Balancing the Cenobitical (Communal) and Solitary dimensions of Diocesan (and Camaldolese) Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, how is it you balance the two aspects of Camaldolese life? I am asking in light of the goals or resolutions you wrote about yesterday. Doesn't your Rule simply tell you what you may and may not do? Thanks.]]

Speaking as a diocesan (solitary canonical) hermit who is also Camaldolese (an oblate), let me begin by saying that discerning what is necessary and what is unnecessary, or what is the apropriate balance between cenobitical and strictly solitary dimensions is first of all, not always easy to achieve. (I read recently that one young monk at a Camaldolese house pronounced it an impossible task!), Also, it is not a solution which is set in stone for all time. That is to say, it is a "balance" which is fluid and dynamic and what works for some time may not work at other periods. Bearing this in mind, I suppose there are two basic approaches one might adopt: the first is to begin with the communal demands and dimensions of one's life and then be sure to build in lots of solitude to counterbalance it. This would be the approach taken by those who treat "solitary life" as a part-time vocation, something married folks could undertake, for instance. More legitimately to my mind, it would also be the basic approach taken by apostolic or active religious in insuring that ministry does not swallow up an inner life. In my own experience however, helpful as this may be in some situations, it does not result in essentially solitary or eremitical life and is not the way to go (for the hermit, that is) except as one needs to intensify the more strictly solitary dimension of one's life because solitude itself calls one to this. (How cenobites should or do approach these matters is another question.)

The second basic approach is to begin with what is called by many hermits, "custody of the cell" and faithfulness to that, modifying it with the communal demands and dimensions necessary for a healthy psycho-spiritual life, as well as to those which one's Rule binds one in obedience (ideally these are largely synonymous). Personally I think this is the better approach since it demands faithfulness to an essentially solitary life, but respects the ways in which that must be modified because of 1) external demands (parish, community, limited ministry, directives of superiors, etc), and 2) internal demands the hermit herself requires either for well-being or as a natural outgrowth of solitude. This latter point (internal demands) is an important one, however, because I think it is the internal demands which must ultimately govern the external ones. What I mean by this is that one cannot really just do a quick (or even complex) calculation of solitary vs communal demands and give 60% (or 75% or 50%) to one and 40% (or 25% or 50%) to the other, for instance. Instead one must look at the reality that defines one primarily (in the life of a hermit it will always be faithfulness to, or perserverence in cell with all that implies re personal encounter with God and personal growth, growth work, etc), and then work out the ways one is called BECAUSE OF THAT FIDELITY, to communal expression and sharing of the fruit of one's solitude.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. In my own life I can draw up a balance sheet between the things which occur outside of the hermitage and the things which occur within it. (In fact, this can come in handy when someone objects that you spend a lot of time outside the hermitage, but when statistically it really adds up to a day or two out of each month. I recently resorted to this as the result of one person's objections to the degree of contact I SEEMED to her to have with others. it put things into new perspective nicely.) But this is only helpful to this very limited degree, and is not a method I ordinarily use. Thus, a few months ago when I decided to take one week per month of strict reclusion, and then eventually changed that (experimentally and temporarily) to ten days per month, it was not a matter of adding up the hours spent in and out of the hermitage and tinkering with those that assisted me. Instead, solitude itself was demanding more time alone with God; my prayer life was demanding it; my time with others and capacity for loving them was demanding it and these demands had to be accommodated.

Similarly, as my life in the parish changes and intensifies, I am faced with various choices (not given in any order of preference but merely to indicate some of the major choices I would need to consider): 1) Do I drop or further limit direction clients in order to meet the challenges coming from the parish ? 2) do I drop other major activities (orchestra, quartets), or 3) Do I cut back on my involvement in the parish or refuse further (more extensive and intensive) involvement? Alternately, do I continue as I am or, do I increase this where asked and/or appropriate? 4) Do I enlist parishioners' aid in meeting needs which take me outside the hermitage regularly, and if so, how often and to what extent? How would I determine such things since most of these activities in varying degrees and ways, are life-giving to me and tend to involve personal commitments which are significant? (I admit having friends/parishioners run errands for me because this is a somewhat difficult part of my life is attractive, but for that very reason, I am not apt to request it unless it is clear this is done BECAUSE the combination of solitude AND life in the parish requires it.)

It seems to me that the way to discern what steps should be taken therefore involve first, being sure that I am completely faithful to "the discipline of the cell" (custody of the cell) apart from these things, and then, determining which of these, and in what way and degree contribute to that, flow from it, or mitigate and disrupt it, etc. Discernment would ALSO include a look at the various ways each of these things challenges and enriches me since it would be possible to choose to drop one thing simply because it was more challenging personally, or more uncomfortable, or simply more difficult to harmonize with some merely exterior idea of eremitical life. While that last criterion might be a telling and genuinely significant one, it also might cause me to let go of something which would be the occasion of greater growth rather than less, so discernment is necessary. (And of course, these are not the only questions I ask in discernment, but they are two of the basic thrusts of my questions.) One of the things which is assumed but not explained here in any depth is the notion of custody of the cell. I can say more about that at another point if you wish. For now let me merely point out that as an instance of Benedictine stability it is not simply about place and commitment to place, but about love of God (and those he cherishes) and obedience to him within the context of this place. In its own way it is as much an interpersonal term as is Benedictine stability.)

As for your second question, I wrote here in the recent past that a Rule was not a list of things to do and not do, and that while such a document is legislative (that is, while it has the force of law), it is more essentially inspirational. Thus the short answer is that generally, no, my Rule does NOT SIMPLY tell me what I must or must not do (especially the latter!) in detailed ways. The above considerations relate directly to this observation. Part of maintaining "balance", as your first question put it, involves reflecting on my Rule and what it calls for, but in discerning what my Rule allows and what I am called to do in regard to it beyond the general requirements of liturgical prayer, lectio, and the like, it is in rereading the sections of it (and by reading I mean lectio or prayerful reading!!) which describe the essence of solitary life for me, and especially the Scriptures or other texts which moved me to embrace this life in the first place that are most helpful.

For instance, it is in reflecting anew on the story of Jesus' post-baptismal sojourn in the desert, what occured there, what led there, and where that led him subsequently that assists me in determining where God is calling me at this point in terms of the two poles of Camaldolese life. Remembering that the Spirit lead him to the desert where he worked to consolidate his baptismal experience and new appreciation of Sonship, and only thereafter moved back into community to minister from this new vantage point is really helpful to me. Likewise, remembering that in all things he was obedient to the Spirit, including in his ministry to others and his returns to solitude, is really helpful. It is not that it tells me precisely what to do in a given situation, but rather it inspires me that the pattern and priorities of my life represent authentic eremitical life and encourages me always to put Daughtership in Christ and growth in that personal identity/being first. Thus, this story is a fundamental and primary part of my Rule of Life, and it functions far better for me than a list of "can's" and "can't's" ever could.

Other parts of my Rule (theology of the eremitical life, place of silence, theology of the vows, etc) function similarly despite there being very few statements of what is or is not allowed me. (This is not to say that a few can's and can't's are not helpful, but only that my own Rule is not generally composed in that way, and functions more to inspire rather than to legislate. There are sections which include concrete guidelines and goals, but again, not lists of things which cannot be done. I think this is a fairly good rule of thumb for all Rules of Life. Constitutions and Statutes, which are necessary for congregations but not for solitary hermits, are a different matter.)

In the same way St Romuald's brief Rule becomes more and more important to me as well, not as a legislative text (though I recognize and respect this dimension of it), but because it is clear Romuald has captured the very essence of eremitical life in this short passage, and that to the degree I am doing what he advises here, discerning what else is legitimate and spirit-driven for me will be much easier. What I am saying here is that St Romuald, despite the fact that he mainly did not LOOK like most people's idea of a hermit for much of his life, lived this Rule profoundly and thus was able to discern what the Spirit wanted from him which flowed FROM this Rule, even if it SEEMED to conflict with it. I trust this Rule and it inspires me (empowers me with a vision of who I am called to be) more than it sets up a legislative calculus of some sort. (See below for a copy of Romuald's Brief Rule.)

One thing I must say about discernment in this matter of balance is that one of the the most basic things I can say about the eremitical life is that it is one of love, love first of all for God, and secondly and integrally, for all that he cherishes. For some it is possible to love God mainly (though not only) through loving others. For the hermit, the truth is the other way around: one loves God first and foremost and to the degree one does this (and allows him to really love us), this love will, in one way and another, spill over to others, demand others and service to them, be called by others, etc. If these demands lead away from the hermitage (and here, assuming a definitive commitment and vocation to eremitical life, I mean more than occasionally and in a way which doesn't lead right BACK to the hermitage as well), or from "custody of the cell" with its personal and interpersonal demands for growth, then something has gone seriously awry and one has made a mistake somewhere along the line. Perhaps then, "balance" is not the best way of describing this matter (though I have used the term myself a number of times). It is perhaps not so much a matter of balance as a creative and dynamic tension between two dimensions which mutually reinforce and call for one another. If one dimension dies, so, perforce, will the other.

You may want a more concrete answer to parts of your questions. Please let me know if this is the case, or if what I have written is less than helpful to you. Meanwhile, here is Romuald's Brief Rule:

Sit in your cell as in paradise.
Put the whole world behind you and forget it.
Watch your thoughts like a good fisherman watching for fish.
The path you must follow is the psalms --- never leave it.
If you have just come to the monastery, and in spite of your good will you cannot accomplish what you want, take every opportunity you can to sing the psalms in your heart and to understand them with your mind.

And if your mind wanders as you read, do not give up; hurry back and apply your mind to the words once more.

Realize above all that you are in the presence of God, and stand there with the attitude of one who stands before the emperor.
Empty yourself completely and sit waiting, content with the grace of God, like the chick who tastes nothing and eats nothing but what his Mother brings him.

News From Transfiguration Monastery!

Sister Donald Corcoran, OSB Cam sent out the Christmas newsletter for Transfiguration monastery recently and the news is generally wonderful and, I think, exciting! First, our postulant (Swannee Edwards) will become a novice in February, while another new Sister has joined the community and is exploring a transfer from a monastery in France. She is Sister Sheila Long, an American Benedictine nun who has spent the last 20 years at the Abbey of Maumont. Both are making a considerable contribution to life at Transfiguration.

Secondly, there have been physical changes around the monastery. In the Fall a new hermitage was constructed. This 14' X 30', simple and beautiful monastic cottage is a piece of a masterplan meant to make the two poles (cenobitical and eremitical) of Camaldolese life and spirituality clear at Transfiguration Monastery. It is the first of several new hermitages planned to match the growth of the community as well as a couple of others for guests and long-term retreatants. A second hermitage may be built in 2009, and other plans include the expansion of the meeting area (present day refectory), additional bathroom facilities and a proper ground level entrance.

Upcoming events at Transfiguration include some short term courses and talks open to the public given by Sister Donald, as well as a visit in the Spring from Sister Pascalina, the superior of the Camaldolese Benedictine house in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. The hope is this will be the first of a series of periodic visits of African Sisters of our congregation. (Swannee Edwards was able to spend some time at the house in Dar Es Salaam during a trip to Africa this year herself.)

And finally, the sad news (I may have posted on this already): in July a co-founder of Transfiguration Monastery, Sister Mary Placid Deliard, OSB Cam, died here in California after a long struggle with illness. Despite the keen loss, Sister Donald writes that Transfiguration already feels the support of her prayers and intercession.

The entire community, asks that you remember Transfiguration in your prayers. It looks to be an exciting time ahead. Sister Donald asks that you check out the website, especially the photo gallery section which (I believe) has been updated. Pictures of the new hermitage, etc, will be forthcoming here as well as soon as those are available. Hopefully I can get a picture in February of the new novice as well! Those of you who are able to get to Transfiguration in Windsor, NY easily, please do check out the schedules of courses and talks Sister Donald will be giving. She is really fine in these with a depth and breadth of knowledge which are impressive. If you can take one or two of these offerings, I hope you will. Also, as I have encouraged before, do consider making a retreat there once the Winter respite is over.

Happy New Year!!

Of course our new year began with Advent, but this is a good time to reflect on what the year has and has not been for us, and in what ways we have met the goals we set or the resolutions we made last January 1st. What God does in each of our hearts bit by bit is astounding. For the hermit it is always the small faithfulnesses which become the really amazing accomplishments. I suspect it is this way with each of us. Everyday "yesses", apparently minor acquiescences to the Spirit of God when we might as easily say yes to something else which may seem every bit as important. The daily ordering of priorities in a way which shapes our hearts, minds, and bodies over time. These are what make us into true Daughters and Sons of the living God, the One who would be incarnate in us.

My own goals this year are similar to those I wrote about last year. They are a continuation of those. My focus is on eremitical stability, what is sometimes called "custody of the cell" and also stability in my parish. Benedictine stability, as I have written before, is an interpersonal term. While it does mean perservering silently in one's cell (or one's monastery), it also implies a commitment to one's community. More about people than simply place, stability is a commitment to love in the circumstances one finds oneself, whether that involves the more solitary communion of the cell, or the love of sisters and brothers one is called to outside as well as within it. These two poles are not always easily balanced (nor are they completely separable!) and I am finding that faithfulness to the first aids in the accomplishment of the second. A second goal or resolution is to do more writing, not only about eremitism, but a bit more systematic theology and Scripture reflection. This will involve this blog, but also other publications.

May our new year be one of genuine peace and fruitfulness. Like Mary in today's Gospel we spend time pondering things in our hearts. What God does there and through us is, as already noted, truly awesome. Out of the barrenness of lives lived from our own strength and wisdom he brings new life, a new creation even, full of infinite possibilities. Sara, Mary, Elizabeth, all of them are models for us in this. We need merely believe and make those small everyday affirmations the Spirit prompts and empowers us to. At the end of another year we will be surprised at the goodness and bounty that has sprung from and within us.

Please forgive me if I reprise the prayer I made last year at this time. I find it especially "timely" (pun intended) given the events in my parish community during the last weeks:

May the God who brings life out of death, meaning out of the senseless, healing out of brokenness, light out of darkness, hope out of despair, and belonging out of lostness, touch our lives this coming year in the ways we each need. May he love us into fullness of existence and transform us into authentic and truly passionate lovers in (and of) Christ. May he bless the time we each have (by) turning chronos to kairos and bringing everything to fullness and perfection in himself. May we be attentive to him in all the times and ways we need to be, allowing the ordinary moments of everyday life to be recognized for what they are in him ---opportunities for the triumph of grace in our world. And may God bless each of us who journey together and touch one another in such diverse ways, whether within our familes, monasteries and congregations, parishes and dioceses, or via internet connections like blogs and message boards!


Peace and all good wishes for the new year from Stillsong Hermitage!!!
Laurel M O'Neal, erem dio.

Christmas at Stillsong

Christmas Morning (1:00 am, 2007 picture) prior to Vigils (Office). I love the way the picture picks up the reflections in the picture glass.




Christmas Night, also prior to Vigils.

In Memoriam, Tom Malanca b: Jan 8, 1940; d: Dec 24, 2008

In the above picture, taken after Christmas eve Mass, 2007, Tom (above) is on the left with his wife Aggie, Sons (John and Robert) and Daughter in Law (Autumn). Today, just one year later, Tom Malanca died of a heart attack after a long and truly courageous struggle with illness. He had just returned from the hospital yesterday and was happy to be home. To say how much St Perpetua parish will miss Tom is impossible. Our celebration of Christmas is bittersweet and we trust that he is celebrating his own truest homecoming during this feast of light. We celebrate with him despite our sadness, for his faith was honest and profound, and he was a man of generosity and integrity of whom, in this season focusing on the Incarnation and our own vocations to incarnate the Word of God, I personally believe God is proud. Echoing the statement at Jesus' baptism, I can easily hear him summing up Tom's life, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased!" Picture Above right: Tom at Son, Rob's, and Daughter in Law, Autumn's, wedding. Picture taken by family.

Singing with the choir at rehearsal, Christmas Eve, 2007, Tom is on the right. Singing was one of the things he truly loved, and as our pastor announced tonight, we trust that now he is singing with the choirs of heaven.

I especially ask that you keep Aggie and the rest of Tom's family in your prayers this Christmas season.

SURPRISE! Christmas Eve Day 2008

(Artist unknown. Credit will be given as possible.)

This evening on Christmas we celebrate the response to God's Word Jesus is and will grow in grace and stature to become. (Remember that Christmas is the Feast of the Nativity and that Incarnation involves the whole of Jesus' life and death.) We should be clear that our own capacity for incarnation is similar to that of Jesus'.

Each of us is called to become an incarnation of the Word of God, though not in the precise sense as Jesus. Each of us is called to be Daughter or Son, a response to the One who calls us to authentic humanity and to be heirs of his own Kingdom, though again, not in a way which obviates Jesus' uniqueness as Incarnate Word. The need to hold together both parts of this paradox is one of the most serious in theology, and one of the most difficult.

It is interesting to consider "what if" questions from time to time, and the question regarding Jesus' gender is one of these. If we cannot at least understand that the Word of God COULD have been definitively incarnated in a woman, if we cannot understand the humor (and seriousness!) of the above cartoon, but instead become offended by it, perhaps we have yet missed the point of Christmas and a God who TRULY comes to us in the unexpected way and place.

Week # 4, Advent 2008

A Little Child Shall Lead Us (Penance Service Reflection)

(Part of the following will be familiar to some readers. I reused a story from the beginning of Advent for my parish's Advent Penance Service. It seemed important to share it there as well as here!)


In Advent we rehearse all the promises of God. It is a time of hope for us, and therefore, also a time of repentance as we get in touch with the hope that lives within us, but which we have often betrayed as well. In particular because of tonight’s readings (Isaiah 11:1-10, Luke 10:21-24) it is a time to look at the ways we have bought into false notions of adulthood and rejected our very best and most childlike selves.

The language we hear from Isaiah, the language of promise and hope is ordinarily the language of power and mighty deeds, breaking the bonds of slavery and returning us from exile, coming to us in powerful and unexpected ways with a love which is stronger than all of the other powers which mark and mar our world. But as we prepare for Christmas we especially mark the paradoxical way in which this occurs: namely in the birth of an infant, the coming of a child who, precisely his weakness and powerlessness, his lack of worldly stature or wisdom, is the hope of the world. Now this is not the way things ordinarily work in the “real” world, some tell us. For this reason today’s readings stress the idea of becoming truly childlike.

It is a childlikeness which involves growth in grace and stature --- as we hear about Jesus’ own growth later in the season. This maturity is what Isaiah is referring to when he says the spirit of the Lord will rest upon this child, a Spirit of Wisdom and understanding, Counsel and Strength. It is what Luke refers to when he contrasts the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of the child. But we must be clear. In growing in grace and stature Jesus does not relinquish his childlikeness, he allows it to develop even further as he becomes the Son his Father needs him to be living here among us. He lives FOR others in the power of his Father's love. He is a person of character (STATURE), of deep and true humanity. In his dependence upon God he embodies a Sonship , a childlikeness which is a model and challenge to us.

After all, as Luke reminds us, we too are each to become as little children, persons who are wise in the ways of God and loving in the way of Christ so that we too may guide our church and world in the ways of true peace and holiness. But this is actually not an easy thing to achieve sometimes. Our culture often encourages us to let go of and betray our childlikeness which is at the heart of who we really are. It encourages us to grasp at something else --- a worldy wisdom that often passes for growing up, but which has nothing whatever to do with growth in grace and stature Christians expect of themselves. And quite often we buy into this --- literally!!

Let me give you a picture of what this BETRAYAL of the hope and call which lives in us might look like. On one TV series I saw earlier this year 15 year olds embodied the very worst characteristics of what sometime passes for adulthood in our society: unbridled greed, undisciplined affluence, unmitigated self-centeredness, arrogance, and unrestrained consumerism --- (among other things).

In the segment I saw, an adolescent girl was, as the name and subject of the show itself indicates, being given a Sweet sixteen party. The whole shebang cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars as parents rented a huge venue, limousines, hundreds of guests, etc. In preparing for the party the girl had a designer come in with a selection of clothes to show her. And she RAGED at him: “How DARE you show such clothes to me! Who do you THINK you ARE? WHO DO YOU THINK I AM???? I wouldn’t be caught DEAD in such rags!! Later she went to look at cars. She chose the most expensive agency and car she could find and sat in it posturing for the photographer, looking in the various mirrors, etc: She then exclaims, “I LOOK GOOD in this; if I say I want it, my Mother will buy it for me!”

As far as I can tell, the whole series uses kids like this and models a set of values which distort young people into something hardly recognizable as either childhood OR true adulthood ---- and it is something which is actually repellent, for it is a betrayal of genuine childlikeness and maturity. (For that matter, it doesn’t do much to model genuine parenthood either, does it??)

In particular, the notion that these young people are to be gifts to our world has never even occurred to them. Instead everything is there to serve and gift THEM, and nothing is either sufficient or good enough. They are like adolescent infants sucking hungrily on a bottle marked "SELFISHNESS, GREED, AND INGRATITUDE" and then expecting everyone else to change the diapers they still wear for them and to love doing it.

I am pretty sure the young people on this show are not the kind of young people Isaiah had in mind when he said "a little child marked with the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, Strength and Counsel will guide us" in the way of peace and freedom. They are certainly not the kind of young persons Luke was speaking of who give hope to our world. Just the opposite in fact. I found this portrait of affluent teenage really sad and discouraging. No growth in grace or stature here! No hope for the world here from a Child who will give herself for others in a life of love and genuine maturity!

But those who ARE the hope of the world do exist, and as we all know, they exist right here in our own parish. While at Mass and giving out Communion a couple of weeks ago, a little girl approached me with her Father. She was too young to receive Communion so I bent down to greet and bless her. As I did, she slipped a small folded square of paper into my hand. . .when I had time to look at it what I found was the name Jesus on the outside and a drawing of this little girl with a big smile on her face and her arms wide offering Jesus a hug. This young girl, without status in our world, and not even old enough to receive Communion yet brought herself to God’s altar as a gift. She has already grown in grace and the kind of stature Luke wants from each of us. On that day at least, she was the embodiment of Christmas and Advent for me. She was the hope of our parish, our church, and our world.




As I said in the beginning, Advent is a time of hope. But it rests on the tension between already and not yet. Christ has come to us already and we will celebrate this at Christmas, but to “come again”, he needs we who are part of his own BODY to truly embody him ourselves. That is, we are to become true daughters and sons of God and everything we are and do is to reflect (on) him.

Tonight we pause on the journey to repent not only of the times when we have failed to hope, but for all those times and ways we have failed to be the signs of hope our families, friends, church, and our world need so badly. We pause to attend to the places of darkness (greed, selfishness, ingratitude, etc) within us as we journey to the feast of Light --- i.e., the times we have truly betrayed and rejected the child within us, the adult child we are truly called to become. We pause to recommit ourselves to the unique growth in grace and stature that Jesus models for us and the world calls foolish and rejects.

To that end I encourage you to let THIS little child in the second story guide you in the ways of Christ. Let her be your model of true adulthood, of what one becomes when there is real maturity. She has certainly been my guide this Advent. Now, in doing this you and I will likely never get to star in a TV program, but we will be gifts to the world and stars in the Kingdom of God --- perhaps the very gifts and stars that are synonymous with hope and which lead others to the place where Jesus is to be found.

Canon 603 as Male Counterpart of Canon 604?

[[Hi Sister O'Neal. Is it the case that Canon 603 is the male counterpart of Canon 604? I read recently that that was the case, but you are professed under Canon 603, right? So, how can that be? Are males admitted to consecration under Canon 604? Is there a male option similar to Canon 604 if they are not?]]

Hi there. I read the same thing about a year ago in a newspaper article about the consecration of virgins citing an associate professor of religious studies at a Catholic college. The passage read: [[While men wishing to affirm their vows of celibacy cannot be consecrated virgins, they can become diocesan hermits, a lay group of men similar to the consecrated virgins said (name), associate professor of theology. The archbishop has the power to deny this sacrament from candidates who he may not deem mature or independent enough. . .(name), said.]]

Assuming the paper is citing accurately (and I am not sure they are), it is an astounding mistake (or series of mistakes!) to make, not only because Canon 603 is used to profess AND CONSECRATE hermitesses or female hermits, but also because the life governed by Canon 603 is vastly different than that of Canon 604 (Consecrated virginity). I suppose there are some stereotypes about hermits that suggest they are male, but history disproves this from the very first years of the Desert Fathers and MOTHERS. So, the notion that men become hermits and women become consecrated virgins is just silly. Also, calling this consecration (Canon 604) a Sacrament is misleading and just plain wrong. So is referring to canon 603 men as lay hermits when they are consecrated hermits and so, no longer lay in the vocational sense of that word. (These particular errors convince me that the paper is not citing accurately here for the professor associated with the comments is knowledgeable about consecrated life and would not, I don't think, make such egregious errors!)

As for Canon 604 itself, no, men cannot be admitted to this consecration. Perhaps that seems unfair, but the canon represents a recovery of the very ancient Order of Virgins from the first years of the Church (men were generally called ascetics) and at this point the Church, despite discussing doing so has not opened this or a similar vocation to men. Today also, Canon 604 is for women in the world despite the fact that a version of the Rite is for nuns at solemn profession who are called to a strictly contemplative life; CV's living in the world (saeculum) may be drawn to contemplative prayer, but generally their entire lives as such are not separated from the world (meaning mainly that which is resistant to Christ and only secondarily to the saeculum and God's good creation) and involve direct apostolic service to the church and to the world to a much greater degree than a hermit's can ever do; nor are they therefore strictly contemplative.

Further, their vocation, no matter the tenor and intensity of their prayer lives, is not primarily characterized canonically as the hermit life is by stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance. What I mean is these are NOT the defining characteristics of the life of the consecrated virgin living in the world per se. Instead, what defines their lives is a consecration by God and a commissioning to serve God and his Church in the things of the spirit and the things of the world as paradigms of the Church as eschatological Bride of Christ. Neither do consecrated virgins make vows (chastity as a commitment is affirmed in the Rite of consecration itself but is not a vow), nor do they necessarily live according to a Rule of Life they write as do diocesan hermits.

Finally, as relatively uncommon as it still is today and will probably always be, consecrated virginity is much less rare a vocation than the eremitical call. Setting the two off against each other as male and female counterparts --- especially since there are female hermits --- completely neglects this reality. The comments cited above make it sound as if any male who wishes to consecrate his virginity in the service of God and his Church simply needs to approach a diocese about consecration and profession under Canon 603, never mind all the distinctions between the two calls. I suppose that is what is most frustrating about the comments cited. They show no sense at all that these two vocations are different in character and charism. It is for this reason the Church needs both --- not because they are male and female counterparts of one another, but because they are distinct vocations witnessing to different realities.

Diocesan Hermits and Lay Hermits, Once Again

[[ Are diocesan hermits lay hermits? I read recently that they were.]]

Hi, thanks for the question. I have answered it (at least indirectly) several times here, and will do so briefly again. Do check other posts on this matter (see the tags at the bottom of the post). Also, I hope that I can include a bit of new information which explains how confusion can arise. The short answer though is no, they are not.

The longer answer goes a little like this. By diocesan hermits I am referring to those who have been perpetually professed under Canon 603 and consecrated in that rite of profession. Consecration in such circumstances initiates one into or "raises one" to the consecrated state (again apologies, but this use of raises is the verb most often used; I prefer initiates one into, but this is something I am trying on for size and there may be a better term without the elitist conntations of "raised"). As the Church affirms in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the consecrated state is per se, neither clerical nor lay even though some members may ALSO be clerics. Now it is true that other and earlier church documents (especially from Vatican II) use a different schema: clerical or lay. Using THIS schema religious life is lay life because it is not clerical. However, since 1983 the schema we are using recognizes the consecrated state as neither lay nor clerical, and this means that all forms of consecrated life [religious, eremitical (Canon 603), consecrated virginity (Canon 604)] are not lay.

Eremitical life may therefore be lay or consecrated. That is, one may make private vows (or other commitments) and live one's eremitical life as a lay person, or one may make public vows and be subject to the ecclesial consecration associated with the consecrated state. There are positive and negative aspects to either arrangement, and despite huge overlaps in the life's nature ( a life of greater separation from the world, silence, solitude, prayer and penance), there are differences in witness, accountability, expectations, and charism. Diocesan hermits, however, are not laity or "lay hermits," but instances and representatives of the consecrated state of life. At the same time, diocesan hermits are not religious in the sense that they are not vowed within a community even if they come together to support one another in a Laura or Lavra. (Canonists call them religious however, and note that this word now applies to those without a link to a community or congregation. cf Handbook on Canons 573-746). Thus, it seems to me that it would be a mistake to call them lay hermits simply because they are not religious in the former sense (or clerics usually). I suspect that what you read was a statement by someone using the older or alternate schema instead of the one represented in the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law.

Hope this helps.

Renunciation and Trust

[[You wrote that at bottom renunciation is really about trust. Can you say more about that please?]]

Sure, I am glad to, though I don't time to answer more than briefly. If you consider the context of my comments you know that I was talking about letting go of distractions, things that draw our attention away from the Word of God that sounds in the depths of our own being, and from the various feelings and sensations which rise up in our hearts when we are truly silent and refuse to distract ourselves in all the ways our culture offers us. (Distractions can anesthetize as well as merely diverting our attention from.) I was speaking about renouncing the kinds of things which prevent an experience in the desert from being a true desert experience, that is, an experience of being vulnerable and completely dependent upon God for the meaning and security of our lives.

The reasons we hang onto things seems to me to be about security, comfort, status, and meaning, as well as the distraction they provide from the struggles and difficult emotional dimensions of life. The latest electronic gadget may say that we "have arrived," whether in our careers, or just in keeping up with the Joneses or with advances in technology ("I need to be at the forefront here; it says I am knowlegeable and technologically savvy. I have important needs which these things symbolize and serve, and which other people don't really have --- and, after all, I can afford these where some cannot!" is one set of reasons, often unarticulated which we use to justify the latest acquisition). Similarly, we may need the larger and newer TV set or iPod, or whatever because media use distracts us from the demands and call of our own inner lives. We may keep UPS delivery folks busy with our purchases from Amazon despite the fact that we have not read what we already have because we are insecure, or bored, or struggling with depression and a new book (or anything else) relieves the symptoms temporarily. The same may be true with any shopping compulsion, the constant need for new clothes and the like. These are just a few of the kinds of things I was referring to in my earlier post.

Possessions become extensions of ourselves. They become sophisticated security blankets except that they also say that we are important or educated or affluent where childhood security blankets do not. They make us a little less naked it seems to us, a little less poor, a little less vulnerable because they comfort us, and a little less empty if, and to the extent, our hearts and lives are devoid of ultimate love and meaning. But as we heard in today's first reading, the inability to bear the anxiety and vulnerability of being naked selves gets us into all kinds of trouble. In today's passage from Genesis Adam realizes he is naked and becomes self-conscious. As a result, he hides from God and sins in the attempt to be more than he actually is. His heart is filled with anxiety and thoughts of himself and he no longer walks with God in the simple trust he was created for. For all of us this option is fundamental: we can either stand naked before God and trust in his love for us, or, because of anxiety and self-consciousness, we can cover ourselves with fig leaves (and all the more sophisticated contemporary equivalents in material possessions, status, etc.) and hide from him and ourselves.

If we can let go of the things we ordinarily cling to to comfort us and mitigate our "nakedness" and vulnerability we will need to turn to God instead. We will need to trust him and the sense his love makes of our lives. We will be challenged to come to terms with the emptinesses and wounds which afflict our hearts, and allow God to comfort and heal us as he wills. We will need, that is, as this season says so well, to learn to wait on him with open hands and hearts dependent and childlike. Renunciation itself signals our willingness to trust all things to God. It allows us to stand before him in all of our human poverty and discover where out true wealth lies. This was what I was referring to in my original posts on desert experiences, retreats, etc. So, a very brief outline of the dynamics of possession and renunciation which I hope explains why I suggested renunciation was, at bottom, a matter of trust. As always, please let me know if this raises more questions or leaves something obvious unaddressed.

Second Sunday of Advent, 2008

iPods, Technology, Retreat, and desert Experiences

[[Is it wrong for a person to have iPods and other technological conveniences? How about taking them on retreat? Is that wrong?]]



No, there is nothing wrong with iPods, laptops, or other conveniences in themselves. I hope I didn't give that impression in the posts I wrote on desert experiences! Someone else kidded me about something similar after reading them. Neither is it wrong to bring them on retreat depending on the use one makes of them of course. It is not even wrong to have these things as a hermit, and they can add greatly to the richness of one's prayer life. In the scenarios I drew a post or two ago (assuming your questions come from reading those) I somewhat overstated the differences between the two scenarios. I could have pointed out that the woman in the second scenario had an iPod with her as well, and used it at various points to assist with her prayer for instance. She has Morning and Evening Prayer settings from various artists and monasteries, a number of recordings of psalms and other liturgical or Christian music, and she uses these as appropriate to enhance prayer, but NOT to distract from the silence or from the feelings and sensations that rise up within her in solitude.

For instance, if she uses a laptop for journaling routinely, then that too is completely acceptable and CAN help enhance the desert experience, but if she is linking up to the internet, reading email, shopping on Amazon, etc, then that is another matter entirely. The same is true with a cell phone: it is good to have for emergencies, but otherwise should be left unused or even turned off. I think you understand what I am trying to describe here, right?

Retreats are meant to allow a person to have a desert experience. They are ordinarily designed to let a person sink into the silence and solitude and to listen to all that their hearts give voice to in such an environment. If anxiety and tension occur, bits of "cabin fever," boredom, and the like surface, then retreats invite a person to deal with these in prayer and in other ways one is not really used to (for instance, a quiet walk around the grounds instead of a trip to the mall, or without turning to the usual distractions), as well as to get some spiritual direction if that seems appropriate. Silence and the relative solitude of the retreat are lifegiving realities, as are the ordered days, the time away from ordinary responsibilities, etc. One should simply take advantage of all this as best one can. However, doing so may also mean sleeping a bit more than one is ordinarily able to, reading a bit of fiction here and there, listening to a bit of music, etc. One simply needs to discern what really serves one best here, that is, what allows the retreat to be what one's heart, mind, and body need at the time (and what one needs is what God wills for one, by the way)!

Personally, I would draw the line at bringing along a TV set (I am mainly kidding here since I doubt anyone actually would, but the example in my story included an RV with a TV set, so I am mentioning that -- and no movies on CD either for viewing on laptops!!) The rules for retreat are pretty general and simple. Take what you need to be comfortable and travel light. Trust that the retreat house or center generally has what you need (reading material, CD's, etc), and try to believe that God really does provide. Ordinarily that means he provides himself, and retreats are times and spaces set aside so that God may really have access to you he does not get otherwise. He is always knocking, always calling, but ordinarily there is simply too much noise, whether internal or external, for us to listen well. So the general rules of retreat "stuff" basically boil down to, "whatever helps you hearken (listen and respond)" in all the ways you are called.

Again, the scenarios I drew in the last posts were not meant to condemn modern conveniences or technology. However, there is no doubt that these things can and often do mitigate desert experiences. Hence, I will ask directees to put the iPod away more even if they are using it to listen to Christian music. I do the same thing myself and what I see and hear is vastly different when I am listening to an iPod while taking a walk, than when I am not listening to music. Desert experiences come in a variety of depths and intensities. So long as one is doing the will of God (again, taking care of our truest needs), and being sensitive to the retreat environment for others, limited use of technology can enhance the experience rather than detract and distract from it. One caveat however, since it is easy to rationalize and fool ourselves in this matter, one would do better to err on the side of caution and forego whatever one can.

At bottom desert experiences are about taking time with God to consolidate and deepen our identities as daughters and sons --- just as Jesus did, and, in becoming the People of God, just as Israel did in their extended time there. We do this by attending to God and our relationship with him in a way which makes us heirs and prophets of HIS Kingdom instead of the others at hand. If technology assists in this to some limited extent, then well and good. Otherwise, leave it at home! (The very fact that you do this is an act of renunciation and trust (because that is really what renunciation is about at bottom) which will help initiate you into a true desert experience long before you arrive on retreat.)

Off to the MAGIC Kingdom!

Well, I will be blogging from time to time as possible, but for the next three days I am spending time with my sister and we are going to Disneyland! It is one of those places I have not been to for years so the chance to see it again with my sister and reminisce about growing up, memories of Disneyland, etc is one I have looked forward to for a while now. Seems like a good way to start Advent as well! Pictures of the trip to follow.

It's a Small World done up for Christmas is truly amazing; much of the ride is changed and Christmas Carols are added to the signature song.

Wooden soldiers in the Christmas parade starting in front of It's a Small world.


More to come!

Sunday, Week 1, Advent 2008, A Little Child Shall Lead Us!

This morning (1st Sunday of Advent) I served as an EEM for one of the Masses. It is something I usually only do to fill in when someone else can't come for one reason and another, but I love doing it because of the unique dynamics of sharing and worship involved. Today a Father and Daughter appproached me, and the child was too young for Communion so she expected a word and gesture of "blessing". As I smiled at her and reached down to do that she slipped a small folded square of paper into my hand. Surprised and touched I looked at it very briefly, thanked her, wished her a wonderful season, and put the paper in the pocket of my habit beneath my cowl. I gave her Father, who smiled as he watched all this, Communion, and finished with the rest of this service.

Before I went back to my place though, I reached into my pocket and pulled out the little square of paper. For the first time I saw that it had "Jesus" printed on the front. This little girl clearly knew who THIS was supposed to go to and I guess she figured I could deliver it! When I opened it I saw that the she had drawn a picture of herself smiling with arms outstretched. In approaching God's altar she had brought herself as a gift. It was the most incredible little "love note" I have ever seen, and it is precisely what Advent (or Christian life more generally) is all about.

When I got home I looked ahead to Tuesday's readings because we will have a Communion service that morning due to our Pastor's need to celebrate a funeral Mass elsewhere and the illness of our other resident priest. Imagine how I felt when I saw that Tuesday's Gospel was from Luke (Lk 10:22) and is the continuation of the passage where Jesus criticizes trusting the intelligence and sophistication of the world and tells his disciples they should become as little children! "The things of God are hidden from the wise and learned and revealed to the childlike." Well, the miracle I had just experienced is what he is speaking of: coming to Jesus without self consciousness, aware that anything is possible (including a hermit delivering a child's love note to Jesus!), and ready to give oneself and one's gifts, no matter how humble or silly in worldly terms, to become Christ for others, part of the Cosmic Christ no matter our apparent insignificance: it is to these that God's power will really be revealed. It is these IN WHOM God's power will be revealed to us! Afterall, we are the ones who celebrate that God himself could and did reveal himself exhaustively to us in human flesh. We are the foolish ones who believe that evident in the infant Jesus is the awesome power of a love which dwarfs and overcomes all other powers in our world and will indeed heal and perfect the whole of creation! We are the ones who believe that our's is indeed a God whose power (i.e., his sovereign, merciful, and infinitely creative love) is perfected, not mitigated, in weakness.

Now, before I received this precious love note we had just listened to a homily on being open to God acting in awesome and surprising ways and at unexpected times. The presider and homilist encouraged us to set aside our agendas and, as the Scriptures asked, to be aware and watchful: expect the unexpected, be open to the sovereign, Creator God who comes in surprising ways and meets us in the unexpected place. Well, I had expected to meet God there in the Eucharist, but I had not expected to receive a small and wonderful miracle like this: a living homily, an enacted parable, which itself was far more powerful than the priest or any theologian, with all their theological learning and sophistication could have given. As Jesus implicitly asks of us on Tuesday, setting the tone and agenda for Advent, "become as little children" for, as Isaiah tells us in the first lection, "a little child shall lead (us)". I encourage you to let the image of THIS little one in Christ -- whose name I do not yet even know -- lead you. It is certainly what I am going to do. Afterall, she writes love letters to Jesus and approaches God's altar to faithfully entrust them to hermit nuns for delivery when she is not yet even allowed to receive Communion! She understands Christmas and the reason for Advent completely. She embodied it perfectly at that moment. Standing before the altar of God she WAS the gift she was made to be; is there any doubt that God was absolutely delighted as he contemplated this pure instance of his Kingdom fulfilled right here and now?

P.S. the note resides in the Tabernacle here at Stillsong for the time being. My littlest homilist and living parable wanted it delivered, and, in more ways than this of course, delivered it has been!

Happy Thanksgiving!!

This is one of those really special days for Americans, where we pause and give thanks for all that we have and can aspire to as the result of our liberty as citizens of the United States. For me it is a joyfilled day because God has been so very good to me in so many ways. My life is rich with friends, love, meaning, and genuine freedom. In particular though, it is rich in the presence of God in a solitude which is full, empowering, and challenging. I am grateful beyond telling for this vocation and the freedom to respond to it. So many people have brought me to this place. . . ! I wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving Day. May you celebrate well the gifts and callings you have been given by God.

Loneliness With Others: A Sign of an Eremitical Vocation?

[[Sister, if a person is lonely when they are with others, can this be a sign they are called to deeper solitude or maybe even to be a hermit?]]

Great question! I would have to say no, the chances are much better that this points to the need for inner work on one's capacity for and in relationships. We can be feeling lonely because we simply do not connect with others, for instance, or because there is something going on in us which keeps us self-centered and angry or unhappy, because we are unable to be truly vulnerable in the way the situation calls for, etc. If we are not really at home with ourselves we can feel this acutely when we are with others, but then we can mistake it for a sign that we are called to greater solitude and even to eremitical solitude.

So, the feeling of loneliness in a group I think is a signal to ask ourselves some serious questions and take some time do do some significant inner work, whether we do that with the aid of a therapist, a spiritual director, or simply our own journal. Some questions could include: what other feelings is this "loneliness" composed of? (This is one of the most important questions I think. Loneliness is often a complex constellation of feelings and it can help to identify what is actually going on. Thus, for instance, I can feel loneliness in one situation that is different from the loneliness I feel in a different situation. In the first I am anxious and ill at ease, in the second I am sad and tired. In a third I can simply desire to share something on a level which the group does not allow for. When I look at these experiences the roots of the feelings are actually very different. Only the third MIGHT signal the person has a call to eremitical life, and it might be correct to call this feeling something other than loneliness.) Other questions could include, when did I start feeling this way? When else have I felt this way? Am I afraid to be close to others? What happens when I try? Do I feel vastly different from these others (whether superior OR inferior, both are important)? Where does that come from? In any case, there are innumerable questions which might come up. The point is that the experience you describe is likely a sign that one needs to do some serious inner work with regard to relationships.

There are a number of stereotypes which affect the way people think about hermits. One of these is that hermits are loner types who are uncomfortable in groups of people. While it is true that stories of hermits have their share of "gruff anti-social personalities," the truth is that in general hermits are quite comfortable with themselves and therefore with others. They are capable of delighting in the time away from the hermitage and in social gatherings. They know full well that the world they are called to greater separation from is as much a part of their inner being as it is reality outside of themselves. Thus, if they are alienated from others to some degree they also know it is likely that they are alienated from themselves and God first --- so much so that a large piece of the loneliness they feel may come from the very center of themselves, not from the external situation per se --- and this calls for inner work. After all, eremites are not escaping the demands of love, nor are they trying to fill (or avoid) a hole at the center of their being. Instead they are answering a call to a special kind of love, first of God and then of all that he cherishes.

Followup Questions: Urban hermits and married hermits

[[Do your last two posts mean that you don't believe a person living in a city can live as a hermit? And why can't married people be hermits?]] (cf Married Diocesan Hermits and Nicolas of Flue)

Thanks for the questions. Let me see if I can clarify what I have written already. Regarding the first query, no, not at all. I have written about urban hermits in the past, about the unnatural solitudes of the cities Thomas Merton referred to and I believe very much that one can live as a hermit in such solitudes. (Of course I do that myself so it would be hard to believe it could not be possible.) In fact I believe it is important to do so so that people who have no choice BUT to live in such places and alone in all the ways cities and contemporary life imposes, can have a sense that such aloneness can be redeemed. That said, let me point out once again that some hermits DO believe that the term urban hermit is an oxymoron, and while I understand why they say so and agree that certain elements of the natural wilderness cannot be replicated here, I continue to disagree with their basic conclusion. My choice of setting in the stories I told in the other two posts was made simply to make it easier to illustrate a point. I could have used an urban setting, but it would have made the illustration more difficult.

Remember that I began discussing whether there could be part-time hermits. By that I did not mean someone who lives in solitude for a number of weeks or months and then travels to give retreats or something similar for a while, and who then returns to solitude. Neither did I mean hermits who may come together to pray Office, or celebrate Mass with others in their community during their day only again to return to their hermitage between times. These are both true expressions of eremitical life. What I was referring to by "part-time 'hermits'" were people who build a degree of solitude into their day, or week, but whose identity is not defined by that solitude, either because they are wives and mothers (or full-time teachers, etc), or because they merely go off to solitude "on holiday" at the end of the week or something similar --- and yes, I have heard both kinds of people describe themselves as hermits and insist they are right to do so.

What this discussion led to was a description of the difference between an experience of the desert and a true desert experience (there is a spectrum here, by the way). It also led to the assertion that a hermit is by definition a solitary, one who ultimately has only God to depend on and who chooses this identity because it is the way to human maturity and wholeness for her. Now, it may be that the urban hermit lives in a comfortable apartment, with books and stereo and maybe even a TV and computer. However, to the extent these are distractions or hinderances to her solitude, she will either forego or get rid of them. The urban solitary is always open to being called to greater poverty, greater reclusion, greater inner and outer solitude. She makes the renunciations required to be truly alone with and dependent upon God, and also to grow as profoundly as God wills and invites. But one must be a solitary. This is the sine qua non of hermit life, even life in a Laura or under the mentorship of an elder hermit. In contrast, it is not possible to renounce one's children or husband when one has a vocation to marriage and motherhood, nor to change the relationship to one of "just" two monks sharing their solitude, etc. Husband and Wife are one flesh, and the children are the fruit of that marriage; nothing changes that.

In pointing to married people becoming "one flesh" we have pointed out what defines them as people --- as "for others". By definition they are NOT solitaries. They give themselves totally to one another, body and soul out of love. They come to God together, and are called to bring one another to God. In all things they belong to one another, and are meant to. This is their God-given vocation and it is of immense significance and value. As noted, their children, if they have children, share in the dynamic of unity and themselves are brought to God in this way. The members of the family will certainly have desert experiences throughout their lives together, times of illness, dysfunction, bereavement, loss, but they are ALL in this together and that remains true even while one is off at work, or others are off at school. Thus, they will fall back on one another, and yes, on God, but they are not solitaries --- as lonely as they may feel from time to time. They live from, with, and for each other, and their relationship with God is a part of the way in which they are from and for one another. They share a family life and that remains true no matter if mom spends solitary prayer time during the day, dad spends solitary prayer time in the evening, or kids spend solitary time in their rooms or out in the driveway playing basketball.

As I suggested before, every person SHOULD build a certain degree of solitude (both inner and outer) into their days; that is only normal and good for personal and spiritual growth. Simply because a person does this does not make her a hermit, however. In the situation I am describing this person has wedded another, created new life with that person, and lives with and for her family. Even her time in solitude anticipates their return or includes them in ways that differ from people in the parish she may hold in her heart. The chores she does she does for and --- even if they are not physically present -- with them; the errands she runs she runs for and with them --- even if she is physically alone or prays and offers all this for various intentions. And of course, this is as it should be for this IS her vocation. Just as I have renounced certain things in order to truly be a hermit, so a woman who embraces marriage gives up certain other vocational possibilities as well: eremitical life is, by definition, one of these.

The hermit is in a very different position. Yes, she ordinarily has a parish community, and yes, they do indeed support her in her vocation. She may have relatively close friends in this parish (though no one she can actually hang out or spend extended time with), and the parish may certainly be "family" in the usual way we use that term of communities. But, when she leaves Mass, or the Cinco de Mayo parish dinner, or the Confirmation celebration, she returns to the hermitage where she is alone with God, and where she will sink further and further again into that special aloneness which constitutes the eremitical life. She continues to hold all the parish in her heart, and she replays and reflects on shared events in her mind to share with God, or she journals about them because they touched her and challenged her, but, apart from Christ, there is no spouse nor are there children to truly share her heart with in an ongoing way --- or in the way children natually occupy a Mother's heart. She has given up the right to these and this renunciation is part of her desert or solitary experience. If she is ill, she deals with this herself, if errands need running in the main she does the same again because this is who she is and who she has chosen to be. If it sounds lonely, in some ways it is, but it is never a malignant loneliness, never an anguishing to be with others, etc, for the truth is God is there, always and everywhere, and the hermit knows this and is consoled by it even when she does not experience God's presence.

Again, there are MANY MANY people in this world and in our church who live alone. Their spouses have died, their children have moved away, illness isolates them even further and claims more and more of their energy and time while as a result their lives seem to make little or no sense. These people have no choice about their solitariness. Nor is it a part-time or casual reality, but instead is something impacting them at every moment of the day and night --- even when they are visiting others. For these people the eremitical life might be really significant as a way to redeem their isolated solitariness (that is, with God's grace it can be a way of transforming this into a meaningful wholeness and communion). Solitude is not the same as isolated solitariness, although it might start there. But for this redemption to happen, we cannot allow the vocation to be co-opted and effectively emptied of meaning by those who are not even single, much less solitary --- those who still have a husband with whom they are raising a family, for instance. We cannot allow the term to be co-opted and thus emptied of meaning by those who are weekend-'hermits' in the same way there are "weekend-contemplatives," or "weekend parents" and thus empty the terms contemplative or parent of meaning.

I know I have repeated myself in this post, and perhaps it is simply redundant, but I don't know how to make the point clearer. Perhaps it would help if I described more what solitary existence is like and how it differs from marriage. Perhaps I need to go further into the theology of marriage vs the theology of solitary (eremitical) life --- especially in terms of eschatological significance. I suspect I really need to say more about contemplative life per se and too about how it is that the eremitical life culminates in a nuptial or spousal relationship with God that really does not allow for marriage to another. Finally, I have not really written at all about the dangers of using solitude to escape from the demands of community --- something hermits living in community recognize as a significant danger (as is using community to escape the demands of solitude --- something I have referred to already in recent posts); I suspect it is an even more acute danger in marriage. I will think about that. In the meantime, I hope this helps with your questions. Please get back to me if it does not help or raises more queries.

Followup Questions, Experience of the desert vs desert experience

[[Hi Sister. You have written that hermit life is flexible, but at the same time you seem to want to rule out part-time hermits. You also distinguish between desert experiences and experiences in the desert. I sort of get what you are saying here but I am not sure I see the importance.]]

Yes, eremitical life is flexible, that is each individual hermit needs to work out her own needs for sacraments, work, prayer, study, rest and recreation. She also needs to work out when and where community can be part of her days, what kind, and how it is she compensates for or balances this. Further, hermits who are "night persons" may use a somewhat different horarium than a hermit who is not a night person, and this is true even if one lives in a Laura of hermits. However, there remain certain elements in each hermit's life which are non-negotiable: stricter separation from the world, a LIFE of silence and solitude (and more, the silence OF solitude), assiduous prayer and penance. While she is not a recluse (usually at least), she IS a SOLITARY (something which BY DEFINITION conflicts with the notion of being married, by the way).

The significance of the distinction between an experience of the desert and a desert experience might be clearer, so let me try to make that so. Suppose a person goes into the desert with all her camping equipment, her RV, cell phone, TV, Stereo, etc. She drives into the desert and noticing the beginnings of a rise in temperature, cranks up the AC immediately; when she arrives at her destination she finds a suitable campground with amenities, and plugs in the RV. She sets out her chair and begins to sense the vastness of the place, the feeling of the air, the hugeness of the horizon, and her own insignificance in all of this. She takes a walk and for a while these impressions continue to speak to her in some way, but it is an uncomfortable experience. So, she takes out her iPod and turns it on to a favorite tune, one she listens to all the time at home. Immediately, the desert fades somewhat, the memories of home and all that is familiar resurface. She is still alone, but She has opted out of the desert experience, at least for the time being. Later, when she has eaten and the cold has set in and the fire died down, she spends a little more time looking at stars she never sees at home, but before long this too becomes a bit overwhelming and she feels somewhat uneasy, though she cannot put her finger on why that is. Besides, she thinks, there are animals preying about now, and bugs everywhere, so she goes into the RV shuts the door on her surroundings, takes a shower, climbs into a warm and comfy bed, turns on the TV set and forgets about all the desert itself. Soon she is asleep. Once again, she has opted out of the desert experience (and to some extent even out of an experience of the desert).

Note that despite the fact that she is alone and God is all around as well as within in no way is she really alone with God. While she begins to experience the awesomeness of the desert and also what calls to her there (the feelings of uneasiness or discomfort), she refuses to listen to these and distracts herself in various ways. She insulates herself from the desert experience, distances herself from her feelings and does not listen to God either within her heart or without. SO, there is physical solitude (there is no other living person around), but it is hardly an experience of solitude, much less eremitical solitude.

Imagine instead though that she arrives in a small car with cooking gear, sleeping bag, hiking gear and sturdy clothes, a journal, lantern, a book of psalms, and a New Testament. She sets up camp, sits quietly until the awesomeness of the setting touches her, and meditatively reads an account of Jesus in the desert while being sure to stay in touch with the sense of the awesomeness of her surroundings, and also her own solitude with God as she does so. Feeling a bit uneasy and restless, she puts on a jacket, gets a canteen, a compass and a bit to eat for later and sets out on a hike during which she drinks in her surroundings and continues to let the feelings that began to arise in camp intensify and speak to her. When she returns to camp, she chants a psalm, sits quietly meditating and attending to all that happens; then she pulls out her journal and begins to write. Later she prays again, lights a fire and cooks some dinner. She cleans up, watches the stars with God, considers the animals that are out there just beyond the light and warmth of the fire, prays in thanksgiving, but also with a sense of her insignificance and in supplication, slowly rereads the text on Jesus in the desert, commits herself into God's hands and climbs into her tent and sleeping bag to sleep. The next day will look very much the same except that the silence and solitude will continue to work on her heart and uncover darkness, fears, insecurities, difficult memories, and some joys she has lost touch with. She will deal with them in just the same way, and go to sleep to prepare for another day which will also look very much the same as those preceding it. There is nothing here to distract her from all of this. As her supplies dwindle she will use them even more sparingly and she will plan for a trip to a store to replenish what she needs. When she returns, she will settle in once again, and continue as before.

In the first situation I described, what I tried to show was the difference between a greatly moderated or mitigated experience of the desert (for it could have been vastly richer and more intense) and a desert experience itself . In the second the accent was on a desert experience per se, though clearly the woman involved also experienced the desert itself in a greatly less-mitigated and more intense way than in the first scenario. (Note that this experience was also mitigated, however. The woman had sufficient clothes, shelter, food, water, etc, so as not to feel completely at the mercy of the elements and God's mercy.) Despite the necessary overlap there can be a vast difference between the two, and between the types of solitude experienced. In the first scenario the woman was physically alone but hardly experiencing an inner solitude. Instead she resisted this and distracted herself from it at every turn. In the second there is both physical and inner solitude. It is a desert experience, an experience where she really does have to deal with the loneliness, the dangers, the inner demons and insecurities with nothing but herself and God. Her other life is far away; she has not brought it with her, and except for her car, her journal, books, and few clothes there is little to remind her of it. When she is reminded, it is with a keenness that affirms for her just how much she has left behind, how alone she is with God, how little resources OTHERWISE she really has at hand, and she deals with this in prayer/journaling.

The differences between the two pictures are important because one is eremitical and the other is not; one is an example of desert spirituality and in this case, solitary desert spirituality, while the other is not --- despite the fact that the person is alone. I hope this helps in drawing out the distinction and also pointing up its significance. If it does not help enough, or raises more questions please get back to me.

Part-time Hermits? Objections?

[[Dear Sister, you have objections to "part-time" hermits. You also are emphatic that the word hermit should not be used for just anyone. Can you please say more about your objections?]]


I am not sure how much more I can say about this topic, but yes, I will be happy to explain what I have written up until now. First, the use of the term hermit for just anyone: apparently there is something intriguing to people about the idea of being a hermit but what is focused on is the physical solitude, and not the underlying motivations for the life, the community or ecclesial aspect, nor that this is a contemplative life rooted in a relationship with God and all that he cherishes. What the hermit says with her life is that God alone is sufficient for us, and I mean that in two senses: 1) we are made for communion with and in him and all else (including all other relationships) is a piece of this, and 2) if we live with and for God alone, as hermits do, then that provides all we need for authentic human maturity and psychological well-being. Thus, hermits in their solitude affirm the first statement with their lives: God alone is sufficient for us, and they witness to others that the same is true for them. Of course others may also witness to this and be very far from being hermits. Every Christian, in fact, is called to make this statement with their lives, no matter their state of life. But hermits really accent the second statement, and no one else does so in the same way. It is what makes their lives eremitical: they live with and for God alone in a more literal sense (others are a significant piece of this because the hermit cherishes what/whomever is cherished by God), and that is sufficient for them and their achievement of human maturity and psychological well-being.

While the first aspect mentioned is critical to the quality of the eremitical life, it is this latter aspect of the eremitical vocation which makes it truly eremitical. The hermit vocation is the vocation of a SOLITARY, not merely an introvert or loner (indeed, the hermit may be neither of these), not someone who has a bit of physical solitude on the weekends or when the spouse and children leave the house for a few hours, but a true solitary --- one who has given her life, body and soul to God and witnesses to what life with God alone can be. Hermits are those persons who live with, in, and from God alone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. While their love for God, and his for them will spill over and touch and include others, there should be no doubt that the primary environment of their lives is both the physical and inner solitude peculiar to the hermit. There should be no doubt that their inner and outer lives consciously reflect an accepted identity as a hermit.

So, why is all this important? Why can't a mother who prays while others are out of the house call herself a hermit, and why shouldn't she? Why can't a person who goes off to solitude on the weekends call himself a hermit, and why shouldn't he? I may have used the term "truth in advertizing" before somewhere in these blog posts, but let me use it again. The first reason these persons cannot call themselves hermits has to do with truth in advertizing. They ought not call themselves hermits because they simply are NOT living contemplative lives in solitude (each word in this phrase is important to the definition of a hermit). The second reason is related and has to do with witness. Hermits are the ones in the Church who say with their lives that it is possible to live ALONE with God for the whole of their lives and that their lives are meaningful, and in fact, that one may come to human wholeness and holiness in this way. They say that while this is a rare vocation, the person who finds herself in physical solitude and cut off from others for whatever reason: illness, bereavement, etc, has a life which is still infinitely precious and significant, and can continue to grow or develop into greater and greater fruitfulness --- an almost unimaginable fruitfulness in fact. The hermit witnesses to this truth even if the person can no longer work, has lost friends whose lives move at a different speed and rhythm, or struggles with illness which seems to dehumanize and cut off all human possibilities for growth or life, because these things are merely one side of the equation; God's grace is the other, and the hermit witnesses to what is possible when human weakness and limitations are joined by the grace of God.

The hermit's life therefore speaks in a special way to these people, people who will not have a husband (wife) and children returning at the end of the day, people who cannot spend their days cleaning FOR husband and children or planning outings, or shopping for them, people who have no one to comfort them in their pain and no breaks in the continuing solitude of their situation. The numbers of persons who live like this today are phenomenal, and someone calling themselves a hermit when they no more live a solitary life without respite is insulting and insensitive not only to authentic hermits who do live healthy and truly solitary lives, but to those living in the unnatural solitudes of illness, bereavement, old age, abandonment, etc, without choice or options otherwise.

These reasons all have to do with the witness value of the eremitical life, but we need to look at the reasons which have simply to do with the nature and quality of the hermit life itself even apart from witness value --- and again, it is a matter of truth in advertizing. By definition eremitical life is solitary life, that is, life lived in, with, for and from God ALONE. Solitude (inner and outer) does its work over time, it develops, grows, changes the human heart only over time and in physical solitude. Consistency is necessary, and consistency here means long term ongoing physical solitude. This is not necessarily the same as complete reclusion, but to call oneself a hermit when one simply spends a few hours a day alone, but waits for the return of husband and children, or when one works with others all week (even if one never speaks to them), and then goes camping or fishing alone on the weekend is analogous to someone calling herself a mother because she baby sits several days a week a few hours in the morning and afternoon. I suspect any mothers reading this would merely laugh at how ridiculous such an idea is. The same is true when hermits hear of people who build a little solitude into their lives calling themselves hermits. We both know "these people don't have a clue" --- not about real motherhood and its unceasing demands and concerns, or about giving one's life (one's whole life) for these others, nor about solitude or what it means to live as a solitary, and certainly not about what it means to be thrust back on God as the sole source of strength and meaning in one's life --- the essence of Christian eremitism.

A few days of solitude is usually welcome for most people: time to rest, read, pray, reflect, and even then the first 24-48 hours might be very difficult as silence challenges them initially. A few hours of solitude a day can also be quite welcome, and can be used fruitfully for prayer, rest, chores, etc, but in each case the solitude is temporary and one does not need to deal with the dark parts of the human heart, with the demons which inhabit our personal worlds. These things can be put off, and may not even appear because after all, the solitude is only partial. As noted above, one is not completely thrust back upon God alone to make sense of one's life, one is not faced with ALL OF ONE'S SELF AND LIFE in an environment where it MUST be faced. Distractions one has left behind (TV, work, relationships, etc) may not fill the hours of solitude themselves, but they wait in the wings moderating the solitude, either because someone is coming home at the end of the day, or because one can return to one's REAL world if one just guts this relatively brief period of solitude out. One's life makes sense APART from solitude: marriage, children, work, etc, and solitude itself may be the real distraction (even prayer can be a distraction!).

The point here is that such part-time solitude is relative, and also that it is neither as deep nor as intense nor as all-claiming and challenging as is genuine eremitical solitude. A trip to the desert is simply not truly a desert experience if one arrives in one's RV and drives away at the end of the day or week, even if one hikes out for a few hours each day. One may experience the desert to some extent in this way, but it is not truly a desert experience. (That could be had if one hiked out a few miles and then realized one had forgotten one's compass, lunch and canteen and would need to spend the night out alone without food or shelter, for instance. THEN one begins to sense the difference between an experience of the desert and a desert experience.) You see the distinction I think. Similarly then, one may experience solitude without ever coming close to solitary experience, without ever being a solitary.

But this is not true of the hermit. Her life makes sense within solitude, as a solitary because her life says that these things are an essential function of her relationship to God and living with and for God alone. Her experience of solitude is a desert experience. It is in solitude that she comes to grapple with the darknesses of her own heart, with the demons that do indeed inhabit this desert in which she lives. Yes, there can be occasional distractions (a direction client, Mass (I use the term distraction here only to the extent this is not a solitary experience), an orchestra rehearsal, an occasional dinner with friends), but unlike the person whose "solitude" is merely part time, whose children return to tell about their days, whose husband comes home to eat together and share the same bed, the hermit's solitude always beckons, at meals, at bedtime, while one does laundry or cooks for oneself alone. Every activity, and even the distractions merely point to her solitary existence. She knows she cannot justify that existence with motherhood or marriage, or even with productive work. Prayer cannot be just an important aspect of her life, much less a pleasant distraction from her usual activities. It must be THE work of her life (the work of God in her), her very lifeblood which sustains her without question. Either her life makes ultimate sense in and through her solitude because God has called her to this WITH and in HIM, or it is the greatest and most tragic absurdity a person can devise. This is the risk the hermit takes in faith and the desert is the place this is lived out.

I think there is still a great deal to say here (especially since I have not spoken of semi-eremitism), and I had not expected that, but hopefully I have begun to answer your questions. We ought not allow just anyone to call themselves hermits because doing so empties the term of meaning. It strips away the boundaries which definitions set up. Definitions are drawn on the basis of experience, they are not arbitrary. There are many many people who live lives with some degree of time alone to pray. Every person actually fits (or should fit) this picture in one way or another. Do we call all these people hermits? Of course not, no more than we call teenagers who babysit regularly Mothers. These people have time for solitude and should take it, but they do not live solitary lives with all that means. On the other hand there are many people in our world living true desert experiences already who could find the word hermit gives meaning to lives that otherwise seem to have none in worldly terms, but that cannot happen if the word hermit is emptied of meaning by dilettantes.

How Credible are my statements on the Importance of the Lay Eremitical Vocation?

[[Doesn't your own Canonical Status undercut your ability to speak to the importance and witness of the non-canonical or lay hermit? Doesn't it make what you say even a bit hypocritical? You have written any number of times about the importance of canonical status/standing so how believeable are your opinions on the lay eremitical vocation? Why didn't you become/remain a lay hermit instead of seeking profession and consecration according to Canon 603 if you believed as you say you do in this?]]

These questions were not raised by a hostile reader, but in my own prayer and reflection on the matter. However, I suspect that they are questions which my own status and comments might well occasion in others, so I am including them here. First. let me say that there is truth in each question: to each, except, I think, for the one about hypocrisy and the last one which asks "Why didn't you become/remain a lay hermit?" which does not allow a brief answer. Apart from the exceptions I have to answer these answer positively while I deny hypocrisy. With regard to the last question, let me say right up front that I do not have a complete answer at this time, but only large parts of one, and that those parts involve both positive and negative elements. (Note that this answer was completed in another post. Please check posts including the label "lay hermits".)

In my previous post on the importance of lay hermits (hermits living this life while in the lay state vocationally speaking) I noted that I had not realized how effectively I was cutting myself off from witnessing to particular segments of our church and world. My life as a canonical hermit still speaks to these people, I know that full well, but I suspect not nearly as powerfully as had I eschewed profession and consecration under Canon 603 and embraced a vocation as a lay hermit. I would have needed to find ways to do this, but those avenues are open to anyone really. This blog is an example. On the other hand, I have experienced both sides of the fence here and am aware of the shift (in witnessing) which has occured. Thus, I think I am able to speak effectively to the importance of both the lay and the consecrated (state) eremitical vocations. The point of course is that a person who is consciously and voluntarily lay and eremitical can, in some ways. do so better than I can ever do.

So what about possible hypocrisy? Well, it is true that I am unabashedly excited by and enthusiastic about the eremitical vocation which is canonical, and that personally I see a lot of reasons to seek canonical standing, especially as a diocesan hermit with its unique charism. It is also true that on this blog I have posted a lot in order to combat misconceptions about canonical status, etc. In my Rule I wrote (several years ago now) that I felt that canonical status was imperative except in the early stages of a vocation or foundation --- though my views on this have changed considerably in the meantime. Is it possible to be enthusiastic about the graces and benefits of one way of living an eremitical life without denigrating another? I sincerely hope and believe so, otherwise there is no way to be honest about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in one vocation without denigrating them in another. And despite seeing this happen often in the history of mankind with regard to different religions, etc, surely none of us believe that is necessarily the case!

With the issue of canonical and non-canonical hermits I believe the Holy Spirit is working in both ways in our church and world, speaking to different segments and calling them to different responsibilities, emphases and witness. So long as the eremitical life is being led with faithfulness these differing emphases, commissions and witnesses will emerge and reveal themselves clearly. That said, I must also say that I don't believe just anyone should call themselves a hermit, and I especially don't believe that someone who simply has a bent for some degree of solitude part of the time should do so, or be allowed to do so. (Here is one of the real benefits of canonical standing and oversight: one knows, at least generally, that the term is being used accurately and that the witness being given is genuine.) Still, if someone is living a fulltime life of prayer and penance, a life centered on God in silence and solitude --- not reclusively necessarily, but really --- then they have every right to call themselves a hermit and should do so, for this too is the work and gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world.

Again, it is not that canonical hermits are "real" hermits while non-canonical hermits are "pseudo" or "wannabe" hermits. While it is true that sometimes people use the term hermit too casually (for an active life with chunks of solitude, a part-time semi-solitary existence, for instance, as in a married life where the days are spent in prayer and work while children and husband are off to school and work!) or for the wrong reasons (social awkwardness or misanthopy, the need for self-indulgent introversion or simply for creative time and space are among these) -- these folks ARE pseudo hermits or wannabe's --- when the term really applies (that is, to a LIFE OF fulltime and genuine solitude lived for and in God) it signals the "realness" or inspired nature of the vocation, and whether this is a call to eremitism of the consecrated or lay states does not matter.

And regarding the last question, "why didn't I become and remain a lay hermit?" well, I am going to leave that for another time and more thought. The simple answer is that initially and eventually I determined I was not called to this as did the Church, but that can be evasive as well as being true. Part of the answer is that it was this context which made sense of the whole spectrum of my life and the kind of freedom needed to live this call fully and faithfully, but that too needs some explaining --- which again requires both more thought and time to write. Still, the question is important, not only for me personally, but because it is really the question every hermit must answer in some form in discerning and embracing the call not only to eremitical life, but to lay or consecrated states as the critical context for their own charism, witness, and mission. At this point I wish to say merely that whichever choice one discerns and makes, the eremitical life they are discerning and choosing is a real and significant vocation and that we must learn to esteem not only the similarities they share with their counterpart (lay or consecrated), but especially their unique gift quality and capacity to speak variously to different segments of the church and world.