Followup on the Use of Delegates in Supervising Solitary Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was trying to find what you wrote about your delegates and the way supervision by your bishop works. I couldn't locate it. My question has to do with what happens when a person's bishop retires or dies or is made an Archbishop or something as happened to you a couple of times? If you make your vows in the hands of one bishop then you are approved by him, right? What then if another bishop doesn't believe in your vocation, or even in any c 603 vocation? He wouldn't approve you, so then what? Does the Diocese just cut you loose? Can you go on being a diocesan hermit anyway? I know you didn't really answer these questions in what you wrote recently but I thought what you wrote spoke to these questions in some way and wanted to see if that was so. My questions come from suggestions that an approved diocesan hermit could cease to be approved and then would be operating as kind of a rogue once their original bishop left the diocese. This seems to be one of the major flaws of canon 603 in the eyes of some who criticize it. And lastly, when a new bishop comes into office, are you responsible for making contact with them?]]

Thanks for your questions. I will reprise what I wrote most recently below (or cf, Clarifying Misconceptions and Wholecloth Untruths) and also, I am providing a link to what I wrote last year when I became aware through others' questions, that these objections to canon 603 were being raised. Here is that link: Supervision of a Stable State of Life. The discussion of what happens to hermits who are perpetually professed and consecrated when bishops move on is found in the second half of the piece.

Succeeding Bishops Must Accept a Previously Professed Hermit's Canonical Standing:

Archbishop Allen H Vigneron

What I don't say in that article is that what seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding on all of this is the phrase "canonical approval". Yes, I was approved by my diocese for admission to perpetual profession and consecration, but once that occurred and I was consecrated I had what is called, canonical standing. This means I (or any other canonical hermit who is perpetually professed and consecrated) have standing in law and unless that standing is rescinded, further bishops' approvals or disapprovals of me (or other hermits) personally, or of the c 603 vocation itself, do not affect our standing as diocesan hermits. Approval is a word used in a limited way in all of this, namely in terms of admission to profession and or consecration. After one is canonically professed and consecrated, however, "approval" even by one's bishop or members of his curia is much less pivotal and the term tends not to be used any longer. The idea of "approval" shifts to the fact of "standing" as in, "canonical standing," and that standing is significant.

 Of course, should a bishop decide one is not living the life, and should he believe he has significant grounds to do so, he can take steps to deprive the hermit of her canonical standing and dispense her vows. However, this is a process requiring warnings, chances to repent or be rehabilitated and always, opportunities for appealing any judgments made against one. Especially it cannot be done facilely or unilaterally. Remember that canonical standing is meant both to establish and to protect a stable state of life so that one's vocation can thrive even when elements in the contexts in which the vocation is lived militate against it. Though one hopes this is not the case, that can include the disapproval of succeeding bishops for the vocation itself or even the dislike of critics and others making unfounded and even malicious accusations against the hermit. In more ordinary circumstances, canonical standing assures everyone meeting the hermit (or any other vocation to the consecrated state), seeking to work with her, being ministered to by her, etc, that she has the Church's support and is faithfully living her vocation in the Church's name.

Yes, of course I contact new bishops when they are made bishops of my diocese. I usually wait for a few weeks so they have some time to settle into their office before seeking an appointment. Usually doing that is not problematic, but occasionally a new bishop will not be particularly responsive or accessible. For instance, on one occasion, I met the new bishop in my parish church sacristy during a visitation, and let him know he was my legitimate superior. He was pretty surprised at hearing that and made sure the chancery had all my contact information. In this instance getting an appointment was difficult. For example, in October or November I called the bishop's secretary to set something up. She was a new secretary so did not know me already, and told me there was nothing open. Then she suggested I call again in January when perhaps they could set an appointment for sometime in the Spring.  Note that that was an 8 month wait for an initial appointment. So yes, while I contact new bishops when they come to the diocese, the bishop's accessibility can be an uneven proposition. Fortunately, as noted earlier, my diocese (Vicars for Religious speaking for the Bishop) had had me select a delegate prior to perpetual profession and consecration, so supervision of my vocation was not interrupted or otherwise negatively impacted. As I understand it, most dioceses, unless they are very small, do something similar.

Misunderstandings in Vocabulary:

This brings up what you asked about regarding what I wrote recently regarding the supervision of a hermit's life by her bishop. Before I cite that, let me provide some vocabulary notes regarding language in the Canon. In the different versions of c 603 I have read two different words are used in speaking of the Bishop's role in the hermit's life. The first is "supervision" and the second is "direction." There has been some tendency to see supervision as meaning direct supervision without the assistance of delegates or others. I have never yet met a diocesan hermit whose bishop works in this way, even when he and the hermit are very close and the diocese is a very small one. Delegates are still a typical accommodation allowing c 603's requirements to be met prudently, creatively, and with appropriate expertise. Thus, supervision (or direction) in c 603 implies delegated supervision using others who will be more accessible to the hermit and capable of informing the bishop and curia of concerns and needs that might turn up for or with the hermit.

Regarding the term direction, this emphatically does NOT mean spiritual direction, but instead uses the terms direction and director as one might for a vocation director, novice director, or the like. As noted below, the bishop is the hermit's legitimate superior and for that reason, he cannot be the hermit's spiritual director. To conflate the two roles is also to draw matters of internal and external forums into potential conflict. By this I mean that the things one deals with confidentially with a spiritual director (matters of conscience and the internal forum) are not automatically open to a legitimate superior, nor may one desire to reveal these. While religious superiors were once able to ask about such matters,  the Revised Code of Canon Law (1983) rejected this practice categorically: C 630.5 [[Members are to approach superiors with trust, to whom they can freely and on their own initiative open their minds. Superiors, however, are forbidden to induce the members in any way to make a manifestation of conscience to them.]] The simplest way to prevent transgressions in this area is to keep the two roles (Director and spiritual director) distinct and separate. Thus, c 603 cannot possibly be referring to the hermit's bishop undertaking their spiritual direction.

Prior Piece reprised:

Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF

Supervision by a Bishop: It should go without saying that not every bishop desires to supervise a hermit, nor are some gifted with either the time or the expertise. (And, since he is her legitimate superior, it especially goes without saying that c 603 does not expect a bishop to be a hermit's spiritual director!!) Some do not believe in or understand the vocation or c 603 itself and yet, they "inherit" hermits professed before their own tenure began. To assist with all of that, my diocese asked me to select a delegate (their term, along with "quasi superior") to serve me when bishops were unavailable or could not do so. Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, who has a strong background in personal and religious formation and spiritual direction, has served as my delegate (I prefer the term Director with a capital D) since perhaps a year before I was finally professed. In the last few years, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF has agreed to serve as co-delegate (she prefers the term Advocate) and is mainly available to me and my diocese should Marietta not be. Both Sisters belong to canonical congregations and both have served in leadership. Susan is doing so currently, not for the first time! Sister Marietta's congregation is of Pontifical right. I think the same is true of Sister Susan's since it is an international institute (Franciscan Sisters of Penance and Christian Charity). 

This arrangement has been very effective for continuity in supervision considering we have had 5 bishops since I began living as a hermit. The first three (Bps Cummins, Vigneron, and Cordileone) were more accessible to me, Archbishop Burnett was an interim whom I met and joked with a bit, but whom I never met with (instead I met with the Vicar for Religious per the former bishop's instructions), and Michael Barber,SJ, whom I first met in the sacristy of St Perpetua parish during his first visitation, has been less accessible, but I have been (and remain) a diocesan hermit in good standing in my diocese under competent Direction all these years. 

Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF

To repeat, throughout these years and any changes in diocesan leadership, Sister Marietta has consistently served both me and the diocese as my delegate. Sister Susan was Vicar for Religious or Vocations Director for the Diocese of Oakland when I first started becoming a diocesan hermit; she worked with me for five years; then, though the diocese and I had begun trying to regularize my situation before Bp Cummins actually retired, and though Susan was now in Santa Barbara, she wrote a letter of recommendation for perpetual profession in @2006 to Bp Vigneron. She continues to assist me in this vocation but now mainly from the position of a good (dare I use the word?) friend. Please recognize that Ms McClure casts aspersions on these Sisters, their competence and fidelity to their commitments when she trash-talks me. That is particularly upsetting to me because I know how they have poured out their lives for Christ and so too, for me. Meanwhile, the comment that Sister Marietta is my "girlfriend" is unworthy of even a response.

On Waivers of Liability:

A lot of the discussions of these matters seem to me to have hung on one person's biased and specious accusations against me. When @5 years ago she apparently called my diocese to accuse me of having committed crimes (I really have no evidence this call ever happened, and am assuming it did for the purpose of your questions), not surprisingly, she is said to have spoken to someone who didn't know me and who had to find out whether I was professed as a diocesan hermit. (Apparently, they did discover I was and told the caller that.) Even then she seems to have spun the story in the most damaging way possible and was essentially told if she truly had a case against me, to take me to court. What she may have also been told is that I, like other diocesan hermits, had signed a "waiver of liability" upon the day of perpetual profession. In the main, this is meant to relieve the diocese of responsibility for any potential claims regarding past wages or other remuneration should, for instance, the hermit leave her consecrated state or fall into financial hard times even while in the consecrated eremitical state. 

Should I ever truly commit a crime, I suppose this would also mean my diocese is not responsible for any legal fees, etc. Those would fall to me personally. Should a diocese inform a caller of this situation, it does not mean the diocese wants nothing to do with their hermit or rejects them as a diocesan hermit. Here is where the unsuitability of continuing to use the term canonical approval is especially misguided. So long as one has canonical standing, a diocese cannot simply reject her. It does, however, mean that if someone calls threatening to take legal action against a diocese or their bishop and Vicar General because of something a diocesan hermit is said to have done, the diocese has a quick and easy way to shut that down. 

In any case, my diocese never took steps to act on such a call or even to notify me (or my Director) about it or the purported charges. This indicates to me they believed the accusations to have been empty, as was indeed the case. (Please note that had credible charges been made, and particularly if they were sustained by a court, a diocese might begin proceedings to dispense this hermit's vows.) In any case, be assured that any diocese would initiate a conversation with the hermit and her delegate to explore the situation and take appropriate steps --- whatever those might be. Canon 603, however, cannot be seen to be faulty here and complaints that it should be "tabled" until its inadequacies can be remedied are as empty as the personal charges against me.

Operating as a Rogue?

The question of someone continuing to act or represent themselves as a diocesan hermit after being dispensed of their vows or otherwise leaving the consecrated state of life is an "interesting" one. I have never heard of such a thing happening and accusations that I personally am acting in this way (implying my diocese and Director are allowing this) are both untrue and irresponsible. What is far more common is someone representing themselves as a "Consecrated Catholic Hermit" when they have never been one and may have been determined to be unsuited for such a calling. Still, it would be very difficult, I think, for the situation you have described to go unchallenged. The diocese would contact the hermit's Director and also might well contact the hermit's pastor to inform him that the hermit's canonical standing or juridical status has changed --- though they would expect the hermit to make their new standing clear to others. If the hermit changes parishes, her standing would be checked out by the new pastor who would contact the diocese (or speak to his confrere who is the hermit's former pastor). I don't think any diocese would make a public announcement regarding such a situation (though journalists might write about the situation if a crime had been committed), but at the same time, the critical personnel would be told. 

Remember that while one is always free to contact a diocese with concerns about anyone claiming to be a c 603 hermit for that diocese, the diocese will not give any information beyond a brief statement about the person being a diocesan hermit in good standing (or not). Before one takes such a step, however, it is always best to bring one's concerns directly to the hermit herself (a diocese is apt to suggest this as well)! It is important, particularly with hermits, to not assume they see blog posts, videos, or other media on the issue. As I am sure you are aware, that is not the way sincere and charitable persons deal with such matters. If someone has more specific concerns, however, I encourage them to always bring them first to the person they involve more directly. Otherwise, the person's concerns may grow while the person they are concerned about may have no idea in the matter. 

What Happens to You if your Bishop Moves?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, what happens to a diocesan hermit whose bishop is assigned to another diocese or becomes an Archbishop there? I know this happened to you. I read that a canonical hermit's professing bishop remains liable and responsible for supervising and directing (spiritual direction) the hermit even after he leaves a diocese: [[Finally, when the hermit is canonically approved, one can contact that person's bishop who is liable and responsible for supervising and the spiritual direction of said hermit. This is the case, even if the bishop has left the diocese where and in whose hands (so to speak, per CL603), the hermit has professed his or her vows.]] (https://catholichermit.blogspot.com/2019/03/catholic-hermit-handling-hermit-wrong.html)

Thanks for the question. I don't know how common these misunderstandings are; I think this is the second or third time I have written about it (not a problem, of course), but no, this view of the way eremitical profession and mutual ecclesial accountability works for the diocesan hermit and her professing bishop is all wrong. First, a diocesan hermit is professed by the local or diocesan Church in the hands of the local ordinary on behalf of the Universal Church. So, for instance, I made my perpetual vows in the hands of Archbishop Allen Vigneron (then Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland) in Sept 2007. Whatever happens to Archbishop Vigneron subsequently (in this case he moved back to Detroit and was made Archbishop), I remain a "Hermit of the Diocese of Oakland." This also means that whichever bishops follow Archbishop Vigneron as ordinaries of the Diocese of Oakland, they will each become my legitimate superior in turn and assume responsibility for and authority over my vocation as I live that out  --- though the daily exercise of an authority or responsibility that empowers my own accountability usually falls to my delegate (Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF) and (to a much lesser degree at this point) co-delegate (Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF). (The idea of co-delegates is new and we are finding our way here.) Bishops exercise their jurisdiction until they move on to another See (as Bishop Cordileone also did when he became Archbishop of San Francisco.)

Not only is this a matter of jurisdiction under canon law (jurisdiction of a bishop over one's own diocese and subjects), but in entirely human and pragmatic ways it makes little sense to expect a bishop to retain responsibility for supervising a diocesan hermit after that bishop leaves a diocese. How could anyone (hermit or bishop) expect to maintain or grow a relationship in which meaningful authority and mutual accountability are exercised if the bishop  moves (for instance!) to the Archdiocese of Detroit while the hermit remains (for instance!) in the Diocese of Oakland (for the diocesan bishop is accountable for the diocesan's hermit's vocational well-being just as she is accountable to the Church through him)?

Other inaccuracies involve the affirmation that the bishop remains responsible for the hermit's spiritual direction and the notion of liability. In fact a diocesan bishop is rarely if ever a diocesan hermit's spiritual director because of potential clash between internal and external forums (fora). (As legitimate superior the bishop has authority over external matters; the spiritual director deals with matters of conscience and the hermit's inner life which may not be things the hermit can or would normally bring to one's legitimate superior.) This is not a matter of secrecy, much less lack of frankness but rather of ensuring the bishop's ability to act as superior is not muddled with matters better handled by one entirely committed to confidentiality. (Personally I find the separation between internal and external forums can be much less absolute with regard to delegates but this should be discerned; it will depend on the authority granted her and also on how she exercises that authority with regard to the hermit.) Also, as a matter of terminology, Canon 603 refers to the hermit's bishop as "director" but this does not mean "spiritual director"; it means director like "director of formation," "director of novices," "director of juniors," etc., in religious life. In these situations those in formation, etc., will have their own spiritual directors entirely separate from their legitimate superiors or "directors".

As to remaining liable for a hermit's behavior, the statement cited is flat wrong. This is something I have also addressed before (please see other articles on bishop as legitimate superior) but be aware that c 603 hermits sign waivers of liability at perpetual profession which free a diocese of any liability for remuneration (say, in a claim for wages) or costs tied to dimensions of the hermit's life or behavior. It is true that a diocesan bishop is responsible for dealing with the hermit's problems (or problems with the hermit for that matter!) but neither the diocese nor the bishop personally is in any way liable for debts accrued by the hermit, or, should this occur, costs associated with any misbehavior on the hermit's part. This of course does not suggest a bishop will not discipline a hermit if the need ever arises but it does say the diocese and ordinary are not liable for damages or debts if these should ever occur.

Do Dioceses Support Diocesan Hermits?

[[Sister Laurel, does the diocese of the Canon 603 hermit support them in any way? What do you think about this? How about other diocesan hermits?]]

Really great questions, and ones which lots of people wonder about. I may have answered something similar before so please look for that as well; also some of what I say here will echo what I wrote about in regard to mediocrity as a danger to authentic eremitical life. The simple answer is no, diocesan hermits generally receive nothing from their dioceses in terms of stipends, transportation, living expenses or accommodations (place to set up a hermitage, etc), medical or other insurance, educational expenses, money for yearly or bi-yearly retreat, religious goods, books, etc. Remember that while diocesan clergy receive stipends for their service to the diocese, religious women and men usually do not unless they are contracted and work for the diocese itself. They support themselves and their congregations --- particularly their retired members and those in formation. (The idea that religious support their communities, and not vice versa is not well enough understood today.) Diocesan hermits differ from, but fall into this latter category. In fact, diocesan hermits ordinarily sign a waiver of liability (or claim) at their perpetual profession which says the diocese is not responsible for them in material or financial ways.

So, how do I feel about this? I think it is a wise policy for a number of reasons. Diocesan eremitical life does not have the kind of built in safeguards (for discernment or supervision of the motives behind and the quality of living) that life in community has. Discernment of an eremitical vocation takes time and the solitary (diocesan) eremitical vocation may require even more time. Because individuals embrace solitude for all kinds of reasons it often takes a number of years to clarify why they seek to make profession as a diocesan hermit. Unfortunately, it must be crystal clear that among these motivations the need to be cared for is not present. The tendency to run from responsibility and from the ordinary demands of life in society also must not be present. Eremitical life is a responsible life and one embraces it to give oneself in devotion and service to God, his Church, and world. Further, because the eremitical vocation is so independent, the individual and the diocese need to see signs that the hermit candidate is acting and living independently: providing for and securing education, caring for the normal needs of a deep spiritual life, independent work, taking initiative for education, etc -- all are a significant part of the eremitical life. It is simply right that a diocese expects hermits to care for these him/herself.

However, I have heard some hermits suggest that the church does not esteem the vocation highly enough and contributing in basic ways to the upkeep of the hermit would help do this. Additionally, because of the failure to provide in this way it happens that some persons who might have genuine calls to diocesan eremitical life, but who cannot find a way to support themselves which is consistent with a contemplative life, and who certainly cannot quit working their usual jobs, simply cannot be accepted for consecration under Canon 603. Also, because of this policy, hermits who have been consecrated for some time but who can no longer work, who have increasing health problems, and must provide for future burial expenses, etc, find themselves in difficulty and a dilemma. They have faithfully lived eremitical life and vowed poverty independently for years and maintained themselves in this way, but now the situation is changing. They must find a way to continue living eremitical silence, solitude, etc, because they are vowed to this (one does not simply retire from such a commitment or life), but they also may need more health care, assisted living, etc. These situations are more complex than I can discuss at this point, but they are important and give some import to the comment about the church's need to esteem this vocation in concrete and material ways.

Is there a satisfactory solution? Not at present. One possibility is that dioceses of aging hermits might provide some assistance after these hermits have lived perpetual profession for a number of years (say ten to fifteen or so (depending upon when the hermit is perpetually professed, or if extraordinary circumstances intervene otherwise). Such hermits might be included on diocesan insurance (we hear of this occasionally), be allowed to live on diocesan property without (or with nominal) rent, or be included on diocesan burial policies. However, whatever the solution for hermits in later life or which minimizes the risk that some few vocations are missed because of an inability to meet diocesan requirements, the policy dioceses have generally adopted is mainly a good one and I agree with it. Hermits themselves need to know that they are seeking profession without any ulterior motives, and they must be confident that they are able to live independently and responsibly without being cared for by the diocese before they are professed. Similarly dioceses need to know that those approaching them with petitions for admittance to profession are mature, responsible, self-sufficient, generous, and independent. They need to know these persons are not looking for a sinecure. It is simply part of discerning (and living!) an authentic eremitical vocation.

Hope this helps. As always, if it does not answer your questions, is unclear, or raises more questions, please get back to me.