A Few Thoughts on Custody of the Eyes (reprise)

[[Hello Sister Laurel, Thank you for putting up the piece about the new movie. Custody of the eyes is not a phrase we hear much about today. When I looked it up I found a reference to "10 reasons men should always practice custody of the eyes" and some forum posts talking about avoiding lust, but why would cloistered nuns be practicing custody of the eyes so much to name a film about it? I mean is it really that central to life in a cloister? What am I missing?]]

Hi there and thanks for the questions. I agree that custody of the eyes is kind of an old-fashioned term and not one we use or, for that matter, practice much today, but in a congregation such as the Poor Clares or the Trappistines, for instance, it is a significant value which has a good deal less to do with avoiding lustful feelings and more with protecting the privacy, and more, the silence of solitude of one's Sisters and of the house more generally. Interestingly, custody of the eyes is meant to be combined with a genuine sensitivity to the needs of one's Sisters (or others more generally); for instance, one is expected to be aware if someone needs something at table and offer it, or to do something similar in work situations with tools and materials being used, so custody of the eyes does not mean closing oneself off to others, cultivating general unawareness, isolation, or anything similar. I think custody understood in this more balanced way is one of those values we ought all to cultivate as appropriate to our own states of life. It seems to me in some ways it is a vital practice our own technological and media-driven world really needs.

In last Friday's Gospel lection we heard the Matthean observation that the eye is the lamp of the body. In Matthew a good eye is a generous one; a bad or evil eye is the opposite. Additionally, one of the meanings of Matt's observation is that what we look on changes us and can be a source of light or (increasing) darkness. This can occur in many ways. We read classic works of literature or contemporary books that enlighten and shape us. We do the same with art and media of all sorts. Unfortunately, this may involve "literature" which demeans the human person, or it may involve visual input that does not even pretend to be art --- and rightly so. More commonly for most of us, it involves commercials or TV programs which objectify us, make a parody of and trivialize our lives even as they presume to tell us who we are, what we desire, and need, what we ought to value, buy, otherwise spend resources on, and so forth. Custody of the eyes in this kind of thing means allowing God to shape us and show us who we are and what we really need. It means refusing to allow others to define us or our own hearts especially. Custody of the eyes is a necessary element in being our (and God's!) own persons.

On the other hand, what we look on, that is, what we choose to look on and the way in which we do so speaks about our hearts; that is, it reflects either the light or the darknesses of our own hearts. Here is where generosity or its opposite become critical. We see this when we look on another person and judge them on the basis of appearances, or otherwise jump to conclusions on the basis of past hurts; but we also see it when we allow our compassion to perceive a person as God's own precious one who is really very like us, when we look with awe at the beauty which surrounds us or find beauty in the simplest thing rather than with the vision of someone who is bored and jaded and incapable of being truly surprised, and so forth. Custody of the eyes has as much to do with truly allowing the eyes to be the lamp of the whole person as with simply avoiding lust or lasciviousness.

Custody of the eyes allows a person to attend to their own hearts without constantly being distracted by the activity and sights around them. Especially, as it does this, it assists us in becoming people who see things truly, that is, who see things as God sees them. Moreover, it provides space and the gift of privacy for others with whom one lives; especially it provides for the communion we call "the silence of solitude" in which they too are seeking to dwell so that they too may be persons who see as God sees. Custody of the eyes intends our living with focus; it fosters the containment and denial of the incessant voice of curiosity and even prurience that has been intensified with the computer and social media environment and assists in following through on a project without getting distracted. (N.B., even the monastic cowl or cuculla ("hood") helps us maintain custody of the eyes and appropriate focus.) Thus, I think, the practice of custody of the eyes is rooted in a true reverence for others and for ourselves even as it helps create an environment where others may experience the same.

In a cloister or a lavra, for instance, silence does not cut us off from others or the demands of love. It is not a neutral reality but one that is carefully cultivated and allowed to flourish in love for the others who are also seeking God just as we are. It enfolds us each and joins us together in a supremely respectful embrace which is deeper than any word. It is a gift we offer one another. Custody of the eyes serves similarly and seems to me to be a piece of the monastic and eremitical values of stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude especially. It too is ordered toward loving others and providing the gifts of space and privacy in which they may seek and commune with God while at the same time making sure they are profoundly supported in this.

Hermits and Experiences of Satan?

[[Dear Sister, I wondered if you have any experience of the Devil?  I have never known what to do with the part of the faith that includes the Devil but I recently heard someone who claims the Devil messes with her all the time. She made it seem like the Devil picks on hermits and even uses them to "mess with" others. It sounded to me a lot like that old joke about "the devil made me do it" -- it's kind of an excuse for anything that goes wrong when the person doesn't want to own up to their role in it. I don't think you write about the Devil though I saw where recently you referred to Satan being called "the accuser". Do you believe in Satan or the Devil? Does he "mess with" hermits? Is that because they are more spiritual than most people?]]

Another first! Thanks for your questions, although I have to say they leave me kind of at a loss. You see, yes, I have experienced evil, but Satan? No, I have no experience with that at all. My own experience of evil was something I came (eventually) to regard as the person's illness, and I found that explaining what I had experienced made sense in terms of mental illness. What also helped me make sense of it around the same time was Paul Tillich's theology of the demonic. What Tillich does is to look at something sacred. When that is distorted, twisted, and diminished, it becomes what he calls the demonic. On the other hand, when it is raised to higher forms and even its highest form of perfection, there we have the holy. For something or someone to be raised in this way implies participation in God's life, love, goodness, and truth, that is, in the holiness of God. For them to be distorted and diminished in the way I have described means for them to move further from participation in God's life, love, truth, goodness, beauty, etc. 

Another way to think of this is how we are when we allow ourselves to be loved as opposed to who we become when we refuse to be loved and become self-centered and incapable of the truth. As human beings made in the image of God, we are capable of great good and, if that image is distorted, great evil. Tillich knew this very well and so he understood human beings as sacred and capable of great holiness in and through God. At the same time, he had watched human beings who had become seriously distorted and diminished; they were profoundly inhuman and inhumane, and Tillich identified this state as demonic. But this had nothing to do with a literal Devil or Satan. It occurred in complex ways through the influences upon and choices made by each person, just as sanctification occurs. 

Personally, I neither affirm nor deny the existence of Satan (though I do note that it is not part of the Church's creeds). I simply say Satan has little to do with my own faith which is centered on Christ and the One he called Abba in the power of the Spirit.At the same time, I don't see where human beings need a lot of help in becoming inhuman and setting genuine evil loose in our world. We are the source of systemic and institutionalized evil, and I don't think we need an external source beyond the harmful ways other human beings have treated us or encouraged and conditioned us to treat others (whether all these things occur directly or indirectly). I feel the same way you do about folks who carry on about how the Devil is messing with them, or how persecuted they are, etc. However, (though I too enjoyed the Flip Wilson sketch way back) it is not funny or entertaining to me; it is a tragedy because it involves a person who, it seems to me, has no real self-knowledge, no motivation to metanoia or change, and a limited capacity for honesty or love, including self-love and love of God.

Ironically, there is a side to this, that is even more tragic in a person who tends to blame the devil, and that is the tendency to attribute to God everything that can't be attributed to Satan. While it is true that everything good in our life ultimately comes from God and reveals God to us, it is not typical of God to speak directly to us as a rule of thumb, to come to us similarly in visions, or to will our suffering, much less to cause actual suffering. God does NOT cause suffering, nor does God will our pain. This approach to reality not only refuses to take appropriate responsibility for the things that happen to us and cause difficulties for us (which includes taking responsibility for getting appropriate help with the wounds caused by others), but it also tends to be a form of self-aggrandizement.

I know some psychologically healthy hermits whose lives are edifying, focused on, and filled with God. They are wonderfully happy. Some can occasionally reference the Devil as the power behind real suffering, but these hermits don't have a strong sense of the Devil's presence in their lives. Certainly, they don't see him lurking and ready to pounce at the slightest opportunity. Others rarely, if ever, think of Satan except as he perhaps comes up in lectio or discussions, though they are apt to be acutely aware of the reality of evil in our world. What I am saying is that it is not "normal" for hermits to be "taken" with the place of the Devil in their lives. It is not normal for hermits to deal with Satan, to want to understand Satan, (to desire to) spend time writing or speaking about Satan, etc. Hermits may certainly have experiences of real evil. They may have experienced occasions or periods of serious suffering, but blaming Satan (or God!) for these is simply not typical of these hermits. Their lives are full of the grace of God and a sense of wonder or awe at the way God has called them to Himself.

They recognize all the ways God has been at work in (and for!) them and are full of praise and love for this God. They also are well aware of their own failures and shortcomings in this and other relationships; Satan has nothing to do with these problems, though personal woundedness may well be at their heart. They work on these with their spiritual directors and others who are competent in doing this kind of work with them. They suffer, yes, as we all suffer, and they accept this suffering as a share in Christ's own suffering embraced for the sake of a new heaven and new earth where God will be all in all. What they do NOT do is blame Satan nor play Satan off against God with themselves as some sort of victim or pawn of either or both!! (Note, those who are also "victims" of God will frame their victimhood in pious categories of grace, or "mysticism", or they may even identify themselves as a "Victim Soul".) 

In either case, just as you recognize, such a person, for whom victimhood (whether Divine or demonic) is a defining category of their life, tends to disavow appropriate responsibility for their suffering and difficulties. This can include resisting or rejecting therapy or other forms of assistance for original or core woundedness, and sometimes rejecting getting help for an ongoing paranoia about being persecuted or harassed by everyone around them. From my perspective, such a person's relationship with God is distorted and becomes seriously disedifying. Whenever God is made the direct cause of suffering or the one who directly wills and brings pain, serious theological errors have occurred in the name of a significantly flawed "spirituality".  In any case, the hermits I know, though profoundly spiritual and usually experienced with an authentic sense of what the desert tradition calls struggling or doing battle with demons**, tend to see themselves as simply way too inconsequential for Satan (or, The Devil) to have any interest in. 

** Please see articles on battling or struggling with demons for the way I use these terms

On Catechisms, Lay (non-canonical) hermit Life and the Reasons for Canon 603 (Reprise)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Can Bishops Profess Hermits They do not Know?

[[Hi Sister, I read that you waited for a long time to become a diocesan hermit, In my diocese we got a new bishop and within a few months he professed a hermit. Our former bishop never professed anyone. How can one bishop take a long time and another one profess someone in a short time? Isn't there some sort of standard about knowing a candidate before one professes them? How can it take one person many years and another person only a few years or even only a few months? Too, how can a Bishop profess someone they hardly know? I heard about one bishop who did this with a young hermit and she failed. I guess that is the same question about standards. Can I ask you one personal question? Were you ever directed or supervised by a Sister from an unrecognized community? I don't mean any offense, someone suggested your delegate was from a community that might not even be real religious maybe. I believe the point was c 603 talks about bishops supervising the hermit and maybe that yours wasn't acting as the canon required.]]

Thanks for your questions. I think your first one is another new one, never asked here before, so thanks! (It really is cool getting new questions!!) First of all, it is important to understand that in most dioceses, at least if they have Vicars for Religious or Vicars for Consecrated Life and Vocations offices (not all dioceses are large enough or have large enough staffs for these), the bishop is rarely the first one to work with a candidate. In fact, he may only meet the candidate when others are ready to recommend her for profession. At this point the person may have been meeting with chancery personnel for anywhere from 5-10 years.  (Some will have met for even longer.) This ordinarily means that a formation team including Religious, priests, canonists, and sometimes now, another c 603 hermit, will mentor the candidate hermit (and the rest of the formation team). 

So, when someone is working this way, it may happen that the bishop retires and is replaced by another bishop before the person is ready to be professed. Sometimes bishops in this situation, will leave the final decision for admission to profession of the candidate up to the next bishop. When these kinds of things happen it may appear to those looking on from the outside, that the candidate is not really known to the diocese or to the new bishop when they are professed --- at least if one only looks at the known dates involved: e.g., New bishop on 9/24, first profession of hermit on 11/24). What is true in this is that the diocese has known the candidate for much longer than just 2-3 months, but we may be unaware of this.

It is true that the newer bishop will not know the person well (and certainly not as well as the formation team does), but this is simply another reason bishops often ask the hermit to choose a delegate who will serve as representative to the diocese and to the hermit both. Remember that the first bishop also would not know the hermit well, or at least not as well as the Vicar for Religious who has been working with her all those years. Canon 603 requires that one live this vocation under the supervision (or some translations may say direction) of the bishop, but what this supervision consists of is not spelled out. So, for instance, if a person serves as delegate and knows the hermit well, if she has the appropriate expertise to guide her hermit life, and is available to the bishop whenever he wants to check on things or to meet for a conversation, that can be  a very satisfactory way of working out the canonical requirement of supervision. One thing I have not mentioned is the fact that the hermit is entrusted with this vocation. She has shown the diocesan personnel how she lives eremitical life and why, and they have come to trust her and what is usually a relatively long history of this.

The bishop does interview the candidate, sometimes several times in the year or so before profession, and he has her Rule of Life and other pertinent documentation and references. In my experience, a bishop trusts those who know the hermit better than he does, especially current and past Vicars, pastors, and spiritual directors, and he also takes the time he can to get to know her better one-on-one as well as through her writing (if she is published). Remember that c 603 is recognized as calling for temporary profession of vows, meaning these vows will ordinarily last for from 3-5 years and can be renewed before admitting the hermit to perpetual profession and consecration. There is ordinarily a great deal of time available to catch errors or problems that need to be worked out. Moreover, during the years, a bishop will come to understand eremitical life better as the hermit herself grows in the vocation and shows him the hows and whys of this; this mutual influence and education is the best way, I think, for a diocese to grow in its understanding of c 603 vocations.

In my own situation, there have been five different bishops here, including one interim, since I first petitioned to be admitted to c 603 consecration. There is no doubt that some have been more involved in supervision than others. From things I have heard from other diocesan hermits in other dioceses, this unevenness is not uncommon. At the same time, as I have written recently, the Diocese (Vicars for Religious) and then Bp Vigneron asked me to choose a delegate who would work more closely and more frequently with me than any bishop might be able to. When Bp Vigneron wanted to speak to me about something he contacted Sister Marietta, and he contacted her for her opinion on matters. Supervision need not look like some non-canonical hermits imagine it. Again, canon 603 is flexible and it is up to the diocesan bishop to decide what this term of the canon will mean. So long as he takes his role seriously and cares for the hermit's vocation, he is fulfilling the canon's prescriptions.

Regarding your last question, while this is repetitive, let me say that my main delegate (Director) has been Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF (Sisters of the Holy Family is a Papal Congregation). She has been my delegate from @ 2005 to the present,; more recently, serving as co-Director (Advocate) is Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. I have mentioned them both before, but here is a bit more about them. Sister Marietta has served in parish CCD work, as Novice director in her congregation, and has been in leadership of her congregation for 10 years as well; she began and ran Holy Family Center, a small retreat center focusing on Adult personal and spiritual growth, has been a licensed educator in PRH and is highly skilled in personal growth work and spiritual direction. I have known Marietta since @1982 when she agreed to be my spiritual director. Sister Susan, formerly a teacher, was Vicar for Religious and Assistant Director of Vocations for the Diocese of Oakland when I began to become a hermit. She then went into retreat work in Malibu (Serra Retreat) and directed this at the Old Mission Santa Barbara. Susan now serves (yet again!) on her province's leadership team (the Franciscan Sisters of Penance and Christian Charity) and as the local minister for their retired Sisters in Santa Maria, CA. The congregation's Generalate is in Rome. 

As I have pointed out a number of times now, my Bishop is allowed to supervise me in any way that works for him and for me. My diocese asked me to choose a delegate who would serve both me and the diocese and bishop when the bishop was not available, but also just generally to take on this role of supervising more directly than most bishops can do. Both of these Sisters know me well, are available whenever I need them, and are trusted by the diocese. The arrangement works very well and is something I encourage other dioceses and diocesan hermits to consider implementing.

What do We do When Others Don't Want to Talk about God?

[[Dear Sister, is it difficult for you to communicate with someone who is "allergic" to God or to talk about God? I wondered if you have trouble with that since you are on a spiritual path and some people are not. I am in love with Jesus and my family is on a more temporal path. I would like to talk with them about Jesus but feel kind of pressured not to do that. Isn't it part of my vocation to convert people to Christ? In your vocation I guess you don't meet a lot of people who don't believe in Christ, but what do you do when other people just don't want to talk about him? Should we cut them out of our lives because they are at a lower level spiritually? I am struggling with all of this.]]

Important questions, thanks for asking them!  You are talking about two interrelated things, 1) being on a spiritual path, and 2) talking about that path to others. Both are difficult and the second may be more difficult than the first. So let me talk about these two things in order. First, what does it mean to be on a spiritual path? I define a spiritual path in terms of the Holy Spirit. It is a path we are inspired and empowered to take by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it is a path that helps us to achieve the fullness of our own humanity with all that characterizes that. When you approach the spiritual from this perspective, almost anything can be or become a spiritual path and that certainly includes all aspects of the spatiotemporal world. 

There are a couple of things I call to mind in reminding myself of this: first, the Word of God was fully and exhaustively revealed to us in Jesus, a human being who shared fully in our spatiotemporality (that is, our historicity), even to the point of sin and godless death; Secondly, the Catholic Church is a Sacramental Church built on God's transfiguration of spatiotemporal realities. We belong to a church in which the elements of this world are sacred and capable of being transformed into symbols of eternity. Thus water becomes capable of washing us of sin, bread and wine can become the Body and Blood of Christ, oil is made capable of healing and strengthening us with the power of the Holy Spirit, and this happens not only via the grace of God but because of what these are innately. 

As part of this second element, I am also reminded of c 604 and the vocation of consecrated virgins living in the world and the transfigured (or eschatological) secularity they live in the name of the Church. (By the way, secular might be a better word for what you are trying to express than temporal.) With sacraments, the Church says that God can transfigure this world and make it a symbol of the new heaven and new earth our Creator God is in the process of creating in and through Jesus, his Christ. The Church asks us to take this world seriously and see it in the way God does. This has implications in the way we approach everything around us. We begin to look for the Holy Spirit's presence in everything, and we begin to see the essential holiness in even the most mundane. 

Once we begin looking in this way we also begin to characterize dimensions of what we see by words which are very much of God without being overtly religious. For instance, we begin to see truth and beauty, or in looking at creatures we may see courage, integrity, compassion, hope, aspiration, joy, sincerity, and generosity. These characteristics and innumerable others are of God, they are divinely inspired and constituted.  God IS truth, beauty, integrity, etc; He is the ground and source of these things and of all else that exists. My sense is that when we begin to look at the world and talk about it in terms such as these, we can talk about God in ways that are illuminating and even revealing while working around the "allergy" you first mentioned that afflicts so many people today.  Let me point out that carrying on conversations in these terms can be very challenging and that is especially true for people who consider themselves "spiritual" or "religious." For these people, conversing without using explicit references to God or God's Christ demands a lot of thought and prayer; especially, it requires a profound sense of God and the way God is related to this world.

While I agree that your ministry may involve proselytization, I don't think this is the approach I would use with people I love. Our families are captive audiences, so to speak and ordinarily, it is not our job to convert them, except in one major way. We are meant to love them and to indicate who we are as Christians by our love. Remember that being Christian means being truly human in the way Christ reveals what that means. It is our vocation to become human in this way and then, if and when we are asked to do so, to express to others why we are capable of this. What Christians witness to is the God who is love-in-act and what that love makes possible in terms of wholeness, hopefulness, compassion, courage, integrity, wisdom, etc. That witness may never require us to speak the words "God" or "Jesus" or "Christ", and in some cases speaking this way may be counterproductive and even destructive. The bottom line here is if someone does not want to talk about God, or is allergic to explicit Godtalk, then use the language they are comfortable with! If you do this in love, every word will be infused with the presence of God.

The notion that one person is at a lower level spiritually than we are is a judgment we human beings are not capable of making.  I sometimes wonder if it is a way of seeing that even makes sense. But we are not called to judge in this way; God asks us to love others as we love ourselves; loving another means helping them to become and be the persons they are called and meant by God to be. What I am encouraging you to do is to invest your energy in becoming fully human yourself and then (in light of that commitment) invest in inviting or even summoning others to do so as well. Use the categories, activities, and interests that drive the other person in order to learn who they are, and love them to greater and greater authenticity and wholeness. 

What you need to trust is that you are doing this in God's name (that is, in God's presence and power). Even when you do not use the word God or speak of Jesus explicitly, if you are loving the other you are doing the work of God in their life. If you are allowing them to love you, you are doing the same thing. You and I may be in different places spiritually, but neither of us is higher than the other. That is an idea you must really make your own if your communication and sharing with others is to be credible or compelling to them. Look for the commonalities you share with the other, the places where you can use the same language and truly share with each other at the level of your hearts. Since this is rooted in truth and love, it is rooted in God. Again, trust that.

Finally, while I love to talk about Christ and God with others, it is not usually something that happens -- even with parishioners for whom spirituality is every bit as dominant in their lives as it is in mine. Sometimes, with some folks, we never speak of God or faith explicitly. However, I don't cut them out of my life. We talk about what is going on in our lives, our struggles and joys, our challenges, successes, and failures. We do what Mary and Joseph likely did with their neighbors and relatives (including discussing and consulting about their own bewilderment at what parenting Jesus means!!). 

On the other hand, I don't mean we avoid speaking of God should it seem important and timely to do that. Of course not! But God need not (and should not) be the only acceptable topic of our lives. (Actually, if God is the only topic someone wants to discuss or, worse yet, is capable of discussing, then the problem is theirs, and solutions need to be found.) I tend not to run into this problem much except in those who are tentative or insecure in their own spirituality or perhaps, in their ability to relate to others. Sometimes this is combined with a fresh conversion experience and the result is nonstop talk about God. But, beyond a certain point, this is not helpful for the person talking, nor for those with whom they are trying to relate. We cannot and must not use God or our purported spirituality as an excuse or coverup for not being able to communicate or share with others in everyday ways. 

God made us in his image and likeness; we who are imago Dei are becoming more and more imago Christi as we become more and more human, and that occurs to the extent we are loved and freed to love by others. Learn to perceive and talk in terms of the very best and most truly human and ordinary dimensions of reality and your speech with others will be innately and implicitly Godly. Again, I ask you to trust that. Learn to love others as God loves them and you. Then, in time, together you may speak more explicitly of God and the way God in Christ has transformed your life. When this happens, others will be interested and your speech will be more credible and compelling. These are a few of the things we must keep in mind when we deal with the kinds of questions you have posed. The difficulties you are trying to negotiate are worth the struggle you are now experiencing. Be assured of my prayers in this. I hope this response is helpful for you.

Uncomfortable Questions and Answers!!

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it you don't want a bishop or priest supervising or directing you? If canon 603 says that you are to live under your bishop's direction then why don't you let him to do that? Why do you use a woman from a dissident [religious] community as a spiritual director? You write a lot about c 603 but how can you do that if you don't live the canon yourself? I want to support Joyful Hermit because she suffers so much and all for the love of God. She hasn't even been approved by the church like you have and lives a heroic hermit life. You should be ashamed for harassing her!!]]

Thanks for writing. I've decided to post your questions and answers because I keep getting similar ones. They require more than a private email response if others are going to stop writing me with the same kinds of questions. However, let me say that if you are a friend of Joyful's, or if you want to support her, I would encourage you not only to learn the truth yourself but that you help her to face (and tell) the truth as well. Because asking me directly is the first step toward this goal, I want to answer your questions but let me ask you some questions as well. For instance, what besides what you have heard from Joyful makes you think I do not want my bishop to supervise me? Have I ever said or written such a thing? The answer to that is of course not! I am a c 603 hermit and I have committed to live the canon as fully as I can. That includes accepting diocesan bishops' supervision of my life. That said, let me point out that neither I nor any other c 603 hermit can control our bishops and the way they supervise or fail to supervise this vocation!! If Joyful ever truly becomes a c 603 hermit, she will not be able to do that either.

Remember, when one's bishop retires or is moved to be made an Archbishop, for instance, they are replaced by someone who may not be prepared to supervise a hermit, and some bishops are simply unwilling or unable. My own diocese was very wise in requiring me to choose a delegate who would work with me on behalf of my bishop. (And no, the chancery did not require that this person be a priest!) As already noted, Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, serves both the diocese and me in this way and so does my co-delegate, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. Both are qualified to do this for me and for the sake of this vocation in ways most bishops cannot even imagine doing themselves. I have written about the competence and quality of both of these Sisters recently, so feel free to look those posts up if you are interested in the truth about them. It is not as Joyful has imagined it. But to be blunt, very little of what Joyful has imagined (i.e., fantasized!) about me or others she has maligned in her videos, is anything even remotely near the truth. 

As I have written now several times, a bishop is not asked to be a c 603 hermit's spiritual director but to supervise her living out of her vocation. If the word director is used in a translation of c 603, it does not mean spiritual director. Since a c 603's bishop is the hermit's legitimate superior, he, in fact, cannot be her spiritual director. That would lead to conflicts between internal and external fora. Instead, he is asked to supervise this ecclesial vocation and there are no rules specifying how that supervision must be carried out. In the arrangement my own diocese specified, I think I am better served than if I had only been supervised by the bishop.

As I have also written several times now, the use of a delegate who has a closer relationship with the hermit works very well for both the diocese and the hermit; it also maintains the distinction between internal and external fora. Joyful has a single narrow idea of what the canon means by supervision or direction, and if a diocese uses a different understanding of supervision, she declares this to be evidence the hermit is not following the canon. But let me again be frank. Joyful also does not demonstrate any real understanding c 603 --- not the reasons for its existence, not its nature, not the language it uses, and not the life it defines and governs.  She has never met me, nor corresponded with me regarding the supposed issues with me she raises and she claims she does not even read this blog. She doesn't know me nor understand my life nor how I live it; all of that and more means she is in no position to say I don't live the canon (nor most of the other things she claims about me).

You are correct that Joyful has not been approved for admission to c 603 profession. She is not a consecrated or Catholic Hermit, despite what she claims. That takes the church's admission to profession and consecration and commissioning to live the vocation in the Church's name. While Joyful has petitioned that this standing be granted to her, it has not happened yet, and may never happen. (Here I have to ask you, if Joyful is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, why would she seek admission to profession and consecration under a canon she reviles as inadequate ("full of loopholes") and a destructive influence on traditional eremitical life?) 

And if she is never admitted to c 603 standing then where's the harm?  She does not truly feel called to this specific vocation or even believe in its value; it should not be a great disappointment or source of suffering if she is not admitted to profession. Perhaps more importantly, she can continue living as a non-canonical hermit and write about it in a more compelling way than she could ever do with c 603, the canon she so reviles. Granted, to do this effectively and credibly, she would need to adopt the Church's own distinction between consecrated (canonical) and non-canonical eremitical life, and she would need to espouse this as a significant lay vocation in her case. (For priests it could be a significant clerical vocation.) As Joyful's friend or supporter, you could assist her with that. 

Beyond that, though, the best way any friend or supporter could help Joyful, I think, is to get her to stop drawing gratuitous conclusions about peoples' motivations, presumed behavior, faithfulness to their vocation, state of their soul, etc. She does not and cannot know these things without the person sharing them with her or confirming them for her. If she has questions about how someone understands or lives eremitical life, or why they do what they do, then please encourage her to write that person directly and ask them as you have done to me!! You see, while I find your questions somewhat rude and entirely spurious (they are rooted in untrue assumptions), I absolutely respect that you posed them directly. Thank you for that.

Marymount Hermitage, Diocese of Boise

 [[Dear Sister, do you know the name and location of the hermitage that was begun by two Sisters who became c 603 hermits in 1984? Apparently only one of the Sisters is still there and one has returned to her original religious congregation. I don't have much more information about it except that people in the area assist them with upkeep and other things.]]

Sure, I am pretty sure you are asking about Marymount Hermitage in Mesa, ID. They are part of the Diocese of Boise. I wrote about it here about four years ago: Marymount Hermitage. Sister M Beverly Greger is the single hermit living there now, while Sister Rebecca M Bonnell has returned to Oregon to live with their original congregation due to health issues.

Sister M Beverly can be reached at: Marymount Hermitage/ 2150 Hermitage Lane/ Mesa, Idaho 83643-5005 or sisterbeverly@marymount-hermitage.org. Sister Beverly says she reads emails daily but does not usually answer them. (She may leave that to others with appropriate instructions so she can protect her own solitude.) If you need to reach her you might provide a return number and possible times she can reach you. If you wish to leave a message by phone the number is (208) 256-4354 (this is a message phone only).  I first wrote them @1985 before email and they responded very helpfully via ordinary mail. Meanwhile, if you would like to know more about Marymount, feel free to google their website. Past and recent newsletters make good reading. You can also borrow books from their library.

A Contemplative Moment: On Silence and Solitude

 On Silence and Solitude

In eremitic spirituality, silence does not exclude speaking and does not discount meetings and dialogues. What is aimed at is bringing harmony between the heart and the mind, between the spirit and the body, and eventually between God and man. Silence sets us free from the burden of words that are banal and meaningless, from a humdrum that disturbs the true essence of the word. A human word, when it comes from the deep silence of the heart, causes a creative anxiety in everyone who listens to it. It becomes the word of a prophet, proclaiming eternity.

The rigor of solitude --- the second pillar of eremitic ascesis --- does not mean escaping and isolating oneself, and it is not misanthropy of any kind. The hermit wants to meet and confront himself in solitude in order to identify his heart's deceitfulness and to get rid of it. The choice to live in solitude is surely the choice to leave the humdrum of the worldly marketplace, but the character of such a decision is not negative. The hermit does not aim at running away from the world and its affairs and at finding a safe shelter somewhere there in the wilderness. It is not right to consider him a fearful and frustrated fellow, a runaway who is afraid of confronting his self. Solitude has nothing to do with existential neurosis, but it is rather a creative search for the flame of love that burns in God's heart.

 . . .What occupies the center. . .is the existential solitude of God himself. This is what the human heart wants to absorb and this is where it wants to rest. The eremitic solitude is in no case a fruitless and spiritually empty isolation, a cold indifference toward people and the world, or a selfish passiveness. Just the opposite, it is a space of redemption, full of spiritual life and meant to accept and change any human distress, sorrow, or fear."

Fr Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam  The Eremitic Life

On the Power of Jesus' Questions: Calling us to Transcendence

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I liked your post on Jesus's two questions to Peter and his disciples from Sunday. It was the first time I ever heard anyone speak about one question, "Who do others say that I am?" as representing the world, and the other, "And you, who do YOU say that I am?" representing the Kingdom or being freed from "the world" and moving toward the Kingdom. I think you are right that the world tells us what to think and buy, value and reject, though I never saw it this way before. I have two questions. First, do all questions have this kind of power or did only Jesus' questions?  Second, why does Jesus tell his disciples to say nothing to anyone about who he is?]]

Thanks for your comments and questions! While I believe Jesus' questions might have had a peculiar kind of power, I believe that was because they were motivated by love and sought to bring the best (i.e., the truest) out of every person. Also, I believe that it was because Jesus was absolutely trustworthy (i.e., he challenged people but they were completely safe with him too) that his questions could work as powerfully as they did. He asked questions like, "Do you want to be well?", "What would you have me do?" "Do you love (Agape) me?" "Why are you anxious (or terrified)?" "What did you go out to the desert to see?" "What are you looking for?" and, of course, the two we heard on Sunday and many others besides. Each one of these confronts us with ourselves, each uncovers the deeply held beliefs and biases, and often too, the deeply hidden parts or dimensions of ourselves and asks us to trust Jesus with them. 

When I hear these kinds of questions that were so typical of Jesus in the Gospels, it is clear these are no mere requests for information or a kind of polite "How are you doing?" with no real desire to hear (much less nurture!) the truth. Instead, I hear a call to vulnerability, self-knowledge, and faith (trust) in the face of our deepest needs and desires. This is the way we grow, the way we are called beyond ourselves, first with confrontation (You are sick, you are looking to me for something, you are frightened, you betrayed me and I think there is something deeper and truer within you, etc.) and then, with a call to transcendence and the invitation to place ourselves in Jesus' hands so that that change might be achieved. And even in Jesus' absence these kinds of questions still have great power. They can still confront us with who we are and what we hold as true and sometimes incontrovertible, and they can stir us to imagine something other and even something greater, not only in ourselves but in others and in the whole of God's creation. 

If we can allow ourselves to "live the questions," (Rilke) we will also begin to see where we are really profoundly dissatisfied with the answers we were formerly at least superficially comfortable with, or where potentialities and opportunities lay deeply hidden within us, covered by layers of "What others have told us" or much of "what we have become convinced of."  Questions of the sort Jesus seemed to specialize in are like psychological or existential dynamite. They can explode the hardened worldly accretions of years of hopelessness and futility or complacency and unearth the fires of Life burning at the core of our Being that make us alive, creative, hopeful, and courageous. Of course, the one who asks the questions is also critical in this entire process, but I think there is no doubt that the questions themselves can work in us and produce powerful results.

Why did Jesus tell his disciples not to tell anyone about him (or about who he was)? I think there are several reasons. 

• First, when Peter gave his answer, "You are the Messiah" Jesus had already become persona non grata to the Jewish and Roman leaders. They were out to get him and Jesus needed to maintain a low profile, not have his disciples touting him as the Jewish Messiah! 
• Secondly, while Jesus did not eschew the title Messiah, he knew it needed to be redefined in terms of suffering if God's love and mercy were to be fully and exhaustively revealed. A God who chose to become God-With-Us to the extent Jesus' Abba did this was literally inconceivable as was a crucified Messiah. One needed to meet this God face to face and, in Christ, allow him to confront, change, and grow one's heart. Second or third-hand reports would not do it! This was true of the disciples as well as those whom they might meet.
• Thirdly, those who met Jesus needed to see (discern) and say (claim) for themselves who it was they were meeting. This was imperative for those who would truly follow Jesus, particularly since they would be following him to his crucifixion --- and potentially to their own passion and death as well. Only those who answered from their own hearts what they truly knew in that profoundly biblical sense of "knowing," would be able to muster the courage one's discipleship to this man would necessitate. 

As you imply in your comments, an encounter with Jesus and his questions led his hearers to a new kind of freedom. It is this freedom we see in the book of Acts when Peter and the other disciples start proclaiming the crucified and risen Christ to their fellow Jews --- those responsible for Jesus' trial and crucifixion --- the kind of freedom associated with what the New Testament calls parrhesia, a remarkable boldness of speech (and associated living) that is wholly transparent to others. One says what is on one's mind and does so completely, without fear or rhetorical tricks or veiling. One is made free to be oneself and to say precisely what one believes so that others might also be brought to the same kind of freedom in Christ.

Eremitical Life and the Security of Man-Made Laws (reprise)

 [[Dear Sister O'Neal, [one hermit] who has chosen to remain non-canonical (not under canon law) and has sometimes written canon 603 is a distortion of eremitical life wrote recently: "It is the animal instinct for some to want to rise above others, to rule the roost, so to speak--to take the prey from the claws of other beasts.  So, too, is often the human instinct to find a sense of security in laws made by humans.  Somehow it brings--falsely, though--a feeling that there are boundaries and structure that will provide stability and formulaic assurance for survival and success."

Do you find that most hermits feel the same way about canon 603 as this hermit seems to feel? You have said that the majority of hermits are not canonical so I was wondering if that is because they don't think living eremitical life under canon law is a valid way of doing this? I can see that a basic insecurity except in God could be desirable for hermits and that law and structure could provide the illusion of security and stability apart from God. I can also see that hermits need a freedom to respond to God in whatever way he comes to them so that laws and structures could be a problem. Is this what you find?]]

I think it is really important to understand that canonical hermits have not sought canonical standing in order to "rise above others" or to "rule the roost". We do so because we recognize that eremitical life is a significant vocation which the Church has recently (1983) affirmed as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and through the Church to the world at large. We recognize this vocation as part of the patrimony of the Church and believe the Church has a right and obligation to nurture and govern it. The way I tend to speak of this is in terms of the rubric "ecclesial vocation". That is, the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to me. Similarly it belongs to me only insofar as the Church mediates it to me and insofar as I belong to the Church and live for her --- for her Lord, her life, her People and her proclamation. Canonical hermits honor the way God works to call us to consecrated life in the Church. We know that in a vocation which can be mistaken for (or tragically devolve into!) an instance of individualism, selfishness, and isolation, this ecclesial context is absolutely critical for avoiding these antitheses to authentic eremitical life.

The insecurity of Eremitical Life:

At the same time, while canonical standing supplies an essential context for eremitical life it does not do away with the insecurity the life also involves. Remember that canonical hermits are not supported by the Church in any financial or material way. Solitary canonical hermits (those under canon 603) are self-supporting and are responsible for taking care of everything the eremitical life requires: residence, insurance, education and specialized training, formation, spiritual direction, library, appropriate work, food, clothing, transportation, retreat, etc. A diocese will make sure the hermit has all of these things in place and is capable of both living the life and supplying for her material needs before professing her, but generally speaking they will not supply these things themselves. (There are anecdotal accounts of occasional instances where a diocese will include a hermit on the diocesan insurance or supply temporary housing in a vacant convent, retreat house, etc, but these accounts are clear exceptions and the hermit remains generally responsible for supporting herself.)

While this does not mean most hermits lack the essentials needed to live (food, clothing, housing) they do have the same basic insecurities as any other person in the Church or world and they do so without claims to fame, material success, family, significant profession, or any of the other ways our world marks adulthood and security. Many hermits live on government assistance due to disability or associated poverty and this mistakenly marks them as failures, layabouts, moochers, and so forth by the majority of the world. The message the hermit proclaims with her life, however, is the message of a God who considers us each infinitely and uniquely precious despite our personal fragility and poverty. This God abides with us when every prop is kicked out; (he) alone loves us without condition and is capable of completing us.

There is additional though more nuanced insecurity in the prophetic quality of the vocation. Both the Church and the hermit risk a great deal in enabling this vocation to exist with canonical standing in the heart of the Church. This is because the Church recognizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the hermit's life and calls her to consecration which may also lead to a life capable of criticizing the institution, the hierarchy, etc,`(consider the lives of the Desert Abbas and Ammas here) --- precisely as a way of being faithful to vocation, the Church, and the Church's own mission. 

When the Church builds eremitical lives of solitude and prayer into her very heart she opens herself to conversion as well. (cf Ecclesiality as mutually conditioning) Sometimes this leads to apparent clashes (as it did when the faithfulness of women religious to their vocations and to the documents of Vatican II led to an investigation questioning the Sisters' faithfulness). The life of the Spirit is unsettling as well as being the source of life and peace. Generally speaking, the Church will respond in ways that allow the Spirit to summon her to new life and to the remaking of her heart and mind, but any time one is called to proclaim the Gospel with one's life --- especially in the name of the Church --- one is also called to live a kind of insecurity in terms of the world of power and institutional standing.

The most basic insecurity however is that one pins the entire meaning of her life on God and life with God. It is clear that most people need and are called to lives of social connection and service. While most hermits are not called to live without relationships, while those with ecclesial vocations must build in adequate relationships to nurture, guide, and supervise her life with God, and while the eremitical life is a life of service even when this looks very different than that of apostolic religious, it remains true that hermits forego more normal society and service and risk everything, including her own growth in wholeness and holiness, on the existence and nature of the God revealed in Jesus Christ and his desert existence. 

It is one thing to live a Christian existence in the midst of society with all that entails. That is a risk and challenge, of course, with its own very real insecurity: What if I'm wrong? What if God's existence is a delusion, a fiction? What if there was no resurrection and Jesus simply "stayed good and dead"? But to pin everything including normal relationships, one's own home and family, more usual profession and avenues for service, etc., on a God whose love sustains, nurtures, completes and makes us truly human in eremitical solitude seems to me to be a very great (though justified) risk attended by significant insecurity. (My experience is that canonical standing attenuates but does not obviate this insecurity because the Church as such discerns and validates this vocation and proclaims all it witnesses to. Any well-grounded eremitical tradition works in this way in the hermit's life.)

An Ordered and Disciplined Vocation:

While there is a necessary and desirable insecurity at the heart of every eremitical vocation which tends to "prove" the vocation and its dependence on God, there is also the undeniable fact that this remains an ordered and disciplined form of life. Remember that one of the essential elements defining the life is "stricter separation from the world" and this means boundaries are required. For that matter "the silence of solitude" requires very real limitations and boundaries which MUST be articulated clearly and written into the hermit's Rule if they are to be lived meaningfully and with integrity. The lay hermit you cited may believe man-made laws and structures have no place, create illusions of stability and so forth, but the simple fact is that without these kinds of things sinful human beings create chaos, slide into slackness and laxness and ease into a state of general deafness to the work and call of the Holy Spirit. The person who honors the presence of the Holy Spirit, for instance, and who wishes to remain open and responsive to her presence will do so through an ordered and disciplined life. I wrote about this before once when I said:

[[ I think that suggesting commitments and structure will get in the Holy Spirit's way (which, right or wrong, is what I do hear you saying) is analogous to someone saying, "Oh I don't need to practice the violin to play it, I'll just let the Holy Spirit teach me where my fingers should go (or any of the billion other things involved in playing this instrument)." "Maybe I'll play scales if the HS calls me to; maybe I'll tune the violin if the HS calls me to. You mean I can't do vibrato without practicing it slowly? Well, maybe I will just conclude it doesn't need to be part of MY playing and the HS is not calling me to it." What I am trying to say is that if someone wants to play the violin they must commit to certain fundamental praxis and the development of foundational skills; only in so far as they are accomplished at the instrument technically will they come to know how integral this discipline and these skills are to making music freely and passionately as the Holy Spirit impels. Otherwise the music will not soar. In fact there may be no music at all --- just a few notes strung together to the best of one's ability; the capacity for making music will be crippled by the lack of skill and technique. In other words, the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with and through  the discipline I am speaking of, not apart from it.]]

Why Most Hermits are Non-canonical:

I am not entirely sure why most hermits are not canonical hermits. However, it is my impression that only a very small minority percentage of non-Canonical hermits actually reject canonical standing because they believe they will not have the freedom to live authentic eremitical lives under canonical standing or because they would like to imitate the Desert Abbas and Ammas. . . .One credible example of the kind of rejection you ask about is that which turns up in the Episcopal Church and is well-represented by a canonical hermit like Maggie Ross is. While I don't personally agree precisely with Ms Ross in this matter, she cogently argues the importance of standing outside the institutional reality so that one can be a truly prophetic presence. (I agree completely with her insistence on being a prophetic presence and I emphatically agree on the marginality of the hermit, but I disagree that one can stand either essentially or completely outside the institution or be free of all legal and structural bonds.)

I will tell you what I have seen in a number of non-canonical hermits, however. First, most of these are self-described "hermits" and tend not to embody or otherwise meet the requirements of canon 603 in what they live. They may not live the silence of solitude nor lives of assiduous prayer and penance. They may not have embraced a desert spirituality but may merely be lone individuals --- sometimes misanthropic, sometimes not --- but generally still, they are not really hermits as the Church understands the term.  Some are married; some treat eremitical life as a part-time avocation; some live with their parents or others and have never known real solitude, much less "the silence of solitude". Many desire to be religious men or women but have not been able to be professed or consecrated in community. 

Today the term "hermit" is far more popular than the authentic lifestyle! This means that all kinds of things are being justified by the term hermit and many of them are actually antithetical to this vocation: individualism, narcissism, active or apostolic life lived by a solitary, etc. Some non-Canonical hermits have petitioned for canonical standing and been rejected; sometimes this is a personal matter, a determination they are not called to this life or are otherwise unsuitable while other times it is because the diocese they are petitioning is still hesitant to try or unclear on how to implement the canon in an effective and successful way. For instance, appropriate discernment, formation, etc are questions they take seriously and are still unclear about. (These are the kinds of questions some c 603 hermits can assist with.)

Summary:

The bottom line in all of this is that because the eremitical life centered on the relationship of the hermit and God alone is, paradoxically, not merely about the hermit and God alone, because, that is, it is a gift to the Church which can proclaim the Gospel and speak in a special way to the isolated, the alienated, and those from whom "all the props have been kicked out", because it is lived in the heart of the Church in a way which allows the Church to nurture, govern, and mediate it, because, that is, it is an ecclesial vocation which belongs to the Church before it belongs to any hermit, the vocation requires some church laws and structures including mediatory relationships (Bishop, delegate, Vicars) to assure it is what it is meant to be. 

If one believes one can support the idea of a vocation without law or structure by turning to Paul's writing on Law versus Gospel one has simply not understood Paul's theology or his esteem for both law and the Gospel. At the same time the person you cited seems not to have understood the importance of discerning, embracing, or representing ecclesial vocations if s/he truly believes the Church professes those who seek to " rise above others" or to "rule the roost." This is simply not the reason canonical hermits have chosen (or are admitted to) hidden lives lived in the heart of the Church or lives of marginality and essential insecurity in worldly terms.