call, it seems clear that while they had already had the central redemptive experiences which allowed them to be solemnly professed and consecrated as monks after years of formation, and then allowed them to live this life faithfully with patience and growing in union with God, they must also have experienced something truly life changing in a very striking and compelling way if it led them to seek secularization and dispensation from their solemn vows. While the growth in wholeness and holiness which led to this compelling experience was not one of eremitical solitude it was very definitely one of the silence of solitude which is characteristic of monastic life.

There is some difference in these two forms of the silence of solitude but in my experience they are more alike than different and call for and complete one another. That is why monastics take regular "desert days" in order to have time and space for eremitical silence and solitude and hermits like myself take retreat time at places like Redwoods Abbey where the experience of shared silence and solitude is so very real. Monks and Nuns need desert days as an intensification of the silence, solitude, and freedom of the eremitical life which complement life in community. Hermits need the experience of shared solitude, values, communal prayer, and general monastic sensibility which complements and even completes the solitary eremitical life in the Church. The point, however, is that these two forms of the silence of solitude, while not identical, are profoundly related; they naturally complement and call for one another.

In the history of monastic life the solitude of the early desert Fathers and Mothers often led them to create communities; later in monastic communities monks and nuns saw eremitical solitude as the summit of the monastic life which is centered on seeking God. Even so, when monks like those whose lives led to the eventual establishment of canon 603, monks who have given their entire lives to God in monastic community decide to leave everything they have known and loved for decades in order to follow a Divine call to eremitical solitude, we must see that this is part of a vocation to a redemptive transformation. I admit I have only corresponded very briefly with one of these original monk-hermits in British Columbia (he wrote me to discuss an article I had published). Your question makes me want to renew my correspondence and ask him about the character of the call he has lived as a hermit. What I am sure of is that sometimes a change in our vocational call (say from community to eremitical solitude, for instance) represents an intensification and deepening of the redemptive experiences we have already known. While I was not thinking about this in my earlier answers I was not excluding it either.

The bottom line in all of this remains that a hermit, to be authentic and credible, must demonstrate an experience of God's redemptive love experienced in the silence of solitude. If they have had such an experience they will be capable of witnessing to the gift that eremitical solitude is meant to be in the Church. If not, their eremitical life will be relatively empty, formalistic, and perhaps even fraudulent. Every vocation is a call to the redemptive love of God; every vocation is a way of sharing that same redemptive love and witnessing to it to others. Every vocation is a particular gift to the Church whose charismatic quality witnesses to the way the love of God meets concrete human potentials and needs. The way we discern a vocation is by attending to the gift of God's love and the concrete ways that love shapes our lives. If our lives are not shaped in a salvific way within a particular state of life we must, it seems to me, conclude either that God has not called us to this state or that we are somehow rejecting or avoiding God's call within this state.

When the Church must discern the nature of a vocation as rare, as counter cultural, and even as uniquely prophetic as is solitary eremitical life, she must be able to discern that this life shapes the candidate for profession, consecration, and beyond in a distinctly salvific way. While the process of discernment and formation allows for a diocese following a candidate or temporary professed hermit for a number of years in order to be sure this is the case before admitting them to perpetual profession and consecration, the history of eremitical life is also full of those who call themselves hermits as a validation of individualism and self-centeredness. It may well be the Church does not find a convincing redemptive experience at the heart of a candidate's life and will need to refuse to profess or consecrate them.