Response to Joyful Hermit's Post: Non-Canonical does NOT mean Illegal!!

[[It does seem that I should either be a legal hermit or remain an illegal hermit, and if that, to very much acknowledge that I am an illegal hermit, even if God chose me for the hermit life.  Even if Scripture states in various ways and verses of books in the Bible, that God's law is superior to man's law.  St. Paul is reminding of that reality, in that he was not sent by man or men, but was sent by God as an apostle. Illegal Catholic Hermit?]]

So wrote Joyful Hermit yesterday in her current blog. There is, it seems, a sad and apparently painful dimension to things for her and I wanted to address it directly and apart from the questions that have already begun to come in. I know I once answered a question about so-called, "illegal hermits" before but I don't remember how long ago, why it was posted or if it is relevant. Perhaps I need to reprise it. In any case, it is a mistake to use the term "illegal" of what is a significant vocation in the Church many have embraced, and for that reason, it sounds to me to be a somewhat self-pitying or just intransigent choice of self-designation when there are two perfectly good and more accurate choices from usual Catholic usage, neither of which are in the least denigrating or derogatory.

The first available term is non-canonical. Some way of living or some enterprise not yet granted a particular canonical standing beyond baptism, or those who live a particular way (as a hermit, for instance) but do not choose to be canonical when there is such an option are simply described as being non-canonical: they choose not to live according to the canonical form of the life. A second alternative --- as Joyful looks for a way to describe her state and the state in which her form of eremitical life is lived is --- lay hermit. (I mean this throughout this piece in the vocational, not hierarchical sense of the term "lay"**.) I did not make these terms up. Joyful is a baptized person living in the lay state; she is a Catholic living privately vowed hermit life from an impulse of her baptism in the lay (non-canonical) or baptized state. Most hermits in the Church have always been and will always be lay hermits without benefit of a "second consecration" and its initiation into the consecrated state of life because either it did not exist as an option, they thereafter chose not to seek this, they were somehow discerned by diocesan personnel to be unsuited to it, were not canonically free to do so, and so forth. Still, they lived and do live eremitical life within the Church. We therefore do not call them illegal hermits or illicit hermits, nor any other derogatory term. They are in the baptized state and live from the inspiration of God which is fundamental to that state of life.

In fact, we are trying to find ways to appropriately encourage and honor these hermits in the lay (non-canonical) state, to recognize them and write about it so that it becomes a fully known and esteemed vocation. This is one of the reasons I put up the post on Felicity Kreger, OblSB recently. I have said many times that I believe in vocations to chronic illness and the potentially eremitical life some of these as well as among isolated elderly might have. I have also written about the way my own canonically consecrated life might make it harder for me to witness to such people. After all, they will likely never be canonical hermits (and most have no desire for this) but they might well be called to live as lay hermits, hermits in the baptized state. So, how wonderful it could be if Joyful Hermit worked through her difficulties in all of this and accepted ordinary Catholic usage (non-canonical or lay hermit) and the wonderful gift such a life could be for the whole church! How incredible it could be if she became not a paean of pain but a significant example of edifying Lay eremitical life!!

Early on I was concerned for Joyful's own well-being when she posted the following dialogue ("the hermit" refers to the blogger herself, not to hermits in general): [[The hermit still did not have a PLACE. But the hermit is part of the laity--that is the place for the hermit. No, the hermit is not really part of the laity. The hermit is irregular. The hermit blurted out, finally, that there is no room for a mystic in the Catholic Church. But the confessor said of course there was and has been through out the history of the Church. Well, this hermit, this mystic hermit, has no place.]]The Complete Hermit, September, 30, 2007

I felt concern. This sense of being nothing and having no place is a terrible sense of unfreedom, of not belonging, of being ineffective and entirely disregarded. Joyful, according to her blog. was trying for consecration under canon 603 and apparently that was not going to happen. Though fairly newly baptized (a few years) as a Catholic, she apparently had not come to sufficiently appreciate that being laity definitely gives one a place and private vows in that same state were still tremendously significant. And so I wrote about the importance of the lay state and the reality of lay hermits. Earlier in response to her questions (she wrote me prior to my perpetual profession), I responded directly to Joyful and suggested she begin thinking about herself as a hermit and about private vows. And I blogged. I couldn't see another way to assist her in my writing. But of course, it has to do with more than Joyful's own feelings and needs; there are vocations involved. To see the Lay Vocation as bereft of significance in the church is to fail to understand the nature and dignity of baptism as foundational of the Church, the lay state grounds every other state in the Church. Occasionally I hear from others who feel as Joyful does. This has to be countered; it certainly mustn't be worsened with terms like "illegal", "illicit", or "undocumented," on a public blog.

Joyful also writes [[A legal Catholic hermit who also writes blog posts, has written eloquently of why CL603 makes a hermit "free." While I do not want to seem ubiquitously irritating, I immediately ask the question, "Were not any or all of the holy, even canonized saint Catholic hermits prior to 1983, then, free? It would seem not. Definitely in today's Church, they would not be legal hermits, and not recognized by the Church as hermits. Was John the Baptist not free? Were not St. Paul the First Hermit, St. Antony of the Desert, St. Mary of Egypt, St. Sarah of the Desert, St. Benedict (the three years he was a hermit), St. Bruno, St. Romuald, St.Godric, St. Nicholas of Flue, St. Seraphim, St. Charbel--and so many more--not free?]]

Actually, I wrote very specifically that for those called to it (and therefore, to the state it constitutes) Canon 603 provides a realm of freedom --- but it is not the only state in the Church, and not the only way to live as a hermit. It would not provide a realm of freedom for one not called to it any more than I would be able to find the same freedom in the clerical or married states. I am called to neither. I lived as a lay hermit for a while when my diocese determined they would not profess anyone under Canon 603. During that time I continued to grow in my eremitical life and in time I learned I had something unique or at least significant to bring to the Church as a hermit and I sought again to be admitted to canonical standing under c 603; this seemed the responsible way forward for me to live my life in Christ to its fullest ecclesial potential. Though I lived freely as a non-canonical hermit, nonetheless I truly felt called to eremitical life in the consecrated state. A number of persons discerned that with me, and though it took time, we were correct. I experience greater freedom as a diocesan hermit than I did even as a hermit in the lay state. In some ways c 603 represents the norm defining a realm where the associated constraints become freeing; some don't understand this paradox. That's okay; they aren't called to this. One wrote recently he didn't see the benefit in consecration; that's okay, apparently he's not called to it at this point. Their freedom apparently lies elsewhere within the lay state.

One can and many do experience freedom in living as lay or non-canonical hermits. Think of all the norms that help define the lay state, all the rights and obligations associated with it when these are taken seriously. None of the people Ms. McClure listed who were actually Christians felt (I truly believe) unfree because they took their lay prophetic vocations very seriously. (There was no canonical option here.) John the Baptist did it in a Jewish prophetic context. The Desert Abbas and Ammas lived the gospel as fully as they could in the desert and did so in direct contrast to a post-Constantinian Church. They lived from the Spirit and Word of God within the Church they helped constitute, but also against its tendency to accommodate itself too freely to the world of power and privilege. They were lay hermits in the main. Others like St Romuald lived under the Benedictine Rule, and traveled to bring others (those hermits who were lone, unaffiliated, and sometimes, simply lost) under the Rule of Benedict as well. It provided order, inspiration, and a way of seeing one's solitary eremitical life as integral to the life of the Church. Benedictinism is a living thing represented by those who live his Rule in faithful and intelligent ways.

St Bruno established what would become a canonical congregation beginning slowly with a group of friends living lay (or possibly clerical) eremitical life together and ending with a canonical congregation that has been (and remains) paradigmatic of a form of consecrated semi-eremitical life. They lived God's will as the Church context made possible (and sometimes necessary). Their lives were creative and pushed boundaries. But yes, at the same time there were lone individuals calling themselves or being called hermits, validating failure by being "hermits", giving scandal and otherwise denigrating the very term "hermit,"  with their lives. The church had no canonical definition of the term for solitary hermits, but these were not John the Baptists or St Romualds. They were eccentrics, and the desert/wilderness was not profoundly humanizing for them. St Romuald's efforts to bring together the hermits scattered throughout Italy was not entirely successful and the disordered and disedifying "hermits" continued to exist as lone individuals and often nothing more than misanthropes, the badly wounded, individualists, etc. Were these individuals free? Not insofar as they were not driven and empowered by the Gospel to do what they were doing. Not insofar as they lived this terrible solitude in the name of woundedness, illness, alienation, or bitterness and not in the name/power of the God of wholeness and freedom. They were not free nor were they hermits --- at least not in the way the Church now defines that and actually, has always understood it through orders and lauras and anchorites who were under their bishop's protection and supervision.

What the Church has never truly esteemed or recognized --- and never adequately assisted us to even understand enough before 1983 --- is the solitary eremitical life lived in the heart of the Church. This vocation comprises both those in the Lay and the Consecrated states (it includes --- though very rarely --- those in the Clerical state as well). Canon 603 is used to consecrate those called to live solitary eremitical life in the name of the Church. At the same time, it outlines the essential elements that define a solitary eremitical life -- no matter one's state of life. By professing and consecrating solitary hermits with clearly discerned vocations, it recognizes solitary eremitical life in law for the first time in the Church's life. But it is important to realize this works paradigmatically, not exclusively. What I mean is it establishes a call to a relatively small number of hermits who will live this life so that the whole Church can begin to accept the solitary hermit life in whatever state eremitism is lived as positively significant. Before this happened in the Western Church, solitary hermit life had died out and semi-eremitical life continued; it was accepted but remained a bit of a curiosity. Canon 603 establishes solitary eremitical life as a viable, contemporary, important example of a spirituality of wholeness in the silence of solitude; it establishes this life for the witness it represents, and (despite what folks might have thought) shows it is still a vital form of life present in some few responding to the Holy Spirit.

I am truly glad to hear Joyful Hermit struggling in the way she is to accept and embrace the truth. I am especially glad she has people to work with whom she trusts in this process. What she is doing is not easy and takes courage, but if she persists it can be incredibly life-giving. I accept gratefully the kind words she has written recently about my blog. I sincerely hope she hears what her once-diocesan-Bishop and parish Rector and others (including myself in our brief email correspondence) were trying to explain about living as a lay hermit according to her baptismal consecration, or about not needing a declaration of nullity if she lives eremitical life in this state. I am sorry she was misled or left uncorrected on the use of the designation Catholic Hermit, though I am very glad that in those early years, she had blogged about a canonist who told her several times about the link between canon 603 and "living as a hermit in the name of the Church." One sincere hope I have is that she can accept the language of "lay state" and "non-canonical" to distinguish her eremitical life from those in the consecrated state if that is ever necessary. There is no need to denigrate such a calling with labels like illegal, illicit, or undocumented. No one should do so!!

Joyful and many others besides her are "documented"; she (and they) are Catholics and have a baptismal certificate and likely one for confirmation and other Sacraments of initiation as well! Again, except for a few centuries of monastic ascendency, lay eremitical life has always been the most prevalent and possibly the most prophetic way of living the eremitic vocation in the Western Church. That has not changed with Canon 603. Perhaps what has changed with Canon 603 is the possibility for all hermits, of whatever state of life, to live edifying eremitical lives that will build the church with its witness to the gospel and be recognized for their place in that. I sincerely hope so!

** lay has two senses, one a vocational sense and the other a hierarchical one. In the first sense, we identify members of the lay, consecrated, and clerical states of life. In the second or hierarchical sense, we identify folks as either clerical or lay. In the hierarchical sense, any hermit who is not a priest is a lay hermit. In the vocational sense, hermits may be members of the lay state, the consecrated state of life, or the clerical state of life. The use of the term lay hermit can be confusing and non-canonical or canonical can be used to clarify matters.

On Catechisms, Lay hermit Life and the Reasons for Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, I get the impression that you are "allergic" to people who live eremitical life for selfish reasons. As I continue to read your blog I am beginning to get a sense of why you emphasize the character of ecclesial vocations. I know you insist the consecrated and lay hermit vocations are different from one another but not that one is better than the other. Isn't it the case though, that as soon as one of these is defined as an ecclesial vocation, it becomes a calling that avoids selfishness and some of the other stereotypes associated with eremitical life? Is it really possible to live as a lay hermit and avoid these things? Could it be impossible and if so, maybe this is the reason the Church really doesn't do a lot to speak of hermits in the lay state. Maybe that's part of the reason the CCC  doesn't actually refer to lay hermits but chooses instead to speak of consecrated hermits.]]

What an intriguing analysis!!! Thank you for the thought you have given this. I think you have sharpened or underscored the importance of ecclesial standing in regard to eremitical life. Ecclesial vocations, as I have said many times, "belong" to the Church and are lived on her behalf for the sake of her Gospel and those to whom she would proclaim that Gospel. Such vocations truly are allergic to selfishness --- except in the sense that any vocation genuinely serves the wholeness and holiness of the one called and then everyone else. Even so, and despite the fact that this helps protect the eremitical vocation from the stereotypes of individualism, misanthropy, isolationism, and so forth, I don't think it means either that consecrated hermits don't fall into these traps or that lay eremitical lives cannot be lived in a similarly exemplary way. Or, to put things more positively, I believe both consecrated and lay (or non-canonical) eremitical vocations can be the result of a Divine call and stand in opposition to the stereotypes and perversions of authentic hermit life we have seen through the centuries. Consecrated and Lay eremitical vocations are different in their rights and obligations but at the core of each is a call to the silence of solitude which itself is the eremitical vocation's great gift (charism) to the Church.

Remember the Desert Fathers and Mothers were lay hermits and their vocations were profoundly prophetic; they challenged the worldliness of the Church and called her back to a life of authentic holiness. They typified a true desert spirituality that could serve any person in days of deprivation, suffering, want, fragility, and threat with its foundational message that God alone is sufficient for us and has promised to be there for us eternally in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. Now, in a sense, these Desert Abbas and Ammas were Church for one another as well as for those to whom they witnessed from beyond the desert borders. Also in a sense, these hermits saw their vocations as serving the whole Church. These were not ecclesial vocations in the sense we use that term today, but they were profoundly linked to and meant for the health and holiness of the Church.

In the history of the Church lay (non-canonical) hermits have, for instance, served as anchorites connected intimately to the life of the local church. Not only did they attend liturgy via a window looking out on the altar, but they had windows on the life of the community via the village square which allowed folks to come to them, talk, ask for prayers, receive spiritual direction, and just generally find a listening ear and heart. These were, in the main, lay hermits -- though quite often they were under the supervision of the local bishop and may have made vows in his hands as part of some kind of  "diocesan" standing. Other hermits served as ferry captains, toll collectors, gamekeepers, foresters, etc; in these cases, their lives were lives of service even as they were lives of profound solitude. For all of these reasons, I have to disagree that lay hermits are somehow essentially selfish or incapable of a generous service to the Church and/or others. The Church herself is aware of this history; I don't expect her lack of mention of hermits in the lay state (as opposed to those in the consecrated state) is motivated by any sense that such hermits are selfish, individualistic, misanthropic, or anything similar.

While it is true that stereotypes developed out of the world's long experience with lay hermits and while some of these hermits were undoubtedly guilty of selfishness, individualism, and so forth it is the essential truth lay hermits have borne witness to that lives on and has now been codified in canon 603. Bishop Remi de Roo recognized this and asked for eremitical life to be made a state of perfection (in our contemporary language, an instance of the consecrated state oriented to perfection). This request was eventually codified in canon 603 in 1983 when it then became possible for a lay hermit to be admitted to the consecrated state by one's local bishop. The mechanism for this admission involves 1) mutual discernment of the vocation by the hermit and her diocese, 2) public profession of the evangelical counsels (603.2), and 3) ongoing supervision of such vocations by one's local bishop.

Canon 603 does two things then: 1) it allows solitary eremitical life to be lived as a form of consecrated life, and thus too, as a form of prophetic existence within a stable state of life governed by the Church, and 2) it allows the life to be protected from abuse, disedifying stereotypes, individualism, selfishness, and so forth. Lay hermits today may not fall prey to the dangers and distortions associated with hermits throughout the centuries, but I think it is important that they realize the significance of an ecclesial/canonical vocation that publicly proclaims the significance of eremitism and helps protect it from so much that detracts from its dignity and witness potential. Most importantly to my mind, canon 603 indicates that this vocation "belongs" to the Church, that, as solitary as it is, eremitical life is a form of life in community, and that it is a similarly responsible vocation. Individual lay hermits may actually live their vocations with the same spirit and motivations (I know some who certainly do; their lives are inspiring), but as I experience it, it is the canonical nature of consecrated solitary eremitism, its existence as a stable state of consecrated life, that really ensures the hermit never forgets what eremitical life is essentially and who she is in light of her profession, consecration, and commissioning.

Regarding the reason the CCC did not really speak to eremitical life, I am not so cynical as you. The Catechism refers to consecrated life and describes eremitical life in that state. I believe the authors of the Catechism were well aware that their descriptions of this new form of consecrated life was one which could well inspire those whom the circumstances of life has left isolated for one reason and another and who seek the redemption rather than the validation (!) of their isolation). Some would do this in the lay state. Lay persons are entirely free to live as hermits; they are also free (generally speaking) to seek admission to profession and consecration as a member of a congregation of hermits or as a solitary hermit under c 603.

The CCC does not list every way of life a lay person may live as a lay person; it lists different (and normative) vocations in terms of specific states of life. Because the lay hermit, despite the prayer and solitude of her life, is still living this in the lay state; everything s/he does (including living as a hermit) is an expression of his/her lay state, until and unless s/he is admitted to public vows and consecration. There is really no necessary reason for the CCC to specify lay persons in its treatment of consecrated eremitical life. Canon 603 is both new and normative of solitary eremitical life in the consecrated state which the Catechism references and from which it derives its more general description of eremitical life. While referring to consecrated life per se I think the authors of the CCC believed lay persons should be able (as they clearly are) to be inspired by this description. I suspect there was nothing more than this involved in the way the CCC handled eremitical life as a vocation to consecrated life without specific reference to lay hermits. We can wish the CCC gave some space to lay eremitical life, especially in light of exemplary eremitical lives like those of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, but the work's limitations (both of space and intent) made this apparently unnecessary or impossible.