If You Need People Perhaps You are not Called to Eremitical Life. Really??

[[Dear Sister Laurel, While I appreciated your article on the role of the bishop in supervising the c 603 hermit, and while I think I can see how it is a delegate or delegates can be of aid to the bishop and the hermit both, I was struck by a sense that this kind of institutionalization is very far from traditional hermit life. Whatever happened to "God alone is enough"? I know you have written about charges of an inappropriate institutionalization in the past, once just recently, but I hope you will renew the discussion. If you need the Sisters you mentioned, or if a bishop is not able to supervise hermits in his diocese, mightn't this indicate either 1) you are not called to the kind of solitude eremitical life requires, and/or 2) canon 603's insistence on the supervision of the hermit's life by a bishop is contrary to the life of a hermit? I have posed my questions in a deliberately provocative way, but I hope you will take them as a challenge to answer questions which might trouble some readers. Thanks!]]

I very much appreciate your clarity in the way you posed your questions. I also agree that you have asked things which others are likely troubled by. For instance, I have been reminded freshly recently that there is a strong thread of anti-institutionalization among some lay hermits and I think that comes from several places: 1) a failure to understand the eremitical vocation as specifically ecclesial, 2) an ignorance of history and the way eremitical lives were discerned and lived through the majority of church history in the Western as well as the Eastern Church, and, 3) the emergence and near epidemic instance of an individualism which neglects or rejects the essential need for human intimacy and relatedness. Yes, I have written about all of these over the past decade and a half; I can try to summarize that here and I will try to draw from the article you mentioned specifically to explain both the way I live solitude, and the way the persons I mentioned (Sisters Susan and Marietta, and (by extension) my bishop and others) contribute to that rather than detract from it. Hopefully that will answer the specific questions you posed.

The Ecclesial Nature of the Eremitical Vocation I Live:

I think it goes without saying that there are many "flavors" or "stripes" of solitude, but let me say it anyway. Some go off to physical solitude to test themselves and their own capacities. One example of this might be Richard Proenecke who, initially at least, went off to Alaska for a year, and who then found he thrived in the solitude while creatively meeting the various challenges he encountered every single day. His story is inspiring as he explores the limits and capacities of the human person alone (or nearly so since he received assistance from a friend who flew in supplies, and allowed access to a shelter which made initial survival a good deal easier). Even so, there is no doubt that Proenecke lived a clear and very significant solitude that would reduce most people to terror or functional catatonia in short order -- unless it killed them outright!

Another example I have referred to here a number of times is the misanthropy and failure to live one's life fruitfully with others represented by Tom Leppard (cf labels to right) and called eremitism by some. Tom Leppard identified others as the heart of his problems in life and hied himself off to the Isle of Skye where he could live without dealing with others often, if at all. Or, consider the solitude of the individual professed according to canon 14 in the Anglican/Episcopal Church who writes that his profession as a solitary religious was specifically meant to say he was not called to community of any sort at all; he was, he claimed, constituted by his anti-communal call and profession. Then again, recall the solitude of someone living in the wilderness of solitary confinement during a 30 year sentence in a US "Super Max" prison or the physical solitude of a child growing up with an impaired immune system who must live in a bubble, or of an elderly person who has lost all of  her family, has few remaining friends and has grown apart from the rhythms and activities of ordinary society. These forms of solitude are vastly different from one another in their shapes and motivations and they all contrast significantly with my own vocation to canon 603 eremitical life.

Finally, consider the person who embraces eremitical life because they feel God is calling them to this; they have a sense of wholeness as a human being in solitude and witness to the love of God by embracing such a call. They feel called to the desert as Jesus was called to the desert, 1) to do battle with the demonic dwelling in their own hearts and in the world around them, and 2) to consolidate their identities as Daughters and Sons of God for their own sake and, in some cases, for the the sake of others. These persons are hermits as the Church defines them generally, and this is what  I am called to as well. You can see how vastly different such vocations are from those described above. Even so, beyond this difference and further specifying it, is the single characteristic that further defines and modifies the distinctive shape and motivation of my own solitude; the very thing that makes it eremitical in a way which contrasts with all of these other forms is its ecclesiality.

Like other Catholic Hermits, I am called by God to live this vocation to the silence of solitude in the heart of the Church, both through her mediation and in her name. With her I have discerned this vocation and been professed, consecrated, and missioned (commissioned, in fact) to live eremitical life in a publicly committed way for the sake of God and all who and that are precious to God.  Unlike those who live eremitical life in the lay state, the Church directly supervises Catholic Hermits' living out of their vocations; she has allowed us to make a life commitment to this call and will help ensure it is truly a call to human wholeness which witnesses to the power of the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ. Because of this ecclesial dimension, we are empowered to live authentically human and eremitical life in a responsive and responsible way for the sake of others, and to do so in season and out, in times of darkness and of light.  It is the public and ecclesial dimension of these lives which transform  and stabilize them into vocations.

"God Alone is Enough"

 So what happened to the famous (and in some senses infamous) saying, "God alone is enough?" Have canonical hermits dropped that for the sake of an institutionalization that curtails eremitical freedom and feeds the hermit's tendency to pride, for instance? I don't think so. The affirmation "God alone is enough" can be read several different ways. Two are critical for the hermit, 1) We need no one and nothing but God, 2) only God is able to complete us as human beings and we will be incomplete without God. Eremitical life has generally taken both of these affirmations to be true but recognized that the first cannot be taken literally; it is simply not true when understood literally. The second affirmation is always seen as true and most often is understood to be primary.  We take it literally. Sometimes the first affirmation has been made primary. This has happened with those who live reclusion, but it has also happened with those who criticize hermits who are active in their parishes or dioceses even when this is significantly limited in comparison to other religious or ministers.

Hermits have reached a place in their lives where they feel called to witness to the truth that only God can complete us as human beings. In fact, only God (including all the ways God is mediated to us through the lives and love of others) can call us to authentic human existence. We don't say "I don't need anything or anyone other than God" for that would be untrue and, in fact, result in a narrowed and cramped humanity, a shadow of the fullness of life one is called to in Christ. We need other human beings, friends who speak God's truth to us and call us to be our best selves, family who know us more deeply than maybe any others and who love us for who we are, superiors who allow us to be accountable for the gifts God has graced us with and who inspire us to fulfill the commitments we have made for the sake of ourselves and all those others we touch, priests and pastors, physicians, teachers, mentors, and all those who touch our lives and enrich them with their presence and the presence of God in all of the ways God seeks to come to us.

However, while we do not reject the important place of others in our lives,  we have come to a place there where we limit contact with others so we can witness in a more vivid way to the truth that without God we are less than whole, less than human, and that only God is the source of these; only God is sufficient to complete us as human beings. In that sense, "God alone is enough (or sufficient)"! (As Thomas Aquinas said, "Only God is sufficient" --- with all the rich and varied senses of "sufficient" that includes.) The solitude of the hermit says that "God alone is enough" and more, that some of the things our world counts as essential to life are simply not. It is not essential to be wealthy or powerful or to live without constraints. Freedom and well-being are defined differently for a Christian (or an authentically human being). The meaningfulness of our lives is measured in terms of love and generous service, not in terms of productivity or capitalism and consumerism. We are called to be attentive and responsive to the God who gives us life, not to the values of a world which too often defines humanity antithetically to the way the Kingdom (Family) of God defines this.

My need for others:

Your question in this assumes that eremitical requires a certain kind or degree of solitude and that my need for the mentoring, accompaniment, and supervision by others, indicates I am not called to eremitical life. in fact eremitical life has ALWAYS had such things, and required them. Ordinarily some needs have always been obviated by considering eremitical life as a "second-half-of life" vocation which builds on significant formation and assistance by others in religious life. Even so, the need for mentors was built into the Desert Abbas and Ammas lives when they moved to the desert (i.e.,  any wilderness outside the cities). Because I have written about this fairly recently I will refer you to a couple of posts which discuss this rather then repeating this material. Please see: Never Alone in This, The Place of Elders in Eremitical Life, and Religious Obedience and the Ministry of Authority See also other posts under the label, Ministry of Authority, Delegates, Spiritual Directors (or Spiritual Direction) or legitimate Superior.

Evangelical Poverty as Dependence Upon God

[[Hi Sister, I read your post on adopting a spirituality and one thing you said made me stop and think. It wasn't on the subject of the post so much but it was the way you defined Franciscan poverty in terms of being who one is before God. I always thought Franciscan poverty was about letting go of material things and that Franciscan poverty was stricter than other forms of poverty for this reason. Why did you define Franciscan poverty in the way you did? Is this the way you define poverty in your own eremitical life?]]

Thanks for the question. I defined Franciscan poverty the way I did in the post you referred to because my sense of Francis' take on poverty was that he let go of anything that obscured or prevented his complete dependence upon God; the necessary  corollary is that he let go of anything that prevented him from being truly himself before, with, and in God. He demanded his followers also relinquish things so that nothing would stand in the way of their relationship with God. Because God is truth itself this relationship with God is the source and ground of standing in one's own truth and being oneself.  The same is true of God as love. Because God is love-in-Act one is able to be wholly oneself in God's presence; one needs no props, no other sources of Selfhood than God alone. The very essence of faith (and love of God) is the ability to stand before God as the person one is. Thus, Francis very much wanted those who followed him to stand naked (so to speak) before God, and more, to become entirely transparent to the grace (presence) of God in Christ Who is working in and through them.

Similarly, it was this latter posture which was and is at the heart of Franciscan poverty and which material poverty was/is meant to serve. I have written here before about this view of evangelical or religious poverty; my own vow is defined in these terms rather than in terms of material poverty --- not because I don't embrace material poverty but because I know that if I measure matters in terms of my dependence on God and focus on or give that priority, material poverty will largely fall into place. The opposite is not as true, at least that is how it seems to me; material poverty can foster dependence on God, but it need not do so. In any case, the two things go hand in hand so that in formation as a Franciscan, for instance, material poverty is a given and exhaustive dependence on God to be the one one is called to be is the focus of the spirituality.

As noted, this is the way I view the evangelical counsel of poverty. My vow reflects this explicitly and reads: [[I recognize and accept the radical poverty to which I am called in allowing God to be the sole source of strength and validation in my life. The poverty to which my brokenness, fragility, and weakness attest, reveal that precisely in my fragility I am given the gift of God’s grace, and in accepting my insignificance apart from God, my life acquires the infinite significance of one who knows she has been regarded by Him. I affirm that my entire life has been given to me as gift and that it is demanded of me in service, and I vow Poverty, to live this life reverently as one acknowledging both poverty and giftedness in all things, whether these reveal themselves in strength or weakness, in resiliency or fragility, in wholeness or in brokenness.]] (cf.,Everyone is called to the Evangelical Counsel of Poverty)

There is a strong dimension of the richness and meaningfulness of this kind of poverty; it is a paradoxical reality and I wanted to capture that in the vow itself. The reverent approach to life lived in this way, and to everything and everyone one encounters, was also something I needed to capture as an integral dimension of such dependence. When we can stand before God in the way Franciscan poverty calls for, we can be open to all of creation in a reverent and accepting way. In any case, though I might write a slightly different vow today (I first used this vow in 1976), the priority given to complete dependence on God to be the person I am called to be would still be it's heart. I think my vow of evangelical poverty is essentially Franciscan, but I did not consciously draw it from Franciscanism; instead it came from my experience of God's presence in my life and from reflection on the Pauline and Markan theologies of the Cross. I hope this is helpful!

On Hermits Adopting a Specific Spirituality

[[Dear Sister, I pray that you are happy and well amidst this corona crisis. I guess we’ve all adopted some aspects of the hermit life during the lockdown. I know for myself that the Liturgy of the Hours has taken on an even greater importance in my spiritual life during this period of isolation and parish shutdowns. 

I do have a question though; my question involves the adoption of a “spirituality” for a hermit. I know there are many hermits who draw inspiration from the great charisms of the Church (i.e. Carmelite, Franciscan, Benedictine etc). If I’m not mistaken, you are a hermit in the Camaldolese Benedictine tradition. 

I’m wondering though how a hermit incorporates a specific charism or spirituality into his/her life of solitude. Surely, the baseline spirituality/disciplines of the eremitic life forms it’s own unique type of spirituality (i.e. contemplative prayer, divine office, silence, solitude, Lectio Divina etc). I suppose what I’m trying to figure out is how a hermit does those things in a specifically “Benedictine”, “Franciscan” or “Carmelite” et al. manner? How would a hermit adopt a particular spirituality if they have not been formed in a community based on one of those charisms? Is it even advisable that a hermit adopt a spirituality apart from the one that flows from being a hermit? ]]

Good to hear from you again. Yes, all is well here. Thanks for your prayer.  I think in some ways you have the cart before the horse in the idea of "adopting" a spirituality. Your last line, however, gives a clue to the dynamics that should be at play, namely, one's spirituality should flow from one's eremitical life and the way God is present to the person in that life. Assuming one is not formed in a particular spirituality, one is apt to find that embracing a particular spirituality is a natural outgrowth of their life in solitude. Even when one is formed in a particular spirituality one may not find it resonates as well with one's eremitical life as other spiritualities do. Let me give you an example.

As you noted, yes, though professed as a diocesan hermit, I am Camaldolese Benedictine. I embraced that spirituality because it has a strong eremitical component, but also finds community and evangelization (or witness) important. In fact, it is built on these three pillars. Thus Camaldolese life resonates powerfully with diocesan eremitical life lived in a parish and diocesan context. It resonates especially well for someone who does theology and loves to teach Scripture and believes the entirety of eremitical life should be about proclaiming the Good News. I embraced this because the shape of my life was already clear from the character of my eremitical life and what I believed about the communal (ecclesial, etc.) nature of eremitical solitude. 

Camaldolese life and spirituality is a long-lived, well-tried form of eremitical and cenobitical life which is demonstrably healthy and capable of inspiring all the dimensions of my life, whether that means life alone in my hermitage, my participation in my parish and diocese, or my doing theology generally and writing about eremitical life specifically. In other words, it was a natural fit which "spoke to me" and encouraged me to allow nothing to be lost from my eremitical life in a way which narrowed either myself as person or (therefore) eremitical life itself. I did not adopt this spirituality so much as I embraced it as something that was already in some ways "my own". I suppose I could say I became aware of it wanting to embrace me. It was important to me that I be able to add the gift of my own life to this spirituality (a strand of the eremitical life in the Church) and also that it provided ways I could grow via the mentoring of other Camaldolese monks, nuns, and oblates.

At the same time my initial formation was as a Franciscan and while Francis provided a Rule for hermits and lived some of his life as a hermit, I never felt within myself a call to adopt his vision of eremitical life. (The tenderness, community, and love central to his vision is something that resonates with me, however.)  Yet, I have the crucified Christ at the heart of my life and spirituality, and I do embrace the Franciscan value of poverty (i.e., being who one is before God) and I resonate with the characteristic Franciscan dimension of Joy. Even so, I don't think I have to be specifically Franciscan for these dimensions of my life to be central or to fit within the Camaldolese framework and spirit. In other words, the aspects of Franciscanism I carry strongly within me fit well within Camaldolese spirituality; they have to or I would not have been able to embrace such a spirituality. Someone else would be able to live eremitical life in a specifically Franciscan context and by embracing a Franciscan spirituality. Franciscanism could certainly work for that --- and could probably do so for me if Camaldolese spirituality did not speak to me in the way it does. In this, again, it matters what resonates most strongly with the individual hermit's spirituality.

As for charism, as a diocesan hermit I locate the charism of my life in  the canon under which I am professed. For me that is what canon 603 calls, "the silence of solitude". Because I am not professed as a Camaldolese, but as a diocesan hermit under c 603, it seems appropriate to me that I find the charism of my life as I do. The Camaldolese triple good (three pillars) are very helpful to me as is their own charism which has to do with "the privilege of love" (Ego vobis, vos mihi)***. I love that the privilege of love is right at the heart of their lives (and mine as well); however, when I come to identify the charism of my life, what I find is that "the silence of solitude" is a very rich symbol which can combine all of the Camaldolese elements,  encapsulate my own story in unique and significant ways, and speak in a special way to the needs of our contemporary existence. (To speak briefly about this, let me just say that one of the reasons the COVID-19 crisis is helpful to folks is because it helps them discover themselves in a deeper way and to cultivate both silence and solitude (which can flower in that larger reality called "the silence of solitude"). COVID-19 puts people in touch with their own needs in this way and others.)

Doing things in a Benedictine (etc.) Way:

I don't think adopting a spirituality is first of all about saying Office, doing Lectio, or praying in a specific way. However, a person who finds herself resonating with a Benedictine spirituality is more apt to be one for whom the Divine Office is a central piece of her daily life, while one who prays in the spirit of St Francis may approach prayer more explicitly in terms of friendship with Christ and a stress on the relationship such prayer must involve. All of the things you mention are fundamental to every spirituality but these activities can be stamped with a Franciscan, Cistercian, or Carmelite character (among others). Ordinarily these have to do with the spirit underlying the way one approaches the activity. Occasionally a certain spirituality may contribute a specific way of doing something --- as Ignatian spirituality contributes a very specific way of entering into the Scriptural text using one's imagination and capacity for empathy. Camaldolese spirituality requires a call to both solitude and community (or community in solitude!) as well as a sense of the importance of the Gospel witness of one's life.

Perhaps the bottom line here is that in most cases spiritualities do not mean doing things in a certain way so much as they mean doing these with or because one has a particular spirit. Generally speaking, at least as I think about this, it is the person who is Franciscan, Carmelite, Camaldolese,  etc. Their spirituality will reflect that identity and spirit. (I realize, of course, that a spirituality is something in which persons are formed; I do not mean to deny this, but the greater truth is that we shape the tradition with the gift of ourselves just as we are shaped by it. When one is discerned to have a Franciscan or Camaldolese vocation, for instance, what is being recognized is that the whole person resonates with the Franciscan or other spirituality, not merely that they can or have simply "adopted" an abstract spirituality or collection of spiritual practices. The concern is whether or not these spiritual elements can/do come together in this person in a way which makes of them a living constellation of spiritual attributes we can identify as characteristically Benedictine or Camaldolese or Cistercian, for instance?)

When hermits, especially diocesan hermits who have written and live their own Rule and are, by definition, solitary hermits, adopt a particular spirituality it is because we desire to be part of a living tradition that transcends our own eremitical lives. In some ways we want our own vision of this life and the way we are called to live it subsumed under a larger and vital tradition which helps protect us from individualism and underscores the ecclesial nature of our lives and commitments. It is also the case that we need and may desire folks who walk a similar path to accompany us in our own journey --- whether that occurs in a direct way or more remotely.

When you ask about the advisability of adopting a spirituality that does not flow from being a hermit per se, my answer has to be I agree, this is inadvisable unless 1) one is solid in one's eremitical life, and 2) one feels a strong attraction to some aspect of a particular spirituality. What may be happening in such a case is the spirituality one is adopting speaks strongly in some ways but also has the capacity to call the hermit to or cultivate dimensions of her personality and spirituality which are yet in need of development. On the other hand, the hermit may need to be associated with a larger and vital tradition (and thus, those who also embrace it) so that she can grow in her eremitical life generally. It is never a good idea to adopt a spirituality willy nilly or for no real reason at all, but to the extent a specific spiritual tradition can allow one to grow fully into the hermit one is called to be, adopting it is a good idea.

Thanks again for writing; it is always good to hear from you.

*** Ego vobis, vos mihi: The Camaldolese motto (timely, given my recent post on mottoes) is  "I am yours, you are mine". This fundamental truth speaks clearly of the privilege of love that marks every Camaldolese life.

On Mottoes in the Consecrated Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, do you have a motto? How did you choose it? I wondered if the other hermits you wrote about recently have mottoes?]]

Thanks for the questions. Yes, I do have a motto. It is taken from 2 Cor. 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for you, my power is made perfect in weakness." From that I had engraved on my ring, "[God's] power is perfected in weakness" and that is my motto. I chose this because throughout my whole life I have needed to learn the truth of it, not only that God's grace is sufficient for us, but the startling truth that where that grace is active, power can be manifested in weakness; even more, I have needed to learn that in weakness the power of God's grace will triumph in startling and paradoxical ways.

When I studied theology I learned Paul and Mark's theologies of the cross and did work on Paul Tillich and his own theology of the cross as well. This theology was, more or less, the focus and source for all other Christology and other theology I have done. It was the place where I became acquainted intellectually with the notion of a God whose power is perfected in weakness and who transforms reality with freedom-empowering love. Whether I was reading Jesus' parables, the paradoxes of Paul's theology, the "in-your-face" irony of Mark's portrait of divine Kingship and call to discipleship, or trying to teach or proclaim these as the heart of the Good News, I found myself being addressed by God: [[I have been with you since the beginning revealing a power made perfect in weakness -- both the weakness I embrace for your sake and your own as well. I will never leave you abandoned or alone nor will there ever be a form of human brokenness, alienation, or shame from which I can be excluded!!]] In this way intellectual and academic work complemented, supported, and brought meaning to my lived experience. It is also the source of my eremitical vocation: "My grace is sufficient for you. My power is perfected (made perfect) in weakness."

I suppose the Hermits I wrote about recently also have mottoes, but I can't say for sure. Perhaps they will write and share what these are and a little about why they chose them. If that happens I will add to this post with whatever is provided -- or I will add them to the posts on their professions. The bottom line here (and my own sense of what is involved in choosing a motto) is that when Sisters (or others) choose such things they do so in a way which represents the foundational truth of the way God works and has worked in their lives. It is a meaningful and profoundly intimate dimension of their lives. Sometimes one's motto comes to one during prayer or lectio; I know one Sister whose motto was given to her (i.e., she heard this spoken directly to herself) during her profession liturgy. Generally speaking, a motto will spell out a sense of the shape one's life is to take in response to God. It will be a promise of the way God will work in and through her for the life of Church and World, a statement of the way God is glorified in her life. Thus, for instance, the motto of the Sister who heard this at profession is taken from Rom 9:17, [["I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."]] Mottoes embody an entire life with and in God in just a sentence or two. They are at once historical, aspirational, and inspirational as they encapsulate one's personal experience, spirituality, and vocation.

UPDATE! Perpetual Profession and Consecration: Sister Grace Ford, Er Dio, Hermit for the Diocese of St Augustine

Perpetual Profession and Consecration

UPDATE: In an email written in joyful celebration of c 603 and (specifically) Sister Anunziata's perpetual profession yesterday, Sister Grace Ford wrote to let me know she [[was perpetually professed [under c 603] on 28.June.2020 at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Jacksonville, in the Diocese of St. Augustine. Bishop Estevez officiated along with (her) spiritual director, Fr. James Kaniparamparil, CMI.]] God is so good!!!! I give God thanks for c 603 and the way the Spirit is working through it to raise up solitary eremitical vocations in the consecrated state!

Sister Grace also wrote today: [[I cannot express adequately the gratitude and awe I have for the abundant grace God has gifted me with through this precious, arduous, terrifying and peaceful process.  I do not think it is possible to effectively share the essence of this journey unless one has lived their own experience of it.]] As some may remember, I posted news of Sister's temporary profession here in May 2019. Part of the original post (Congratulations Sister Grace Ford, Er Dio), which includes more of Sister Grace's background, follows:

Temporary Profession

I received the following "Thank you" note this afternoon from Sister Grace Ford, Er Dio, who was just professed (temporary vows) as a diocesan hermit for the Diocese of St Augustine. 

What  a terrific surprise!! Sister, a former Sister of St Joseph, is (or has been) a teacher, a professor of psychology, and a  psychotherapist specializing in child psychology, trauma, depression, and family systems. After discerning for 15 years, she has chosen to live eremitical life and will do so as a solitary hermit of the Diocese of St Augustine. As I told Sister Grace, I am profoundly gratified to hear this blog was helpful to her and believe sharing this small portion of her story will be helpful to others discerning or considering discerning this vocation with their dioceses. How good God is!!!

Perpetual Profession and Consecration: Sister Anunziata Grace, Hermitess for the Diocese of Knoxville

Justin Card. Rigali, Sr. Anunziata Grace, Bp Richard Stika

It's official!!!! Sister Anunziata Grace is perpetually professed and consecrated as a diocesan hermit of the Diocese of Knoxville!! At right is a picture of Sister Anunziata with Cardinal Rigali (spiritual director) and Bishop Stika, (Ordinary of the Diocese of Knoxville). It was a long and inspired journey for Sister Anunziata and I am personally awed by the way the Spirit has worked in her life to bring her to this new point in what is truly an amazing adventure.

While I could not be there in person because of the pandemic, I was able to watch the profession and liked especially the things I recognized as Sister's personal touches (for instance, peopling the Litany of the Saints with hermits). Given the limitations of the pandemic (I wish the assembly could have been larger and the camera streaming the ceremony had been from a closer perspective; since Sr. Anunziata was not mic'ed hearing some of what she said was also difficult for some,) it was a moving and beautiful liturgy. There was warmth and clear affection for Sister Anunziata and Bishop Stika joked a bit about Sister's Rule of Life including, "four trips a year to Tahiti" to which, without missing a beat, Sister Anunziata responded ironically, "Well, with your permission!). I was especially delighted by the way Bishop Stika referred to Sister's "new role in the diocese". So, please meet the Church's newest diocesan hermit, Sister Anunziata Grace, Hermitess of the Diocese of Knoxville! Deo gratias!!!

************

Original Announcement: For those readers who might be interested: I have written a couple of times now about the upcoming profession of a diocesan hermit I have had the privilege of accompanying during her journey to this point in her eremitical life. I am overjoyed to announce that Sister Anunziata Grace's perpetual profession and consecration will be live streamed from the Diocese of Knoxville Cathedral at 10:00am tomorrow (Saturday), the 22.August. 2020, Knoxville (EDT) time. You can find the link at the bottom of the diocesan webpage here: Diocesan of Knoxville. Please join me in celebrating this event in both the life of the Church and the eremitical tradition itself --- and, of course, please especially remember Sister Anunziata Grace in your prayers.

Stethoscope

This came my way through the hands of a few others, including Sister Susan, OSF. One person called it the best commercial ever. Maybe, but definitely a message that will make you smile and laugh and maybe cry some too! Please, you might want to enlarge the screen, and definitely listen all the way through. Enjoy!!!

Questions on Writing a Rule of Life: Why Demand a Longer Process?

[[Dear Sister, you wrote that only after a person has lived eremitical solitude for several years should a diocese ask them to write a Rule. Are you trying to draw out the process? Why can't a person write a Rule before they even approach the diocese and then turn up there Rule in hand as they make their petition for profession? Surely it can't be all that difficult to write a Rule for hermit life. I think you are trying to make this more difficult than it needs to be and I have never heard of a diocese asking a person to wait for years before writing a Rule. Usually it is the first thing they look for! Do you think you know more than dioceses do in this matter? Hardly very humble for a "consecrated hermit" is it?]]

Yes, I wrote that just recently and I have done so from time to time over the past fourteen years as well. There are always exceptions of course, but generally speaking, most people showing up seeking to be professed as diocesan hermits have never lived in the silence of eremitical solitude at all much less for an extended period of time. If you were to engage them in a conversation on canon 603, its central elements, history, or the vows it calls for, you would find they knew little if anything about these. If you asked them to describe the vision of life they live by few would be able to articulate this, and if you asked how it is they structure their lives in light of their life in and with Christ, the response you would get is a far cry from what eremitical life looks like.

In those I have been in touch with, it has seemed to me that a number of them are expecting the diocese to accept them as candidates in some sort of hermit formation program and to profess them at the end of two or three years after they have simplified their lives a bit, been kitted out in a habit, and read a few books about prayer, desert spirituality, and the vows (maybe!)!  In truth, those who are serious about eremitical life are at the beginning of a long journey, a life-long journey, in fact, which will change them to their roots -- just as it will reveal God to them in ways they could never have imagined. It is only as a person has lived this journey for some time, and have begun to glean a vision of what its shape and substance will be, that they will be able to write a liveable Rule of life.

Yesterday I "met" via ZOOM with a diocesan hermit who is making her solemn/perpetual profession on the 22. Aug. (Feast of the Queenship of Mary) I don't think she will mind my sharing this story here. You see, it has been my privilege to accompany her over the past several years --- first, as she considered what this call might mean for someone living solemn vows as a monastic for 34 years, and then, as she went through the process of exclaustration and began her formation as a solitary hermit with an ecclesial vocation. This was our very first ZOOM conversation so it was wonderful to actually see each other. (It is amazing what the light in another's eyes adds to a conversation!) One of the things we talked about briefly was the content of the Bishop's Decree of Approval, Rule of Life because hers reads a bit differently than mine does. But we did that after a bit of laughter-filled reminiscing when she asked me, "Do you remember what my first Rule of Life was like?" (I did!) . . . Do you know, there were seven drafts??!" (I did not!!) She also reminded me what my advice was after the first draft: "Set it aside [and live your life]." All of this is instructive in one way and another --- not only because of the struggle and growth it points to, but also because of a shared joy and humor at the way the Holy Spirit had worked with our limitations in all of this.

Consider Sister's experience of cloistered religious ( i.e., monastic!) life, of the vows, and of living according to a Rule and constitutions. She had served in leadership in her congregation and been a novice directress. She had felt the tug of a call to greater solitude and had to move against the tide of community life (which she loved deeply) to honor that call. And she was tested in this. And yet, it took her seven drafts to negotiate the gradual transformation from cenobite to semi-eremite and finally, from eremite to diocesan eremite  (not that all of these are experienced as entirely discrete stages), 2) who God is in her life, 3) an expression of eremitical life which is at once traditional and contemporary, and which, 4) she can truly live in the name of the Church. Those seven drafts were the record of her initial formation as a hermit. But they were much more than that. They were also the workbooks in which she claimed and articulated that formation for herself and the church in a way which aided discernment and perhaps will have served (or will serve in the future) in instructing others regarding what such a process of becoming a solitary hermit looks like when it is well (faithfully) done; (the approved Rule becomes a quasi-public document marking another hermit's assumption of a vital place in the church's eremitical tradition); moreover, these drafts were guidebooks on the way which, besides marking the landmarks of her formative journey, helped inspire that formation.

So, no, I do not suggest that dioceses have people live as hermits for a few years before asking them to write a Rule in order to draw out the process or set arbitrary obstacles for the person. The process is an organic one which takes work, and prayer, and time --- significant periods of time. Dioceses that ask someone to write a rule as soon as they believe the person  might  be a suitable candidate for profession does this person no kindness. Instead they can be setting the person up for failure. Using the gradual crafting of a liveable Rule as a guide to discernment and assistance in formation simply makes good sense and takes advantage of what the process demands anyway. In any case, I suggested what I did because I want to see people succeed in what is already a demanding process.  I want the Holy Spirit to be given a chance to work in all the ways She needs to work. My own writing of my Rule was, until the past four years of intensive inner work, the most formative experience of my life. I very much want others to have a similarly rich and fruitful experience if that is the will of God --- and yes, I absolutely want to educate dioceses on the way the requirement that a hermit write her own Rule can be allowed to be a grace for all involved!!!

Do I think I know more than dioceses do in this matter? Yes, generally speaking, I believe I do. I have learned from my own crafting of a Rule and I have sometimes mentored others. Thus, I did not impose a set process on anyone, but I urged them to allow the Rule to take shape as their own eremitical lives and corresponding vision did. Those who were able to entrust themselves to the potter's hands over what was typically a several year period, evidenced a similar process to my own. We each made the journey and allowed the journey to shape the Rule just as we allowed the portions of the Rule we had composed (and therefore, canon 603 itself) to further shape and define our journeys/lives. This is not arrogance. It is humility -- a loving honesty learned by trusting the Holy Spirit and the call we each heard or discerned in the other, a humility meant to assist dioceses and those faced with the prospect of writing a Rule of life despite never even having read, much less lived according to a Rule! (My friend was very far ahead of the game in this regard and yet, her own growth and inspired vision took time to form and more time to come to expression in a liveable Rule!!!)

I know that this requirement of canon 603 is the most concrete-sounding element of canon 603, and the most easily pinned down by a diocese with little experience or sense of how to proceed in this matter. But it is not one someone without experience living solitary eremitical life can accomplish --- nor should they be asked to try, especially without mentoring. A Rule is a tool, but it can become a precious friend --- if I may speak this way --- for the Rule accompanies us, supports, challenges, inspires, guides, instructs us, and protects our vocation. It is a window for the Holy Spirit, a living document which breathes with the life of the hermit, her Abba, and her Lord and Spouse. It (and certainly the crafting or weaving of such a sacred text [from the Latin texere, to weave]) should be allowed to function in all the ways such a process can function. This will serve the hermit, the diocesan staff who work with her, the Church universal who promulgated canon 603, and the eremitical tradition entrusted to all of these.

On Time Frames in Discerning and Forming Solitary Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sr Laurel, your post on chronic illness stressed the mutual nature of the discernment process between the diocese and candidate for canon 603 profession. You said something about time frames not being fixed under Canon 603. What did you mean here?.... Then can dioceses take as long as they want in making a decision about admitting someone to profession? How about the candidates, can they draw out the process as long as they want? (I don't mean there's any sneaky motives going on here. I hope you understand my meaning.) . . .What is a reasonable time frame and does this differ with someone with a chronic illness or disability than with someone who is entirely well?]]

Thanks for the follow up. With religious life canon law specifies the amount of time given to candidacy (a formal period in initial formation unlike the way I use the term with regard to c 603), novitiate, temporary profession, and the outside limits beyond which one must either be perpetually (or solemnly) professed or dismissed from the institute. Because of the nature of formation in community and the degree of oversight and direct supervision involved, these time frames are pretty well fixed and well-recognized as prudent and also as charitable. The eremitical life differs both in kind and in the nature of its formation and degree of oversight and direct supervision allowed. As a result the time frames for discernment and formation mainly do and must also differ. While it is possible to read even very current works by canonists today who affirm that one can simply borrow the canonical regulations for life-in-community and apply them without customization to eremitical life, such an application is naïve at best and dangerously destructive at worst. Eremitical life is neither discerned nor formed in the same way cenobitical life is; to expect it to conform to the same temporal parameters is wrong-headed.

I believe this is especially true when one is trying to discern and evaluate the vocation, formation, and even readiness for profession of the chronically ill or disabled hermit precisely because one must take the time to distinguish between isolation and solitude, and also, even within this distinction, one must understand the various kinds of isolation and solitude which may be (and are likely) involved. Chronic illness always isolates in varying ways and to varying degrees. Some of these are pathological; some are not. Some may predispose to eremitical solitude, some to temporary or transitional solitude; some speak clearly of personal disintegration or decompensation while for some this very decompensation occurs as part of a radical conversion process involving self-emptying and if given appropriate spiritual direction and support in accepting the grace of God, eventual healing and reintegration of the person's core identity. But this type of process is messy and time-consuming. It does not fit in the neat canonical boxes associated with socialization and formation in community of someone in fine physical health.

Moreover, the process being discerned is about hidden dynamics because it occurs in the silence of solitude. One must look specifically for the grace of God at work in this person's life and that means looking for the paradoxical presence of grace --- wholeness revealed in brokenness, power in weakness, strength in helplessness, and independence in dependence, for instance. One must learn to look for the Life of God within the imperfect life of one whom those in non-eremitical religious life (life in community) might well reject as "unsuitable". This takes time, courage, imagination, and a well-tempered faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the hiddenness of the eremitical life. The authors did not merely mean it all happens alone (with God) behind closed doors --- though of course it mainly does this; they knew that the real fruit and processes of eremitical life (and thus, of eremitical formation and discernment) have to do with the processes of the human heart being redeemed and transfigured (made whole and holy) by the invisible God within the context of silence and personal solitude in an intimate relationship which is mainly invisible and ineffable.

Imagine this!! Read the sentence ending in "ineffable" again! THIS IS what hermits witness to. THIS is the Gospel they proclaim with their lives and very much less so with any limited ministry they may also do. Assessing this is the key to discerning an eremitical life so it is no wonder some dioceses eschew accepting anyone for a process of mutual discernment leading to admission to canonical commitment. On the other hand maybe this is better than what often happens: it is scandalous, I think, that dioceses demand hermits live this kind of hiddenness while also expecting to discern or form such vocations on the basis of criteria culled from canon law geared to the dynamics of active religious lives which are mainly not particularly hidden.

In the Letter to the Hebrews we read that Abraham trusted the promises, no matter how unbelievable they seemed, because the One who made them was trustworthy. Vicars for Religious must be open to trusting that God is at work in the individuals that come to them and allow him the time to do the kinds of miracles only he can do. After all, God is the trustworthy one here, not the time frames culled from centuries of dealing with cenobitical religious formation. Of course this also leads directly to your questions about reasonable time frames and the drawing out of processes of discernment and formation. If the usual parameters (6-12 months candidacy, 1 year pastoral novitiate and 1 year canonical novitiate, followed by temporary profession for no more than 6 years and then perpetual profession and consecration) don't work well for hermits (and especially those who are chronically ill), then what time frames are reasonable and how does one proceed in truly discerning what is happening with the hermit's formation or growth? Is canon 603 itself helpful here or, if other canonical requirements are not helpful, are we left with nothing at all to go on?

While canon 603 does not specify time frames for discernment and formation leading to profession and consecration in the ways Canon Law does for cenobitical vocations, I believe canon 603 includes the key to both quality and flexibility here in its reference to a Rule of Life the hermit will write herself. It takes time and genuine formation in the eremitical life to be able to write a liveable Rule which is authentically eremitical and faithful to one's experience of God in the silence of solitude. This is because such a Rule involves not just a statement of ways one will live the central elements of canon 603, but also relies on and articulates the hermit's own sense of the vision and spirit which drives such a life in the 21st century. 

Thus, it is also possible to use the Rule a hermit writes (and conversations about the process of writing such a Rule) as a key to discerning the quality of the vocation standing before the diocese with a petition for profession and consecration. For this reason, after a hermit has lived eremitical solitude for several years I have proposed that only then do dioceses ask the hermit to begin constructing a liveable and normative Rule. They will then allow for the project to take several years (this is much more likely than not)! Subsequently, diocesan staff may meet with the hermit and discuss the project a couple of times a year or so to help with matters of both discernment and formation, using the Rule in its various incarnations (expect several!!) to help determine readiness for profession and consecration. Remember, the task is to write a liveable Rule rooted in the hermit's experience of the solitary eremitical life, not simply to churn out a list of do’s and don’ts

In this way, the discernment and formation process can be individually tailored and freed from the arbitrary constraints of cenobitical canonical time frames. I believe this would be particularly workable for solitary hermits, but especially for those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Time frames would not be extended arbitrarily nor shortened in a similar way. (The period and process of discernment would need to show signs of ongoing growth in eremitical life and increasing readiness for a real and lifegiving commitment; so long as it does this the process allows for prudent patience.) Using the developing capacity to write a personal Rule in this way would mean that personnel discerning the vocation would have something objective to consider; moreover, conversations with candidates could be much more fruitful and free of bias (or the perception of bias). Meanwhile careful and judicious consideration of the work of spiritual directors, delegates, and others (including physicians and psychological screening -- if seen as helpful because of real concerns) could be used to inform a diocese's decisions in conjunction with the diocese's conversations with the hermit herself.

Canonical versus Non-Canonical Hermit Life: Which is Harder to live Faithfully?

[[Hi Sister, given the rights and obligations of the canonical hermit do you think it is harder to be canonical than non-canonical? You said something about the greater freedom to be a hermit associated with canonical standing so I am a little confused. Why do you think non-canonical hermits don't think in terms or rights and obligations or see freedom in quite the same way you do? Is it really just  matter of education or formation? It seems to me that a failure to see things in these terms is a huge piece of the problem of wearing habits as self-assumed costumes. Likewise it is at the core of the problem of seeing nothing different between a public profession and private vows.]]

Thanks for the questions. In fact, I believe that in some ways it is harder to be a non-canonical hermit than to be canonical. You are correct in pointing to my comments on the greater freedom which I associate with canonical eremitism. There is no conflict. While there are greater explicit rights and obligations associated with canonical standing, the discernment and profession/consecration with and by the Church ensures that one also experiences a greater correlative permission to stand in the face of the values of the world around us and to be the person one is called to be by God in his Church. That permission is part of what leads to greater freedom to be oneself.  

Similarly, one experiences a sense of mission and understands one's vocation in terms of charism as a canonical hermit. These elements add to the richness and the purpose of eremitical life and so too, in my experience, they make it easier to live faithfully. The expectations of others in the Church (and larger world as well) work in the same way --- as does the role of those serving in spiritual direction or the ministry of authority. Finally, understanding eremitical life as a tradition that in some real sense "belongs" to the Church, and makes the hermit calling an ecclesial vocation, contextualizes an already meaningful life in a way that assures its communal nature and ecclesial significance even as it helps prevent the vocation from devolving into something less than authentic.

Non-canonical hermits must maintain the same relationship with God, the same stricter separation from the world, and the same values held by a canonical hermit, and do so in the midst of a world that militates against this.  They must choose to grow as a hermit and to continue growing as a hermit with all that demands (vows, spiritual direction, theological sophistication), and they must do so without anyone necessarily recognizing their needs or their commitments to do so. In a world that militates against eremitism and often substitutes individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, and isolation for authentic hermit life, it seems to me to be very difficult to live as a non-canonical or lay hermit.  Thus, while I recognize that hermits living authentic eremitical lives are rare whether canonical or non-canonical,  I believe canonical standing and the elements it ensures, makes it easier to live an eremitical life in today's world.

As to why non-canonical hermits do not speak much of rights and obligations with expectations in living their own eremitical lives, I do believe it is largely a matter of education and formation. When one is in initial formation and preparing for profession as a religious in community, one is carefully initiated into the rights and obligations of the life. These things are made explicit and, in fact, are the way one moves from candidacy to novitiate, to juniorate, and then to solemn or perpetual profession and full membership in the community. Moreover, one is introduced to the consequences of having been initiated into the "religious state" and begins to think in these terms. Nothing is left untouched by initiation into the "religious state" and young religious learn this. Unless such formation occurs I don't think one would think this way. Thus, lay persons who are unfamiliar with the nature of initial and ongoing religious formation are unlikely to appreciate the process or think in the same terms. 

Should such a lay person become a hermit with the accent on "eremitical freedom" and a private commitment which changes nothing in terms of rights and obligations, it becomes doubly unlikely they will understand such life in terms of  these things in either canon or proper law. (It is possible to see an example of the failure to think this way in discussions of "wearing a mask" vs "not wearing a mask" in today's pandemic. So many think of freedom as the power to do whatever I want whenever I want to do it, and not in terms of rights and obligations or ecclesial calling. They have been enculturated to understand freedom very differently than Christian theology requires, and they substitute license instead.)

Thus, I agree with you that it is the failure to either think or be able to  think in terms of rights and obligations that stands at the heart of self-assumed practices like those you mention. Another source of difficulty is the tendency to believe one is owed such rights, or can simply "consecrate oneself",  or assume the wearing of religious garb and title through one's own agency. A similar source of difficulty is the failure to understand that ecclesial vocations are never discerned by oneself alone; they must be mutually discerned and until and unless the Church extends God's call to one in a mediatory and juridical act, one cannot be said to "have" such a vocation, much less live it "in the name of the Church." Calling anything to do with canon law "legalism" is another piece of all of this. I wonder if it would assist folks if preparation for baptism included a section on the canonical rights and obligations of the baptized or lay state of life?  Just a thought.

The Beating Heart of Canonical Vocations: A Matter of Graced Rights and Obligations

 [[Dear Sister, thanks for your response. Am I right in concluding that when one leaves the consecrated state one leaves the rights and obligations of this state even though one is still consecrated by God? If there are no rights and obligations is there a consecration?]]

 I first added this to the last question you asked because it fits so well; however other  related comments have come my way so I am moving it to a new post and appending those comments. Yes, you are exactly correct. When one leaves the consecrated state even though they were once consecrated by God (something that cannot be undone), they also leave the rights, obligations, and also the expectations behind. A state of life is characterized and structured by the rights and obligations associated with it. The inner spirit of this state of life is illumined by the person's sensitivity to the legitimate expectations others rightly hold in her regard. When she is responsive to all of these elements, she lives a witness which is fruitful and contributes to the tradition her life is now a living part of.

It is important to be clear that one either is or is not in the consecrated state of life. Equivocal statements like, "I am part of the consecrated life of the Church" can be (and unfortunately, have, even recently, been) used to confuse and slide past the actual truth. When one has had extended to them, and when one has accepted the rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state of life, they exist in that state; when those rights and obligations have not been extended to nor accepted by the person, or, when one has relinquished these rights and obligations, one is no longer considered a "consecrated person" because they have left (or never been part of) this state of life. This is not meant to deny that (some of) these people were consecrated by God, but it is meant to underscore the nature of a state of life, and the importance of the rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state of life.

Meanwhile, your last question is very perceptive and follows logically! Consecration in the Roman Catholic Church is ALWAYS associated with public rights and obligations/expectations. To claim to be consecrated without being able to identify public rights and obligations (along with correlative expectations) is to claim a fiction. Just as profession is a broader and richer act than the making of vows alone, so too is the consecration of a person in the Church a broader act than we might think. To set someone apart as a "sacred (or consecrated) person" in the Church is not only to convey God's solemn blessing, but also to explicitly structure their lives in terms of public rights and obligations spelled out in Canon Law,  Rule, and/or Constitutions/Statutes.

[[Dear Sister, I do wish you had spelled out the rights and obligations of a diocesan hermit several years ago! This was the first time I truly understood the difference between a public and private commitment. It also helped me to understand what you meant a while back when you wrote about someone "having their cake and eating it too." It just never occurred to me that I actually have a right to hold expectations in your regard because your commitment is public, while not having the right to expectations on the basis of a private commitment. Also,  I think I understand better what you mean when you speak about a "state of life" or, "living a vocation in the name of the Church". 

Because I didn't understand what the rights and obligations were that were associated with your vocation, I thought having expectations in regard to your hermit life meant that I was overstepping my own rightful bounds and that calling yourself a Catholic Hermit was pretentious, particularly when you wrote that those without public profession could not do so. But  committing to live and living a vocation "in the name of the Church" implies much more than just being  a Catholic and living privately as a hermit! I think I really see that now. I just wanted to thank you for making this clearer for me!! Thank you! 

As I write this, I do have one question: do you think that hermits with private vows understand all of this? One who has written about this a lot seems to think the difference between canonical and non-canonical vocations is just a matter of formal approval. I don't think she gets there is a substantive difference made up of rights, obligations and related expectations. Do most lay hermits get this substantive difference?]]

I am glad you wrote. Thank you! In the years since I first began this blog I have become dependent on folks asking questions and that means that I don't always write about the things I need to. Sometimes I assume that if folks have a question they will ask. But that is not always true, not least because they may not have enough knowledge to raise the important questions and sometimes because they don't know how important the questions they have actually are. The rights and obligations associated with this canonical eremitical life may be among such important questions. For that reason I too am sorry I did not spell this out earlier! It really is up to me to see what is important and explain that --- though I love getting questions and am helped by them a lot!

I really don't know what most lay or non-canonical hermits do or don't understand. You are correct though in your observations that some do not understand my life or the lives of other c 603 hermits in terms of rights and obligations/expectations. At least they have usually not indicated such an understanding nor do they seem to have had it spelled out for them by those who have made such commitments. What does seem to be true is that many lay hermits (and some canonical ones as well!) do have a gut level resistance to others holding legitimate (valid) expectations of them. This is one of the things that gives their lives a distinctly individualistic shape --- and as you probably know, I believe an individualistic hermit life is inauthentic and antithetical to eremitical life within the Church. When some write about remaining anonymous, when they claim the title Catholic Hermit while also claiming they can remain entirely hidden, or when they can post all manner of disedifying things leading others to believe in the eccentricity and selfishness of this vocation, they demonstrate they do not have a clue about the way rights and obligations are extended to someone committing to live this vocation in the name of the Church.

The same is true with regard to those who treat canonical standing as though it is a matter of superficial formalism or legalism. The rights and obligations assumed by a hermit and extended to her by the Church are meant to govern and nurture a specific vocation which 1) proclaims the Gospel of God in Christ, and which 2) is meant for the inspiration and edification of others. The graces associated with a canonical eremitical vocation are the graces God gives which allow these two foundational elements to be lived with integrity and vividness. Canon 603 does this for the solitary eremitical vocation just as other canons do for semi-eremitical life (eremitical life lived in a specifically communal context with other hermits).

All of this points to one reason many bishops tend only to profess and consecrate hermits who have been formed and professed in religious life, namely, such persons understand what we mean by the consecrated state of life; they know what it means to live according to rights and obligations extended to them by the Church herself. They know what it means to have others hold legitimate (valid) expectations about the way they live their life, and they are prepared to accept the obligations as well as the rights that are part and parcel of a state of life. It is hard to get all of this merely from reading about it; one needs to have lived it. In fact, it is one of the most central qualities of religious formation ---readying a person to live a public vocation shaped by public rights and obligations and animated by the graces which make one responsive to these --- even if the life is lived in a cloister or hidden in the way eremitical lives are hidden. An individualistic life whose supposed "freedom" is shaped by selfishness and superficiality may look like eremitical life from a distance or at first glance, but the beating heart of an ecclesial vocation is vastly different than this. It is moved and shaped instead by the Love-in-Act we call God --- and thus too, is it empowered to accept and fulfill the public rights, obligations, and expectations associated with ecclesial vocations to the consecrated state.

I'll leave this here for now. Thanks again!

Non-Canonical vs Canonical Eremitical Life: Which Involves Greater Freedom?

[[Sister Laurel, is it possible to be a hermit in the Catholic Church and not be subject to any institutionalization or any canon law? Would this be a greater degree of freedom than canonical status allows for?]]

Thanks for the question. If you are speaking of canons which directly refer to eremitical life, yes one can be a non-canonical or lay hermit, that is, a person embracing eremitical life in the lay state. However, to the extent one is a baptized Catholic and in the lay state, one is still subject to canon law and there are still requirements which apply to every person in the Church by virtue of their baptism. That means every person belonging to the Church will be subject to some degree of "institutionalization" if by this you mean the responsibilities and praxis which are part and parcel of belonging to an institution. If one wants no part of this one would need to leave the Church.

The question regarding the degree of freedom of one state vs the other one seems naïve to me. It is also misleading and gets one off immediately on the wrong foot. Again, freedom in Catholic theology is the power to become and be the persons we are called to be. Thus, if one is called by God to achieve authentic humanity in the eremitical life  one will need to discern whether one is called to do this in the lay or the consecrated state. In other words one will discern which one is the way of greater authentic freedom. For those called to consecrated eremitical life the greater number of canonical rights and obligations will not result in less but in greater freedom. For those called to eremitical life in the lay state, the canonical obligations of the consecrated state might be onerous.

If you have read earlier posts you will remember the example I gave of learning to play violin. Training the hands, fingers, wrists and arms, as well as the ear and heart and mind to function in all the ways needed to play real music and to transcend the printed page (while one honors that at the same time) takes a lot of work and involves a tremendous number of constraints. For the beginner these seem onerous, but as time goes on more and more one will begin to experience a kind of freedom to make music beyond what one could have even imagined was possible. The constraints remain precisely because they are the vehicle through which one is enabled to transcend one's own inabilities and limitations and release the potentiality one has for tapping into the music which sings through oneself and the universe. At this point they no longer feel like constraints; they are the wings with which we fly. In mastering (and thus, honoring) these constraints, one and one's violin become a single instrument attuned to and capable of mediating the miracle we call music, but also, therefore, the realities we identify as God, love, beauty, truth, order, harmony, disharmony, meaning, humanity, pain, joy, grief, and so many associated emotions and sensations. Constraints or limitations are necessary for transcendence to be realized; they are an intrinsic part of authentic freedom.

When I was discerning between lay eremitical and consecrated eremitical life, lay eremitical life seemed to me to represent less authentic freedom than canonical eremitical life. This was partly because of the way the world at large militated against the eremitical life. A context within which eremitical life could be lived fully and where it was truly valued seemed necessary if I was to live it as I felt called to do in the face of the world's enmity or lack of understanding --- and also in the face of the common stereotypes and caricatures of hermits we find everywhere --- including in the church. Remember that to some extent this is what the desert Abbas and Ammas also sought in their attempt to live a radical Christianity. They sought a more stringent and (in its own way) supportive environment for their "white martyrdom" than the "anything goes" world in which Christianity had come to belong "all too well".

I was also sure that I was called to live this life as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church for the sake of others, and I felt less free to live that in a non-canonical state. Fortunately, the Church agreed with this discernment and admitted me to profession and consecration --- something which continues to serve as a significant element of genuine freedom to explore the depths and breadth of this life --- especially when there are difficulties which lead to some degree of self-doubt. Others will, quite validly, make a very different discernments and decisions. The bottom line here is that authentic freedom is related to what one is called to by God; it cannot be determined merely by measuring the number or type of norms to which one will be subject. To proceed in that way is merely to ensure one never even takes the violin out of the case, much less risks discovering and slowly coming to the incredible freedom God offers in learning to negotiate the constraints which eventuate in the transcendent realm of union with Godself.