So, Why is All of this Important to You?

[[Dear Sister, if it is not the case that the Church is increasing canons and making all kinds of complexities that cause competition between vocations, where do the various distinctions in things come from when you speak of C 603 vocations? I have read some of the posts from Joyful Hermit in the past (when she was still using that name) and she seemed to believe you are making these up, and thus, making C 603 more complicated than it needs to be --- though now she seems to believe any law at all is opposed to Jesus' law of love. So where do the distinctions you write about come from? Have you created any of them? Also, why are they important to you?]]

These are great questions, thank you for posing them!! The distinctions I have drawn over the years are not my own, nor have I created any terms. While I really believe Canon 603 is beautifully written and exciting in ways I don't ordinarily find Canon law to be (!!), there are also ways in which someone reading the canon without a background in religious life, or some at-least-casual understanding of the norms and vocabulary related to religious life, will fail to understand categories and language that are significant and presupposed --- but which also often go unexplained. Mainly then, these terms and distinctions come from the Church's long-standing theology of religious (or consecrated) life. Let me give you a couple of examples. 

 We speak of entering a "state of life" via profession or a Sacrament (i.e., Baptism, Orders). Sometimes we refer to the "religious state", the "lay state", and the "clerical state," as well as of "being recognized" as members of a "recognized state of life". There are three terms that are sometimes misunderstood and even commonly misused, namely, "state of life," "recognized," and "profession". In speaking of consecrated life, the catechism refers to Christ proposing the evangelical counsels to all disciples, but then distinguishes the way those in the consecrated state are called to live these counsels. It says, "it is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God."  Unfortunately, the catechism does not, so far as I can see, define "state of life", what constitutes "recognition"; nor, while italicizing the word profession, does it actually explain that it means not just making (public) vows, but also entering a new state of life. Thus, it really does not apply to someone dedicating themselves to eremitical life with private vows. 

One thing we should keep in mind, even as we benefit from our use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that it was not written for all Catholics. It was written for Bishops and thus presupposes knowledge about such things as the nature of "profession," what it takes for a religious congregation (or person in the consecrated state) to be established or "recognized," as being in that state. Because fundamental knowledge is presupposed by the catechism, this can cause the uninitiated person (which really is most laypeople) and many clergy as well to read various ambiguities through the wrong lens. That way lies almost certain misunderstandings and potentially serious stumbling blocks. So, in the section entitled The Consecrated Life, the word profession might be read as though it refers to any act of making vows. When that happens, someone making private vows might read this section of the catechism and believe that because they made private (non-canonical) vows as a lay person, they have been professed, "left" the lay state of life, and been initiated into the consecrated state of life via their avowal. In actual fact, however, the thrust of the section and the use of the term "profess" in the very first sentence, indicates immediately that this section of the CCC  involves entry into a new state of life established in law and that it therefore requires a public commitment mediated by the Church herself.  

It can also be problematical when someone being admitted to profession under c 603 has no real understanding of the meaning and implications of correlative concepts like, "state of life" and "recognition" by the Church --- both of which imply the assumption of canonical (legal) rights and obligations beyond those granted with baptism. So, for instance, in the quotation above, recognition does not mean seen or allowed (as in "non-canonical hermits are recognized by my bishop" because they exist in his diocese); it means established in universal law. Since a number of c 603 hermits (and those seeking to be professed in this way) have never been through initial formation as religious nor studied canon law or the theology of consecrated life, and are unaware of the distinctions most religious know implicitly, clarifying the meanings of the terms, "state of life", "recognition," "profession", and also the nature of consecration and the way it differs from dedication, clarifications of these things can help with such misunderstandings or inadequate understandings. 

My experience is that few dioceses seem to recognize how unlikely the average Catholic is to know these and other dimensions associated with profession under c 603. At least they don't seem to communicate these kinds of things to candidates or inquirers. There seems to be a tendency to assume that folks who seek admission to profession already know exactly what they are asking for and are able to take on. At the same time, some chancery personnel may not realize how completely they themselves have internalized some of those distinctions they know so well, and so, they simply do not think of needing to clarify their meaning. Others may not understand how important knowing about such dimensions can be in living eremitical life under this canon. 

When one understands that one is taking on responsibility for an ecclesial vocation with rights and obligations the entire church has a right to expect one to live well, it enhances one's sense of vocation. It also reminds us that one is definitely not merely doing "one's own thing" here and that the Church (the People of God) is called to support one in this vocation with its prayer, friendship, etc. In taking this vocation on, one is taking on an important, if rare, form of ecclesial life that has been lived and has contributed to the life of the Church throughout its long history. In a world and time where individualism is epidemic, it is critical that profession under c 603 be known by everyone as admission to an ecclesial vocation that belongs intrinsically to and benefits the Body of Christ. After all, c 603 life is focused on the God who wills to be God-With-Us! In this rare and incredibly vivid relationship with Love-in-Act, the hermit stands at and witnesses to the very heart of Christian life and hope --- Love completes each of us if only we open ourselves to this.

What is important to me? In all of this, it is important to me that everyone understands that dedicating oneself to eremitical life as a non-canonical hermit, whether or not one does so with the use of private vows, is to make a significant and valuable commitment. At the same time, it is important to me that people understand that those of us who seek and are admitted to profession under c 603 do not do so because we love canon law (I know of no canonical hermit who loves canon law!), or are somehow ignorant of God's law of love (much less being ignorant of or unconcerned by the reality of Divine love!!), nor because we are into prestige, power, or social status. We do so because we have felt called by God to contribute to the life of the Church and the living tradition of eremitical life in this particular and publicly responsible way. It is important to me that folks understand the integral relationship between this vocation and the Church so that it is not mistakenly perceived as selfish or individualistic. Instead, solitary canonical hermits live this life as a rare and vibrant expression of God's redemption, and we are grateful to the Church for finally recognizing and providing for this vocation with C. 603. 

Though much fewer and farther between than when I first began blogging, I continue to get comments and questions from folks who read Joyful's public blog(s) and are concerned, confused, or simply gobsmacked by what they read there. Personally, I sincerely wish they were no longer available.  Thus, it is also important to me to respond to those questions and comments (even those I cannot publish here) to clarify what I can. Most of the time these are common misunderstandings and general mischaracterizations that were once amplified in import by Joyful's blog and her inadequately supported claim to be a "consecrated Catholic Hermit". Today, my impression is that Joyful's posts on the Catholic Church generally, as well as on law of any kind, have made a lot of this moot and more obviously incredible. Still, past posts continue to raise questions and comments.

Meanwhile, whether I receive questions or not, I do reflect on all of this as part of realizing the nature, promise, and challenge of solitary eremitical life in and for the church. Canon 603 is still relatively new and reflecting on various difficulties in implementing it is important (helpful) work. The irony is I am doing that work in my own little way as I live and move ever more deeply into the life framed by the canon itself, and not as an advocate of increased Canon law. I continue to be surprised at how well the Church fathers wrote when they composed this canon; because of this, my own work directly counters the typical approach of canonists regarding resolving the perceived "deficiencies" of C 603. 

A Contemplative Moment: The Necessity of Relationships

The Necessity of Relationships

by

Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam

The Eremitic Life

Human freedom is founded on two indispensable pillars: the ability to possess oneself and the ability to overcome oneself. This is why every human being is, by his very nature, a person of dialogue and relationships. Both dialogue and relationships express the great potential for love of the human heart, a heart that is free.

The seclusion and solitude that constitute the eremitic life do not aim at negating the fundamental dynamism of human existence, with its entering into dialogue and relationships. On the contrary, eremitic isolation and solitude form the basis of that dynamism. As was said, one of the most important motives for undertaking the life of the desert is the burning desire to find one's own identity. In the course of time, however, we discover that we are unable to realize that task unaided. The only way of learning anything important about oneself is to look at another person's face** with love and attention.

As mentioned before, the hermit's solitude can never be a sign of withdrawal and isolation from the world and its affairs. The hermit, since he wants to serve other people, must arrive at a profound understanding of his own nature and his relation to God and the world. That is why his solitude is not at all a barrier, but it is rather the element that encourages openness toward others. The hermit, changed by the gift of meeting God, knows how to address the lonely hearts of those who come to seek his help and support. His solitude is not therefore a lifeless emptiness, but it is related to the most vital aspects of the human spirit. It is related to those spheres of human personality that can exist only if they are open to meeting God and the world in love.

_________________________________________________

**The reference to seeking another's face is from an earlier section of the book where Wencel speaks of a quote by J. Tischner: [[To meet someone means to experience the person's face. Experiencing the other's face means experiencing his truth. What is necessary to make the meeting happen is mutuality; if we want to see the other's face we have to uncover our own face, and the other must have the intention to accept what has been revealed. . .The meeting introduces us to the depths of all the mysteries of existence, where questions about the sense and nonsense of everything are born.]] For Wencel, the paradox of eremitical solitude is the fact that it serves the hermit's quest and desire for love, and that implies "meeting and dialogue with God and with the human other."

What Happens to a Canon 603 Hermit if a New Bishop is Installed?

 [[If, for example, a (diocesan) hermit had a new bishop come to the diocese, and that bishop did not want (diocesan) hermits, the (diocesan) hermit would need to find a diocese in which the bishop was accepting hermits under his direction, and relocate.]] 

Dear Sister, is this quote true? I read it on a hermit's blog. . . . I checked with someone at the chancery and they said they would need to check with someone else, but they also thought not. Just wanted to check with you as well. I am not up to moving to a new diocese, particularly if it means uprooting every part of my life as this would!! Especially, I am not up to starting this process all over again in another diocese.]]

Thanks for writing. I am glad you decided to check this out. Your chancery contact was correct in his/her impression. The quote is mistaken.

If a diocesan Ordinary is replaced by another, and that new bishop doesn't want to profess hermits under c 603, he doesn't generally have to do so --- except in one case. Even then it would be a matter of acting in good faith and charity to complete something begun under his predecessor, not a matter of having no choice. Suppose a hermit has been temporary professed under c 603 in the hands of his predecessor and has continued to live her vocation in a faithful way. In that case, she should be able to count on being admitted to perpetual profession in a timely manner by the new bishop so long as she and those responsible for her vocation continue to discern that diocesan eremitical life is her vocation. If that hermit is already perpetually professed, however, the new bishop needs to accept that it is his role to supervise this vocation in some substantive way. This specific vocation comes to him with his assumption of responsibility for the diocese, and he needs to accept that, no matter how personally challenging he finds this. The hermit who is perpetually professed and consecrated does not have to uproot, search for a willing bishop, find another SD, locate housing, parish, etc., and incur the expense of such a move simply because one bishop does not want to use a Canon that is already in effect in universal law.

I have not run into a case where someone who is either preparing for profession or who has already made a temporary profession is simply left high and dry when a new bishop is installed. I am aware of one situation where the Archbishop will be retiring in another year or so; even so, in this specific case there has been an auxiliary bishop overseeing the individual's progress; the general sense is that the candidate can confidently continue on with the process of discernment and formation she has been working through for more than a year and a half now and do so under the auxiliary. Hermits seeking profession under canon 603 do not move through the process all at the same speed, and they are not ready for profession at the same time. One of the things we are trying to get dioceses to recognize is that writing a liveable Rule -- as required by the canon --- takes significant experience and time. The process of discernment and formation is more individualized for this vocation than any other I know. The process of writing a Rule helps with both of these, both for the candidate and for the discernment team. Chanceries do tend to know some of this and act in good faith regarding admission to profession.

Further Considerations and Possibilities:

Your own situation raises the difficulties of moving to another diocese very clearly. The demands they would place on you to continue following this vocation would be inordinate and unacceptable, especially given both CC 603 and 605 that are universally binding within the Church. You have not said whether you are temporary professed or not, but I do agree that even if you are in temporary vows now, moving to another diocese would essentially mean starting over again. I think that would be true even if your current bishop and those others who have worked with you over the years wrote glowing recommendations. I think it is really important that you find a way to ease your concerns in this matter as much as possible. If the new bishop is not here already, get an appointment with the current Ordinary as well as with the chancery personnel who have been working with you during the past years, and apprise them of your concerns. 

If they can assure you your own discernment/formation process will continue without the prospect of it being derailed because of a new bishop, then excellent! If this assurance cannot be given, another option might be for the diocese to anticipate perpetual profession and celebrate this before your current bishop leaves office. If this is not possible, however, try to get a sense of what you still need to do so that you are ready for that step as soon as possible. If you are working on your Rule, then try to get an assessment of where that is still weak or incomplete. There are posts on writing a Rule on this blog, including a new post on "the basics". Much of writing a Rule has to do with sufficient experience and reflection. What you include in your Rule will be used by your diocese to help determine your own readiness for perpetual or definitive commitment. Do get some specific answers from vocation personnel in regard to their own work with you. At least this will help ensure both they and you are clear about your progress and any concerns regarding your vocation.

And, of course, if you are already definitively professed and consecrated, you have nothing to worry about in any case. Still, if the incoming bishop does not want C 603 hermits, one thing you may want to consider is that he may also not plan on supervising your vocation as C 603 calls for. Neither may he be able to do so. In that case, if you have not already done so, I recommend you ask your current bishop to approve a delegate with whom you will meet in place of or in addition to the local ordinary. Hermits ordinarily choose their delegate, but some bishops will assign them. In either case, a delegate serves as a quasi-superior and can ease the burden on the bishop by meeting with the hermit more frequently than bishops can ordinarily do. I work very closely with my delegate(s) and that has seen me through various bishops and degrees of availability. Moreover, since my co-delegate(s) are both women Religious with backgrounds in formation and leadership, our level of sharing is greater than it might be with a bishop I see but once or twice a year. Just something to consider.

Bishops, the Suppression of Non-Canonical Eremitical Vocations and Related Questions

[[Hi Sister Laurel, if a bishop decides to use c 603 for Catholic hermits in his diocese does this mean the diocese is phasing out non-canonical hermits? Is it true that c603 vocations are on their way to supplanting non-canonical eremitical vocations? Also, I wondered, if a Bishop tells someone who wants or claims to be a Catholic hermit that they should continue living the non-canonical vows they are currently living, does this mean he doesn't accept C 603 as the way the Church recognizes solitary consecrated Catholic hermits? 

What if someone says they don't want to be a C 603 hermit but want their vocation as a Catholic hermit recognized by the diocese, can the bishop allow them to be a Catholic Hermit without using c 603? I know some hermits who hate what is happening to the pure simple eremitical vocation under Canon 603 and want no part of profession via c 603. Would a Bishop force someone like this to become a canon 603 hermit despite their not desiring this? Some have communicated to their Bishops that they don't want this done and that they hope the bishop would continue to regard them as Catholic Hermits. Are their hopes in vain here? Does it matter what bishop is involved?

I just think all these categories and competition are confusing. It makes Canon Law look kind of silly, don't you think?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have understood them and will try to answer all of them. Many have been addressed here many times over the years so you might check the list of labels to the right. The idea of there being many categories and that there is competition between vocations making Canon Law look silly is mistaken. I know some write about increasing numbers of canons and complexity as though this is actually occurring, but it is not. When looking at the character of vows or commitments being made by hermits, there are only two categories governing these. The first is non-canonical or private and the second is canonical or public. 

Those making public (canonical) commitments are being admitted to a vocation authorized by and lived in the name of the Church. These persons petition to be admitted to the rights and obligations associated with public or ecclesial vocations, and once their petition is received, they begin a long process of mutual discernment, formation, and other "vetting" that can include psychological testing, letters of recommendation, time lived in monasteries under the mentorship of monks or nuns who can assist in this way, and the assessment and approval of a Rule written by the candidate themselves. All of this is meant to take seriously the person's capacities and preparation to live an ecclesial vocation in a public or normative way. This is what is involved in living such a vocation "in the name of the Church". In other words, the Church wants to make as sure as possible this person has a Divine vocation others can look to as "normative" within the Church because this vocation belongs first, to the church and only thereafter to the individual to whom this vocation is mediated. If one does not want any part of this, one simply doesn't petition to be admitted to profession and the second consecration besides that of baptism.

Thus, someone feeling they are called to be a Catholic hermit (whether solitary or part of an eremitical institute of consecrated life) with all of the rights and obligations appertaining, will submit to the process required. Those who wish to live as hermits without jumping through all of these hoops or being granted standing in universal law in a public vocation, can do so simply by virtue of their baptism which represents one's first and fundamental consecration. What this person cannot do, however, is represent themselves as a Catholic Hermit living a normative eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. Nor can they call themselves consecrated hermits since that requires the second consecration associated with public vocations and initiation into what the Church identifies as the consecrated state of life.

The bishop's role in all of this pertains mainly to the public vocations lived in the name of the Church and under the bishop's direct and indirect supervision. Non-canonical vocations are essentially private vocations without additional rights and obligations beyond those granted by baptism; thus, anyone baptized is free to try such a vocation without reference to the bishop, one's pastor, etc. Baptism alone gives them the freedom to live such a vocation. The bishop cannot prevent one from living such a vocation, though he is always free to meet with, encourage, support, and advise such hermits if he has the time and inclination --- or not. Should someone come to him asking to be recognized as a Catholic Hermit apart from canon law, he has no authority to do that. He too is bound by canon law in this matter including C 605 re: new forms of consecrated life. If he wishes to ask someone to consider becoming a canonical hermit, he can certainly do that, but he can NEVER force a person to accept admission to the canonical rights and obligations of a public vocation. Were that to happen, the profession and consecration would be invalid in any case.

Bishops will tell folks to continue living non-canonical commitments for several reasons, and usually, this happens through intermediaries (Vicars, vocation directors, etc). The most common one is that he does not perceive a potential vocation to the canonical or consecrated state or actually sees the person as unsuitable to representing such a vocation. At the same time, he may sincerely recognize that the majority of hermits have always been non-canonical and wish to retain this vocation in his diocese. A bishop need not suppress non-canonical vocations simply because canonical ones are available nor have I ever heard anyone doing such a thing. The latter (canonical vocations) are relatively rare, while the former have existed from the days of the Desert Abbas and Ammas. (There was a time when the solitary eremitical vocation in the Western Church had largely ceased to exist. That has never been the case in the Eastern Church.) Moreover, since non-canonical eremitical calls do not require the bishop's supervision any more than other private (non-canonical) vocations require this, he may actually encourage such vocations and even keep casual tabs on how they develop in the diocese. I think this latter arrangement (keeping tabs, etc.), however, is exceedingly rare and would exist only for a bishop with special concerns for all forms of eremitism.

Because I understand the division between public (canonical) and private (non-canonical) as the fundamental and complementary division existing in the church today, I see no competition between the two. They are different vocations with different rights and obligations from one another. Both are valid and both can be edifying. Because I understand the canonical vocation as normative and the way the Church has chosen to honor the long history of non-canonical hermits in the Church, I see it as a vocation meant to serve all eremitical life. Because the Church has written so that the entire faith community and certainly everyone trying to live as a hermit can benefit from the canonical requirements of C 603, I don't think it is silly either. In this instance, I really do find that law serves love and creates a realm of freedom, ongoing challenge, and healthy expectations for/of consecrated hermits in the Catholic Church.

On Writing a Rule of Life: Additional Suggestions --- the Basics

While I don't want to bore readers by repeating what else I have said about writing a Rule, and while I want to refer folks to all of that as valuable, I sometimes hear from or work with people who are struggling with the task and need a bit more help. Yes, a Rule should deal with the elements of the Canon and yes, the Rule should reflect the way God works in one's life --- and, if possible, the way God has done this over a number of years, but what if it still all feels unwieldy, and, because of the richness or complexity of one's life, it is unwieldy? How should one proceed then? Here are a few suggestions: First, begin with the basics. 

If you are planning on writing a Rule for life under Canon 603, begin by writing a separate document that addresses the central elements of the Canon. This will not be your Rule, but it will contribute greatly to your ability to write such a Rule. (Even if you are not planning on being professed and consecrated under Canon 603, the central elements will speak to the life you are living as a hermit.) Those elements are 1) assiduous prayer and penance, 2) stricter separation from the world, 3) the silence of solitude, 4) the Evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity in celibacy, obedience), 5) embracing this calling for the salvation of the world and the glory and praise of God, 6) under the supervision of the local ordinary, 7) according to a Rule of Life one writes oneself. So, to begin with, choose one or two of these elements to focus on. (I recommend beginning with a couple of the first four.)

Once you have done this, answer the following questions for each element. First, what is it?? If you have chosen assiduous prayer and penance, to reflect on and write about, for instance, be sure to define how you understand all of the terms in that phrase. What is prayer? Penance? How do you understand these things now, today? What does the Canon call for by requiring assiduous prayer and penance? What does assiduous mean in this element? What does it NOT mean? (For instance, it may or may not mean saying prayers all day; certainly, assiduous penance is unlikely to mean wearing a hairshirt or cilice or refusing to take the medicines one needs to feel and be well!!) Write as much as you know personally about these terms. Secondly, how do you live this element of the Canon today? Describe all the elements of your life that are part and parcel of  "assiduous prayer and penance". Do not write about what you hope one day to live but what you live today. This is no place for idealizing things. God is at work in your life and appears to have brought you to this place. Articulate and claim how that is happening now, today.

With some elements of the canon, defining what they are is more challenging. For instance, did you notice that that canon does not read silence and solitude, but rather, "the silence of solitude"? While this term includes external silence and physical solitude, it is also more than these. Thus, you will need to define the individual terms that make up the element required by the canon, and you will also need to define the larger element that is more than the sum of its parts. If you don't understand this personally yet, define what you can and say how you live what you can define, but make a note for yourself about what you have not yet defined! It is something you will need to understand and write about before admission to perpetual profession. 

Something similar is true for "stricter separation from the world". What does the term, "the world" mean in this phrase? This is not what some folks think it means and it is not even what some religious and monastics have said from time to time!! What does it not mean, or at least, not primarily mean? How about the word stricter? Stricter than what? What limits can or even must legitimately be put on the term "Stricter" -- assuming it does not mean absolute!? "Separation" needs to be looked at as well. What is healthy separation (generally, for most hermits, and also for yourself), and what is not? For some, this term calls for complete reclusion and a support structure to assist in this, while for others, complete reclusion would result in the destruction of one's psychological health and vocation. I think you see what I mean when I speak of answering the questions, "What is it?" and "How do I live it?" Again, no idealizing. Keep your writing in the present!

The third question I suggest you answer with regard to each central element of the Canon is, "Why is this important?" Various ways of looking at this question include: why is it important for religious life generally? How about eremitical life more specifically? Why is this element important for the Church or her witness to Jesus Christ and the Gospel? Does it bring a special clarity or vividness when lived by a hermit? Are there any groups of people for whom a hermit's living this will be especially important and in what way? And finally, why is this important for your own life with God? In what ways has this element helped you to see and grow to be the person God has called you to be? What allows you to speak with confidence that this is what God has called you to? Whatever further questions help you to say why this element is important and thus needs to be included in both the Canon and your own Rule can be added as needed. In any case, allow these questions to rumble around inside yourself until you have clear answers to them. As you continue discerning and being formed in this vocation, do as Rainer Marie Rilke suggested to the young poet and "live the questions"! 

Doing so may help you answer the fourth question I suggest you answer, namely, how have I grown in my understanding and living out of this element of the vocation? I have told the story before that I did not even include stricter separation from the world in the first Rule I wrote for my diocese. There were several reasons for this including the fact that I didn't understand what this meant or asked for from me and that I wasn't sure I saw the need for such a stance toward "the world". However, the next time I wrote a Rule (during prep for perpetual profession) I included this element and my growth in understanding and living this element was significant! It was a question that had indeed roiled and rumbled around inside of me as I read more widely on the topic and grew in my vocation.  Because I took the elements of C 603 seriously this one was one of the questions I definitely lived as I approached all aspects of my life prayerfully.

Once you have done this exercise for all of the elements including each vow (or their correlative values) included in C 603, you will find you have a major portion of the heart of your Rule already complete and you will be able to draw on this document as you actually compose your Rule. I would urge you to take your time in this. If I were working with someone to assist them in writing a Rule, I would expect this stage of things to take at least a year or two. At least I would not be surprised were that the case. One will need to research terms and their usage throughout the history of eremitical life,  and in religious life more generally. One will need to reflect on and pray about these terms, make decisions on levels of validity and importance, and then, try them on for size over time. One will need to articulate why one lives whatever definitions of each element one does, and why one rejects or finds other definitions or understandings unhelpful or even unhealthy. All of this takes time, research, prayer, reflection, discussion with those who accompany one in one's journey toward profession and consecration or private avowal, and then too, the struggle to put all of it into words that reflect one's own vision of what it means to live out the terms of Canon 603 or solitary eremitical life in the 21st Century.

I'll return with more suggestions in the future. Some of these will be about the essential elements the Canon does not mention but which need to be reflected in an effective Rule of Life --- things like work, recreation, relationships, support systems (including spiritual direction and oblature with a specific monastery, etc.), finances, and more. For now, consider this part 1 of "Additional Suggestions".

Follow-up on C 603 as Paradigm: Support of Law Does Not Need to Imply Legalism

[[The canonical hermit who has done much to perpetuate various precedents created by said person, has written a lengthy and seemingly sound refutation of my comments and questions below. What this person writes in disagreeing what I have set forth, and now has added on years that have grown exponentially to what was this person's previous length of time as a hermit, is not scripturally based nor accurate other than is from the person's legalistic view of the Body of Christ and Christ as Head, of which Jesus decried such aspects that the high priests, scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees of His time on earth had so created a contorted legalistic form of religion and spiritual life in the Jewish faith and lived out in the temples as well as were imposed on the Jewish people. ]]

The comments in italics were the responses offered to my last post (cf link below). I think this view of canonical forms of eremitical life is very unfortunate. Because canonical hermits live their lives in a way the church considers normative, because they submit their lives to certain canons (norms) to serve the church in answering their vocation, does not make them Pharisees, nor does it make their attitude towards religion, spirituality, or the eremitical vocation "legalistic". Whether living eremitical life in a canonical congregation like the Carthusians, Camaldolese, Carmelite, Monastic Family of Bethlehem, et al., or as solitary hermits under C 603 as I and others do, we have simply accepted a place in the church's own service to the whole world. As I have written before, law can and is meant to serve love. The religious I know, including canonical hermits (solitary and otherwise), recognize that law helps establish and nurture the contexts in which they can live their vocations ever more deeply and faithfully. Once they are perpetually professed and consecrated, law is not ordinarily a particular focus of their lives. Still, standing in law is part of what establishes their freedom to explore the heights and depths of the world the canon(s) governing their lives establish.

I think most of us understand this. None of us live without the constraints, freedom, and other benefits provided by law. Legally we rent homes and apartments, own, insure, and drive cars, attend schools and universities, and provide for families and ourselves via wills, durable powers of attorney, mortgages, bank accounts, contracts of all sorts (even library cards represent a contract with legal terms and conditions that bind us and the libraries we patronize). All of these and many more imply and require norms that protect and free us to live without unnecessary concern for safety or inordinate liabilities. (Think again of the "lowly" library card and the vast worlds this contract opens up to us!!) If we are professionals (medical, educational, pastoral counseling, etc.) we are certified or licensed and work under specific codes of conduct. Ordinarily, we internalize these norms and refer to them only when we face more complicated or unusual situations than is commonly the case. 

As members of the Church, we know there are canons and other norms under which we live our lives -- though I would bet few could name these. Baptism results in our falling under such norms as laos, members of the laity, the People. Consecration and Ordination result in further norms that are extended to us and that we freely embrace because they serve our vocations. Such norms tend to provide us a well-defined and countercultural realm of freedom in which our lives in Christ can thrive and grow. We hardly bump up against the limits created by such canons (norms) on a daily basis nor do they become Pharisaical or the occasion of scrupulosity.

[[This manner of humankind creating what they wish and adding on to what humankind creates in legalisms yet in our times or in recent times is what most hermits such as St. Bruno, gave pause and ponder, and thus left the temporal world including the temporal system and structure, and left for the farthest reaches of the Alps in which to draw nigh on to Christ and to worship and pray, to be Christian in the freedom of silence of solitude, praise of God, and intimacy with Christ that yet lifted up and strengthened the entire Body of Christ. Bruno had lived enough of the very aspects of this person who persists in making up what is not in many aspects in fact.]] 

In fact, laws, and legalisms are different things. In a time when people cannot usually go off into a physical desert to become a hermit and leave "the world" behind, it is the creation of norms like c 603 that help allow human beings to step away from "the world" into a hermitage whose character is defined by the Church based on her long history with hermits. But Canon 603 truly is a law that serves love; it combines both the structure necessary to define a desert space dedicated to Christ in the prayer-filled silence of solitude, and the flexibility needed to respond freely to Christ in the power of the Spirit. This is Law and it is associated with legalities serving the healthy spiritual and human growth of the hermit according to the terms of the Canon and the hermit's own Rule of Life, but it has nothing to do with legalism per se.

And in fact, Saint Bruno never "left the temporal world" (until his death, that is). He did, however, resist the predations of a destructive secularity on and within the Church. After spending some decades teaching and serving in other significant roles, in a Church riven with Papal division and struggles against corruption, he refused to be made a bishop and opted for a life of eremitical solitude. However, when he went with six of his friends off into the Southern Alps, he did so under the authority of Bishop Hugh of Grenoble who installed these seven men in the first location of what would become the Grand Chartreuse. This installation was a matter of ecclesiastical law. Thus, Bruno's group became a canonical foundation and the Carthusians enjoyed the protection of the Church as well as the natural isolation of the Alps. Because of both of these factors, Bruno and his Carthusians developed a normative and unique form of eremitical life that has stood the test of time. The Carthusians today (and new institutes founded in their spirit) are canonical in the same way all religious and diocesan hermits are canonical. Law helps protect the spiritual well-being, priorities, and decisions of those living under such canons, but it neither dominates nor motivates their lives.

[[I have provided the person with more platform than is warranted or healthy for the misinformation that comes forth, so will leave off the topic of which I do believe, however, that there will be increasing "hermits" of the canon law provision, simply due to the public promotion and position, prestige of sorts, and aspect of thinking "legal" and "approved" is preferred to following in the footsteps, heart, mind, and spirit of Christ's teachings and life as He exemplified on earth and as it is in His Real Presence here and in Heaven.]]

There is no need to place canonical standing in opposition to following in the footsteps of Jesus. They are not mutually exclusive. To treat them in this way is simplistic and very short-sighted. I sincerely hope there are more properly motivated and formed canonical hermits under c 603 whose relation to law is a healthy one that opens them more fully to the Spirit of God; I am trying to do my part to contribute to this whole dynamic making sure this is the case. It is a part of my vocation that surprises and gratifies me. While many people have contacted me evincing various levels and types of interest in Canon 603 vocations, I have yet to meet a serious candidate for C 603 profession and consecration who is successful in her petition to be admitted to these, while choosing this vocation as a means to prestige, public promotion, etc. 

Meanwhile, just as I pray for all eremitical vocations, I pray for increasing canonical vocations amongst the Camaldolese, Carthusians, Carmelites, and others as well. Each of these has existed as "canonical" (with Church-approved constitutions and statutes) for many centuries --- long before there was a universal Code of Canon Law (1917) --- and above all, like all religious in the Church, members have and do follow Jesus and allow God to shape them as Imago Christi in the power of the Holy Spirit. I doubt very much the author of these comments could sincerely take exception to this observation, at least not without disparaging all religious in the Church. (cf., Christian Catholic Mystic Hermit, Note added on 9/4 to a post from 19. August. 2023.)

Canon 603: a Paradigm for all Hermits

[[When we examine the now two Church-allowed hermit paths, we can see the challenges in each, but the greater challenge to me has remained that of living as a hermit unknown, unnoticed, non-acclaimed. Yet despite many trials and errors, I remain God’s beloved consecrated hermit--and a Catholic hermit. Indeed, some have stated that a privately professed hermit must not call him- or herself a “Catholic hermit” if not a diocese CL603 hermit. It does not matter, other than why cut off all the Church’s hermits who have lived and died living this more rare but special vocation when until recent times, there was no created church law establishing other than what always had been?]] 

Hi Sister, I wondered if you had seen this post and if you had any opinions on it. I wonder how the author can say "It does not matter" while it sounds like it matters a lot to her! Does Canon 603 cut off all who have lived and died as a non-canonical hermit? Was there no church law regarding hermits before c 603? I remember you saying there was but not universal canon law. Is this so? Thanks!]]

I have seen this passage before, yes. I agree that the assertion of an identity as a "consecrated Catholic hermit" despite never having been admitted to consecration as a Catholic hermit by anyone in the church with that authority and/or intention, does seem to matter a lot to the author. She is a Catholic and a hermit but does not live her eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. This is because using the term "Catholic hermit" to indicate a normative quality to the vocation requires someone with both authority and intent to establish one in law as a Catholic hermit. That, in turn, means extending the legal rights and obligations of a canonical (or public**) vocation to someone and the person to whom such rights and obligations are extended must also embrace these in law; this all occurs in the Rites of canonical Profession* and Consecration mediated by the Church in the person of the local ordinary. That the author has not met these requirements is significant given her claims. What is unclear to me is the reason she presses these claims since the Church recognizes all authentic forms of eremitical life in whatever state of life (lay, consecrated, or clerical) as laudable.

Before Canon 603, the main canonical provision for eremitical life was to join a congregation of Catholic Hermits (Carthusians, Camaldolese, some Carmelites, et al.). As you note, in individual dioceses in some centuries bishops did approve the lives of anchorites and cared for them if benefactors failed. During the Middle Ages there were local (diocesan) canons from place to place to regulate things in some ways (there was no universal Canon Law at this time). Otherwise, except for the orders/congregations of canonical hermits, the "traditional" form of solitary eremitical life was lay, not consecrated. Vocationally as well as hierarchically speaking, the Desert Abbas and Ammas were lay hermits --- they lived eremitical life in the lay state. So was every hermit who lived as a solitary hermit (that is, who was not part of a religious congregation) until 1983. Canon 603 recognized the value of solitary eremitical life after Bishop Remi De Roo intervened at Vatican II to ask for such recognition. De Roo requested that the eremitical vocation, which was so positive in his lived experience, should be recognized as a state of perfection, just as all religious life was recognized and established. 

But it took time to do this. There was the need to reflect on the lives of notable hermits and develop a list of characteristics a solitary hermit would live, just as there was the need to create a normative way of governing this life so it was truly exemplary --- not perfect, of course, but exemplary. Almost 20 years after Vatican II ended, the Church published a revised Code of Canon Law and for the very first time in the history of the Church, the solitary eremitical life was recognized in universal law as a state of perfection (that is, it was included as a consecrated state of life with those so consecrated recognized by the Church as Religious); thus it was defined in a normative way in Canon 603.

It is not that non-canonical hermits are being cut off, diminished, or disregarded. That seems to me to be a cynical and inaccurate representation of the facts. The long history of exemplary holiness and prophetic presence of such hermits is precisely what called for a Canon recognizing the value and dignity of this calling as an ecclesial vocation belonging to the Church. These hermits taught the Church this and made the way for Canon 603 as an eventuality!! The normative portrait of eremitical life in Canon 603 is drawn from the lives and wisdom of such hermits; in fact, it honors them!! At the same time, the Church is careful in discerning and governing eremitical vocations not only because these are significant gifts and more difficult to discern than vocations to life in community,  but also because the history of solitary hermits is ambiguous with evidence both of great holiness and disedifying or even scandalous eccentricity. 

The Church wants hermits to live this vocational gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and she recognizes the support and guidance of the Church are important if individuals are to live such vocations well. After all, eremitism is neither about being a loner nor a too-common, sometimes rampant individualism. Instead, it is lived within the dynamic and demanding context of the ecclesial community with its long history of non-canonical hermits as well as canonical eremitical congregations and (now) solitary canonical hermits. At the same time, the Church knows that hermits of whatever stripe can be a prophetic presence challenging the Church herself to an ever more radical living out of the Gospel. Canon 603 celebrates and witnesses to this as well. 

This became clear as the Church recognized the significance not only of the Desert Ammas and Abbas but also of both the anchoritic and eremitic vocations on a diocesan level through various eras of her history. Bishops created statutes and devised liturgies recognizing and embracing these vocations because of this recognition. (For instance, recall the rite praying for and blessing the anchorite and her cell, as well as closing her within her anchorhold; note the ways diocesan bishops exercised responsibility for the upkeep of the anchoress when the local community or benefactors failed to do so; consider also the way the right to wear a hermit's tunic or the license to preach and solicit from others as a hermit, came in these same centuries, from the local ordinary.)  Still, what was necessary to truly demonstrate that all such vocations were valued throughout the church in all eras was the hermit's recognition in universal law. 

Bishop Remi De Roo

That only occurred in 1983 with the promulgation of Canon 603. Still, the majority of hermits will likely remain non-canonical. I would argue that it is now easier to live as a non-canonical hermit precisely because the church recognizes the eremitical vocation as such canonically and has made these instances of it a normative and consecrated state. With canon 603 every eremitical vocation, whether non-canonical or canonical is raised to a new visibility and valuation in the Western Church. Canon 603 is still under-utilized and likely will be so for some time to come. Not everyone will or should become a canon 603 hermit or thus live this vocation in the name of the Church, but those who live their eremitic vocations as non-canonical hermits can be grateful that for the first time in almost 2 millennia, the Western church has honored the eremitical vocation in universal law. 

This requires that canonical hermits live the normativity of their vocations well and humbly for they do so for all hermits. They reflect on the terms of Canon 603 for the benefit of every hermit, whether canonical or non-canonical. If canonical, they have embraced ecclesial responsibilities in making Profession and accepting Consecration through the church's mediation, and each one will demonstrate aspects of the life any hermit should be open to learning from. Of course, non-canonical hermits must also live their chosen callings well and humbly. If they choose not to be canonical hermits or are refused admission to canonical standing, I believe they must still let themselves learn from Canon 603 and those professed and consecrated accordingly -- as well as from hermits in eremitical congregations. From before the time I first knocked on the chancery door seeking profession (@1985) to consecration in 2007 (about 23 years), I reflected on c 603 and learned from it despite having been given little hope my diocese might ever implement it for anyone. I also learned from the Camaldolese and others. 

Whether living as a non-canonical or canonical hermit, it was the vision of eremitical life the Church recognized as normative that was important for my own faithfulness and growth in the eremitical vocation. I hope that all hermits can understand the importance of both the Canon and those exploring eremitical life in a canonical/consecrated state. They do this not only for God and the Church more generally, but for all hermits, whether canonical or non-canonical. Because C 603 represents the normative vision of what the Church considers to constitute eremitical life,  to live this life canonically is not about prestige, but about responsibility. This is the meaning of status in the phrase canonical status or standing. Acceptance of this standing and correlative responsibility is reflected in the right to call oneself a Catholic Hermit and such rights and obligations are never self-assumed. Again, they are given by the Church to those whose vocations they have also discerned.

* Profession is a broader act than the making of vows. It is a public act of and for the Church in which an individual commits him/herself to the rights and obligations of a new state in life. Usually, this is done through the making and reception of canonical (public) vows. In final, perpetual, or definitive profession, through the reception of the individual's vows and the prayer of consecration, the Church mediates God's consecration of the person. This sets him/her apart as a sacred person and constitutes his/her definitive entrance into the consecrated state.

** Public in this context refers to the public rights and responsibilities undertaken in a public (canonical) commitment, not to the place this commitment takes place, nor to the number who attend it. Likewise, private means that legal (public) rights and obligations are not extended to nor undertaken by the hermit involved.

Who Do You Say That I Am?

There is something startling about the second question in today's Gospel. Jesus is presented with all kinds of ideas about who people says he is, but he wants the disciples to state clearly who THEY say he is. Most people have several different answers to Jesus' first question, "Who do people say that I am?" The answers include Elijah, John the Baptist, and some of the prophets. But Jesus sharpens the question and moves from this more superficial way of knowing to the disciples own experiential or heart knowledge. He asks, "And you, who do YOU say that I am?"

I am reminded of the kinds of knowing found in [some] stories from Genesis with Adam and Eve in the Garden. As I told the third graders several years ago during a liturgy . . . the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not simply about knowing in our minds what is bad vs what is good. Instead, the passage refers to a deeper, more intimate way of knowing good and evil, namely, deep within ourselves. To "eat of this tree" is quite literally to take good and evil and the act of judging [into ourselves by choosing them]. The way I illustrated this for 3rd graders was to ask how many of them knew what it felt like to stand on one foot for fifteen minutes. Several hands came part way up and then dropped down again. The kids knew they could imagine what it would be like, but they also saw clearly that only in doing it would they REALLY know in their muscles, memory, emotions, etc. (After the liturgy one of the adults present told me one little girl tried the whole time to stand on one foot!!)

I am also reminded of the conversation between Eve and the serpent as the two of them theologize ABOUT God rather than speaking TO or WITH him. These are two forms or levels of knowing, the first which is interesting and maybe even important for Eve, but which involves only a part of her being until she commits to the definition she has come to in her dialogue with Satan --- a definition which is not the same as God's self-revelation --- and establishes herself as estranged from God.

Finally, I am reminded of my perpetual eremitical profession [sixteen] years ago on September 2,  when I responded to the Bishop's question about what I desired, with a statement that publicly included the claim of Jesus Christ as "Lord and Spouse." Though my experience of Christ is nuptial, I had never used the term "Spouse" before in this way, and never publicly! The question in Mark's Gospel, "Who do YOU say that I am?" was on my mind and heart as the bishop posed a series of questions to me, and at this moment, there was [a call to go beyond my theological education or the results of intellectual theologizing]. Instead, I was being asked to bring my whole self before God and the assembly and ask the Church to accept this self-gift in the name of Christ. Theologizing and speculation had no place in this exchange. Wishfulness and indecisiveness were definitely out of line here. Instead, it was time to claim that identity publicly which had been given privately many years earlier. This was my moment to answer Jesus' question, "Who do you say that I am?" from the knowledge I carried in my heart. I was actually surprised, and perhaps a little scared by my response.

There are all kinds of ways to avoid a genuine response to Jesus' question. Rote answers carved from creeds and catechesis are the most common. But, as we see from the Gospel story, it is not enough to answer Jesus' question with answers others have told us are the truth --- not even what we have been taught by the Church. Another common way of avoiding a genuine response is playing it safe and refusing to answer for fear of what others will think. I answered on that day of perpetual profession and consecration by referring to, ". . . Jesus who is my Lord and Spouse. . ." but in another situation, I might as easily have responded, "You are the one in the hospital all those years ago who called me "little one" and  [managed] to coax me to drink a glass of milk when I was so very frightened"; and I might have continued, "you have been my elder Brother present at every bedside ever since, reminding me of the steadfast compassionate love of God." There are many other ways to answer Jesus' question in my own life. I call him Christ, and Lord, and Brother, and the content of those terms, consistent as they are with Catholic Tradition, is always rooted in my own experience. So, I think, should all such answers to Jesus' question be.

Peter apparently answers the question Jesus asks, and does so in the terms of personal experience and the trust this requires: "You are the Christ", but when Jesus begins to redefine what being God's anointed one means in terms of suffering and death, Peter rebukes him and belies the authenticity of his own confession. Once again Divine reality conflicts with human theologizing --- and once again theologizing is estranged from the human heart and the trusting knowledge of faith. Peter even takes Jesus aside to instruct him in the truth of what the term Christ REALLY means (certainly not suffering and ignominious death!)! And Jesus' criticism is devastating: "Get behind me Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do!" He might well have said, Get behind me pseudo-theologian! You are thinking like human beings do, but I need you to know me, and claim that knowledge in a different and more exhaustive way!

The challenge of this Gospel is the same as the challenge to Adam and Eve in the garden, viz, allow God to reveal himself on his own terms. It is the same as Jesus' series of questions to Peter after Peter's triple denial. In these Jesus draws Peter deeper into his own experience of Jesus and helps Peter transcend that horrific failure. Implicitly, Jesus' question in Sunday's Gospel puts us into contact with the One we know profoundly and says, trust in that revelation; claim it here and now; live from it and for it! And of course, it encourages us to spend some time answering Jesus' question for ourselves. He knows who the Church says he is, and what textbooks in dogmatic theology claim and expound on, but we ourselves, who do WE say that he is? 

Jesus and the Canaanite Woman (Reprise)

If we're looking for a Gospel lection that breaks all stereotypes today's is one of these! This reading is sometimes categorized among the "difficult sayings of Jesus" because it has Jesus characterizing a Gentile woman as a dog (a typical epithet of his day when referring to Gentiles) and refusing to extend healing to her daughter because HIS mission is first of all to the lost of Israel, not to the Gentiles. And so, the woman, who has already silenced Jesus with a terrific act of faith, "Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David," answers Jesus' instruction on this point with a bit of instruction of her own: [[ Yes, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the Master's table!]] Jesus, already silenced and now thoughtful, seems even to reconsider and expand the scope of his own ministry in light of it. If Jesus can grow in grace and stature in this way, through the mediation of a completely disenfranchised woman, then is anyone in the Church really beyond being instructed by the women standing (at best) on the margins of power and authority or the Christ standing as their Master? I don't think so.

What happens to Jesus is as instructive for the contem-porary Church as all of Jesus' words, all his parables, discourses, instructions, imprecations, and remonstrances. For (again) in today's gospel story, Jesus hears and is silent! He is stopped, and arrested by a woman's compelling act of faith. It is a pregnant silence because it is the result of truly listening and leads both to further listening and to a fundamental shift or variation in Jesus' ministry from the lost sheep of Israel to the lost of all the nations. It is the silence of a teacher who is truly effective not because he has all the answers but because he is willing to listen, reconsider the answer and ministry God has given him, and learn! It is the silence of a docile teacher who truly hears the commission of God coming from the least and the lost; it is the silence of one who can change his mind and even the direction of his ministry as a result of an encounter with the truth a woman and outsider carries! Certainly, that is precisely the kind of teacher the Church itself is called to be! After all, the Church is not greater than her Master; instead, she is called to embody and mediate him. In light of today's Gospel lection, the challenge to embody and mediate the DOCILITY of Christ seems compelling!

All kinds of situations reduce us to silence but only sometimes do we really listen therein, only sometimes are we genuinely obedient. Ordinarily today silence is something that occurs momentarily while we plug in a different device or while we take a breath during a conversation to "let someone else have a turn". Rather than listening to that other person in the profound way Jesus listens in today's Gospel, too often our silences are reluctant at best, and tend to be filled with mental machinations as we gauge where and how we can reenter the "conversation" and continue our own discourse or argument! Conversations with Church leaders can sometimes give us the sense that we are speaking to a clerically-clad wall. Nothing, especially the living God, is truly heard in these conversations, no minds or hearts are changed, connections and bonds of charity are not made, aliens do not become neighbors, neighbors do not become brothers and sisters, and brothers and sisters especially do not become colleagues in the service of the Gospel!

But Jesus' example condemns such an approach. In this lection, one of the lowest and the least becomes the One by which Jesus truly hears the voice of his Father and comes to modify his own understanding of his mission. After his silence at her first words to him Jesus rehearses the standard Jewish arguments for her and for his disciples, arguments that make sense in THIS worldly terms and in terms of an Israel threatened by outsiders, but not in terms of the Kingdom of God: "I was sent only to the children of Israel; It is not just (right or fair) to take the food from the children (Israel) and throw it to the dogs (Gentiles)." (We might hear common arguments for excluding folks from Eucharist today --- arguments that make good sense in worldly terms: "We cannot pretend there is a unity that doesn't really exist. We cannot defile the Eucharist by giving it to public and obstinate sinners. It wouldn't be just to do these things!") But in Matthew's telling of the Gospel story, Jesus has already fed the five thousand (apparently mainly Jews) and found there was plenty left over. He has also just preached that it is what comes out of us that defiles, but to eat with unwashed hands does NOT defile. . . The Canaanite women's response is a reminder of Jesus' great Eucharistic miracle as well as the infinite value and power to heal possessed by even the smallest crumb that comes to the most unworthy from God.

But it reminds us of much more as well. For those, for instance, who object that women cannot teach, we have an example of a Gentile woman teaching Jesus about the will of God and helping to reshape his mission. In so doing she reminds Jesus of a different "justice" in which all are therefore welcome at Christ's table; similarly, she reveals that the way Israel is first may not be precisely the way the world (or Israel herself) sees or has seen such matters. Israel is to be first in including, ministering to, and serving the outsider and the unworthy, not in excluding them until some other day of the Lord is at hand. Moreover, Israel is to be ministered to and served by the formerly alien and marginalized!! That day of the Lord is here, NOW, and, with the Canaanite woman's intervention, Jesus too comes to see this more clearly and embrace it more fully. In some ways, this shift in vision, a shift the Church herself is called upon to make, parallels the two different ways we have of understanding the term Catholic: the Latin sense of universalis which means universal but leaves some outside the circle however large it is drawn, and the Greek sense of Katholicos which is universal in the sense of leaven in bread where no one and nothing is left excluded or untouched and unfed.

Follow-up Question: The Silence of Solitude as "Abiding in God and God in Us"

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, I am grateful for your last couple of posts before the one on Maximillian Kolbe. (I said that badly since I also liked the one on Maxillian!!) You wrote about the silence of solitude that it is more than the silence of a person alone or by themselves. You also said, "When I speak of the silence of solitude as goal I mean that we move toward the completion or fullness of communion with God in which we are completely known and loved, and therefore, know and love in return --- and do so as naturally possible. Any anxiety to be heard, accepted, affirmed, and loved for who we are is entirely quieted while we are more able to be ourselves with clarity and articulateness.". . ."The silence of solitude here sings with life and wholeness. It is poor, chaste, and obedient!! We are fully ourselves with and in God." How much of this is influenced by John's Gospel? I ask because it seems like what you write pays a lot of attention to Word and a lot to what John's gospel would call "abiding" -- like abiding in God and God in us.]]

Good job!! Yes!!! If I were to translate the phrase "the silence of solitude" into Scriptural language, I would probably call it [[abiding in God as God abides in me]] --- or maybe just abiding or mutual abiding. Shalom is also a good translation of the term and so is Union. What is critical is that we understand that 1) the canonical term (the silence of solitude) implies relationality in both silence and solitude and 2) the relationality it implies is absolutely redemptive as only a relationship with God can be. You can see, I think how the silence of solitude also implies dying to self into the paradox, [[I, yet not I, but Christ in me]]!!

As you know, I think, I define eremitical solitude as a unique form of community --- rare, little understood, paradoxical, for sure, but a matter of community nonetheless. And silence is only most superficially a matter of external silence. More profoundly, it is a matter of inner silence where our deep woundedness is healed, our unmet needs are submerged and enfolded in God's infinite love, and the cries of pain and anguish we might well be otherwise, are transformed and transfigured into paeans of psalmody and praise. In Canon 603, this silence is as paradoxical as the solitude it reflects and if we ask plainly where or how inner silence is achieved, the answer must by coming to rest in God.

Your question is very timely. Two days ago a friend of mine (Pat) died unexpectedly. Thus, today and yesterday I have been thinking about phrases like "eternal rest", especially in relation to what I know to be true of the silence of solitude, but also because this friend was a member of our class on the Gospel of John where we have been speaking of  1) God's will to be God-with-us (Emmanuel) as something eternal that drives God's creation of anything outside Godself, and 2) abiding with God is another way of speaking about allowing God to fully be Emmanuel.  All of these things come together in a dynamic relationship with God that makes us fully or authentically human and allows God's will for Godself to be realized as well. Eternal rest in such a situation means rest from struggle and striving; it means coming to and resting in the fullness of truth, not merely in what we may know but in what and who we are. 

Pat Snyder

One other member of the class wrote today to say Pat was [[now having the best day of her life. All her questions answered, she was so interested in all things spiritual.]] I remember learning that a question was a sentence in search of another that would complete it. Questions for me are noisy, restless things that reflect our own noisy, restless, incompleteness. They push themselves forward whenever there is the slightest opportunity and can be indefatigable in their search for meaning, and truth (imagine the incessant questioning of a small child who has learned the power of the words "what", "where", "how" and "why"?!!)They are the means to transcendence and growth. So when I think of human beings as language events I also see them as questions in search of an answer. When I think of Jesus as the Word incarnate, I understand him to be the human question we each are united with the answer (God) that completes him. So, I changed that person's affirmation to read "the question she was (and lived so very well) has been answered"!! That noisy, restless search she was and posed in so many remarkable ways in our faith community has come to resolution and completion. She knows the silence of solitude in a way hermits anticipate and witness to with their lives. She abides in God and knows the "rest" of eternity --- dynamic, fully alive, and inextricably wed to the One Jesus called Abba.

I know I ran with your question in directions you did not suggest or ask about, but the mutuality in the way John understands abiding in his Gospel, the close link between Shalom and wholeness or holiness, the relational character of both eternal life (life after death) and what one Gospel commentator calls "eternity life" (life here and now opened up to the life of God), along with the way all of these correspond to C 603's "the silence of solitude" have been knocking around in my head and heart throughout the year. Given your question and Pat's death, it is time to recognize these are all facets of the same gem. It is vastly richer in meaning and beauty than the assertion that "the silence of solitude" in C 603 merely means the external quiet of physically being by oneself.

Though I can't write about this in this post, I believe the other central elements of Canon 603, especially stricter separation from the world and assiduous prayer and penance, are also synonyms for the multifaceted experience of abiding in God and are profoundly Johannine. Thanks for the chance to enlarge on past comments!