In the Heart of the Desert: O God, Make us Truly Alive!

[[Dear Sister, if I wanted to read about the Desert Fathers and Mothers what would you suggest I read? Thanks. Also, I wondered if the Desert Fathers and Mothers are helpful in charting your own course as a canonical hermit? By the way, are you doing the service on Friday? It's your Feast day isn't it?]]

Thanks for the questions!  Good timing given the feasts this week of  Paul of Thebes, and St Anthony of Egypt. Yes, the Desert Fathers and Mothers are a great source for  my understanding of eremitical life and I read them and books about them whenever I become aware of something new out there. The best book I can recommend apart from a collection of the sayings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers (I would always start here) is by John Chryssavagis. It is entitled, In the Heart of the Desert, The Spirituality of the Desert. Rev Dc Chryssavagis is an Orthodox Christian and an expert on the Desert Fathers and Mothers. What he does in this book is to explore the true heart of desert Spirituality as lived by the 4-5C hermits by using not only their sayings but by drawing pictures of the way these men and women lived. Especially, Rev Chryssavagis constructs a portrait of a profoundly healthy spirituality which most will recognize as helpful in the 21C.

For instance, in writing about spiritual direction in the desert, Chryssavagis cites the following conversation(s) between a younger hermit and Abba Poemen: [[ A brother questioned Abba Poemen saying, "I am losing my soul living with my abba. Should I go on living with him?" The old man knew that he was finding it harmful living with the abba. So he said to him, "Stay, if you want." The brother left him and stayed on there [with the abba]. He came back again and said, "I am losing my soul." But again the old man did not tell him to leave. He came a third time and said: "I really cannot stay there any longer. I am leaving." Then Abba Poemen said to him, "Now you have truly been healed. Go, and do not stay with him any longer."]]

Chryssavagis recognizes that this is the way authentic spiritual direction takes place; this is the way it looks. He says, [[ Abba Poemen struggled to exclude his own will while expanding --- but not exploiting --- the will of the brother.]] In my own life my Director works in the same way. She helps me to get in touch with and articulate the movements of my own heart and she hears my thoughts, but she does not ordinarily tell me what to do. She certainly celebrates with me when I come to clarity on something and move as I sense God is calling me to do. As Chryssavagis makes clear, the refusal to interfere in the journey of another while providing ways and tools allowing them to come to clarity on their own needs and the way God is calling them is an act of love and respect. It is also an act of trust which underscores one's belief that God speaks to them just as God speaks to the director.

I draw other implications from this saying and from others. Especially I can see the way obedience worked in what was a vast community of hermits. Each lived either alone or with others and each went to an elder to manifest his own thoughts, his own heart to another. Chryssavagis calls obedience "the great leveller" because everyone could speak a word to another and everyone went to his brothers or sisters for such a word. Everyone listened and was obedient in this profound sense just as everyone, once they were established in the desert life, could be asked to serve in this way. But at the same time this saying and many others lays bare the fact that solitude was not about isolation and while some hermits went onto the deep desert where they were more generally alone, most did not. Chryssavagis notes that obedience did not create a hierarchical structure; instead it was the thing which united a community.

Canon 603 seeks to set up very few regulations for the hermit and requires the hermit to write her own Rule of life while securing a structure of accountability and obedience which, in some ways, mirrors that of the desert Abbas and Ammas. My own Rule seeks to articulate a vision of eremitical life; it does not generally set up lots of "thou shalt nots" or "thou may onlys". The life of the Desert Abbas and Ammas was similar while still being one of community in solitude. In another Abba Poemen story we hear: [[A brother asked Abba Poemen, "Some brothers live with me; should I be in charge of them?" The old man said to him, "No, just work first and foremost. And if they want to live like you then they will see to it themselves." The brother said to him, "But it is they themselves, Father, who want me to be in charge of them. "No, be their example, not their legislator." This is another reason, I think that discernment is long for the c 603 hermit. A diocese must be sure the person is not seeking someone to tell them what to do and has the capacity to write a liveable Rule rooted in lived experience.

But once again, check out the place of community in the lives of  the Desert Fathers and Mothers. There are many sayings which illustrate the community that has a place at the heart of desert solitude; solitude calls for community and community allows for a solitude which is healthy and fruitful. In many ways this is what Camaldolese spirituality calls "living together alone" and I know the desert Abbas and Ammas influenced Camaldolese spirituality. Meanwhile, thanks for asking, but no, I am not doing the service Friday (St Anthony of Egypt); I have had a bug and still do; and no, it is not my feast day either. That is The Conversion of Paul,  25.January; but it is the feast day of the Camaldolese nuns in Rome (Monastery of St Antony of Egypt) so yes, I am remembering them in my prayers. My prayer for them and for all who live desert lives is the Eucharistic prayer of Abba Serapion of Thmuis, [[O God, we entreat you, make us truly alive!]]

Follow up Questions on the Church and Eremitical Life

Dear Sister, You have so carefully laid out what c603 is all about, and usually you include something as to the fact that there have always been lay hermits in the Church. You have said that they are a valid place in the eremitical life of the church. How? Why?  I am curious as to whether you ever find that lay hermits have a real value to the church. I must admit I mostly find them eccentric. I'm sure in the past there have been many who have lived edifying lives — but I have always wondered what on earth St. Simeon the Stylite and others like him contributed to the church. How did their lives point to God???]]

LOL!! Great questions and one or two I can only take a stab at. I'll include your other questions and comments below this. All authentic eremitical lives are important in the life of the Church, and this is true whether the vocations or commitments are public (canonical) or private (non-canonical). Canonical vocations (consecrated eremitical lives) serve in a paradigmatic way for the whole Church. What I mean is that the Church defines eremitical life canonically and admits individuals to profession after a period of discernment and formation. In this way the Church makes as sure as she can that those who live this vocation in her name represent solid examples of this life. But anyone who is canonically free can live as a hermit and be a tremendous example of what is possible when Divinity (grace) and humanity (nature) live in communion or even union with each other. When reduced to its simplest witness this is what eremitical life is about. Hermit's are called to give people hope regarding what is possible with God and with God alone. 

Almost everything I write about here is a reflection on some dimension of this. When, for instance, I write about the redemptive event which must be present in a hermit's life for one discerning such a vocation, this is just an elaboration on the idea that in an authentic eremitical life one should see evidence of the dynamics that are set loose in a life and the larger world when the love of God touches a broken, sinful human being. It does not  matter whether one is canonical or non-canonical, lay or consecrated, solitary or living within a community of hermits. The witness is the same so long as what we are seeing is authentic eremitical life. The elements will also be essentially the same: the silence of solitude as environment, goal, and charism, assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from those things which separate us from God in Christ, spiritual direction (may be informal). A few other elements are added for those canonically established as hermits so that the ministry of authority can be worked out appropriately and the vows lived with integrity, but again, all of this is meant to establish and support a life which witnesses to what happens when God and (wo)man live in communion with one another.

Now, for my "stab" at an answer. I think Simon the Stylite witnessed in the same way to others but within a context marked by incredibly limited conditions. Every hermit lives in a kind of wilderness or desert. Some of these are very stark indeed. St Simon's was one of these. When you think of the kinds of things we all think of as essential to healthy life and begin to pare them away so one witnesses to God and the Human person alone, Simon Stylites is a pretty good example of what this might look like. We no longer have great evidence of what St Simon's life was about but I don't have the sense he was insane or disedifying to those who knew him. He represents an example of a relatively rare form or eremitical life and while I doubt many of us feel called to follow his example he does at least remind me of how far from this example my own life actually is!

[[I see again on the blog the image of the naked tattooed hermit — is he a fraud? mentally ill? driven by the Holy Spirit to live this life? I have assumed that when you use that image you are using juxtaposition to show how disordered the life of a self-proclaimed hermit can be. Am I wrong?  How can the vocation of a lay hermit have anything like the value of a c603 hermit???]]

I've added Tom Leppard's name to the picture you refer to. His story was first posted here a number of years ago. You'll find it under the labels to the right. Despite my recent use of his picture he represents more a stereotype (or constellation of stereotypes) than a fraud. He was a profoundly unhappy person who found that whenever something went wrong in his life others were involved. So he had himself tattooed and when off to live alone on the Isle of Skye. He represents for me the idea of "hermit" as misanthrope, escapist, mentally ill, eccentric, etc. Had a British reporter not written an article about him and the hope he represented for elderly Britons I might never have known about him, but essentially he is everything people have thought hermits were/are and everything I personally know hermits are not. He did not proclaim himself a hermit and so he is not a fraud. He lived a personal truth as best he could --- bizarre as that was/is. Still, he is a counterfeit and one that underscores and encourages misunderstandings of the eremitical vocation.

Regarding your last sentence/question above,  it is true that the chances of the hermit's witness value is greater if they become canonical. They are more likely to be known and write publicly or minister publicly in the limited ways allowed by c 603. However, I think in some ways the lives of lay hermits speak more powerfully to those who will never seek canonical standing beyond their baptismal consecrations but who, perhaps, are isolated or disabled and believe their lives are of little value than canonical hermits will. These lay hermits (hermits in their baptismal state) will live lives which speak of Christ and of human wholeness to their neighbors and brothers and sisters in their parishes and put the lie to the misguided idea that one must be a consecrated hermit (or religious) for one's life to be of value. That is simply not true. Vatican II stressed the universal call to holiness; we need for hermits embracing eremitism in the lay state (with or without private acts of dedication or vows) to witness to this truth as Vatican II called every person to do.

[[What did the church do — if anything — about regulating the lives of hermits before c603??  I'm speaking of those who were not already associated with religious orders.  How did they prevent scandal?]] 

I am going to ask you to look back at earlier articles for more detailed posts on this question because this post will be overly simple otherwise, but it seems to me there have been several stages of eremitical life in the Western Church. The first is that of desert fathers and mothers which died out after the 6th C. These hermits were self-regulating and placed *** would-be hermits under the tutelage of elders. These elders granted the "candidate" the permission to take on the hermit habit or took it from the candidate as necessary, taught them what they needed to know, supported them, and so forth until the hermit was ready to live on his/her own. Remember these hermits were critical of the church and the way she had succumbed to the world of politics and power, and had become not just legal (cf. the Edict of Milan) but enmeshed in the world. They are a primary reason we identify the eremitical vocation as prophetic.

Into the Middle Ages hermits who were not members of orders or congregations existed more independently; most of the time these hermits were not problematical but they could be a source of scandal or confusion and were many times were not particularly edifying. People like St Romuald (early 1000's, founder of the Camaldolese) went around Italy trying to bring as many of these as he could under the Rule of Benedict in order to add some structure and sense of ecclesial identity to these hermits' lives. Otherwise hermits formed or continued living in congregations during this time, The Carthusian and Camaldolese were both founded in the 1000-1100's.

In the Middle Ages bishops brought anchorites (male and female) under their direct authority and oversaw their lives. Hermits who desired to preach were licensed to do so by local bishops. Hermits were granted a hermit tunic by the local bishop and fell, at least loosely, under his aegis. So, there were statutes in the canons of the local Churches (dioceses) which brought some order to what could be chaotic otherwise. These norms differed, however, from diocese to diocese and were uneven at best. In the Western Church the eremitical vocation pretty much died out after this except in semi-eremitical congregations. (It was always connected to monastic life in the Eastern Church and never died out.) Only in the 20th C did the Church see a resurgence of interest in the eremitical life.

The Church has always tried to find effective ways to deal with the eremitical vocation, sometimes to foster it, sometimes to correct or control it, and often to prevent it from falling into some common traps and counterfeits. For that matter hermits themselves have always tried to regulate authentic eremitical life recognizing that it is not a life of license, individualism, or selfishness, but of love and generosity; they have also seen that to the degree it is authentic it is profoundly communal or ecclesial and from the days of the desert Abbas and Ammas, a profoundly prophetic vocation. Some of the reasons c 603 is so significant stem from the fact that it approaches eremitical life as a positive reality and recognizes it as a gift of God. Canon 603 is universal church law and takes the place of any local statutes which pre-existed it; it is instead, the single way solitary hermit are consecrated in the Universal Church today. (Including hermits as part of the consecrated state is also quite new.) Moreover, it allows for appropriate structure (legitimate superiors, ministry of authority), essential or non-negotiable elements, and combines these with the  life experience and discernment of the individual hermit. It is both profoundly ecclesial and dependent on the Holy Spirit in ways which help ensure both fidelity and flexibility.

Abba Poemen

***Remember, this group refers to hermits from several desert areas (Egypt, Palestine). They were made up of hermits who lived in solitude in three main forms: entirely alone, in cenobitical monasteries, and those living a "middle way" which was akin to what we recognize today as lauras of hermits (hermits in a colony linked together physically by the pathways (lavra) which were created between each hermitage as hermits travelled back and forth. Today we tend to separate the cenobites from the eremites leaving hermits who constituted what Derwas Chitty rightly call "a city". The solitude remained substantial but hermits were bound in community by the the unique obedience of the desert where every hermit could seek or be sought out for a word from his/her brother/sister hermits. Sometimes the Desert Abbas and Ammas wrote that it was enough for them simply to see another hermit living his/her life --- that hermit became a living word for his/her brothers and sisters.

Please note: it is possible to argue that these three forms of desert life correspond in a general (inexact) way to the three forms of eremitical life extant today: 1) hermits in a laura (or a desert city) might be seen to correspond to c 603 hermits as I have described this vocation over the past decade and more, 2) hermits who live in a coenobium (like the Carthusians or Camaldolese Benedictines, and 3) solitary lay vocations.

I hope this is helpful.

Feast of the Baptism of Jesus (reprised)

Of all the feasts we celebrate, [today's] feast of the baptism of Jesus is one of the most difficult for us to understand. We are used to thinking of baptism as a solution to original sin instead of the means of our initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus, or our adoption as daughters and sons of God and heirs to his Kingdom, or again, as a consecration to God's very life and service. When viewed this way, and especially when we recall that John's baptism was one of repentance for sin, how do we make sense of a sinless Jesus submitting to it?

I think two points need to be made here. First, Jesus grew into his vocation. His Sonship was real and completely unique but not completely developed or historically embodied from the moment of his conception; rather it was something he embraced more and more fully over his lifetime. Secondly, his Sonship was the expression of solidarity with us and his fulfillment of the will of his Father to be God-with-us. Jesus will incarnate the Logos of God definitively in space and time, but this event we call the incarnation encompasses and is only realized fully in his life, death, and resurrection -- not in his nativity. Only in allowing himself to be completely transparent to this Word, only in "dying to self," and definitively setting aside all other possible destinies does Jesus come to fully embody and express the Logos of God in a way which expresses his solidarity with us as well.

It is probably the image of Baptism-as-consecration and commissioning then which is most helpful to us in understanding Jesus' submission to John's baptism. Here the man Jesus is set apart as the one in whom God will truly "hallow his name." (That is, in Jesus' weakness and self-emptying God's powerful presence (Name) will make all things Holy and a sacrament of God's presence.) Here, in an act of manifest commitment, Jesus' humanity is placed completely at the service of the living God and of those to whom God is committed. Here his experience as one set apart or consecrated by and for God establishes God as completely united with us and our human condition. This solidarity is reflected in his statement to John that together they must fulfill the will of God. And here too Jesus anticipates the death and resurrection he will suffer for the sake of both human and Divine destinies which, in him, will be reconciled and inextricably wed to one another. His baptism establishes the pattern not only of HIS humanity, but that of all authentic humanity. So too does it reveal the nature of true Divinity, for our's is a God who becomes completely subject to our sinful reality in order to free us for his own entirely holy one.

I suspect that even at the end of the Christmas season we are still scandalized by the incarnation. (Recent conversations on CV's and secularity make me even surer of this!) We still stumble over the intelligibility of this baptism, and the propriety of it especially. Our inability to fathom Jesus' own baptism, and our tendency to be shocked by it  because of Jesus' identity,  just as JohnBp was probably shocked, says we are not comfortable, even now, with a God who enters exhaustively into our reality. We remain uncomfortable with a Jesus who is tempted like us in ALL THINGS, and matures into his identity as God's only begotten Son.

We are puzzled by one who is holy as God is holy and, as the creed affirms, "true God from true God" and who, evenso, is consecrated to and by the one he calls Abba --- and commissioned to the service of this Abba's Kingdom and people. A God who wholly identifies with us, takes on our sinfulness, and comes to us in smallness, weakness, submission and self-emptying is really not a God we are comfortable with --- despite three weeks of Christmas celebrations and reflections, and a prior four weeks of preparation -- is it? In fact, none of this was comfortable for Jews or early Christians either. The Jewish leadership was upset by JnBp's baptisms generally because they took place outside the Temple precincts and structures (that is, in the realm we literally call profane). Early Christians (Jewish and otherwise) were embarrassed by Jesus' baptism by John --- as Matt's added explanation of the reasons for it in vv 14-15 indicate. They were concerned that perhaps it indicated Jesus' inferiority to John the Baptist and they wondered if maybe it meant that Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism. And perhaps this embarrassment is as it should be. Perhaps the scandal attached to this baptism signals to us we are beginning to get things right theologically.

After all, today's feast tells us that Jesus' public ministry begins with a ritual washing, consecration, and commissioning by God which is similar to our own baptismal consecration. The difference is that Jesus' freely accepts life under the sway of sin in his baptism just as he wholeheartedly embraces a public (and one could cogently argue, a thoroughly secular) vocation to proclaim God's sovereignty. The story of the desert temptation or testing that follows this underscores this acceptance. His public life begins with an event that prefigures his end as well. There is a real dying to self involved here, not because Jesus has a false self which must die -- as each of us has --- but because in these events his life is placed completely at the disposal of his God, his Abba, in solidarity with us. Loving another, affirming the being of another in a way which subordinates one's own being to theirs --- putting one's own life at their disposal and surrendering all other life-possibilities always entails a death of sorts -- and a kind of rising to new life as well. The dynamics present on the cross are present here too; here we see only somewhat less clearly a complete and obedient (that is open and responsive) submission to the will of God, and an unfathomable subjection to that which human sinfulness makes necessary precisely in order that God's love may be exhaustively present and conquer here as well.

What Motivates You to Live and Work as You Do?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal (Laurel?), I also really enjoyed our conversation on hermits and friendship. I did not want to drop it but I haven't seen similar conversations on your blog. Too, it was holiday time and I had family to prepare for, shopping to do, and I wanted to help around my own church.  When you write about the hermit vocation I admit to being really surprised at how you describe it. I had always thought of hermits as people-hating, bitter, isolationists, who said some pious things about God in an attempt to salvage what was very unhealthy. Nothing about it seemed to be "edifying" (this is your word and one I never heard, much less used, before this!); I could not envision anyone wanting to becomes a hermit unless they were emotionally unwell.

So, you can imagine how I felt when I read what you had written about the importance of friendships or the kind of inner work you are doing with your Director.  You stressed wellness and the connection between holiness and wholeness. You talked in terms of reconciliation with God, self, and others and of the importance of being known and knowing others. And you talked about solitude in terms of community while you rejected isolation. Really, it just blew me away!! Do you think part of the church's renewal of this vocation opens the way to re-envisioning it or experimenting with it? Can you do something new with it because your bishop said what he did at your profession (you wrote about this recently but I could not find it to quote)? What motivates you in this? Some people would say what you write rejects traditional values, so what motivates you to write about eremitism in the way you do? Thank you in advance for your response!!]]

Thanks again for your follow ups. I left this one mainly intact rather than cutting and pasting as I usually do because it expresses so well things which have interested me for a long time now: stereotypes and combatting these, my sense of the prophetic quality of eremitical vocations today (and always when these are authentic), the importance of the life codified in canon 603, the distinction between eremitical solitude and personal isolation, the importance of ecclesial standing in such a vocation, etc. What struck me (what blew me away) in what you wrote is your summary and also the way you asked the crucial question in every case, viz., what motivates me -- especially in relation to the comments Abp Vigneron made during his homily at my perpetual eremitical profession re exploring the breadth and depth of contemporary eremitical life.

You see, there are so many really bad reasons for pursuing eremitical life and so many disedifying examples of this throughout history. I believe the ways I live, or think and write about eremitical life reflect some of the important ways eremitism can be a witness to the Gospel and assume real relevance in today's world. I also believe that not all instances of "hermits" in the history of eremitical life have been healthy or authentic instances of eremitical life. Even today, not all glorify God or provide a key to understanding the dignity of the human person with and in God alone. Not all reflect a loving life or a life of relative wholeness, nor are they interested in growing towards these. Some seem instead to be or have been little more than instances of misanthropy, escapism, narcissism, and so forth. The journey I am on with God and with the assistance of my Directors is about living a life both deeply loved and loving, profoundly rooted in the Gospel, and generally edifying to the Church, but especially, to those within the Church who are isolated in one way and another and who have no apparent way out of such isolation.

As to your specific questions, I am not much motivated by a need to re-envision or experiment with eremitical life. It is true that most of the time I am aware of contending with stereotypes and considering authenticity, but even in these, my overriding motivation is simply to live well this vocation to which God in (his) Church has called me in light of canon 603 and the Camaldolese tradition. What this means for me is to live this call in a way which leads to the abundant and abundantly loving life God promises all believers. The eremitical vocation is meant for this and it gains flexibility because of it. As a result, for instance, I define solitude in terms of personal wholeness, genuine freedom, and individuation in and with God; I understand the silence of solitude as the physical environment, but also as the personal goal, and charism (gift) of this vocation to the Church and world. I understand this vocation speaking most powerfully to those who are chronically ill, disabled, or otherwise isolated from others in ways they cannot change, but which God can indeed transform and transfigure in light of a deeper healing!

I also understand this vocation as speaking to those who, because of life-circumstances, believe they have nothing to offer the Church or world, and I try to witness to the fact that their own life with God is a supremely important and precious gift that can be offered to others even when, for instance, they cannot undertake active ministry. I believe that a hermit's life can give hope to those who lack it and a sense of meaning for those who have been unable to see this in their own lives. I think this is true because, as important and necessary as these things are, this life is not about our own talents and gifts, but instead it is about the way God loves, values, and completes us. When we really allow God to love us in this way we are empowered to love ourselves and others. Our life comes to make a sense it did not make apart from this. Naturally, I live and work as a hermit in the silence of solitude because I have the sense that this is precisely the way God has called me to wholeness and holiness, precisely the way he has called me to spend myself for others, and precisely the way he redeems my own life.

I am able and morally obligated to do these things, not only because (Arch)bishop Vigneron spoke at my perpetual eremitical profession  of my call to exploring the breadth and depth of this contemporary vocation and defined part of the shape of this life in doing so, but because I have a sense that God calls me to do so. Moreover, I am guided by Camaldolese spirituality in my oblature and am obligated in this way as well. Camaldolese spirituality has three pillars or "goods" (triplex bonum) which work together to give us the vision of eremitical life put forward by St Romuald, and St Peter Damian. These are: solitude, community, and the proclamation of the Gospel or "martyrdom" (witnessing). As a solitary hermit whose profession is made in the hands of the local Bishop, I have to work this out in terms of my parish faith community and diocese. What I am doing generally on this blog and in my daily living out of this vocation is working out the non-negotiable terms of canon 603 in light of Camaldolese values and a Camaldolese vision of eremitical life because this is precisely what I am called to do 1) by God, 2) by virtue of my association with and commitment to Camaldoli, and 3) by virtue of my Rule and profession under canon 603. Others professed as Camaldolese are doing something similar while living as solitary hermits under canons other than c 603 --- partly because c 603 has appealed to their imaginations as well.

Certainly there are other esteemed but differing visions of eremitical life, Franciscan, Carthusian, and Carmelite in particular. Diocesan hermits (solitary hermits professed under c 603) work out the shape of the non-negotiable elements in canon 603 in light of their own spiritual traditions and discernment. One hermit I know does this in terms of a Franciscan vision and tradition -- though he does not live as hermits did under Francis, while another does it in terms of a Carmelite vision. Canon 603 lends itself to this, but I don't think any of us are motivated by a drive or urge to experiment. Instead we are simply trying to live out our legitimate (canonical) and moral obligations in service to the Church and world -- always in response to the God of life who calls us to this. However, it is the Camaldolese tradition which allows and even calls me to think about eremitical life in the way I do. A central work reflecting the nature of Camaldolese life is entitled, The Privilege of Love, and it is this collection of essays I come back to repeatedly for guidance in how to live out my vocation. This is true of three essays in particular: "Koinonia: The Privilege of Love" (Dom Robert Hale), "Golden Solitude" (Peter-Damian Belisle), and Bede Healey's, "Psychological Investigations and Implications for Living Together Alone".

Father Bede's essay informs my own thinking and living in a number of ways: with his stress on the relational self and the importance of not using solitude to run from community or community to flee solitude, the distinction between true and false selves, the capacity to be alone as a function of healthy object relations, the nature of contemplative knowing which comes from sitting with and working through our life experiences (precisely the nature of the inner work I do with my Director/delegate!), and growth in interiority as increasing freedom from ourselves and the "tyranny of our inherent falseness," --- what Scripture calls purity of heart. Fr Bede's work informs my understanding of "the Silence of Solitude" as environment, goal, and charism throughout. Dom Robert Hale (who assisted me in evaluating my Rule prior to perpetual profession) writes about love and communion as the foundation and ground of every stage of the hermit's life. Here Dom Robert is not speaking of love as a bloodless abstraction or empty idealization but as a concrete living out with and for one's brothers and sisters in space and time; it is the love of God we are all called to incarnate or enflesh and an outworking of the ministry of reconciliation St Paul says we are meant to be about.

So, these are some of the things which motivate and shape my life and work as a canonical (consecrated) hermit. They demand an eremitical life which is antithetical to those things you once saw as typical of eremitical life (and typical of the inauthentic and unloving life lived by counterfeit "hermits" throughout history and even today)! I do think the Church has taken care in making canonical something which is healthy, loving, and edifying as it eschews individualism, narcissism, misanthropy, and isolationism. Thanks again for continuing this conversation. A few people write here regularly (though not frequently) and though this kind of serial posting hasn't happened before, I am open to exchanges of this kind. And yes, Sister Laurel is just fine; I prefer it to Sister O'Neal.

On the Questions of Freedom vs License and Fraudulent Hermits

[[Dear Sister, why would you be concerned with the incidence of so-called fraudulent hermits? It seems to be a big deal to you but how can one even tell what it means to be "fraudulent"? Isn't it true that the hermit vocation is known for its freedom? If that is so then a hermit should be able to do anything he wants to do or live any way he wants to live. I think people should be able to call themselves "hermit" if they want to or feel God is calling them to this. I think you are too hung up on legalisms. Hermits have always been  eccentric and rebellious so why not let them be that now? Don't take canon 603 so seriously and don't be so concerned with "fraudulent" hermits! It's fake news!]]

Well, it is very clear that you and I stand on opposite ends of a spectrum of opinions with regard to the term and reality "hermit". I have written about this a lot and won't repeat all of that but perhaps I can summarize why it is that fraudulent hermits are so neuralgic for me. Let me begin with a couple of facts which suggest why it is I take canon 603 and the ideas of authenticity and fraud so seriously:

• 1) c 603 has inspired some of us to imagine, explore, and embrace a way of life that has proven life-giving (graced) and a means to living our own integrity as a service to God and others. Though "hidden" our lives have been allowed to be lived "publicly" in the name of the Church according to this canon which means that our own frailties have been and are being transfigured into a gift of the Holy Spirit to, by, and through the Church's ministry, into a witness to the whole world, 
• 2) c 603 grew out of the integrity of a number of hermits who left their solemn vows as monks and risked everything on a perceived vocation to eremitical solitude. The canon was built upon these Brothers' commitment to authenticity and honors them when it is lived in the same way. Similarly then, it dishonors them and the God who called them, whenever it is lived less than authentically or when some pretend to an ecclesial eremitical vocation the Church has not entrusted them with.
• Authentic hermits are rare today. They typically battle not only the demons within their own hearts and the lack of understanding they meet in parishes and dioceses throughout the Church as well as their own sinful tendencies to inauthenticity, but also stereotypes of hermits which are powerful and pervasive. When we add the occurrence of fraudulent "hermits" misrepresenting themselves as "consecrated Catholic hermits" or "professed religious" with the capacity to take advantage of the fact this vocation is little-known and less-well-understood, the situation is made inordinately more difficult for the Church involved in discerning and consecrating authentic vocations, and for parishes trying to learn to recognize and value these.
•  I am concerned about it because it is becoming a significant pastoral issue about which Rome is rightly concerned, but also because I represent a legitimate (c 603) instance of this vocation and am concerned that my own life and the vocation more generally be truly edifying to the Church as a whole.

You see, lives have been built upon the authenticity of others' witness to the power of the Gospel throughout the history of the Church. This is the way we are moved by and from faith to faith. It is the way the Church grows and the Gospel is spread.  Canon 603 reflects a small but significant and normative (canonical) piece of the eremitical way of discipleship. Those called to embrace and embody this norm are called to embrace and embody Christian discipleship in a way which is recognized by the Church herself as a paradigm of solitary eremitic life lived in the name of the Church. She entrusts this call to very few, relatively speaking, by (publicly) professing, consecrating, and commissioning them to follow Jesus in the solitude of the desert. The Church does so so that others may be moved to faith and thus too, to authenticity and fullness of life in whatever deserts their life finds them. This journey in different existential wildernesses is similar to the very journey Jesus made to consolidate his own identity as God's beloved Son, the One in Whom God delighted. It mirrors Jesus' struggle to authenticity, to humility, to fullness of humanity when faced by his life's temptations to live his authority and identity otherwise.

With Canon 603 the Church charts the landmarks of a journey into the desert where those called by God may learn and embrace who they really are vis-a-vis God, just as Jesus did after his own baptism. In this journey, driven by the Spirit as Jesus was driven, one really becomes a desert dweller and to the extent this is true one lives from and for God and all that God holds precious. One lives this identity authentically or one lives a lie; there is no other choice. More, if one lives a lie it is an act of unfaith, an act that says we do not trust the God who calls us to this vocation --- or to whatever vocation he does call us. Beyond that such an act of unfaith is a refusal to love others as God calls us to do; it involves a rejection of our own journey to fullness of being and thus, to the maturation of our capacity to love as Christ loves. To refuse the call to live authentically is to refuse to live fully and to bear the good fruit of the lmago dei God has willed we bear and be.

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

With those comments as a background let me try to respond to a couple of your questions or objections. First, why can't a hermit live any way at all? Why isn't this the vaunted freedom of the eremitical life? The canon 603 hermit finds her own freedom defined in terms of the Gospel and the Church's vision of consecrated eremitical life. She is free to live this definition and this vision in whatever ways her own gifts and weaknesses invite her to shape them --- but living them is still what she is called to. She is free to explore the depths of contemplative life with God alone for the sake of others, and to do this in the name of the Church. She is free to be and become the person God calls her to be. Canon 603 creates a context for this specific freedom; I can't emphasize this enough! But in all of this let's be clear. The consecrated hermit is not free to do or be just anything at all. Once a person buys into this libertine notion of "freedom" she has given herself over to many things and definitions of self which may conflict with that which is deepest and truest in herself. Authentic freedom is responsible freedom. After all, that which is deepest and truest is a gift of God she is responsible for living out.

One example comes to mind. It has to do with violin. To the extent one develops the technical ability and discipline involved, one is free to play the entire violin repertoire, both solo and orchestral, and to play it in ways which express the heights and depths of the music and the violinist's mind and heart as well. One does not have to be limited by technical imperfections or incapacities because one has developed the discipline and technical skills necessary to move beyond mere technique. One is free precisely because there are technical constraints one has met in one's training and respects in one's playing. The demands of technique and technical skills can, when met, set one free to transcend these in the act of making music.

If you hand a child a violin and bow and tell them, "Do whatever you like!" the only thing you are apt to insure is that this child will never be technically able to explore the instrument or the repertoire to the extent her inner talents may lead her to yearn to do. If you make sure the child knows there is/are a way(s) to hold the instrument and bow which allows her the freedom to move in all the ways violin music requires she be able to move or make sound, and if you provide lessons, pieces, and etudes which accustom her muscles to the limits and potentialities which are part and parcel of playing freely you will provide the raw material needed for the transcendence found in making music. In any case, consider what happens when someone is called a violinist and, when asked to play for others, shows only that she does whatever she likes with the instrument with no limitations, discipline, or actual knowledge of the instrument and its capacities or the repertoire with which she should be familiar.

Think of what happens with a football or basketball team of really talented players. These players are free to do what they can do as excellent players precisely because of their own training and discipline as well as because of the rules and parameters of the game. But were every player to do whatever he wants, people would be injured and their training made relatively worthless, team work would go by the wayside, scoring would decrease, and the game itself would devolve into chaos no one could enjoy or genuinely follow. Finally, think what would happen with language if we were all entirely free to use language (words, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc) any way we wanted. Our world would quickly fall even further into tribalism and isolation; it would cut down those conventions and compromises which allowed us to speak, worship, do business, govern, and otherwise understand and work with one another.

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive. In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church defines it. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God; the second is not, it is worldly or fleshly as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

Fraud in the entirely common way I have used the term, simply means to be something other than what one claims to be. All kinds of forms of isolated and misanthropic life have been passed off as eremitical or "hermit life" through the centuries. In the late 20C. with c 603, the Church codified in law what she recognized as canonical solitary eremitical life and in this she said the life was sacrificial, generous, assiduously prayerful and loving. She said it was lived for others and was a witness to the Gospel. More, she recognized this as a form of consecrated life for those recognized in law (meaning canonically professed, consecrated, and supervised), and living their own Rule and the Evangelical Counsels under the canonical authority of one's Bishop.

The Church (and only the Church) has the right to do all of this, and also to determine therefore, who lives solitary eremitical life in her name and can thus call themselves a Catholic Hermit. If someone claims to do this apart from these canonical parameters and without the specific permission of the local ordinary mediated in public profession and consecration, then they are a fraud or counterfeit. Perhaps they are a fraud because of ignorance or mental illness and are not culpable, for instance, but a fraud or counterfeit they remain. When folks pretend to a standing in the Church they do not have people will be misled, some will be hurt as they follow the pretender or take her advice. Because eremitical life is little understood it becomes even easier for this to occur. One of the reasons I am especially concerned with fraudulent hermits is because I have heard from several people who were seriously hurt when they followed a pretender's advice on becoming a Catholic Hermit. At the same time it is the case that Rome is concerned with the problem as well.

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

Finally, to honor laws is not legalism. It is instead a form of humility and love, a way of participating in community and ensuring the wellbeing of all. License, on the other hand, is unloving, selfish, and uncaring of others. It leads to confusion and disorder; people are hurt by it. Please realize that canon 603 defines the essential landmarks of a vast and rich adventure with God. It draws limits because these point directly to the heights, depths, and breadth of this specific adventure and no other. In the Roman Catholic Church a hermit is defined in law not to diminish freedom but to establish a realm of freedom where, if one is called by God to this specific vocation, one may come to fullness of being, serve others, and glorify God in the silence of solitude. One doesn't  achieve any of this by eccentricity, or rebelliousness, but by a profound obedience to God, the Church, one's own heart, and the commitments one has been allowed and honored to make.

By the way, thanks for your patience. I know it has been a while since you emailed about all of this. It has been sitting unfinished in the drafts collection and other questions on the same topics made it especially relevant again. I apologize for the delay.

On the Way the Church Records Sacraments and Significant Life Commitments

[[Hi Sister, you wrote that a person's baptismal Church always keeps a record of professions, marriages and ordinations. I never heard that before. How does it work if I am married hundreds of miles from my original parish? Is this because they want to be sure people are free to undertake these life steps?]]

Thanks for the question. The way this works is that whenever a Catholic desires to make a life commitment the Church will need for them to demonstrate they are free to do so. One who is married is not free to be professed or consecrated, nor, of course, can they be ordained. In demonstrating their freedom a person (or their diocese or seminary) will write to the person's baptismal church. The first thing they want to know is whether or not the person is baptized and also whether they have been confirmed, and made first Eucharist. A record of these initial and initiating sacraments will be recorded in the parish's registers even if they happen many years after baptism; the parish where they occur will notify the baptizing parish.

Beyond these, a home parish will receive notices of further commitments (like marriages, divorces, decrees of nullity, professions, consecrations, and ordinations as well as dispensations of vows, laicization, etc.) and will add these to their permanent records. Wherever one is baptized will have a complete record of one's entire sacramental and "professional" history. At the same time, for instance, my own diocese, the diocese that professed and consecrated me as a Catholic hermit, will keep a file with copies of this same record -- and a number of other things as well. Something similar happens in religious communities, seminaries, and so forth, because these keep files on every person that applies, enters, is received, professed (temporary and perpetual), consecrated, and/or ordained, as well as a record of all departures (in whatever way that occurs), and deaths.

Yes, this happens to be sure a person is free to undertake the life step they propose to take, but also because these steps build on one another. One needs to be baptized and have received the other sacraments of initiation in order to move to some forms of commitment (profession, consecration, and ordination). Sometimes a person will not know if they were baptized and may want to enter RCIA. Contact with the person's home parish can clarify whether they will be baptized and receive the other sacraments of initiation, or merely Eucharist and confirmation, or none at all for instance.

The same is true when one approaches marriage. One's home parish can provide a record of reception of the Sacraments of initiation, as well as demonstrating some grounds re one's freedom to marry, etc. (A person will need to provide a death certificate if one's spouse has died; the home parish will not have this recorded nor civil divorces; they will have declarations of nullity recorded.) The Church does not repeat some sacraments so knowing one has received them is a pastoral help to the person and to pastoral staff. Likewise, the Church does not admit to profession, consecration or ordination unless the person is a mature Catholic and free to make this step. Canon law and the proper law of congregations require persons seeking to enter have been baptized for at least two years before they will even consider allowing them to enter a religious congregation, for example; they will need evidence the person is a practicing Catholic free of life commitments beyond this.

This is not mere formality, of course. The Church recognizes the place of the Sacraments in leading to growth in grace and faith. Freedom itself depends on growth in grace and the Sacraments have a place in this. Neither can we allow Sacraments to be trivialized. It is thus important to have a record of these seminal steps in a person's faith life. But yes, mature Catholic life and admission to profession, consecration and ordination require one to be 1) fully initiated into the Church's sacramental life, and 2) (also in the case of marriage) free to undertake such a commitment. The Church thus keeps a record of our Sacramental and life-commitment history.

By the way, there is a longer view which I have not really touched much on here, namely the historical import of every person in the life of the Church. Church registers help keep an historical record and sense of the life of the Church for those looking at Sacramental records, etc with an eye towards the place of the Church in the life of a community, a country, or the world itself, etc. The illustrations accompanying this piece help to remind us of this.

Eve of Solemnity of Epiphany (reprised)

There is something stunning about the story of the Epiphany and we often don't see or hear it, I think, because the story is so familiar to us. It is the challenge which faces us precisely because our God is one who comes to us in littleness, weakness, and obscurity, and meets us in the unexpected and even unacceptable place. It is truly stunning, I think, to find three magi (whoever these were and whatever they represented in terms of human power, wealth, and wisdom) recognizing in a newborn baby, not only the presence of a life with cosmic significance but, in fact, the incarnation of God and savior of the world. I have rarely been particularly struck by this image of the Magi meeting the child Jesus and presenting him with gifts, but this year I see it clearly as a snapshot of the entire Gospel story with all its hope, wonder, poignancy, challenge, and demand.

If the identities of the Magi are unclear, the dynamics of the picture are not. Here we have learned men who represent all of the known world and the power, wealth, and knowledge therein, men who spend their lives in search of (or at least watching for the coming of) something which transcends their own realms and its wisdom and knowledge, coming to kneel and lay symbols of their wealth and wisdom before a helpless, Jewish baby of common and even questionable birth. They ostensibly identify this child, lying in a feeding trough, as the King of the Jews. Yes, they followed a star to find him, but even so, their recognition of the nature and identity of this baby is surprising. Especially so is the fact that they come to worship him. The stunning nature of this epiphany is underscored by the story of the massacre of the male babies in Bethlehem by the Jewish ruler, Herod. Despite his being heralded as the messiah, and so too, the Jewish King, there is nothing apparently remarkable about the baby from  Herod's perspective, nothing, that is, which allows him to be distinguished from any other male baby of similar age --- unless of course, one can see him with eyes of humility and faith --- and so, the story goes, Herod has all such babies indiscriminately killed.

One child, two antithetical attitudes and responses: the first, an openness which leads to recognition and the humbling subordination of worship; the second, an attitude of a closed mind, of defensiveness, ambition, and self-protection, an attitude of fear which leads not only to a failure of recognition but to arrogant and murderous oppression. And in between these two attitudes and responses, we must also see the far more common ones marking lives which miss this event altogether. In every case, the Christ Event marks the coming of the sovereign, creator, God among us, but in the littleness, weakness, and obscurity of ordinary human being. In this way God meets us each in the unexpected and even unacceptable place (the manger, the cross, human being, self-emptying, weakness, companionship with serious sinners, sinful death, etc) --- if we only have the eyes of faith which allow us to recognize and worship him!

Home Again From Tahoe!!

Home! Well, we made it home safely and though I love the house in Tahoe --- not least the fireplace, the sunroom and, of course, the shared solitude with Sister Sue --- it is good to be home! As I had planned, I did some work during the week on 2 Corinthians, though there is still a lot to do, and was able to pray and sleep as I needed. I didn't get done any of the coloring/painting I had hoped to do, but that was also okay because I got needed writing and thinking done and was able to relax and just enjoy the week doing stuff I love. The sunroom where both Sue and I worked and prayed together had an amazing view. Above (left) is a piece of what I could see while writing or reading.

There was not nearly as much snow on the CA side of the lake as had been other times I have been here but the weather was beautiful. It was cold or very cold until the second half of the week. The second picture shows our work space. My stuff is on the left, Sister Sue's is on the right. The window in the above picture is behind Sister Sue's space. Another looking out on the side yard is directly behind my work space.

Ordinarily I prayed in my own room, or, because I was up earlier or in the middle of the night, alone in the darkened sunroom. It was quiet and there were some profound moments, mainly related to something in 2 Corinthians and Paul's theology there, but also related to the nature of holiness and what the inner work I am committed to can actually empower or enable with the grace of God. I am grateful to God and to Sister Sue for the opportunity to spend a week like this. Sitting and working in silence together is not something I have ever done with anyone else since college and I consider it a very special gift. At the same time I am glad to be home -- and my cat is also very glad I am back!! (A neighbor watched out for him and I owe her a big "Thank you!)

On working With God Towards Wholeness and Holiness

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you write a lot about working toward wholeness and holiness. I had always thought that holiness was something God gave us and so something we prayed for, like humility or other virtues. Can a person get to genuine holiness without working towards it themselves? Can't they just pray to God to make them holy, or humble, or courageous, or whatever?. It is not that I have gotten the impression that you are trying to make yourself holy, but I have read blogs by people who have a lack of this or that and pray that God will take care of their deficiency. Could you say a little more about what you mean when you speak of working towards Communion and union with God?]]

Completely great questions! Important questions!! Thank you. First, I am very grateful you added that I have never given you the impression that I am working in a way which means I am trying to make myself holy. That would be completely futile but also it would give a very skewed notion of what spirituality is all about. To think we could  do this is akin to jumping off a cliff and then trying to stop our fall by pulling on the tops of our shoes!! After all, God is the only source of holiness because God is holiness itself, just as God (him)self is love, truth, beauty, and so forth.

At the same time one can approach things like holiness, reconciliation, humility and other human virtues, as though they are ordinarily and simply infused by God without much more than a prayer for this here or there. These are all great graces but ordinarily this is not how such things work, nor is it ordinarily how God works! Growth in holiness is part of our growth in authentic humanity. We cannot simply pray for God to make us authentically human as though it takes no cooperation (and so, no real effort) on our own part. Cooperating with the grace of God is something learned as well as it is enabled by grace itself. It is also something that requires the healing of obstacles --- obstacles to listening deeply and responding equally profoundly, obstacles to loving and allowing oneself to be loved, obstacles to trusting as profoundly as Jesus or Mary and Joseph (and so many others) trusted!

The work I have spoken of here recently and in the past is work which fosters the ability to cooperate with God and to allow God's grace to flourish in my life. It is particularly helpful in learning to be attentive to my own heart, and therefore, to that place within myself where God laughs, sings, and speaks to me in ways which create me at the same time. Beyond this learning to be attentive, the work I do with my Director helps me to be reconciled with my deepest self and potentialities. What I mean here is that it assists in the healing and doing away with obstacles which prevent these deepest and God-given potentialities from being realized in my own self, and thus too, in my ministry, attitudes, relationships with God and others, etc.

We all have wounds leading to defense mechanisms that cripple or skew our ability to respond authentically --- or which cause the numbing of awareness of the God-given potentialities which exist deep within us. We all have things which stand in the way of our becoming the persons God has created us to be. We all have forms of woundedness which make loving and being loved difficult sometimes, or which prevent us from trusting ourselves and others, or from walking courageously in our world, satisfied with and even exulting in who God made us to be. (Sometimes these wounds and obstacles prevent us from even knowing who we really are made to be!) The work I have spoken here of doing, both alone and with my Director (delegate), is a methodical approach to dealing with the things which prevent us from responding whole-heartedly, responding exhaustively with body, mind, heart, and soul, to the love and creative will of God, just as it helps enable us to make and become that whole-hearted exhaustive response to God's Word we are called to be.

It involves prayer, of course, but also it involves writing which nurtures one's capacity for a healthy interiority; it is focused on learning to listen attentively to everything that goes on within oneself (body, mind, and heart). The aim of the work I have been doing is not just wholeness but also transparency --- meaning that when a person sees me they are seeing the real me in a way which allows the Spirit and Life of God to shine through. It is a simple matter of "what one sees is what they get" -- no pretence, no defenses, no crippling insecurities, and no need to bend to peer pressure or the expectations of others. (Meeting appropriate expectations is another matter entirely!) We human beings, I have written often here, are a covenantal reality, a dialogical "event" where God, who is a constitutive part of our very being, speaks or calls and we respond in ways which create us as God's own persons. We become a response to God's call, to his love, beauty, truth, and simplicity. We become an incarnation of the God Christ himself revealed fully and exhaustively; that is what I believe is the vocation of every human being as we share in the life of Christ and witness to his uniqueness. Again. the work I have spoken of helps enable this to become true as a (more and more) fully embodied reality in my own life. It not only helps me to be completely honest with God, myself, and others, but to be an expression or incarnation of Divine and human truth. I believe this transparency in wholeness is what the tradition refers to as holiness. It is an expression  of Union with God.

I suppose that I see all dimensions of this work as prayer or at least prayerful. Of course it is not as peaceful or quietly challenging as quiet prayer, for instance, most usually is. In fact it can be extremely painful and "bloody" (so to speak!). But even so, it is simply part of a life committed to attentiveness and responsiveness to God and God's will for my own life and the life of all creation. There has always been a danger in Christianity that folks would sit back, pray, and wait for God to do it all for us. (Think of Paul speaking to the Thessalonians about those who will not work: "those who will not work will not eat"; he was not speaking to those who were merely lazy, but to those who sat back waiting for the second coming.) Sometimes that route was known as "quietism". While there are such things as infused graces, infused virtues, and infused contemplation, for instance, and while anyone who prays regularly will know these things first hand, these  are not the ordinary way God works in our lives. It is possible to see all of those things I spoke of above as obstacles, as manifestations of sin in need of reconciliation. The work I have written here about doing is simply part of cooperating with God, working with God so that he may live and work within me freely and so the creation he seeks to do within and through me can be fully and exhaustively realized.

I have only just touched on the surface of things here (especially the notion of genuine holiness as transparency in wholeness), and I may decide to write more about it as follow up, but if it raises questions for you or leaves anything especially unclear please get back to me and I will give it another shot. Thanks again for a really great couple of questions!