On Public Ecclesial Vocations: Rights, Obligations and the Responsibility for Transparency in Consecrated Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was wondering what it means for you to have a "public vocation". You claim that having such a vocation implies that it comes with certain public rights and responsibilities so let me see if I understand some of what that means. Let's say that I disagreed with the theology you provided, or that I thought you were not representing eremitical life well and thought it important enough to speak to you directly about it. It would be important that I have a way of reaching you, true? If I was not satisfied with your response to me, then I would be able to contact your diocese, wouldn't I? It might even be morally necessary for me to do that, true? Are these examples of what you mean when you say you have a public vocation? And what if you claimed to be a diocesan hermit but refused to provide your name or diocese? That seems like it would be a problem if you are responsible to the People of God for what you do or say in public. And yet, how about the Carthusian monks who write books and sign them anonymous? They have public vocations but remain hidden in this specific way; why doesn't this work for c 603 hermits? Is my analysis on point? I have more but I want to hear your response first if that's okay.]]

Wow, such great questions!! And yes, your analysis is pretty much on point -- with some nuances and expansions to be added. Also, of course you can come back with more. I'll email you this first answer and then you can reply with more. How does that sound?

So, ordinarily the rights and obligations identified as part of an ecclesial public vocation have to do with representing the vocation one has been commissioned to live in the Church's name and to do so well. The obligations refer to living the vows well, understanding, valuing, and conveying the nature of c 603 similarly, living one's Rule and the values that comprise its central elements well, and I would say particularly, giving evidence that one lives the Gospel of God in Christ in a way that convinces people that God really is of primary importance to oneself and also to any really compelling spirituality one holds. 

One should be a person of prayer, live from the Scriptures, reflect a vibrant sacramental life, be faithful to spiritual direction, mentoring, and any other disciplines necessary to live this life attentively and obediently, and do all of this for the sake of God and all God holds as precious (essentially, the entirety of God's creation)! At my perpetual profession and consecration, I assumed all of these obligations (and likely a few I haven't called to mind here); in doing so I gave the whole Church the right to expect that I would do all I could to meet these obligations faithfully --- including asking for assistance of those who might help me --- particularly in regard to my responsibility to grow in this vocation over the years.  

What I was given in exchange was the right to identify myself as a diocesan hermit, a member of the consecrated state in an ecclesial vocation bound publicly by the Evangelical Councils and a Rule of Life I had written and that was vetted by canonists and approved by the Bishop professing me. I was also given the right to style myself as a religious Sister, to wear a habit with my bishop's approval and a monastic cowl (after perpetual profession only). In other words, I was given the right to call myself a consecrated Catholic hermit who lives this vocation in the name of the Church. A year after perpetual profession, I was also given permission to use the post-nominal initials Er Dio as part of my signature indicating my identity as a consecrated c 603 hermit. And, although I have not used this right (and likely can't do so the way some might be able to), I was given the right in civil law to set my hermitage up as a 501(c)3 religious house. So, with that out of the way, let's get to your questions.

The Questions:

Yes, I would agree that if you found me posting bad theology you might eventually be required to contact my diocese, particularly if I had not been sufficiently responsive to your attempts to speak with me directly. Let me point out, however, that I should be culpable for something serious here and not a matter of a simple theological disagreement. And yes, you are right about the importance of my providing a way to reach me or my diocese so long as I claim to be a diocesan hermit. Part of the obligations I accept in claiming a public ecclesial vocation is a certain relinquishment of the right to absolute privacy. If I am going to express myself publicly and represent myself as a diocesan hermit, people should be able to verify my bona fides. That ordinarily means folks have a right to know my name, as well as the date and diocese of my consecration. If I should want or need to withhold my name for safety's sake, but still choose to express myself publicly, then I must identify the diocese to and through which I am responsibly professed. This would not be optional because my vocation is a public and ecclesial one. (Please also see, OnAnonymity and Accountability in c 603 Vocations )

As noted above, the right to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit comes with correlative obligations. This vocation, as ecclesial, is about more than just me and God alone. People in the Church and larger world have correlative rights and legitimate (valid) expectations re a consecrated person in the Church. This is one of the things new candidates for profession have to be helped to understand. It is not just that one can now be identified as a diocesan hermit. That right comes with correlative obligations to all whom one's life as a hermit touches! I am responsible not just for what I say or do; I have obligations to others to be who I say I am and that includes being transparent about my identity and canonical bonds within the Church. If I claimed to be a diocesan hermit and yet refused to provide my name or at least my diocese, then it would be a betrayal of the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation. The only way to remain anonymous would be to also refuse to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit; in such a case, however, one would be emptying a God-given public and ecclesial identity of any real meaning.

How About Carthusian Monks signing "A Carthusian?"

So what about the Carthusian monks whose books are signed "A Carthusian"? (I'm pretty sure they use this more than they use "anonymous.") Strictly speaking, they are neither remaining anonymous nor refusing to be transparent. They are providing the name of the Order they belong to and that Order is the responsible party here. That Order is publishing in a way that makes the entire congregation responsible to the Church and larger world for what is being published in their name. And that is the key to the situation, being responsible for what one says or does and who one is in the Church and larger world. But c 603 hermits do not belong to an Order. They are diocesan hermits, hermits admitted to public standing by a diocesan bishop and responsible to the People of that local Church as well as the larger Church for this public vocation. Can they remain anonymous? Yes, once professed, they could choose to make this part of their eremitical hiddenness (though it need not be). But let's be clear, they could not do that AND violate their chosen hiddenness by public expressions (blogs, videos, articles, publications) as a diocesan hermit! One simply cannot claim anonymity AND a public ecclesial identity at the same time. That is inconsistent, dishonest, and disrespectful of those to whom one is writing or speaking, as well as to the diocese that has entrusted one with this vocation.

On the internet, I sometimes find folks who insist on remaining anonymous and often tend to be dishonest, exploitative, and selfish. It is striking to me that they are free to publish almost anything they want, truth be damned, if that is what they desire, and they do it in the name of freedom. (It is really about license, not authentic freedom!) Were a c 603 hermit to claim anonymity while at the same time claiming to say or do what they say or do as a diocesan hermit, they would especially not be able to justify this claim in terms of eremitical hiddenness. Again, it would instead be an act of irresponsibility, perhaps even cowardice, and it would certainly fail to respect the persons who listen to or read their works. The only place this might be acceptable might be a situation where a journal (for instance) had taken responsibility for the quality of the hermit's published piece and the author's bona fides. But again, in this situation, as in the example from the Carthusians, someone is taking appropriate responsibility for readers, listeners, et al who have their own rights. 

Fortunately, diocesan hermits I know who had to deal with the question of not revealing their names or dioceses because of privacy and safety concerns chose to cease being active on the internet, while those who maintain a presence here do so openly and accept any reasonable risk. Both groups of individuals maintain an appropriate eremitical hiddenness (not an element of canon 603 in any case), a sufficiently protective privacy, and also a clear sense of respect for the public and ecclesial character of their vocations. I think you can see the striking difference between a public ecclesial vocation and a private non-canonical vocation, and also why I have insisted for more than 18 years that "public" in these matters is not about notoriety, etc., but correlative public and ecclesial rights and obligations.

Happy Fourth of July!!

Each year this day reminds me that Christians have much to tell America about the nature of true freedom, even while they are grateful for a country that allows them the liberty to practice their faith pretty much as they wish and need. Too often today, however, Freedom is thought of as the ability to do anything we want -- without real regard to others or their similar call to Freedom. Understood this way, freedom (license) is the quintessential value of the narcissist. Unfortunately, the pandemic our global community continues to face has revealed just how prevalent is the valuing of liberty (a license our founders did not enshrine in the Constitution) over genuine freedom; we are seeing it both touted and modeled by our leading politicians and their supporters.

And yet, within Christian thought and praxis freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. It is the direct counterpart of Divine sovereignty and is other-centered. I believe our founding fathers had a keen sense of this, but today, it is a sense Americans often lack. Those of us who celebrate the freedom of Christians can help recover a sense of this necessary value by embracing it more authentically ourselves. Not least we can practice a freedom which is integrally linked to correlative obligations and exists for the sake of all; that is, it involves an obligation to be there for the other, most especially the least and poorest among us so that they too may be all that God has called them to be. We act and struggle to allow everyone to have a voice, indeed, to have their own voice in their lives and workplaces, in the political and other choices they make and seek to ratify in voting their minds and hearts.

In the past several years, the wearing of surgical masks and sheltering-in-place have become small but powerful symbols of this kind of freedom and its correlative sacrifice for the sake of others. And yet, how difficult these relatively minor inconveniences have been for so many of us. Many simply refuse to put others first (or consider them at all!). And yet, the truth remains that one way we celebrate this holiday is by refraining from any usual practices which endanger others and our planet --- eschewing fireworks wherever it is unsafe, maintaining social distancing, working for the rights of all, etc. In so doing we demonstrate our freedom to be loving persons who, despite minor inconveniences like masking and continued social distancing, are only ourselves and only truly free in interdependence with others and all of creation.

But today the United States is in danger of choosing to "protect" our freedom by refusing to open ourselves to "the other". In significant ways it defends racism and the way it is exercised in law enforcement and symbolized in monuments to past historical figures whose legacy is stained, at best. This year the refusal to be open to the other took the form of a refusal to accept the results of a legal election and a concerted effort to subvert the results of that election climaxing in the desecration of our Capitol's most powerful symbol of freedom in a riot that killed and/or injured capitol police and others. In all of this we have forgotten that we are free only insofar as we are open to loving others, to sharing our lives and our freedom with the other, the alien. Like love, personal freedom is lost when we fail to extend it to others and make "neighbors" of them. 

Once we build walls against the other so too have we walled ourselves into the narrow confines of our own fear, ignorance, or selfishness. Authentic freedom always seeks the freedom of the other, including the freedom to let everyone vote their consciences without unfair constraints. It is expansive and, to  some extent, missionary in nature. And it is sacrificial. While the boundaries of American freedom involve borders and finite resources that must be honored and husbanded, its heart is global and so must its vulnerability be. 

 All good wishes on this anniversary of the birthday of our Nation! May God empower us to live up to the obligations of the freedom, both personal and national, which we recognize as both Divine gift and human responsibility. And may we celebrate the interdependence we are sometimes still only just learning to associate with this Freedom ! 

Whom Could It Hurt?

[[Dear Sister, I wondered why it is dioceses are so reluctant to profess hermits when they don't have to support them financially? I mean if money isn't the issue, then what is? Who will be hurt by professing someone if they don't quite fit the description of canon 603? When I approached my diocese they asked  that I live as a hermit under direction for a year or two, and then re-approach them. I don't see the need and I don't see the need for a spiritual director either! I have God and He directs me better than any human being ever could. I just don't get why it's a big deal to just profess someone if they desire it.]]

Thanks for your questions. They are important and timely. I heard someone ask the first one just a couple of weeks ago, and over the years I have been asked variations of it many times -- often without the reference to finances; sometimes a person will ask as you did, "Who will it hurt?" or, "What does it matter?" (Sometimes I have thought this bishop or that has professed someone they don't really believe is a hermit while asking themselves the very same question!!) All of these are questions usually raised by non-canonical hermits or by those who desire to be hermits and who may desire to be canonical. Sometimes the responses given by dioceses sour these persons on seeking canonical standing, and often the reasons are simply not understood or appreciated. When I heard the question two weeks ago it surprised me because of the reference to money. Your own question is surprising because it comes so quickly on the heels of that other one. The answer I gave two weeks ago was, "Because it is very rare for human beings to come to wholeness or authentic humanity in eremitical solitude," and that is where I will begin here.

It is very rare for a human being to come to wholeness or authentic humanity in eremitical solitude; most of us are called to love and be loved in ways eremitical existence does not really allow for; the need for society is real and necessary for most people in ways it is not for the hermit. Nor is this merely about the difference between introversion and extroversion. It is about the meaningfulness and fullness of one's life. Moreover, for the Church to allow someone to live this vocation in her Name, she must be as sure as possible that the witness the person gives is similar to the witness given by Jesus in the desert: she must see clear signs that it is in the desert of eremitical solitude that one is, through the grace of God, victorious over the powers of evil and solidified in one's identity (one's authentic humanity and capacity to love) in God. Another way of saying this is to affirm that very few people are called to witness to the victory of the Gospel of Christ through the silence of eremitical solitude.

For the church to admit someone to eremitical profession and thus, to canonical standing, is to allow that person to live the life in her name; this means she sees clear signs that this vocation is leading this person to wholeness and holiness and that they will serve others with their witness. It also means the church is relatively well-assured of the fact that the one professed will be open and attentive to the directives of superiors and others in the church in order that this witness be the best it can be. This is why the discernment process for canonical vocations is mutual. The issue is not financial; it is one of authentic witness, and so too, of participating in the Church's own mission and the very great charism of eremitical life.

 The Richness of Canon 603:

Can 603 is not merely a brief description of eremitical life, though I agree it is that. More, though, it defines a vision one is called to embrace, a piece of the church's own spiritual tradition one is invited to represent afresh, a commitment one is called to make as an expression of the Gospel of God in Christ. When I have written about the central elements of the canon before, I have written about them as mysteries to be explored. (cf.,  Followup on Canon 603 and Freedom) Canonical standing is both the right and the obligation to engage in this specific exploration all the days of one's life; it signifies the right and obligation to do so in the Church's name -- not only for the sake of hospitality to God, and for the sake of the Gospel, but for the sake of one's own freedom, wholeness, and holiness in incarnating and witnessing to these things. Because of this it is important for the Church to be sure that the individual whose vocation is in question (i.e., being discerned) really does give every indication of being called to all of this and to authentic freedom (which includes the ability to love compassionately) precisely as a hermit who can live the vocation in the Church's name.

For instance, you say forthrightly that you "don't see the need" either to live as the Church asks you in this situation, nor to work regularly with a spiritual director.  As baptized you have every right to decide in this way that you will not be subject to the directives of the Church in these matters. But what you do not have the right to do is to reject these directives and at the same time expect to be granted the right to make public vows as a hermit who lives her life under the supervision of the Church, under regular spiritual direction, and who is therefore publicly bound to do so obediently in her name. The Church, in the person of your diocesan personnel, asked you to live a particular way for a year or two so that she could adequately discern the potential presence of an ecclesial eremitical vocation. She is not discerning a vocation to individualism with you, nor does she mistake the freedom of the hermit for the license of the individualist. When you ask whom could it hurt to profess someone anyway, the answer is, a significant number of people and the solitary eremitical vocation itself as it has been entrusted to the Church. Let me explain.

Asking to Profess a Commitment to a Specific Desert Existence for the Sake of Others:

Those who approach the Church requesting admission to perpetual profession, are asking to live a desert existence which is almost infinitely meaningful in Christ and the power of the Spirit. We do this because, in one way and another, we have known desert experiences throughout our own lives and learned that God is always there in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. We do this because these desert experiences have made us desirous of loving and witnessing to precisely such a God, and we do so for the sake of all of those others whose lives will find them at one time and another in various deserts or wildernesses with all of the constraints, dangers, deficiencies, and also the potentialities of such lives. We do not do so simply so we may do as we like. We accept the constraints and the great potential of this ecclesial definition of solitary eremitical life because, 1) we know this ecclesial vocation does not belong to us but to the church,  2) because we know that God is found in a privileged way here, and 3) because we appreciate that this Presence will make of our lives an instance of Gospel victory and freedom which can serve others in profound ways.

Individualism simply doesn't do this. If I am witnessing to someone who finds themselves in a desert or wilderness situation from which there is no escape --- say the desert of chronic illness, for instance -- I cannot "kick off the (relatively minor) traces" of canon 603 supervision and obedience, and expect my life to say anything important to this person. They are searching for a way to live their potential and to find freedom despite the serious and inescapable constraints of their illness. My life as a canonical hermit with its constraints and correlative freedom to explore the depths of God and humanity, witnesses to the possibility of doing so; life as an individualist rejecting the constraints of law, ecclesiality, and so forth, is far less likely to do so. Besides, as I pointed out in the article linked above, the foundational and essential elements of canon 603 are not merely constraining elements for the solitary canonical hermit, they are doorways to the Mystery of God and the Human person constituted in dialogue with God, and I embrace them as such.

Whom Does it Hurt?

To profess someone who does not feel called to embrace and, in fact, refuses to embrace these same elements, witnesses to something other than the c 603 hermit does --- whatever that is. It is damaging to the power of the canon's vision and witness to profess someone who cannot and does not witness to the very thing the canon stands for. One has a responsibility to discern how and where one best witnesses to the way God has worked and is working in one's life. The Church has an obligation to do the same with regard to canon 603. If one is called to witness to something else or to do so in another way, it would be irresponsible of the Church to admit one to profession under canon 603. (cf. Eremitism or Exaggerated Individualism?).

We do not honor the vocation or charism of a vocation (the way it is a gift of the Holy Spirit) by professing those we don't believe are truly called to come to human wholeness and holiness in this specific way. For that matter we demean their true vocations by doing so, just as we deprive those to whom their lives might otherwise speak, of this vocation's appropriate message and messenger. That is significant damage, damage to the Church's witness, to the vocation's power and relevance, and to those touched directly by this dishonesty; that is whom it hurts. And ultimately, because very few truly come to wholeness or holiness in this way or witness to the power of God to bring one to holiness and wholeness in this way,  the Church professes relatively few hermits under canon 603 (or in congregations). Again, it is a rare vocation which the Church honors, not in numbers, but in appropriate fidelity, care, and truthfulness.

On the Profound Benefits of Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sr. Laurel, I am one who considers himself a non-professed solitary. I have considered consecration under Canon 603, but have not found a reason to follow-through. Essentially, I envision formal consecration as a matter of primarily professing poverty, chastity, and obedience, but without benefit. For instance, confessed hermits do not receive stipends, medical insurance, pensions, or help establishing their life work, as other consecrated folk do. Recently, I read one of your posts that mentioned the "benefits" of consecration, but you did not list them; would you please expound on this topic?]]

Thanks for your question. I believe I have recently said "without benefit of consecration" rather than speaking of "the benefits of consecration" but it is true I believe consecration is beneficial to the Church as well as to the hermit and those she serves with her life. It is true that canonical (consecrated) solitary hermits do not receive stipends, insurance, pensions, assistance establishing one's life's work (which is eremitical life, nothing less and nothing other), financial support for library, retreat opportunities, housing, or expenses associated with limited apostolic ministry, and so forth. However, I think that this way of measuring the benefits of this vocation, is narrow and even superficial. It is also, at least ostensibly, self-centered. In any case, it is incomplete at best.

Thus, as I measure the benefits of canonical eremitical life, I do so not only in terms of associated rights, but in terms of obligations as well as in terms of others' expectations and the grace associated with consecration. Especially, I measure them in terms of the responsible freedom and witness value canonical standing and consecration create and sustain. Note that this way of measuring the "benefit" of consecrated eremitical life necessarily points directly to its benefit to others; it points directly to the Church and world as a whole, as well as to the hermit herself. Thus the term I use to "contain" and reflect on these dimensions of the consecrated or canonical eremitical vocation is "ecclesial"; that is, this vocation belongs to the Church and participates in a conscious, deliberate, and public way in the proclamation of the Gospel entrusted to her. 

All of the characteristics of public or canonical vocations contribute to this proclamation, and this is so whether we are speaking of the vows, the Rule a hermit writes, her stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, limited apostolic ministry, or the supervision of the vocation by legitimate superiors. All of these elements help produce a responsible freedom in the hermit which is very specifically directed to the living of the Gospel in the service of God, the People of God and a needy world. Moreover, because the Church herself recognizes and constitutes these vocations canonically, they are capable of doing so in ways private dedication ordinarily cannot and will not do. This is one of the reasons I persisted in pursuing canonical standing. It became clear to me that the Holy Spirit was working in my life in a way which made of my life a unique proclamation of the Gospel, especially as it so often is stated in paradoxical terms: divine power perfected in weakness, comfort in suffering, wealth in poverty, completion and wholeness in brokenness, and so forth.

You identify yourself as a solitary. Perhaps I can contrast that with the way I see my own vocation precisely because I am canonically professed and consecrated. Of course, I don't know how or why you use the term so I am not commenting on that, but I will say that because of the ecclesial and eremitical nature of my vocation I just can't use the term solitary as a definition of my life. The emphasis in the word solitary seems to me to stress aloneness and a lack of significant bonds; this, in turn, seems antithetical to who I am called to be.  At the very least it is a dimension I do not want to emphasize at the expense of the significant bonds associated with ecclesial vocations. Neither do I want to substitute a generic or unspecified solitude in place of desert spirituality as the Episcopal canon seems to do. Yes, I am a solitary hermit, that is, one who lives a very particular kind of solitude rooted in desert spirituality but without belonging to a community (aka, an institute) of hermits. Even so, it is my canonical standing which explicitly links aloneness with significant bonds and establishes the whole as a paradigm of paradoxical gospel meaningfulness. It is canonical standing that both requires and allows me to live my whole life in terms of the Gospel and, as one with an ecclesial vocation, to do this in the name of the Church.

At every moment I and other diocesan hermits are both called and empowered to do this in the very heart of the Church for the sake of the proclamation entrusted to her for the salvation of others. I understand the benefits of profession and consecration under canon 603 in these terms. When I write about the vows, canonical standing, responsible freedom, or freedom vs liberty and the capacity to become the person God calls me to be, or about the importance of the ministry of authority in this, etc., I am describing the benefits of canonical standing. I am doing this as one whose consecration means she is participating in and has been entrusted with the rights and  obligations of an ecclesial vocation in which she can become her truest self --- and in doing so, serve others and glorify God. Thus, again, I resist seeing myself as a solitary, while the way I measure the benefits of consecration is not in material terms, but in who I am called and empowered to be in light of this ecclesially mediated Divine call and setting apart.

Follow up on Canon 603 and Freedom

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I just read your recent post on freedom vs license. I thought the examples you used re playing the violin or playing as an elite athlete on a basketball team were an excellent way to illustrate the distinction between these two ideas. I would have thought that canon 603 limited hermit freedom. While I don't know a lot about canon law I have always had the sense that it curtails freedom. What is it about canon 603 that makes it different from the rest of canon law? Does it really result in freedom for the hermit?]]

Thanks for your comments and questions. This will build on the post on freedom and license On Questions of Freedom and License so please bear the examples there in mind. Maybe this will surprise some folks but I suppose I have always felt the same way about canon law as you. I think I feel that way still with the exception of canon 603. I have lived as perpetually professed under this canon for over a dozen years now and I have experienced it as a source of great freedom throughout that time. Neither has anyone who might have done so (chancery personnel, bishop, delegate) interfered with that freedom by imposing requirements on me beyond my Rule or the canon itself. What makes canon 603 different to my mind are two things: 1) the essential elements are left undefined; they are mysteries to be explored and embraced, and 2) these elements are combined with a Rule the hermit writes herself based on her own lived experience. I think the way these two things come together in the power of the Holy Spirit is the key to a hermit being really and authentically free. They are also the thing which sets this apart from most other canons.

Regarding the essential elements, these have meaning in light of the  lived tradition and the lived life experience of the hermit. For instance, when I first read the canon (@ December 1983) I misread it as calling for, "silence and solitude," rather than "the silence of solitude" and lived those first realities mainly in terms of external silence and physical solitude, Only a while later did I come to see the canon said "the silence of solitude", a Carthusian  reality which is much richer than the sum of its parts; only much later had I moved from seeing this as just an environment in which the hermit lives to also seeing it as a symbol of the goal of life with God. Even later still I came to see this same essential term as a description of the charism (gift quality) of the solitary eremitical vocation, which, when understood by chancery personnel, could prevent problems in professing or dismissing candidates for profession. It took time to live into and truly understand this mystery. Something similar happened with the terms assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, and living this vocation for the salvation of the world.

Each term was and is absolutely central to the vocation, and yet the Church did not define them; some might have thought the meaning of these terms to be self-evident, or they might have given dictionary definitions and thought these sufficient. Either alternative would be a serious mistake. Though one is not free to create an entirely new meaning for these terms, each one embodies a whole world and constitutes an invitation to discover and explore this world of Divine power, presence, and love. Each also reflects a long and varied history of eremitical tradition and freedom and each one will call one to make choices pertinent to one's life circumstances and God's personal call to wholeness and holiness in light of these elements. Those who wrote the canon knew this, I believe; those who professed me expected me to come to deeper and deeper understanding of these mysteries as well as those of the evangelical counsels (which are themselves geared towards freedom) and live (and live into) them ever more deeply. The call to embrace and explore these mysteries was and is both a right and an obligation whose fulfillment was extended to me as well as empowered by the grace of profession and consecration. The bottom line here is that I was truly free to do this in whatever ways and according to whatever timetable worked best for me. Moreover, as I did this, as I entered more deeply into each mystery (and thus, into the world of God's love they opened to me), my own freedom to be the person God called me to be would increase.

A part of this deepening freedom and faithfulness involved the writing of a Rule the Church received  and officially approved with a Bishop's decree. This too is a non-negotiable part of the canon like the others mentioned above. The Rule was written and rewritten on the basis of my own lived experience and codified a particular vision of eremitical life which drew not only from my life experiences (including now the inner work I am doing with my Director), but from Camaldolese and Cistercian spirituality, as well as from the substance of the canon itself. Additional sources were the lives and spirituality of hermits through the centuries, but especially the Carthusians and the Desert Ammas and Abbas, and the Camaldolese St Romuald and St Peter Damian. The living out of this Rule has asked me everyday to grow in understanding, freedom, wholeness, and holiness. The writing  of this blog too has been a source of growth and deepening freedom. Canon 603 is at least indirectly responsible for my taking this project on and continuing it.

Another part of my experience of freedom with regard to canon 603 has been the Church's public commissioning of me to live this life. When everything around me and (sometimes) even within me seems to militate against the silence of solitude, I can remind myself of the mutual discernment process the chancery and I negotiated, the prayers for my vocation I know people offered and still offer, and my assurance that these things indicate the granting of a very real freedom with regard to the pressures acting against eremitical life. Canonical standing and God's own consecration which was mediated by the Church, results in freedom to resist other self-definitions and affirm the deep truth of self in God. What I want to stress in all of this is the degree of freedom c 603 and the Church herself gives me to discern various things within this eremitical context  I would not be free to undertake from outside it. When I fail in one way or another I don't  need to worry whether my own initial discernment of this vocation was accurate; the Church has weighed in on things and tips the scales towards an affirmation of this vocation and a renewed commitment to persevere. Finally, a central piece of the way c 603 has afforded me real freedom is the intense work I have undertaken with my Director. I would not have been free to undertake this in the way we have done it had it not been for canon 603 and the public commissioning associated with it. Likewise, as I have written recently, the ministry of authority which is a significant part of a canonical vow of obedience has been incredibly freeing as well.

I think it is important to understand that the freedom I have discovered and come to live more and more is not the freedom to be anything or just anyone at all. However, through canon 603 I have been made more truly free to be myself. There are constraints, of course and the ability to use certain gifts and talents is among these. Still. the rich sources of freedom which make up life under canon 603 are inspired by the Holy Spirit and they have led me deeper and deeper into the heart of eremitical life which in turn has made me even more free as hermit and as a human being. Canon 603, with its combination of essential or defining elements and a Rule I necessarily wrote myself with its dependence on my own lived experience and vision of eremitical life, created a realm of God-given space which I can explore and in which I could hearken to the voice and Word of God as I become the person God calls me to be. Remember that in Catholic theology freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. What canon 603 does in my life (and, I would argue, in the life of anyone truly called to this vocation) is to ensure me the invitations, space, and tools to become myself as I explore the heights and depths of life in communion with God.

To summarize then: I think that, generally speaking, Canon Law is meant to protect various realities in the Church. This always involves setting parameters or limitations --- but parameters and limitations which also define a realm of freedom. Again, one is not free to be anything at all but, if one is called by God to this, one is certainly free to be themselves as a hermit who lives this life in the name of the Church. Even so, I believe canon 603 is truly unique in combining the hermit's own Rule and other non-negotiable elements in a way which allows the hermit to explore the depths and heights of the mystery we identify as solitary eremitical life and thus, life with and in the God who inspires and empowers it. I find the canon to be genuinely beautiful in the way it is composed; it creates the necessary space for the Holy Spirit to work if one really has an eremitical vocation. (This is one reason its non-negotiable elements are built into the lives of non-canonical or lay hermits' lives as well.) I would not have thought these things were I looking at the canon from the outside in. But I have now lived this life for some time and things look differently from "within" or under canon 603 itself.

On Formerly-Married and Consecrated Hermits

[[ hi Sister Laurel, I was just wondering about something. You have written it is not possible for married persons to become hermits. I looked that up this morning. But how about a person who has been married and gotten divorced? Can they become a consecrated Catholic hermit? If so is this usual? What happens with their children if there are any?]]

 Thanks for your questions. Yes, it is entirely possible for a person who was married and divorced to become a hermit. There are two provisos: 1) their children must be grown and no longer need them in any substantial way (they, of course, always will need (and should have) their parent's love!), and 2) if the spouse is still alive the Church must have granted a declaration of nullity.** (Please note: I have been told that a dispensation may also be granted as is sometimes done when one wants to enter cenobitical religious life after divorce. This is exceptional and I admit it makes little sense to me because it is an exception not granted for remarriage. If a dispensation is to be granted, there must be no chance that the person's spouse will exercise or demand marital rights.) In any case, to make public profession under canon 603 or as part of a canonical community of hermits, a person must be free of life bonds in order to make her profession (another life bond). Marriage is a life bond and in the eyes of the Church civil divorce by itself does not and cannot end this bond --- although the death of the spouse will do so.

The principle is simple, if we give ourselves entirely (and exclusively) to another in marriage and give ourselves to God through this marriage, we are not free to then give ourselves exclusively to God in religious/eremitical profession. The reverse is equally true: if someone is professed (meaning publicly vowed and given entirely and exclusively to God in this way) they cannot give themselves to another in marriage; they are simply not free to do so until and unless the vows are dispensed or expire, in the case of temporary professions. Until and unless a decree of nullity is granted (and the marriage bond declared void, null, or never to have truly occurred) or a dispensation is secured, the person is simply not free to make profession or be consecrated as either a diocesan (solitary) or religious (community) hermit. In religious life one must demonstrate one is free of other life commitments before one is even allowed to enter the community, much less to make even temporary vows/profession. Though c 603 has no equivalent formal or canonical stages of formation, the constraints on life commitments hold for one seeking admission to profession under this canon.

Again, as for children, a diocesan or canon 603 hermit can certainly have been married and had children but s/he cannot have minor children, nor can grown children require parental care. Such situations (minority or dependency) constitute another way in which the hermit is not truly free to give herself to profession in the way the vocation and profession require. A consecrated hermit may leave her inheritance to her children (or anyone else) just as is true for anyone. She will also arrange to remain in regular contact in whatever way works best for everyone. There will be limits, of course: young adults will not be able to come home to live with their hermit Mom or Dad, there will be no way to borrow money from the hermit (who is unlikely to have any!), and the hermit will not be able to babysit the grandchildren more than occasionally or spend much time away from the hermitage with her kids and grandkids. She will not be free for these things; her life is given over to God and structured in a new way which makes her unfree for what might have been usual otherwise.

Similarly, the family is unlikely to be able to visit the hermitage all that often -- though this is something I expect the hermit will work out with the assistance of her Director (delegate) and/or Bishop. (If it cannot be worked out to the satisfaction of the bishop, et  al, the person will not be admitted to eremitical profession. If, for instance, a hermit's family needs her in ways which make embracing eremitical solitude unloving or selfish, admission to profession is unlikely to be extended to her.) Otherwise, I think things will be pretty much as they are for any parent with grown children. I do believe the reality of the former marriage with children will add moments of poignancy and depth to the hermit's life and prayer. Separation from her family/children may well sharpen her solitude and add a dimension to her love of God and humankind that other hermits without such family may not have. Thus the person who becomes a hermit after divorce/annulment and raising her children will find her circumstances add both richness and suffering to her life as a hermit.

I don't think formerly married hermits with grown children are all that usual, but they are not unheard of. I know and/or know of several such hermits. In other faith traditions that also see eremitical life as a second-half-of-life vocation or which see solitude per se as a vocation for the elderly, it is quite common for folks to become hermits for the final stage of their lives. At this point they tend to have fewer responsibilities for their family, have often lost a spouse to death, have a mature faith life, and will really blossom themselves in solitude -- including beyond solitude as therapeutic or part of their grieving process. However, within the Roman Catholic eremitical tradition I would say it is relatively uncommon for there to be formerly-married hermits -- though with the provisos mentioned above it is perfectly fine.

I hope this is helpful.

Follow up Question: [[Sister, yes your answer was helpful so thank you. I thought you would deal with this question in your [original] answer so let me ask it directly. Would  someone in the same position be able to make private vows as a hermit? I mean, is there a difference with whether the hermit or wannabe hermit (no offense intended) wants to make private vows or public ones?]]

That's a great question and a good follow up since your earlier question referred only to consecrated hermits but not to those who are hermits with  private vows. Yes, there is a very great difference in this. When marriage is contracted the parties enter a new state of life, the married state -- though they remain laity. They become one flesh through the Sacrament of matrimony and, as noted in the earlier question, the bond effectuated in the Sacrament cannot be undone by civil divorce. Instead it must be found and declared to have never actually occurred in a declaration of nullity or a dispensation secured. Unless and until this occurs the Church would consider either member of this couple to be unfree to make another life commitment like religious life, consecrated eremitical life, priestly ordination, etc. In other words, profession is closed to such persons until and unless they receive an annulment/dispensation.

In part, this is because profession is a matter of public vows or other sacred bonds and consecration by the Church by which a person enters another state of life (a religious, or  consecrated state) involve now legal rights and obligations. Private vows however, are an entirely private matter which do not ever initiate a person into another state of life; they are an act of self-dedication with no corresponding ecclesial act of reception or consecration. (Private vows are witnessed, but not received.) Thus, neither do private vows ever convey the rights and obligations associated with religious life or consecrated eremitical life. For this reason, a person who has been divorced without benefit of annulment/dispensation can make private vows at any time. Nothing in her state of life changes, there is no canonical life commitment or assumption of new legal obligations or rights to which one's remaining marriage bond would be an impediment.

If, however, such a person were to decide they wanted instead to become a consecrated hermit in the Roman Catholic Church, they would need to pursue the annulment (the declaration of nullity which says the Church finds there to have never been a sacramental marriage bond at all beyond a civil contract). The Declaration of nullity (or, again, the prior death of one's spouse) would therefore establish there is no impediment to profession or consecration and would thus establish a person as free to begin a mutual discernment process with their Diocese, something every person seeking to be admitted to public profession and consecration would need to do.

Again, good follow up question! It really helps to underscore the difference in Catholic theology between private vows and public profession as well as the necessity of responsible freedom to make a life commitment which is truly binding in all the ways such a commitment should be within the Church.

Follow-up Question #2: On the Need for a Declaration of Nullity:

Dear Sister,  another blogger in Married Hermits and Other Considerations has written that what you have written is your opinion and someone can be married and a consecrated or Catholic hermit. She claims you are making up Rules and regulations! I don't know who to believe in this. Help!

In many things here I post my own opinions based on lived experience as a hermit and my theological expertise; I always attempt to give the very best and most accurate opinion I can and I will always try equally diligently to reflect the Church's own practice. However, in the matter you first asked about regarding the need for ecclesiastical annulment (or dispensation) if one has been divorced and is seeking to be admitted to public profession and the consecrated state as a hermit in community or a c 603 hermit, this is not an opinion; it is the way things work in the Church because matrimony effects the union of two people so they become "one flesh". I am merely stating the Church's theological and canonical position on the freedom necessary to make another life commitment.

Here is the way one religious congregation (Carmelite) states the need for canonical freedom for those seeking to enter them. The requirements are the same for profession under canon 603: [[Yes, we do accept women in our congregation who were formerly married. You would need to produce the necessary documents establishing that you are canonically free to enter religious life; death certificate of spouse, or civil divorce decree and [an ecclesiastical] decree of nullity.]] (Emphasis added.) The pertinent canons are 597 and 643 sec 1.2 and 2.

The author of the blog you referenced (also The Complete Hermit, Christ in the Present Moment, and several others) also once knew the truth of what I have written here, though perhaps she was unaware of the theological rationale for the Church's position. She and I once spoke about the necessity of establishing one's free status to become a canonical hermit when she reached out to me about becoming a diocesan hermit during the Summer of 2007, prior to my perpetual eremitical profession on 02. September. (Remember canon 603 hermits have to submit copies of their baptismal certificates -- which include records of other life commitments -- and prove free status in ways similar to the above if they are to undertake public profession.) After our email conversation, Ms. McClure eventually spoke to someone in her own diocese and subsequently blogged about that. Here is what she wrote (the link to the relevant excerpt of the blog article, which I copied this morning is included at the end):

[[Friday, August 31, 2007

nullity of marriage

Yes, as a hermit of a different diocese informed me, and now verified by a canon lawyer, in order to be "canonically" consecrated, one must have nullity of marriage. However, private consecration does not require the annulment.

The next step, then, is for me to activate my annulment file at the Tribunal. I have made the call, and they are checking the file to make sure all information is up-to-date regarding witnesses. Sadly, the only witness who knew me before my marriage and during the marriage, knowing my ex-husband, is a woman with severe pain in her wrists and who cannot write without great difficulty. (She has pain elsewhere from a virus that settled years ago and caused permanent damage.) Hopefully she can do this writing required on whatever forms.

It is, at minimum, an act of charity for my ex-husband who has been remarried for years, in case he would ever desire to convert to Catholicism. He hates Catholicism, but in God all things are possible such as changes of heart and mind. . .]]The Complete Hermit :Nullity of Marriage

** Since writing this piece a canonist informed me (27. January.2021) that a person who is divorced may also receive a dispensation to become a professed/consecrated hermit, just as they might if they were entering cenobitical religious life. I have a couple of questions outstanding still, so more about this when I get more information. I have redacted the piece to include the possibility of a dispensation from a decree of nullity.

On Constraints and Authentic Freedom

Hi Sister, I wondered why you define freedom the way you do. I was thinking about being the persons we are called to be in spite of the constraints of our lives and that doesn't seem like freedom to me. If God calls us to something and we do that, then how does that represent "authentic freedom"? How can having constraints or being constrained represent freedom?]]

These are good questions. Let me explain why it makes theological sense to me, generally speaking --- and perhaps with reference to my own personal story as well if that will illustrate things more clearly. When theologians think about the human situation we think about the condition of sin as a state of being bound by conditions which prevent us from being the persons we are made and called by God to be. Sin is a state of being estranged and alienated from God, from one's deepest Self, and from others; it is a state in which we are not free to love as we are meant to love and may even be hostile as well as resistant to this love. We are constrained by the situation (of sin) and prevented from being the person we are most profoundly and truly meant to be. It is only when we are loved by God in a way which empowers us to achieve who we are potentially, who we are made and called to be, that we begin to know real freedom --- and also, therefore, genuine happiness. Freedom always has to do with being our truest selves; the bondage of sin prevents this. This is the principal reason we speak of sin (hamartia, 'αμαρτια) as falling short. Thus, authentic freedom is something God empowers; it represents freedom from whatever prevents us from living the truth of ourselves and freedom for the fulfillment of our most profound or ultimate human potentiality.

Some constraints then, are disastrous for our humanity, but not all constraints are disastrous or even necessarily destructive. All of us have limits with which we must live: age, health, family, material wealth or poverty, intelligence, education or lack thereof, and so forth. These things serve as constraints, but at the same time they need not prevent us from becoming the persons we are called/meant to be. For instance, we may not have much money, our health may be poor, we may be lousy students or have failed in a string of business ventures; we may have come from a dysfunctional family which made maturing into adulthood a greater task than ordinarily is the case, and we may live in neighborhoods without access to cultural treasure, and be constrained in many other ways besides, but if we come to know the love of God we will be empowered to become our truest selves nonetheless.

In light of this love we will even find that those things which constrain us (and perhaps once constrained us in ways which limited us as persons) become sources of grace instead. With grace we transcend (though do not necessarily lose) the limits that constrain us. In my own life chronic illness once constrained me in ways which seemed to prevent my ability to grow in the various ways I believed I needed and certainly desired to grow. However, in light of God's love for me chronic illness has proven to be a significant way I came to know the truth of Paul's saying, "My grace is sufficient for you, my power is perfected in weakness." Vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience created constraints which also opened me more fully to the love of God. My Rule envisions a life marked by constraints, but one which is above all a life of authentic freedom --- or it could not be my vocation! Last week my parish's daily Mass community heard the Beatitudes during a Mass geared to one class of our school children; the essential message of this text was and is, Blessed (happy!) are you who feel the many constraints (forms of limit and loss) that touch human beings living in space and time, for they actually make it possible for you to come to know the happiness and freedom of God's sovereignty.

When I wrote last week here I spoke about "natural" forms of suffering Douglas John Hall noted in God and Human Suffering: temptation, anxiety, loneliness, and limits. These make transcendence, communion, security, peace, joy, and surprise possible for us. They are constraints which are part of our coming to the fullness or abundant life of humanity. In God these specific forms of suffering becomes sources or means of blessing. Imagine what it would be like to have none of these (or any!) constraints! If one is never lonely, neither can one be aware of a yearning or need for communion; without limits --- if, that is, one has whatever one wants whenever one wants it --- one never comes to know joy or surprise (or patience, or excitement!); if one is not tempted one may never be stretched to turn to God in dependence or otherwise grow in character. Unless one knows anxiety, neither will one ever come to know genuine security in God or the peace and wholeness which is the result of life in and from (Him).

We cannot do away with all constraints, nor should we try. We exist as historical people: we are embodied (and made to be embodied, even in eternity) and we exist in space and time (all of which are constraints and the source of further constraints). But the love of God can empower us to transcend the constraints which condition our lives and discover the seeds of true personhood within or through them. It is this transcendence empowered by God as Love-in-Act which is the very essence of becoming the persons God calls us to be and the essence of that which Christians identify as authentic freedom and beatitude. Moreover, as described in the last paragraph, the absence of constraints can, according to the analysis of Douglas John Hall's work on "natural" or existential forms of suffering, make us incapable of becoming the persons God has made and summons us to be. This is another paradox which is critical to the way we define authentic freedom and the way it is often opposed to license.

I sincerely hope this is helpful! Let me know if it raises more questions or is unclear in some way and I will give it another shot!

Followup Questions on Discerning With One's Bishop

[[Hi Sister Laurel, your posts about legal standing and what happens if a diocesan hermit disagrees with a Bishop give the impression that the relationship between hermit and legitimate superiors is oppressive. Am I mistaken? I admit I don't really care for the way the Church seems to want to be in charge of our lives or make moral decisions for us. Have you ever had a disagreement with your Bishop where you needed to rethink things and come to a different conclusion on them about the way you live your life?]]

Well, I am more than a little sorry if that is the impression I have given. It was certainly not my intention nor does it correspond to my experience. In my own experience the place of law and legitimate superiors do not ordinarily interfere with my freedom or my choices at all. When I think or write about the freedom of this life I have tried to make clear that there are constraints, as in any life, but that these qualify and focus my life in ways which serve my ability to explore the depths of eremitical solitude in the name of the Church. That is the fundamental thing I have been called to, the fundamental thing I have committed to doing, and it is the thing which my superiors and law itself are responsible for assisting me to do with integrity. Let me be clear that no one is heavy handed in this matter. Neither my Bishops (there have been several) nor my delegate simply tell me what to do. The point of my post regarding a disagreement with one's Bishop was that when there were differing conclusions with discernment in a genuinely serious matter (and whether or not hermits may work full time, especially in highly social situations, is one of these) a hermit may be asked to resolve the situation differently than her original discernment led her to do. This was because her vocation is an ecclesial one which is responsible for and affects more than her own life alone.

Unfortunately, the hermit may not see this as clearly as her Bishop or delegate (though she might also see things more clearly, as might other diocesan hermits who live the life and are knowledgeable about the tradition); in such cases it is important that all parties share their own discernment in the process of seeking a resolution to the problem at hand. It remains true that if the Bishop should decide that whatever the best solution to the hermit's need for financial support, it is not (and can never be) full time work, she will not be allowed to do (or continue in) this. Hopefully, both Bishop, hermit, and the delegate will work together to seek a better solution which ensures the hermit's ongoing wellbeing but also protects her witness to the solitary eremitical life and the integrity of the eremitical tradition itself. Part of the reality of any vocation is ongoing discernment of the ways God is calling us and our continuing responses to that. A vocation is less something we "have" than it is something we receive and respond to freshly day by day.

One of the important pieces of standing in law is that one is, for the most part,  protected against arbitrary actions by others which might interfere with this ongoing responsiveness. If you have ever lived in a community or situation in which "power figures" inappropriately dictated what members might or might not do in the name of "governance", you will know what I mean when I say that standing in law can prevent and protect one from such vagaries of personality and agenda. Experiments in the governance of religious life have sometimes left openings into which stepped those whose (perhaps unconscious) desire was more for power than service. When I write about the relationships which are essential to the canonical eremitical vocation I am speaking about relationships that allow a hermit to live freely in the heart of the Church and devote herself to the silence of solitude while these others provide feedback and a sense of the needs of the Church more generally. It is, in my own experience, a true dialogue in which people cooperate for the good of the Church, her proclamation, and the eremitical life entrusted to her by the Spirit and is not at all oppressive.

I have not had had any situations in which the way I live or propose to live my life have conflicted with the way a Bishop, Vicar, or others discern is appropriate. I have, on the other hand, certainly had conversations with my delegate which have caused me to rethink things and modify the way I live. Similarly we have had conversation which have furthered or clarified my own discernment in matters and occasionally we have had conversations where my own failure to adequately discern a course of action was "unmasked". (Actually, it was only unmasked to me, not to anyone else. As I once recounted here, my delegate once said, "I will be interested to hear your discernment [in this matter]" and my immediate thought was, "Busted!" because I knew at the moment she made the comment that I had not really done a thoughtful discernment.) It was pretty funny really. Certainly the demand that one discern seriously and discuss the process with superiors is not oppressive because in all cases my decisions are my own! Sometimes they simply aren't made alone. In my experience this ("I really am interested in hearing your discernment"--- whether stated implicitly or explicitly) is more typical of the way conversations go between myself and any superiors than simply being dictated to.

What Specifically does the Church Hold you Responsible For?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, recently you wrote: [[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.]] I understand what you are saying here and I am beginning to understand why you are concerned about people who pretend to a status they don't actually have. What is hard to see clearly is what responsibility or responsibilities a hermit takes on. When you talk about [being a hermit] "in the Name of the Church" that refers to responsibility, I know that. But what specifically does the Church hold you responsible for? Is any of this based on the Bible or is it all about Canon Law?]]

Thank you for the questions.  Let me begin with the last one which I believe is critically important. I think there are very clear Scriptural precedents for the Church's insistence that standing is inevitably associated with commensurate responsibilities. One of the most vivid is the parable of the Prodigal Son/Merciful Father. Remember that when the younger Son demanded "the property that would be his at his Father's death" he very specifically does NOT ask to assume the responsibilities of inheritance. In fact he rejects these outright. Despite some English translations of the text, he asks for the "ousia", the very "substance" of the material or wealth portion of the patrimony that would come to him at his Father's death, but he does not use "kleronomia", the usual word for inheritance. This is significant because asking for the inheritance (kleronomia) necessarily includes acceptance of leadership for the family, their wealth, honor, and general well-being. In fact, it includes the pledge that one will give one's life for the family if need be.

Instead this son effectively wishes his Father was dead, separates himself from the family, sells off his portion of the property for cheap (he does not bargain as is typical in the Middle Eastern culture but liquidates things quickly for whatever he can get in the moment) thus leaving his family in reduced circumstances; he then squanders the proceeds of his impulsivity, greed, and lack of compassion in "riotous (exorbitant) living" among foreigners. He becomes rootless, a wanderer without value or responsible role, someone who has exchanged the lasting or eternal for the entirely ephemeral. (By the way, it should be noted that in Jesus' day calling someone rootless in this way was an unpardonable offense; making oneself rootless was incredibly degrading.) 

Meanwhile, skipping ahead in the story, when the younger son returns home in yet even greater disgrace he is restored to Sonship and will be honored by all the village as the Father's Son because of the robe, ring and shoes with which his Father has clothed him. In other words, he has been re-established as one with genuine standing  in the People of God and real responsibility within and for the family and the family's honor and wealth. With standing comes responsibility. To take what is due a Son and to do so while cutting all ties, betraying and sundering all relationships, and selfishly relinquishing all responsibility for one's family or the People of God is the very essence of sin in this NT parable. Despite some distorted approaches to spirituality, and the genuine limitations of life as a  hermit, I would argue one cannot do these things in the name of eremitical life either. That way lies the disedifying isolation of counterfeits and curmudgeons rather than the ecclesial solitude of the Christian hermit.

Canonical Standing and Responsibility:

 To accept canonical standing then (e.g., that which comes with public profession and//or consecration) is to accept the responsibility to act in whatever way one is commissioned by the Church to do in her name. The same is true with regard to Sacramental relationships and standing: Baptism (Sacraments of Initiation), Marriage, Ordination all come with specific responsibilities within the Church and for the very life OF the Church. In my own life the specific obligations include: 1) an ecclesial vocation lived as an integral part of the Church's own life and holiness governed by both universal and proper law, 2) an eremitical vocation whose nature is defined by canon 603 and other canons related to consecrated or religious life. It includes stricter separation from the world (those things contrary or even resistant to Christ as well as those things which promise what only God can promise), assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels and all those imply, life according to an approved Rule I write myself, and the supervision of the diocesan Bishop and those he delegates to act as legitimate superiors and/or delegates (quasi-superiors).

In all this I (and all diocesan hermits) are specifically responsible for living the eremitical life in the heart of the Church as a continuation of the prophetic life of the Desert Fathers, the pastorally significant lives of medieval anchor-ites, along with the hidden witness of so many other hermits, and for extending this rich tradition in ways which meet contemporary needs and speak to contemporary culture. 3) As a representative of these I am also part of a parish and diocese; I was called forth from their midst and professed and consecrated in their presence with them witnessing, supporting, and celebrating. As solitary as a hermit's vocation is it is ecclesial and so I live this life in my parish's midst and serve them and others as my eremitical life makes possible.

Bearing the parable of the Prodigal Son/Merciful Father in mind, as a Sister (that is, as a professed religious), I am responsible in various limited ways for dimensions of the life of this parish family. There is something similarly true with regard to the diocese as such though ordinarily this is expressed in my commitment to parish life, or, occasionally, in diocesan events and diocese-wide celebrations, funerals, etc. It always means the parish and diocese are kept in my heart and prayer, but it sometimes means speaking at other parishes in the diocese, doing an occasional presentation at Contemplative Outreach or similar groups in the area, regarding desert spirituality, eremitical life, contemplative prayer, etc. In any case I am responsible not merely to be a hermit, but to be a hermit in the heart of the Church and to appropriately allow the fruits of my own solitary contemplative life to nurture the life of the familiy I know as the local parish and diocesan Church.

In terms of the universal Church I really do feel the obligation to live a life which is truly an extension of the eremitical tradition which has been part of her life since the 4th Century and certainly was an element of Jesus' own life, that of John the Baptist, Elijah, etc. And even beyond the universal Church is the world-at-large --- also searching, hurting, and yearning. Every person comes to communion with God in an essential solitude and the hermit's life reminds them of this. At the same time some effectively marginalized persons especially need the example of the hermit's solitude to come to a sense that their own isolation, no matter the circumstances causing or exacerbating it, can be redeemed through such communion.

Canon 603 is very specific about the hermit living her life for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Her own prayer --- intercessory and otherwise --- is very important here, but so is the entire solitary life she lives as a public person in the Church. The very hiddenness of the hermit's life is, paradoxically, actually part of her public identity and witness. After all, most of the struggle, love, work, and prayer we all do in our lives is hidden "from the eyes of men" and sometimes that can tempt us to abandon this for notoriety, etc. A hermit reminds everyone that this is unnnecessary and perhaps even illegitimate depending on what God wills in our lives. At the very least, the hermit's own life of essential hiddenness encourages patience and suggests a new way of seeing things. Especially it encourages us to see the dignity of our lives and the significance of whatever we do in and with God, no matter how ordinary or how hidden.

So I have a strong sense of responsibility in all of these ways. Moreover, as you very perceptively put the matter, the Church herself rightly holds me morally and legally responsible for living my life in these ways. Public profession and consecration establish a covenant between the individual professed and the Church more generally --- usually through an institute of consecrated life, but now with canon 603, through the hermit's diocese and local Bishop. The Church spells out some of this in the canon, but she fully (and rightly) expects the hermit who is publicly professed to concretize or make these obligations more specific in terms of her own prayer, study, reflection and response to the grace of God as it comes to her through the relationships that constitute her life. This is another reason it is very important that there be sufficient formation and mutual discernment before admitting someone to profession and (then) consecration under canon 603. Through canon 603 diocesan hermits give their lives to Christ and to those who belong to him in what is intended to be an irrevocable gift. Thus the Church that receives this gift needs to have the sense that the candidate has the necessary tools, sensibilities, maturity, and constitutive relationship with God and his Church to truly "flesh out" (or even incarnate) all of the potential which is profoundly embodied in this brief but richly pregnant canon.

Canonical or non-Canonical Hermits: Standing Comes with Responsibility, Rights with Obligations:

My own understanding of the Parable of the Merciful Father (aka Parable of the Prodigal Son) colors the way I see people who seek (or pretend to!) the status or standing of consecrated solitary hermits without accepting the responsibilities the Church associates with such standing. One's life in the Church always comes with commensurate responsibility. Standing as a publicly professed and/or consecrated person in the Church codifies such responsibilities in law. The Prodigal Son was given a robe, a ring, and sandals signifying his new standing in the family. It is not hard for the diocesan hermit to see or hear echoes of this story as the Bishop presents (or clothes her in) the prayer garment, eremitical tunic or scapular, and profession ring, or as he presents her a copy of his formal approval of her Rule which establishes it as binding on the hermit in law as well as morally.

Resonances of the Son's renewed acceptance of his place in protecting the patrimony of his family and People are not far from the hermit's heart when she makes her vows in the hands of the Bishop while resting them on the book of Gospels, or signs those same vows on the altar, or is congratulated and welcomed in her new standing by friends, family, and especially the whole parish community at the Eucharistic Feast. I would think the lay hermit who lives her eremitical life by virtue of her baptismal consecration alone might well perceive similar resonances with 1) her baptism which initiates her into the family of followers of Christ, 2) her anointing with chrism, 3) her clothing with the white baptismal garment, and 4) the giving of the baptismal candle which is accompanied with the commission to keep it burning brightly as a witness to others. In either case, and in all other instances of ecclesial commissioning, standing in the Church comes with responsibilities and rights are accompanied by obligations. The matter is both canonical and profoundly Scriptural but as I understand it, it is Scriptural long before it is canonical.