What is a Stable State of Life? (Reprise)

I am reprising the following article because of a couple of questions on the distinction between being consecrated and being consecrated in a stable state of life. I hope it is helpful!

[[Hi Sister, I was reading the Catechism and canon 603 because I was trying to understand the idea of a "stable state of life" or a "stable way of living". You have said more on this --- though indirectly ---than I could find elsewhere online. Could you please define what constitutes a "stable state of life" in Roman Catholic theology? How does it apply to your life as opposed to that of a lay hermit? Thanks.]]

Great question. I don't know why I haven't ever thought to write about this; a stable (or permanent) state of life is a core element in understanding the distinction between consecrated eremitical life and lay (or non-canonical) eremitical life. I am very grateful you asked this. I checked it out online and as you said, while it was part of every accurate definition of consecrated life (including consecrated eremitical life) there isn't much written about it that I could find. So let me try to make explicit what has been implicit in my writings on this and related topics.

Stable in this context means lasting, solid, established, and (relatively) secure. The necessary noun "state" means ä fixed and permanent mode of life, established (in and by the Church) to acquire or practice a certain virtue (e.g., perfection in the Christian Life, holiness, the evangelical counsels within religious life, etc). Implicit in these definitions when the two words are combined, is the sense that such a stable state signifies a recognized way God is working in the Church: ecclesial approval and mediation of God's call, canonical standing (standing in law), appropriate oversite, support, freedom, governance (legitimate superiors), and a formal (legitimate or canonical) commitment (say, to God via the evangelical counsels, for instance) by the one assuming the rights and obligations of the given state of life constitute this state as stable. The elements required for something to be considered a stable state of life tend toward structuring and extending to the individual life the elements necessary to truly pursue the given vocation in the name of the Church (and so, as a recognized representative of the vocation) with which the Church is entrusted. The Church recognizes several such states : Baptized or Lay, Married, Consecrated (Religious, Hermits, and Virgins), and Ordained. All require public commitments, whether Sacramental (Marriage and ordination) or via canonical profession and consecration (Religious, consecrated hermits, consecrated virgins).

When we begin to think about what makes a state of life in the Church a stable state we begin to understand why it is private vows per se never constitute the means to initiation into the consecrated state of life. They can be a significant part of the stable state of life we know as the baptized or lay state however, and they serve as significant (meaningful) specifications of one's baptismal consecration in this way. But in this case it is one's baptismal consecration into the lay state which defines one's stable state of life; private vows are expressions of that particular consecration but do not initiate one into it. Hence my references in many places to "lay hermits" --- hermits who live their vows in the baptized or lay state alone. In any case, private commitments, though often witnessed by a priest or spiritual director, are not actually received in the name of the Church or overseen by anyone in a formal or canonical way. There are no additional public rights or obligations, nor approved Rule the living out of which the Church as a whole is responsible for governing and supervising. Neither is there any process of mutual discernment by which one may be evaluated as to their capacity and suitability to assume the public rights and obligations of a given state (here I am thinking of the consecrated state), nor of methodical formation with such commitments.

 Moreover, private vows are easily dispensed precisely because of their private nature. In other words one may make private vow as a hermit (whether with serious thought or on a relative whim) one day and days later (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) decide one has made a mistake or circumstances may change which make the vows inconvenient or an obstacle to a greater or more fundamental call from God re one's lay state. The vows can be dispensed by one's pastor. Because of the lack of oversight, etc.. other problems can creep in. If the person does not decide they have made a mistake an individual living a private dedication to eremitical life, for instance, may decide to substitute their own private notions of eremitical spirituality, or live inconsistently given conditions of health, education, training, economics, etc. Even for the most sincere and well-intentioned individual, in a private commitment there is no authority to whom the individual is canonically answerable, no canonical constraints or ecclesial vision to which one has committed oneself to make sure the hermit in this case can make, has made, is keeping, and continues to (be empowered to) keep through the years an appropriate and maturing commitment which the Church herself could recognize as consistent with the eremitical tradition and as rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Canonical standing provides a context which is stable.

Remember that consecrated persons act (live this vocation) in the name of the Church (and also their founders and spiritual Tradition) and that gives the People of God their own rights and reasonable expectations about the quality of life being lived by the person who has been professed and/or consecrated. The people also have a right to turn to the person's legitimate superior if there are grounds for suggesting the vocation is being lived badly or there are scandalous or concerning circumstances involved. Of course this is true only because canonical vocations are public vocations. But think how important it is that such expectations and accountability add to the stability of genuinely consecrated vocations! Accountability itself is a central element of a stable or permanent state of life. It shapes the vocation, challenges and supports it. In a public (canonical) vocation where the vocation "belongs" first of all to the Church who is entrusted with this calling, and only secondarily to individuals called by God through the mediation of the Church, stability is a function of clear channels of authority and accountability. This does not mean these channels are heavy-handed, of course, but it does require them nonetheless.

One of the things I appreciate most about canonical standing is the way 
it establishes a person (or a community) in a living tradition in a way which means there is a clear and responsible dialogue ongoing between the individual, the Church, and the spiritual tradition involved. (This is true in religious families like the Franciscans, Dominicans, Trappist(ine)s, Benedictines, Camaldolese, etc. and it is true in eremitical life per se.) The continuing give and take as the consecrated person is granted and assumes a defined place in the living stream of eremitical tradition is tremendously edifying. The individual is formed in a given strand of the tradition and at the same time she will shape and extend the tradition with her own life. Edward Schillebeeckx writes about this powerfully in his essay on being a Dominican in God Among Us. A life that assumes this kind of responsibility, accountability, humility, and obedience has been initiated into a stable state of life that extends both behind and after her. She has taken a place within it and lives in a conscious and recognizable dialogue with and for this traditional thread, a thread which may have existed for two thousand years and stretches into whatever future the Church has. Private commitments which of their nature are truly entirely private (as opposed to public in the technical sense I use it throughout) simply do not do this.

The Church is a complex living reality. States of life within the Church have been some of the primary ways the Gospel has and continues to be proclaimed and ministry carried out; they are capable of being flexible and responsive to the needs of the world as a whole because they are also well-founded and rooted in a living tradition. Because of their stability (again, they are mutually discerned, publicly committed, ecclesially consecrated, governed and supervised) they can represent a way of life in away which teaches and inspires. When the congregation or individual requires assistance, when congregations reach the  end of their natural life, for instance, canonical standing allows for various creative ways to be sure their life and/or charism can be handed on and, eventually, their history entrusted to archives so scholars can research them and allow their life, a response to the Holy Spirit in a variety of circumstances, to be of continuing benefit to the Church and world.

With regard to the lives of diocesan hermits or publicly professed vs privately vowed hermits I think you can see where the Church will be able to follow and assess the phenomenon of solitary eremitical life beginning in the late 20C. She will be able to look at the Rules written by c 603 hermits, interview bishops professing and supervising them, speak with their delegates, parishes, and dioceses, and just generally provide the story of professed solitary hermits since 1983 according to c 603. Both as individuals and as a group these hermits will contribute to the eremitical tradition, to assessments of what formation was helpful or inadequate, to considering what time frames were associated with successful discernment and formation of eremitical lives, to considerations re protecting the hermit's requirements for support, modes and effectiveness of supervision, the place and nature of limited ministry in the lives of these hermits, and possibly -- to some extent -- the hermits' affect on their local church communities.

We will also more easily contribute to theologies of eremitical life that allow chronic illness as a witness to the way God's power is perfected in weakness, for instance, because some number of us are chronically ill and sought out eremitical life in part because of this. Because we are professed and consecrated into a stable (and public!) state of life, the witness value of our lives will take on greater import for the Church and world. Sometimes folks decry the canonical paper trail that is attached to the profession of the diocesan hermit; others treat it as merely pro forma and relatively meaningless. But the paper trail is a witness to and even part of the stability of the hermit's life and a key to appreciating and researching eremitical tradition not only in the 20-21C but in comparison with it throughout history.

Followup on Provisions for Eucharist and Stable States of Life

 [[Dear sister, I wanted to thank you for your recent post on attending Mass vs the silence of solitude. You have spoken many times about the rights and obligations of canonical eremitical life as opposed to the private dedication of the lay hermit and I sort of remembered reading explanations of what these included, but the idea of missing Mass because of canonical obligations brought all of this into much sharper relief for me. The added paragraph referring to having a priest come to your hermitage to say Mass occasionally also helped me understand what you meant by being part of a stable state of life and eremitical life lived by private vows in the lay state. Just to be sure I understood you, am I correct in saying that regular public Mass is part of the stable state of life of the laity whereas  having a priest come into your hermitage if necessary is part of the stable state of canonical eremitism and the rights and obligations which are part of that life?]]

Thanks for this restatement and your comments. I can't add much to what you have written. Yes, the ability to have someone come into the hermitage and say Mass is part of the rights which are associated with canonical eremitism. It is also something which allows me to negotiate the needs of the silence of solitude and my obligations regarding a sound and vibrant sacramental life. Obviously it allows me to meet (in a flexible or less literal way) the requirement of Sunday Mass and the reasons for that. Lay hermits are part of the lay state and the Church is clear what rights and obligations accrue to that state which makes it a stable state of life. Sunday Mass attendance (which is also about participating in the life of the Church rather than just "getting Communion"!) is part of this life's stability then; it is part of what sustains a lay person and the life of the whole Church as well.

Were I to have a priest come in to say Mass it would need to enhance a strong ecclesial commitment which was also reflected in the need for extended and increased silence and solitude. It would also need to enhance the silence of solitude which itself is, paradoxically, a relational term. It would need to be truly edifying and thus, build up the Church herself; it could not be a selfish act or one which simply isolates. Hence the need for significant consultation and discernment in the decision to embrace greater reclusion (a word I have been avoiding up until now, I guess) -- just as would happen in any congregation discerning and deciding on allowing a period of reclusion for one of their members and how they do that so it will be healthy and edifying for all.

I may have been too vague in referring to "rights and obligations" in the past. Moreover, describing what constitutes a stable state of life is something I simply had not thought to do. When I look at the way the Church supports different stable states of life, especially in terms of provisions for Eucharist, it does bring clarity I think. Considering the different ways the Church provides for Eucharist for the lay (non-canonical) hermit and the canonical hermit underscores the  nature of these different stable states of life. Again, thanks for your questions and comments, they are very well articulated and I think will be helpful to other readers.

On Accepting Necessary Medical Assistance and Eremitical "Hiddenness"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A point of clarification:

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

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

What is a Stable State of Life?

[[Hi Sister, I was reading the Catechism and canon 603 because I was trying to understand the idea of a "stable state of life" or a "stable way of living". You have said more on this --- though indirectly ---than I could find elsewhere online. Could you please define what constitutes a "stable state of life" in Roman Catholic theology? How does it apply to your life as opposed to that of a lay hermit? Thanks.]]

Great question. I don't know why I haven't ever thought to write about this; a stable (or permanent) state of life is a core element in understanding the distinction between consecrated eremitical life and lay eremitical life. I am very grateful you asked this. I checked it out online and as you said, while it was part of every accurate definition of consecrated life (including consecrated eremitical life) there isn't much written about it that I could find. So let me try to make explicit what has been implicit in my writings on this and related topics.

Stable in this context means lasting, solid, established, and (relatively) secure. The necessary noun "state" means ä fixed and permanent mode of life, established (in and by the Church) to acquire or practice a certain virtue (e.g., perfection in the Christian Life, holiness, the evangelical counsels within religious life, etc). Implicit in these definitions (and often explicit in canon law and the CCC) when the two words are combined is that such a stable state signifies an instance of a recognized way God is working in the Church, ecclesial approval and mediation of God's call, canonical standing (standing in law), appropriate oversite, support, freedom, and governance (legitimate superiors), and a formal (legitimate or canonical) commitment (say, to God via the evangelical counsels, for instance) by the one assuming the rights and obligations of the given state of life. The elements required for something to be considered a stable state of life tend toward structuring and extending to the individual life the elements necessary to truly pursue the given vocation in the name of the Church (and so, as a recognized representative of the vocation) with which the Church is entrusted. The Church recognizes several such states : Baptized or Lay, Married, Consecrated (Religious, Hermits, and Virgins), and Ordained. All require public commitments, whether Sacramental (Marriage and ordination) or via canonical profession and consecration (Religious, consecrated hermits, consecrated virgins).

When we begin to think about what makes a state of life in the Church a stable state we begin to understand why it is private vows per se never constitute the means to initiation into the consecrated state of life. They can be a significant part of the stable state of life we know as the baptized or lay state however, and they serve as significant (meaningful) specifications of one's baptismal consecration in this way. But in this case it is one's baptismal consecration into the lay state which defines one's stable state of life; private vows are expressions of that particular consecration but do not initiate one into it. Hence my references in many places to "lay hermits" --- hermits who live their vows in the baptized or lay state alone. In any case, private commitments, though often witnessed by a priest or spiritual director, are not actually received in the name of the Church or overseen by anyone in a formal or canonical way. There are no additional public rights or obligations, nor approved Rule the living out of which the Church as a whole is responsible for governing and supervising. Neither is there any process of mutual discernment by which one may be evaluated as to their capacity and suitability to assume the public rights and obligations of a given state (here I am thinking of the consecrated state), nor of methodical formation with such commitments.

 Moreover, private vows are easily dispensed precisely because of their private nature. In other words one may make private vow as a hermit (whether with serious thought or on a relative whim) one day and days later (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) decide one has made a mistake or circumstances may change which make the vows inconvenient or an obstacle to a greater or more fundamental call from God re one's lay state. The vows can be dispensed by one's pastor. Because of the lack of oversight, etc.. other problems can creep in. If the person does not decide they have made a mistake an individual living a private dedication to eremitical life, for instance, may decide to substitute their own private notions of eremitical spirituality, or live inconsistently given conditions of health, education, training, economics, etc. Even for the most sincere and well-intentioned individual, in a private commitment there is no authority to whom the individual is canonically answerable, no canonical constraints or ecclesial vision to which one has committed oneself to make sure the hermit in this case can make, has made, is keeping, and continues to (be empowered to) keep through the years an appropriate and maturing commitment which the Church herself could recognize as consistent with the eremitical tradition and as rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Canonical standing provides a context which is stable.

Remember that consecrated persons act (live this vocation) in the name of the Church (and also their founders and spiritual Tradition) and that gives the People of God their own rights and reasonable expectations about the quality of life being lived by the person who has been professed and/or consecrated. The people also have a right to turn to the person's legitimate superior if there are grounds for suggesting the vocation is being lived badly or there are scandalous or concerning circumstances involved. Of course this is true only because canonical vocations are public vocations. But think how important it is that such expectations and accountability add to the stability of genuinely consecrated vocations! Accountability itself is a central element of a stable or permanent state of life. It shapes the vocation, challenges and supports it. In a public (canonical) vocation where the vocation "belongs" first of all to the Church who is entrusted with this calling, and only secondarily to individuals called by God through the mediation of the Church, stability is a function of clear channels of authority and accountability. This does not mean these channels are heavy-handed, of course, but it does require them nonetheless.

One of the things I appreciate most about canonical standing is the way
it establishes a person (or a community) in a living tradition in a way which means there is a clear and responsible dialogue ongoing between the individual, the Church, and the spiritual tradition involved. (This is true in religious families like the Franciscans, Dominicans, Trappist(ine)s, Benedictines, Camaldolese, etc. and it is true in eremitical life per se.) The continuing give and take as the consecrated person is granted and assumes a defined place in the living stream of eremitical tradition is tremendously edifying. The individual is formed in a given strand of the tradition and at the same time she will shape and extend the tradition with her own life. Edward Schillebeeckx writes about this powerfully in his essay on being a Dominican in God Among Us. A life that assumes this kind of responsibility, accountability, humility, and obedience has been initiated into a stable state of life that extends both behind and after her. She has taken a place within it and lives in a conscious and recognizable dialogue with and for this traditional thread, a thread which may have existed for two thousand years and stretches into whatever future the Church has. Private commitments which of their nature are truly entirely private (as opposed to public in the technical sense I use it throughout) simply do not do this.

The Church is a complex living reality. States of life within the Church have been some of the primary ways the Gospel has and continues to be proclaimed and ministry carried out; they are capable of being flexible and responsive to the needs of the world as a whole because they are also well-founded and rooted in a living tradition. Because of their stability (again, they are mutually discerned, publicly committed, ecclesially consecrated, governed and supervised) they can represent a way of life in away which teaches and inspires. When the congregation or individual requires assistance, when congregations reach the  end of their natural life, for instance, canonical standing allows for various creative ways to be sure their life and/or charism can be handed on and, eventually, their history entrusted to archives so scholars can research them and allow their life, a response to the Holy Spirit in a variety of circumstances, to be of continuing benefit to the Church and world.

With regard to the lives of diocesan hermits or publicly professed vs privately vowed hermits I think you can see where the Church will be able to follow and assess the phenomenon of solitary eremitical life beginning in the late 20C. She will be able to look at the Rules written by c 603 hermits, interview bishops professing and supervising them, speak with their delegates, parishes, and dioceses, and just generally provide the story of professed solitary hermits since 1983 according to c 603. Both as individuals and as a group these hermits will contribute to the eremitical tradition, to assessments of what formation was helpful or inadequate, to considering what time frames were associated with successful discernment and formation of eremitical lives, to considerations re protecting the hermit's requirements for support, modes and effectiveness of supervision, the place and nature of limited ministry in the lives of these hermits, and possibly -- to some extent -- the hermits' affect on their local church communities.

We will also more easily contribute to theologies of eremitical life that allow chronic illness as a witness to the way God's power is perfected in weakness, for instance, because some number of us are chronically ill and sought out eremitical life in part because of this. Because we are professed and consecrated into a stable (and public!) state of life, the witness value of our lives will take on greater import for the Church and world. Sometimes folks decry the canonical paper trail that is attached to the profession of the diocesan hermit; others treat it as merely pro forma and relatively meaningless. But the paper trail is a witness to and even part of the stability of the hermit's life and a key to appreciating and researching eremitical tradition not only in the 20-21C but in comparison with it throughout history.

On Solitary Hermits, C 603, and Stable states of Life

[[Hi Sister Laurel, did you see the story about the hermit profession in the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese? The story says two of these hermits live together. I wondered how that might work if the vocation is one of silence and solitude.]]

Yes, I did see the article. Several things about it surprised me. The first was that two of the women were living together; a second surprising thing was the specification of three canonical hermits in the diocese (if the number is correct it suggests a young woman professed several years ago may not have persevered). A third was that Bishop Kevin Rhoades has professed a relative "lot" of hermits in a fairly short amount of time (his tenure as Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend is only a few years and he has admitted four people to at least temporary profession under c 603).

Your question is a good one since c 603 is meant to govern solitary eremitical vocations. Lauras (colonies of no more than three) are permitted but these may not rise to the level of an actual community or institute of consecrated life. (cf Jean Beyer's work on this including his comments in Coriden'sThe Code of Canon Law, A Text and Commentary.) This means each hermit in such a colony should have her own Rule, her own bank account and source of income, her own horarium, spiritual director, diocesan delegate, etc. In lauras, hermits may come together regularly (usually weekly) for walks or Sunday dinner, festal offices, and daily Mass, but otherwise, their lives are lived in cell. This ordinarily includes daily office, meals, recreation, study, lectio, etc. All of these "requirements" would certainly hold for two diocesan hermits living together in the same residence. If the two women really are solitary hermits (as they are supposed to be under c 603) and not a couple of Sisters living a communal life (no matter how contemplative or prayerful) while using c 603 as a stopgap way to achieve canonical profession, then a few things will need to be true. First, the residence must be large enough for each to have an entirely private and silent prayer space or cell where she prays, does lectio, says daily office, sleeps, eats, studies, and recreates. (A staggered schedule could allow each woman to cook and eat in the kitchen/dining room separately from one another and a separate, dedicated library could allow for both to read or study in shared silence and solitude.)

The Sisters could, if mutually agreeable, come together occasionally for office and dinner on Sundays or significant feasts just as they might schedule significant time together for shared prayer, a walk, a shopping trip, etc once or twice a week perhaps. They could also travel together to daily Mass, but conversation, if any was necessary, would also need to be minimal and each person's need for silence respected. Moreover, each one would need her own Rule and director along with absolute freedom and diocesan support in discerning the needs of her own solitary eremitical life; while accommodations would be required for the shared times and premises, the individual Rule would need to be sufficient for the Sister's own life as should her income, etc, should she be required to leave this residence. The possible reasons are several: the other Sister dies,  either one decides she needs to leave eremitical life, either person discerns she requires a more physically solitary situation, the rhythms and nature of the two calls to solitary eremitical life are simply too different from one another, and so forth. Another reason includes changes in health which are substantial enough to affect both members of the house. More about this is below.

Without these things, neither woman would be living an eremitical life and significantly, neither would be able to accommodate any divine call to greater reclusion --- which is an integral part of an eremitical call. (The need for greater reclusion can occur from time to time as well and this would have to be given priority over the already-scheduled times together.) Especially critical in the case of two older hermits is the provision for health care (including in-home caregivers) affecting one of the two hermits. For instance, one hermit should not be automatically expected to provide these things for the other while the presence of in-home caregivers could also considerably impact the silence and solitude of the second hermit's life. In a religious institute like the Carthusians, brothers and sisters provide all the care an elderly hermit or nun requires, but this critical responsibility which no Carthusian would turn over to an outsider does not fall to a single person. The eremitical vocation to the solitude of all the others in the Charterhouse is preserved while their communal commitment to being family for one another is also carefully maintained.

Likewise, in a laura of diocesan hermits, the cells are a sufficient distance from one another that visitors (caregivers, for instance) do not impact the others. Some lauras actually require a hermit needing full-time medical or in-home care to move to a nursing facility or infirmary. This may seem heartless or lacking in charity but in point of fact, it protects the vocations of the other solitary hermits. Remember these hermits are NOT professed as part of a community; their vocations are to solitary eremitical life. They neither have Sisters to care for them in this way nor are they necessarily called to do something similar for other members of the laura. The allowance of a laura for canon 603 hermits is something additional meant for mutual protection and support in solitude but it is not an essential part of the life defined by canon 603. It does not and must not change the nature of the vocation itself which is that of the solitary eremitical life. What I am saying here is the situation described in the diocese of Fort Wayne could certainly work for these two hermits but everyone must be clear about what each person's vocation really consists. Sufficient solitude and personal freedom to respond to God's call could be ensured but there are some significant caveats and also, some significant provisions for each Sister's vocation, both in the present and in case of future need, must be assured.

By the way, I should add here as a kind of postscript that in the case of a serious illness, a solitary hermit living with another Sister might, with the assistance of her Bishop and SD, discern that for the space of a few weeks or months, it is important for her to assist the ill Sister to the best of her ability or tolerate others coming into the hermitage to care for her. Charity, it might be determined, required this. This might well necessitate a temporary suspension of parts of the Sister's Rule, for instance, which the Bishop may grant. However, it is also the case that as with work outside the hermitage, everyone should continue discerning the impact of this arrangement on the Sister's own health and vocation. Should either of these begin to suffer, or should the situation become more extensive in its demands of time and personal commitment, the Sister who is not ill should be free to say she cannot continue to assist in this way or even accommodate further intrusions in the hermitage's privacy or functional "cloister". A suitable resolution for both Sisters would need to be found, and the diocese which approved or even encouraged the common living arrangement would absolutely need to assist in this. Of course, this would be very difficult on a number of levels for all involved but this is one of the problems which could well be encountered by c 603 ("solitary") hermits who choose or are encouraged to live together.

[[My second question is why would the Church allow some consecrated Catholic hermits with private vows to live without legitimate superiors, move wherever they wanted and at the same time require other consecrated hermits with public vows to live in the same diocese where they were professed? Don't all consecrated persons have to be accountable to superiors and live where they are permitted? Anyway, it hardly seem fair that some consecrated hermits could live anywhere and others would be tied to a [specific] diocese. Joyful hermit at the blog A Catholic Hermit wrote that this is the way things are though.]]

First, let's be clear: hermits with private vows (unless they are ordained) are dedicated lay hermits. They are not consecrated hermits and have no right to call themselves Catholic hermits because they have neither been extended nor accepted the legal (canonical) rights and obligations associated with living the eremitical life in the name of the Church. Hermits who are publicly professed and consecrated by God through the mediation of the Church have been extended and accepted the public (canonical) rights, and obligations as well as the implicit expectations of every member of the Church who rightly sees her profession as a public matter. (N.B., priests who live as hermits without public vows either under c. 603 or as a member of a religious institute, are ALSO not consecrated hermits; they are ordained and hermits (hermits in the ordained state of life) but they are not members of the consecrated state of life.)

Moreover, as I have also written here a number of times, public profession initiates one into a stable state of life. This means a number of things but mainly it means a series of legitimate relationships that are absolutely necessary for the accountable and authentic living of her commitment which are essential to the life itself. Part of this means such persons are not footloose and fancy-free. They are not and cannot be the equivalent of gyrovagues or Sarabaites so critically viewed in the Rule of St Benedict simply moving wherever the "spirit" moves them. They are tied to place and to superiors in some substantial way. With religious communities (institutes), for instance, the erection and suppression of houses associated with the institute are established according to canon and proper law. Such houses are approved by the institute's superiors and either the local Bishop or the Apostolic See and members live in these houses or, with proper consideration and permission, in the same area or diocese. (cf cc 606-616)

Somewhat similarly, secular or diocesan priests are incardinated into a diocese --- another instance of the Church's concern for stable relationships and accountability. They cannot simply move from diocese to diocese as they please while acting as a Catholic priest. Diocesan hermits are responsible to the local bishop who is their legitimate superiors. As I have noted here several times, in a kind of excardination and incardination, she may move to another diocese and remain a diocesan hermit if the Bishop there agrees to receive her as a diocesan hermit and act as her legitimate superior. Otherwise, such a move would find her vows either dispensed or rendered "invalid" (no longer binding) by the substantial change in her circumstances.

In all of these cases consecrated and ordained life requires stable relationships and ways of assuring accountability to the local and universal Church in whose name these persons live their lives. The reason a person with private vows can move wherever and whenever without reference to law or legitimate superiors is precisely because her commitment is a private one rather than a public one.  Such a person is not publicly accountable for the eremitical life or tradition and has not been initiated into a stable state of life that would specifically allow for that. Lay hermits live their lives in the stable state into which they are initiated with baptism, confirmation and Eucharist. But to live as a consecrated Catholic hermit requires other stable relationships commensurate with a new stable state of life marked by additional rights and obligations.

Because hermits in the lay state have neither been extended nor accepted additional rights or obligations beyond those of baptism this also means such a person has no right to style him/herself as a consecrated religious, a Catholic hermit, a professed religious (the term profession itself, by the way, implies public commitments and initiation into a stable state of life) or anything similar. What you describe would indeed be unfair. It would be inconsistent, and disedifying. Frankly, it would be hard to understand why any hermit would seek profession under canon 603 if the biggest difference between her vocation and that of a lay hermit with private vows is the fact that a lay hermit is free to do anything she wants whenever and wherever she wants without legitimate accountability while the publicly professed hermit is constrained by legal relationships and canons. In any case, don't be concerned about apparent unfairness; the situation you described or cited is simply not rooted in fact.

Once again it is important to remember the Church values and is directly responsible for vocations to the consecrated state in very specific ways. She is careful about anyone using the term Catholic to designate a vocation, enterprise, or institution without ecclesial authorization to the point of creating canons that prohibit this. Again a Catholic hermit, Catholic theologian, Catholic priest or religious, etc, must ALL have been granted the right to refer to themselves in this way. Baptism gives a person the right (and obligation) to call themselves and live as a Catholic. The other specifications (Catholic hermit, Catholic nun, Catholic priest, Catholic friar, etc.) require the admission to and acceptance of further legal (canonical) rights and obligations because these terms don't simply mean "a Catholic who is also a priest, nun, hermit, etc". Again, the use of the term Catholic in these examples and many others means someone who lives this vocation in the name of the Church and as an official representative of this very vocation. Such persons are directly accountable every day of their lives for the ecclesial commission the Church has extended to them. Not so with those whose commitments beyond their baptismal consecration are private rather than public.

P.S., I have added one final question from another person to this post since I don't really want to write about it separately. I hope you don't mind; it deals with the same post you asked about so it fits very well here.

[[Sister Laurel,  is it true that first and final vows are not documented in the Church's institutes on eremitical life? I read this online and thought I would ask, [[However, this is yet one example again, of how bishops vary in attitude and norm for those they canonically approve or receive what they might call "first vows" (first or second or third or final vows are not actually required nor documented in the Church institutes on eremitic life).]]


First of all as I have noted in the past, the Church speaks of canons, norms, universal (canon) and proper (particular) law to refer to what this poster calls "institutes". The Roman Catholic Church does not use institutes in the way this poster does. Instead, in c 603, for instance, when the Church says, "besides institutes of consecrated life", she means "besides canonical congregations, communities and orders". The term "institutes" means societies, in this case, those of consecrated life.

The use of institutes in the poster's sense has its roots in a misreading she once did of c 603 when she inserted the definite article "the" in the phrase already cited: "Besides the institutes of consecrated life. . ." This allowed her to mistakenly think of institutes as statutes and argue that c 603 was only a proviso that applied to some solitary consecrated hermits but not to others. Again, c. 603 is the norm for ALL solitary consecrated hermits in the universal Church. There are no solitary consecrated hermits (solitary hermits in the consecrated state) apart from c 603 hermits.

Secondly, and to answer your direct question, while canon 603 does not mention first vows but merely profession using vows or other sacred bonds, other canons in the New Code dealing with religious life DO refer specifically to temporary profession and perpetual profession. C 603 hermits are not bound by only one canon, but by those binding religious in the Roman Catholic Church more generally. Meanwhile, conferences of Bishops rightly hold that the eremitical life requires long testing and discernment which makes temporary profession at least prudent if not absolutely necessary. Hermits themselves know that admission to perpetual profession without long preparation is imprudent; temporary profession, though not strictly necessary with canon 603, is the usual way to become knowledgeable about what living the vows really means. Moreover, a profession by its very nature must be temporary or perpetual, and c 603 clearly requires a public profession. It is a mistake to say that such a practice including final or perpetual profession of vows or other sacred bonds and the necessary preparation for these are not actually required or documented.