Followup on Visibility, and Betrayal of the C603 Vocation

I received a response (well, really more of a reaction) to my post on the visibility of hermits, canonical standing and their supposed betrayal of the clear meaning of the Catechism, and Canon 603. It was sent by email the day before yesterday morning by someone who reads blogs on eremitical life, but included no specific question --- and in fact no comment at all. I suspect she felt the post rather spoke for itself and left her a bit speechless as it did me as well. It begins with a quote from the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), paragraph 921, and raises questions of fact, competency, and character, among others. I will mainly respond to the questions of fact in this post and have omitted some of the venom and most of the language of personal attack.

[["...HIDDEN from the eyes of men, the life of the hermit is a silent preaching of the Lord, to whom he has surrendered his life simply because HE [Christ] is everything to him. Here is a particular call to find in the desert, in the thick of spiritual battle, the glory of the Crucified One" (emphases added).

I do not know what is so difficult to comprehend in the fact that hermits are called to be HIDDEN from the EYES of MEN. This surely means among other externals, not to be displaying oneself either in signature religious garb or other visibilities (the outer does not the inner make), promoting oneself, placing oneself as authority and expert above others, self-identifying with inventive order initials (hermits are not order religious), nor to seemingly fixate upon being the vociferous solo voice of hermit vocation and life. Why not benefit self or others by writing about a hermit's spiritual life: the spiritual battle, the glory of Christ, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, the praise of God and salvation of the world to which hermits are supposed to devote their lives?

It is not about labels, identifying garb, temporal technicalities squeezed from scouring the canon laws, attempts to create yet one more exclusive group, politicizing or institutionalizing a vocation not ever intended to be anything other than what the Catechism and the actual Canon Law 603 states. This law of 1983 was revised to clarify and guide, perhaps in some instances those who had vocation confusion or over-stepped ego decorum. Just because a person or group is canonically approved by one Bishop, the viability and voracity (sic) of a hermit's actual living the vocation may stray into questionable practices.]]

The Preliminaries: The Catechism and the Code of Canon Law

In responding to these comments it is probably important to note that the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism function very differently from one another in the life of the diocesan hermit (and for that matter, in the life of the Church). For instance, the diocesan hermit is professed under Canon 603 and legally obligated to embody (respect and fulfill) its specific terms with her life. As I have said a number of times the Canon lists essential and non-negotiable elements which MUST be honored by hermits, and for that matter, by Bishops as well in discerning, professing, and supervising such vocations. The Catechism on the other hand is a summary statement of the general nature of eremitical life (religious, lay, and diocesan) as it is found in the church and though somewhat useful in teaching, in the main, it is far less helpful to hermits living into their vocations than it is to those generally unfamiliar with the vocation. For them, it is cursorily descriptive but not prescriptive. In the CCC, paragraphs 920-921 do in fact describe an essentially hidden and even mostly unknown vocation, and the description should certainly be attended to and not disregarded, but they do NOT have the force of law for the diocesan hermit that Canon 603 does.

Also, despite the fact that I write mostly about Canon 603, it is NOT the only canon that is applicable or binding in the diocesan hermit's life. For instance, while all of the canons I will mention here apply to those professed in institutes of consecrated life, CC 662-664 (obligation to follow Christ as highest rule of life, ongoing conversion of heart, etc.) clearly apply to anyone living a consecrated life. The same is true of others: in some dioceses, c. 668 (cession of administration of goods) is held to apply to hermits making vows of poverty, as c 669 often is (wearing of the habit). Canon 673 (the responsibility to witness to consecrated life) is held to bind the diocesan hermit, and so does c 674 (requirements pertaining to contemplative life) especially. C 678 (authority of Bishop) binds the diocesan hermit of course (though seeming superfluous perhaps), as do a number of other canons.

Because of this diocesan hermits have obligations that are not described in the Catechism paragraphs cited, nor delineated in C 603. These affect the way "hiddenness" is understood and lived out, for instance. One who is charged with the responsibility of witnessing to consecrated life, or who is invested with the habit will live out this hiddenness a little differently than a lay hermit with none of these legal obligations. The point is simply that one cannot read C 603 in a vacuum whether that vacuum be linguistic, canonical, theological, spiritual, philosophical, etc etc. Diocesan hermits especially cannot and do NOT do so, and to accuse them (or any one of them) of scouring canon laws for technicalities and squeezing meaning or justifications from them because of some legalistic bent, or somehow betraying the simplicity and humility of their vocations because they actually attend to and reflect on ALL the canon law which governs their lives is completely off-base, naive, and uncalled for.

While the blogger is free to hold an opinion on what hiddenness actually looks like and what it allows or disallows, it would be more helpful in an actual discussion to provide reasoned arguments rooted in genuine expertise rather than simple ungrounded assertions. After all,"It (hiddenness) SURELY means this because I say it means this" is not very compelling. Neither is, "the Canon was intended to mean this because I say it was." When the facts are wrong (see below) and these ungrounded assertions essentially conflict with the way Bishops, Vicars, Canonists and even the Sacred Congregation generally understand the vocation or Canon and what these may and may not allow, then there are good reasons to doubt the cogency of that opinion. With regard to all of the material externals decried by this poster, NONE OF THEM are simply appropriated without at least one's own Bishop's approval.

For instance habits, cowls, and post-nomial initials all are assumed only with one's Bishop's permission and sometimes at his request. They are not "self-assumed." Nor is the designation, "Catholic hermit." Not every diocesan hermit wears a habit or a cowl, for instance, but the simple fact is most do at least the former and in every case, the practice was permitted or even requested by the local ordinary. Not every hermit uses post-nomial initials, but most do of one sort or another. In my case, and that of a number of others, we use Er Dio or Erem Dio (or even just ED) which stands for Eremita Dioecesanus (diocesan hermit). It is very specifically meant as an alternative to initials which might seem to indicate that one is part of a religious order (Franciscan, Carmelite, etc.) even while it points to public consecration. In any case, it was approved initially by Archbishop Vigneron in 2008 after serious consideration and consultation and has since been allowed by a number of other Bishops in several countries. None of these things is adopted carelessly or unthinkingly, and the motives for doing so (or desiring to do so) are scrutinized by all involved.

The Heart of the Matter: The Reasons Canon 603 was Promulgated

Finally, a relevant correction in the supposed "facts" set forth in this blogger's post: Canon 603 is not a revision of anything. It is a completely new Canon with no true precedent in universal law. It was not included in the Code to correct abuses ("over-stepped ego decorum"??), but rather because Bishops who had firsthand experience of hermits in their dioceses and this vocation's lack of inclusion in the earlier Code or church documents, BEGGED Vatican II to address this lack in its own Council documents. They also pleaded for its inclusion in what would become the Revised Code of 1983. Even in Perfectae Caritatis, the early drafts included no mention of the anchoritic/eremitical life. When this plea was first made by Bishop De Roo it happened that monks and nuns who discovered a valid call to solitude later in their religious lives were required, if their communities made no provision for eremitical life in proper law, to leave their vows and consecration behind and pursue the eremitical vocation outside religious or consecrated life. In other words, despite being called to an intensification of solitude which grew within and could be considered a deepening or development of their consecrated state, hermits could only pursue this vocation by leaving their communities and accepting secularization. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "vocation confusion" as the blogger above rather offensively puts it. It is actually the esteemed way to eremitical life St Benedict describes in the Rule of Benedict.

Several other reasons were given by Bishop De Roo for including hermits in the Revised Code of Canon Law in order to rectify their omission from the 1917 Code. These included: 1) The fact of growing renewal of the life, 2) the sanctifying value of the hermit's life, 3) the hermit's contribution to the life of the church. This would include the hermit's prophetic role, a modeling of the Church's call to contemplation and the centrality of prayer, being a paradigm of the way we are each called to confront evil within our own lives and world, or allow heaven (God's own life shared with others) to interpenetrate our reality, etc 4) the ecumenical value of the hermit's life (especially re dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity) 5) a correction of the impression that the evangelical counsels is limited to institutionalized community life known as religious life. (This is something post-nomial initials help do, by the way, as does the habit, etc.) Remi De Roo was the Bishop protector of a colony of 10 -12 hermits. He wrote about these benefits and needs on the basis of the lives lived by these hermits and others and "earnestly request(ed)" the Council "officially recognize the eremitical life as a state of perfection in the Church." (taken from Vita Eremitica Iuxta Can 603, p 137 reporting on Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, vol iii, pars vii, pp 608-609)

If we look at all the reasons Bishop de Roo gave for the inclusion of something like Canon 603 in what would become the current (1983) revised Code, two things stand out in light of the complaints made by the above poster: 1) a needed law to correct abuses is not mentioned; abuses are not mentioned at all in fact, and 2) each of the reasons have something to do with hermits witnessing to or representing something important of which the Church and world needed to be aware. There is absolutely an essential hiddenness about this vocation, but at the same time (as has always been true really) the vocation is lived in dialogue with the Church and the world as a whole. Further, institutionalization of the vocation was a way of correcting injustices (for instance, the kind of required secularization in order to follow this call already mentioned) and allowing in Law for a vocation that was in a state of growth and renewal. It was therefore a dynamic vocation that Bishop de Roo described, one which was even an evolving one as hermits explored the very traditional life of the desert Fathers and Mothers (et al) and --- as was mainly true of the desert Abbas and Ammas --- doing so in a way which was prophetic, contemplative, ecumenical, and eschatological (as hermits battled evil) in terms of the contemporary world and its needs.

Thus, Canon 603, when it was finally promulgated had all this history at its back, as well as the history of the eremitical vocation more generally. While the Canon could certainly be used to correct abuses if necessary this was not the reason for its inclusion in the Revised Code. Thus too, Canon 603 did not merely spell out non-negotiable elements that would look the same in every eremitical life. Instead, it combined these with the requirement of the hermit's OWN Rule (or Plan) of Life and the relationship with the diocesan Bishop which generally ensured not only the fidelity of the life, but its vitality, flexibility, and creativity as well.

In What Regards is this Blogger Correct?

Of course, the poster is absolutely correct when she says the following: [[It is not about labels, identifying garb, temporal technicalities squeezed from scouring the canon laws, attempts to create yet one more exclusive group, politicizing or institutionalizing a vocation not ever intended to be anything other than what the Catechism and the actual Canon Law 603 states.]] Diocesan eremitical life is not about any of these things. Nor is Canon 603. However, the diocesan hermit is bound to consider the place in her life of Canon Law, identifying garb, networks of other diocesan hermits that may help address problems or concerns lay hermits do not share, and so forth. She is bound to explore the parameters of ALL the Canons which apply to her life even if she is not called to share this exploration publicly. She is obligated to do whatever she can to live this life with integrity not only in its essential hiddenness but in in its prophetic and public aspects as well. As I have noted before this vocation is a paradoxical one. It is also diverse in its expressions and only the hermit living the life from within the grace and challenge of the consecrated state and with the assistance of her director, delegate, diocesan Bishop, pastor, etc. can determine what shape this must take in HER own call and response.

Further, she is correct in suggesting that one may start out fine and go off track. Negotiating the tensions implied in Canon 603 is not always easy: the problem of supporting oneself while living a full-time eremitical life of the silence of solitude, maintaining an essential hiddenness while also witnessing to the consecrated life (habit, cowl, blog, etc.) can lead to real errors. Each hermit works these things out with her Bishop, director, and delegate. Again, this is one of the reasons for something like the Network of Diocesan Hermits which allows for dialogue between hermits, candidates for profession, and even between hermits and dioceses. We sincerely want to minimize errors and live this life with the greatest integrity possible, but that also means honoring the diversity that is truly allowed us by the Canon(s) and called for by the Holy Spirit! Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation

Followup Question: Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Profession under Canon 603

[[ Sister Laurel, in one post on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb you referred to persons who use the term "hermit" in metaphorical ways. Are you saying you believe they were not real hermits? Maybe it is more that they are examples of the term hermit being enlarged rather than "emptied of meaning." Have you considered this?]]

With regard to the Intercessors I have to first say I do not know enough about the way the members lived to draw a conclusion one way or another. The two things I do know about them suggest that perhaps the term "hermit" is meant to indicate a dedication to some form of desert spirituality and a life with some added degree of solitude (aloneness) and silence, but not in the same sense that Canon 603 requires. Similarly, I have heard or read that the "hermits" lived active and fairly social lives most of the week but set aside Saturdays for solitude, silence, and contemplative prayer. IF this is the case, then I would suggest this is neither eremitical life as I personally understand it, nor certainly as the paradigmatic canon 603 defines it. However, my concern in referring to a metaphorical usage was less with "realness" of the eremitical lives of the Intercessors per se as with the possibility of the situation they are now in contributing to a problem which crops up with regard to Canon 603 occasionally --- namely, the profession of those whose lives bear little or no resemblance at all to the life defined therein.

Misuse of Canon 603 in Professions:

Let me explain. While I believe the usage of the term "hermits" in the title of the former intercessors' community was metaphorical (they were not literally hermits as the church understands and codifies this vocation), it remains likely that despite being equivocal and somewhat confusing, the usage can still be of value in pointing to the place of silence and solitude in every life, and especially in ministerial or apostolic lives. Every life can benefit from desert spirituality, no matter how active that life because every life will experience times which especially bring home the fact that nothing but dependence on God will truly sustain or nourish authentically human life. However, with regard to those who wish to be professed under C 603 such equivocal usage and confusion would be contrary to the canon and detrimental to the vocation itself. Canon 603 does NOT define hermit in a metaphorical sense, nor does it do so in terms of silence AND solitude which merely need to be quantified in this or that way. It does not allow for vocations which are merely expressions of a metaphorical eremitism and loosely inspired by the early desert Abbas and Ammas, nor lives which are simply more alone or quiet than most people's. (Please cf the text of the Canon at the foot of this post for the defining or normative terms used in the Code.)

Instead, those professed under this canon must be hermits in a literal sense and as defined herein, thus spending their entire lives embodying more completely the vocation to solitary eremitical life and the charism C 603 describes as "the silence OF solitude." And yet occasionally we hear stories of people being professed under Canon 603 whose lives truly bear no resemblance to the life outlined there, often because C 603 is the only canon allowing for the profession of an individual and can seem to provide an opportunity for making vows when no other way is open to a person. Thus, for instance, in one diocese several years ago a woman was professed despite the fact that she is in every way living an active apostolic life. She works full time five days a week, sets Saturdays aside for silence, solitude, and contemplative prayer and frankly describes the term "hermit" as a metaphor for her life.

In regard to this specific case, let me say clearly and emphatically that this Sister sounds like a completely amazing person and is someone I would personally like to know. She is praised highly by those who know her and apparently works to the limits of her ability in giving her life for others in Christ. However, all of this notwithstanding, she is NO hermit and the life she lives cannot, even remotely, be considered a life of "the silence OF solitude," "assiduous prayer and penance," and "stricter separation from the world" which is part of the strictly non-negotiable nature of solitary or diocesan eremitical life. In her case (and precisely because she is remarkable) I truly believe Canon 603 was used as a stopgap way of professing her because nothing else was available --- which indicates possibly exemplary motives on the part of the diocese --- but I also believe it represented a serious and imprudent misuse of the Canon which actually endangers the very vocation it is meant to nurture, protect, and govern.

The Implications of Misuse of the Canon

Obviously this is a rather "gnarly" problem and one with which the Church will have to deal. Every individual profession sets or continues a precedent and in this particular case it sets a precedent which can easily and eventually empty the terms of Canon 603 of meaning. Further, if the precedent is repeated, if others with similar lives are professed, this could actually lead 1) to increased reluctance by Bishops to profess ANYONE under this canon --- something we actually do see today, 2) to increased interventions by the hierarchy imposing more and more rules, guidelines, etc, and 3) (when all else fails) to the actual suppression of the solitary eremitical life altogether. The latter has certainly happened in the past. Besides outright suppression, what we have seen at various points in the Church's life more generally is that either solitary hermits and their vocations are smothered in rules or swallowed up into communities as the church tries to regulate their lives, or the term "hermit" comes to be used merely metaphorically for any life of greater aloneness or relative silence and even as a synonym for isolated do-your-own-thing life, life characterized simply by misanthropy, selfishness, bizarreness, etc, etc.

In the first situation hermits may come or be brought together by bishops in what may initially be authentic lauras (which are colonies more than they are juridical communities) and then find that over time increased rules, structure, etc, invariably transforms the laura into a religious community. In this way the solitary eremitical life is thus lost and replaced by cenobitical life. In the second situation every element outlined in Canon 603 is perverted or otherwise rendered null or empty. What replaces eremitical life is an antisocial, eccentric life constituted less by Christian freedom than by some merely humanistic liberty, and the term "hermit" ceases to have real meaning for most people apart from this notion. (This allows for situations like the one I wrote about recently where "Tom Leppard" was identified by a reporter as a hermit, situations which do nothing more than reinforce stereotypes and makes the actual vocation unbelieveable and ridiculous.) When this happens the church can (and has) suppressed the vocation because it has come to represent abuse, misuse, distortion and a libertinism which is disedifying and even contrary to Christian discipleship.

The Importance of Canon 603 in protecting the solitary eremitical vocation

Thus, Canon 603 is significant because it allows in Law for the solitary eremitical vocation particularly. The entire stress in the Canon is on this, and this is really the first time in the history of the Church that this has occurred on a universal level. Given the very fragile nature of the vocation and the two major ways it has been imperiled in the history of the Church noted above (1) increased institutionalization and excessive oversight and 2) inadequate or lacking institutionalization and insufficient oversight which thus allows an "anything goes" kind of life), Canon 603 defines the life in terms of BOTH non-negotiable and universal elements AND individual flexibility ( via the individual Rule of Life written by the hermit herself and based on her experience of how God calls her uniquely). It is thus clearly defined, but also can have quite diverse and relatively flexible expressions.

I think the Canon is therefore masterfully written in a way which allows for fidelity to the traditional understanding of this life AND to the freedom and creativity in the specific living out of this which each hermit is also called. Canon 603 is an incredibly wise and prudent attempt to protect one of the most delicate vocations in the church. If it is misused though, if its essential elements are misdefined, disregarded, or treated as negotiable and a life professed under the canon in not truly defined by them and so, ceases to be a literal expression of these elements, the term hermit may become a mere metaphor, which, as important as that may be to some, is not at all what Canon 603 is meant for. In such a case it would not be a matter of the term hermit being enlarged so much as it would represent a genuine emptying of the term of meaning. It would also render the Canon ineffective in doing what it was truly meant to do, namely (again), to nurture, protect, and govern a very rare and fragile vocation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and world.

Hence, my concern with metaphorical vs literal, and solitary vs communal or cenobitical in my post on the possibility of professing former Intercessors under Canon 603. In responding to the question I was not concerned so much with the nature of the HIOL's use of the term hermit (though I admit I don't like usage which confuses the issue of what is or isn't a hermit), but rather with whether this was a life which the church could somehow "automatically" profess under Canon 603 without separate and serious discernment or caution --- especially given the communal nature of the HIOL vocation. The question posed by the reader raised all kinds of caution flags in my mind, not regarding the HIOL themselves, but with regard to maintaining the vitality, meaning, and purpose of Canon 603 per se.

Text of Canon 603, Revised Code of Canon Law

Sec 1: Besides institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance.

Sec 2: A hermit is recognized in the law as one dedicated to God in a consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan bishop and observes his or her own plan of life under his direction.

Companions to Hermit Intercessors: Future?

I received the following email and will post most of it here and then answer what I can. Since I am not a canonist some of this needs to be answered more expertly, but I do offer my take on things with this appropriate caution. (Please note too that I am better able to answer questions which are essentially theological or about eremitical life itself.)

[[ I am a lay person, part of a formation group known as companions to Intercesssors of the Lamb. I read your reply to the question about the hermits of IOL and Canon 603, but can you speak to those of us who have lay vocations and want simply to advance in contemplative prayer, etc. as led by Mother Nadine and IOL? Do hermits or Catholic public affiliations (hermits, sisters, priests, lay people) usually mentor others in the spiritual life to intercede? (I know third orders are laity mentored in their spirituality by establshed religious orders.)

I guess I'm wanting to understand if we need to dissolve our group as well, or whether we may continue to meet as before. IOL is being suppressed, is my impression, because the archbishop has concerns that the Omaha community has problems not connected with heresy, etc. (organizational, stubborness with a civil board, etc.) Maybe my question boils down to this: can a formation group not directly under the authority of a bishop in another diocese be bound by what he does?]]

First in answer to any general question about associates or companions with regard to the suppression, once the larger group is suppressed there are no associates OR companions. By definition they are associates or companions OF the suppressed group. If there is no group, there are no companions or associates. At the same time there is no MOTHER Nadine at this point. Nadine Brown may act as a lay person with perfect freedom and lay persons who wish to work with her in some way may do so but not with the sense that they in any way belong to HIOL or are part of a Catholic organization. In other words, you are free to associate with one another but not to follow Mother Nadine Brown or the HIOL. When the Hermit Intercessors was suppressed, so were any associates AS associates, or companions AS companions. Archbishop Lucas' statement on the matter stated this clearly. However, if the Companions are simply some extension of Intercessors of the Lamb, INC, and not of the HIOL, then they could well continue, but they would need to make it very clear they are not in any way a Catholic organization, but instead are allied with a civil non-profit corporation whose existence has absolutely NO approbation from any diocese and which has acted contrary to the governance of the Archbishop where it is headquartered.

Former companions who wish to do so may contact their own Bishops about becoming or beginning a private association of the faithful (which in some years might also become a public association of the faithful), though of course any Bishop will be cautious in agreeing to this at this point. (Strictly speaking no permission is needed to become a private association of the faithful so long as that group does not intend to teach doctrine, but if one desires to do more than this permission IS necessary and permission in the beginning is simply prudent.) Thus, they may also simply establish themselves as a lay group under a new name, just as any other group of lay persons may do under Canon Law (C.299). But of course this would not be a "formation group" of any larger canonical (i.e., Catholic) organization --- it would be a group of lay people who meet for a particular purpose (contemplative prayer, lectures or workshops in spirituality or something else), but without any of the rights or responsibilities of affiliation with HIOL or of a public association of the faithful. So, the answer to your question about what one Bishop does in one diocese binding others in other dioceses in this specific case is yes, you ARE bound, though certain freedoms remain to you by virtue of your baptism and Canon Law.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by mentoring people to intercede. My own familiarity with this language comes from acquaintance with contemporary Protestant evangelical and "spiritual warfare" initiatives. Perhaps those in the charismatic movement do some of this, but in general, no I wouldn't say it is typical of most hermits, priests, religious, spiritual directors, etc --- at least not in terms of this language. In general religious and priests teach, encourage, minister towards and model prayerful lives in which heaven is allowed more and more to interpenetrate our world and Christ's victory over death and sin is extended wherever we go. We work for justice and embody it in our own lives. We live lives of prayer in which the love of God is foremost and sustains us and we pray for one another and the specific needs of church, society, friends, family, etc. We direct others in living deeply authentic spiritual lives where the Holy Spirit is allowed to act freely and fruitfully in whatever way the Holy Spirit wills to do and where all forms of prayer are honored. If any or all of this is included in your use of the term "intercede" then yes, we assist people in this.

[[I find the spirituality coming out of IOL to be quite orthodox. We read scripture, keep a prayer journal, try to root out vices to become more like Jesus, and intercede for our priests and others. IOL stresses the "pillars" of silence, solitude, penance, etc., nothing that could be considered cultish or weird. In fact, Mother Nadine's books use St. Ignateus Spiritual Retreat and the example of St. Theresa of Avila as guides.]]

I have read nothing at this point about heresy in regard to the Intercessors. Remember that heresy has to do with doctrine and dogma, not discipline, organizational or leadership problems generally, recalcitrant or stubborn lay boards, etc. There are serious cautions about the contents of Nadine Brown's work to the effect that none of this has any approval by Archbishop Lucas or his predecessors, but heresy is not a word that has been used.

[[I hate to see our group disband after years of 'growth'. I have to wonder if this whole suppression is a testing or if it's something more. My guess is that you will tell us to simply keep meeting as a prayer group, but I guess I am holding out hope that IOL will somehow appeal the suppression to the Vatican and be restored to what it was--if necessary, a public affiliation of Catholic faithful. After all, Archbishop Lucas's two predecessors each approved of IOL, and I can't understand the rush to judgment. It was Mother Nadine herself who requested consideration as a canonical group, and now six months later the visitation to explore that has resulted, instead, in this suppression.]]

I give you no advice whatsoever regarding what you do at this point beyond making sure those of you who want sincerely to grow in prayer and your lay vocations consider the need to work with good spiritual directors. What you do as a group of lay people who have been through a traumatic loss, and are just beginning to deal with it will require the assistance of good direction, and possibly therapy or counseling as well. But as to carrying on as a group, and in what way, I wouldn't and couldn't even begin to advise you. (However, I can say that considering speaking with a canonist might be a very good next step so that you can become clear on what is and is not possible and prudent.)

I will tell you that I think the chances of the Vatican overturning the decision of the Archbishop in this matter stand somewhere between infinitesimally slim and none at all. The Archbishop has acted within his rights and responsibility as pastor of his see. Rather than there being a rush to judgment there simply may have been an action taken that was really long overdue. I understand that Bishops approved the HIOL's as first a private association of the faithful, and then as a public association of the faithful. However, in organizations which wish to become institutes of consecrated life such approval is given for the purposes of continuing experimentation and mutual discernment. At no point is it certain the next approval will be given. Further, A bishop may suppress the group at any time especially in cases of scandal, etc, or he may continue to try to work with the leadership to reform things which require it, and he may --- when everything goes well and the group desires it --- choose to erect the association as an institute of consecrated life (ICL). These possibilities have always been part of the life of any association of the faithful.

Since I don't know the situation I can only point out that former Bishops may have chosen to monitor the Intercessors some time ago and only now are the consequences of (what either were or seemed to be) small irregularities becoming evident. They may also have not done a visitation in recent memory and so, not been personally aware of problems really requiring intervention. Too, something critical may have changed recently and only just now become known to the Archdiocese. Archbishop Lucas, as I understand it, was simply trying to get to know who the Intecessors really were in responding to Brown's request to negotiate the last step of the Canonical process of becoming an ICL. The crisis occasioned by Nadine Brown's resignation suggests, however, there was stuff going on which was new or something that the former Bishops had not fully sensed or appreciated --- or simply failed to act on in a timely manner and left to Abp Lucas. Again, since neither I nor you know this part of the situation we must at least consider that perhaps there was no rush to judgment whatsoever.

Addendum: 27.October.2010: Please note that the Archdiocese of Omaha has published a statement clarifying a distinction between the Association of Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and an allied group known as the Intercessors of the Lamb. Thus, I am changing most of the IOL references in my posts to HIOL because they refer to the once canonically approved public association, not the secondary group which was never canonically approved. This can also have an effect on my comments regarding Companions of the IOL. If the Companions are simply a lay group associated with the IOL, Inc and not the HIOL, then as I have now noted above, they might well be able to continue --- though in my opinion maintaining the name Companions of Intercessors of the Lamb seems imprudent at best, and will likely be confusing, counterproductive, and possibly disedifying to the rest of the Church.

Question on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Trivialization of the Habit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I don't usually read your blog. I read it because of the post on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb. I am pleased you admitted you did not have an opinion on the suppression. I wonder though why you were critical of the fact that children were wearing the habit of the community. They are part of the community after all. I thought the picture was kind of cute and pointed to the fact that the IOTL was fostering vocations among the very young. Why would you call this practice "trivialization" of the habit? Seems a bit harsh to me. Also, why would this picture raise questions about the IOTL's membership in the Congregation of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) or the organization itself?]]

Welcome to this blog then, and thanks for your questions. I have written in the past about habits having meaning. They are symbolic and ecclesial garb with which the church vests a person because of mutual discernment of a God-given vocation and the assumption of life commitments mediated by the Church. (Sometimes "Church" means congregations and their representatives which are officially recognized, sometimes it means a Bishop (as in the case of diocesan hermits, for instance). The point is the garb has meaning in this context and one needs to be authorized to wear it if they are publicly representing a vocation. A habit represents the achievement of various degrees of discernment and correlative commitment to an ecclesially mediated call. Thus, it is not unusual to see the stages of such commitments mirrored in aspects of the habit (for instance novices may wear a white veil while professed wear some color or a black one), or to see various pieces of clothing given to a person as they move from postulancy to novitiate to temporary profession and then to perpetual profession (for instance the monastic cowl is given at solemn or perpetual profession for monks and some hermits while rings, medals, crosses etc are given at various points as well in many congregations).

There are various ways the habit (or even religious insignias like rings and medals) can be emptied of meaning or, as I said in my other post, trivialized, and even rendered incredible and untrustworthy. Sometimes people adopt garb on their own rather than accepting that the Church through appropriate authority invests a person not only with the garb, but with the commensurate rights and obligations of the vocation represented to others via the vesture. They have therefore neither been given nor accepted these in a meaningful (or authoritative) way and no one they minister to really knows whether they have or are prepared for living out this vocation --- though on seeing the vesture they will assume they may necessarily turn to this person with various expectations (not least that the person has been confirmed in this vocation by the church and acts in her name and with her authority and supervision) and that they may therefore do so safely and meaningfully. The habit gives THEM this right just as it gives the religious who wears it certain rights and obligations as consecrated persons in the Church. Formation, education, supervision, competence, maturity, commitment, and faithfulness to the life of the evangelical counsels are a few of the expectations that NECESSARILY come with the wearing of the habit. They are expectations any Catholic (or non-Catholic for that matter) has a complete right to hold in regard to those wearing such garb publicly.

In my own experience veils and some other pieces of religious garb are treated as sacred; they are as consecrated objects reserved for those who are consecrated or preparing for consecration. Often in the past, and sometimes still religious pray as they put each piece on. Whatever the custom in this regard, they are not costumes, not meant for "dressup" or "pretend." In recent years most religious have gone through sometimes-harrowing and at least difficult processes to discern whether God has called them to either retain or give up the habit. Sometimes these decisions are made in the face of peers who discern the precisely opposite thing, and have done so honestly and in good faith. The bottom line here is that whether we retain or forego the wearing of the habit we treat habits as meaningful garments and we respect that significance. Thus, we do not lend friends extra veils to use for halloween costumes; we do not allow children to wear them to feel like their aunt the nun (for instance) or to dress like this or that saint during school pageants. In those instances we use costumes that are clearly that --- not the real deal. This reminds the kids both of what is true, and what may to be aspired to. To do otherwise is to trivialize and misuse something the Church treats with great respect and significance. To trivialize something in this way, I believe, empties it of meaning. To empty something of meaning may be the essence of sacrilege.

You see, I don't believe there is anything cute about the picture because I don't think it indicates a single unique instance of this practice. The picture was submitted to the CMSWR for their website as representative of the life of the community. It affects me somewhat the same way seeing the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" wearing habits does (though at least their's are clearly costumes and meant to be a parody)! Yes, the child is part of the "community" (though I wonder if she and the others SHOULD be), but she is a child -- not professed, not a nun, not someone who has been through all the discernment and formation for such a life and assumed the completely ADULT rights and obligations associated with the commitment of vows. Who else in the community wears a habit for inadequate or casually justified reasons --- whether or not they have a vocation to consecrated life or have completed the appropriate formation or met the normal canonical requirements (which do not ordinarily include marriage and minor or dependent children)? When I see an adult in the habit of the community and veil of the professed, especially if she is walking along with habited children in tow, can I truly assume that she is someone who truly IS what the habit represents? I doubt it now because I really cannot trust the habit means the same thing to the Hermit Intercessors that it means to the Church or to religious women and men.

Note well that I have merely focused on the fact of the child wearing the habit as a form of trivialization. The picture at issue appears to show us a family ALL in habit however, and if this is true, then this underscores the question of whether the habit means for this group what it means for the rest of the Church. Do ANY of these people have vows of consecrated celibacy or chastity, for instance? And if so, what of their marriage vows? What does the habit still MEAN in such a case? Also please note that although your question (and so, my answer) has to do with a comment I made on the trivialization of the habit, the questions of the welfare of the children in this situation --- children who presumably go to school and play with other children in the community --- and of the real nature of this mixed community are also raised front and center with this picture. For me personally it is a snapshot which raises questions about misplaced priorities (marriage vs religious life, for instance) and inadequate boundaries (I would want to understand how families, and celibates actually live in this situation) and, despite recognizing that snapshots can be notoriously misleading, I can understand simply from this small fragment of the community portrait why some might wonder whether or not the group is more cult-like than representative of an Association of the Faithful on the way perhaps to becoming an Institute of Consecrated Life.

Children in Veils, CMSWR, and Former Membership of the Intercessors.

As for why this practice raises questions with regard to CMSWR and membership within it consider that the CMSWR is very conservative and inflexible on the issue of member communities wearing habits. Sometimes they have given the impression that members of communities who do not wear habits are not "real religious" so I wonder if they care that a member community is dressing children in religious garb associated with canonical consecration. I would wager they will be a tad chagrined at this photo for, for me at least, it calls to mind the old in-joke among Sisters (which was more true than some liked) that in Catholic schools the quality of teacher education and aptitude was so low one could put a habit on a broom, set the broom inside the classroom and get as gifted a teacher as some sisters already there. The jibe was that in many cases no one would notice the difference! After all, so long as there was a habit present in the classroom, what else was really necessary?

For that reason, the fact that CMSWR requires the wearing of habits, but may not be judicious enough to notice when pictures of a member group (a LAY group, by the way) on their very website includes habited children while they consider canonically vowed women religious who have given their entire lives to Christ and his Church to be "pseudo sisters" simply because they don't wear habits seems ridiculous to me, and surely must be embarrassing to the CMSWR. We (LCWR, CMSWR, diocesan hermits, etc) ALL argue that the habit does not make the Sister but it seems that perhaps in this case the CMSWR (and certainly the Intercessors of the Lamb) have forgotten this piece of wisdom. At least as I say, it raises serious questions for me.

Provisions for Old-Age and Incapacity for Diocesan Hermits?

[[Sr. Laurel, I have often wondered what provisions hermits, diocesan or otherwise, make for care in their old age. I understand a hermit is expected to be self-supporting and that normally the diocese does not provide any sort of financial asisstance. If a hermit becomes incapacitated and can no longer live alone, or needs some sort of assisted living or nursing care, does the hermit have to make arrangements for such care without any help? Could the hermit be admitted to a nursing home managed by a religious order?]]

This is a really important question and I have written about it briefly once before where I noted that there was no universal or adequate solution to the problem yet. Here I will focus on diocesan hermits. Your question also points to a reason for organizations such as the Network of Diocesan Hermits which enables diocesan hermits to share their own lived experience, problems, possible solutions, etc, with one another and the hierarchical church, and generally support one another in our living out of this vocation even in our later years. After all, we don't cease being vowed and diocesan hermits simply because we are old, ill, or incapacitated. (I should note that the NDH is not meant to be a lobbying organization, but there is no doubt that we will try to keep our fingers on the pulse of diocesan hermit life in some casual ways and seek to suggest solutions to problems diocesan hermits face increasingly. Part of this may simply be to find ways of making the Church at large aware of the needs of diocesan hermits, whether that means Bishops' Conferences, or the Sacred Congregation, etc.) Again, this is an evolving vocation, and a very young one. Both problems and solutions may occur in time that the Canon never foresaw or provided for with clarity and those you mention are certainly among these.

As for your questions themselves, yes, hermits are responsible for their own support and care. This includes arranging matters for old age, assisted living, in-home care, etc. Last year my delegate with the diocese (who works in leadership in her own congregation and is very much in touch with the problems of aging religious and their needs) asked me what I planned to do in the future should I become incapacitated or something similar. I did not have an answer for her, but I think her question was meant to assist me to begin thinking about the matter, not to elicit a detailed answer. I tell the story merely to point out that the responsibility for arrangements fall squarely on my own shoulders --- and also to point out the place a diocesan hermit's delegate may assume here. Whether she will ever ALSO speak to my Bishop about the matter is unclear (she may never need to of course), but she will encourage me in speaking to him, or to whomever else might assist me in such a situation.

As for what is possible more concretely, yes a hermit could well arrange to eventually live in a nursing home managed by a religious community. Alternately I suppose there MIGHT be congregational infirmaries or Motherhouses which would have room and allow a diocesan hermit to board there so long as the hermit was capable of paying room and board and had medical insurance. The same possibility may exist with some monastic houses but each hermit will need to ferret out the possibilities (or get help doing so) herself. Precisely because we do not cease to be vowed or hermits, a religious house of some sort would be far more ideal than an ordinary nursing home, etc. My own Bishop is solicitous of the adequacy of my financial and other resources and I suspect any Bishop who has assumed responsibility for a diocesan hermit in his see would be similarly solicitous. I believe that the diocese would assist me finding solutions and in making necessary arrangements regarding skilled nursing facilities should that situation arise, even though they are, of course, not responsible for providing actual financial assistance.

At the same time I am fairly certain that many parishes would assist in finding ways to meet ongoing needs for diocesan hermits who have lived and freely ministered within that faith community for some years. Again this does not mean they would support the hermit financially but in fact, for many of us our parishes are our primary communities and in some cases they accept that they are this as well. So, while the hermit really is completely responsible for these arrangements, she well may find assistance in making them. Regarding money, insurance, etc, hermits will mainly be surviving on medicare/medicaid and social security --- like any other older person in our society. In-home care may be available even for those on Medicaid so in general what hermits will do is precisely the same as what any poor person in our society will do. Ordinarily hermits are not included on diocesan medical or other insurance --- though occasionally we hear of cases where that has been done. Neither are they automatically included in diocesan clergy burial policies, though again, individual dioceses may rule that they may be.

So, there are a few answers to your questions, and much greater uncertainty in many ways. I hope this response is helpful nonetheless. As always, should it be unclear or raise more questions, please get back to me.

Perpetual Vows, Binding beyond Death?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, Are the perpetual vows of religious considered to be eternally binding, i.e. binding after death? Thank you very much for the ministry of your life & writing, so meaningful to me both as a discerner of religious life and as a person living with chronic illness. ]]

This is a great question but the short answer is no, perpetual vows are not binding beyond death (which may be a reason they are also called final or definitive --- or in some cases, solemn vows --- instead). Consider vows of poverty or obedience, for instance. They wouldn't make much sense on the other side of death where we exist in perfect union with God. (Can you imagine disobedience, the need for superiors, or struggling with self-denial and material goods after death?) Monastics make a vow of conversatio morum, or conversion of life as well as one of stability to a monastery. Those would be meaningless on the other side of death. Chastity too for that matter. Chastity or consecrated celibacy commits us to love in a non-exclusive eschatological way (the way of the Kingdom of God in fullness). After death this love is natural for everyone and no one needs a vow (or a special call) to accomplish it.

Through our faithfulness to vows (whether we mean baptismal, marriage, or religious vows) we become who we are called to be and in the moment of death we finally and irrevocably confirm or deny all those choices by choosing God or rejecting him for eternity. If we choose God and affirm all the choices for life we have made through our lives we undergo purgation through the love of God. That is, through the power of God's love we are affirmed as and remain the person we have become but stripped of imperfections, distortions, and mere potentiality, so there is no longer a need for vows or similar commitments. If we have chosen this throughout our life and also at the moment of death, we are united with God and nothing can change that either to detract from it or to add to it. (Again, purgation refers to the final work of God's creative and welcoming love where stripping of imperfections, etc is finally accomplished; we remain the person we have become in life in this process, but now without distortion or diminution.)

Postscript: I should note that the question as to whether the person remains a consecrated person after death is not the same as whether one remains a vowed person, or whether vows continue to be binding. The person does indeed continue to be one who has been consecrated and lived into her consecration more and more throughout her life. When I speak of becoming the person we are called to be with every choice we make that includes becoming the one who realizes the potential of her consecration.

I hope this is helpful!

Post postscript: Anyone interested in reading an interpretation of purgatory that is like the one provided here (but which is much richer as well) should look at Benedict XVI's book Eschatology. It is part of a series on Dogmatic Theology published under the name Joseph Ratzinger and may surprise people who find my view to be completely unorthodox.

Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Profession under Canon 603

[[Sister, could the former members of the Hermit Intercessors become Canon 603 hermits? What would it take for this to happen?]]


This is a huge and complex question. In some ways though, it is a simple question as well. My own opinion is that a few of them, AS INDIVIDUALS, MIGHT, in time, discern a vocation to diocesan eremitical life, but given the situation at hand both they and the archdiocese (or their home dioceses if they return to those) must act with even greater caution than ordinarily. Canon 603 is not meant simply to provide a way to profess someone who has not been or cannot be professed any other way. It is not simply a fallback position when one vocational path fails -- for whatever reason. One must really discern a true vocation to eremitical life and beyond that, to consecrated eremitical life. Even more specifically, one must discern a call to diocesan (that is, SOLITARY) rather than religious eremitical life. From what I can see the "Hermits'" life is intensely and definitively communal, not to mention familial, and simply calling members "hermits" does not make them hermits especially in the sense Canon 603 uses the term. One may well be contemplative, for instance, without in the least being called to eremitical solitude. Beyond this, one may be called to religious eremitical life without being called to solitary eremitical life, whether lay or diocesan.

So, what would it take for this to happen? Former members interested in pursuing this option would need, again, to discern vocations to SOLITARY eremitical life (not merely contemplative life, and not life in community or even to religious eremitical life), and this would require at least several years AFTER transitioning out of the life of the Intercessors. They, like all potential aspirants for profession under canon 603 would need to discern whether they were called to live eremitical life as a lay person or with canonical vows and, if the latter, approach their own diocese with a petition to be admitted to profession and the beginning of a process of MUTUAL discernment. Sometime just before (or after) this they would need to write a Rule of Life based on their own lived experience of solitary eremitical life which they would submit for approval by canonists and the diocesan Bishop. And, as noted, they would need the diocese to discern the same vocation and admit them to canonical vows --- just as any other candidate or aspirant for Canon 603 profession must do.

Those who would be eligible to discern this would meet all the requirements diocesan hermits must ordinarily meet: they will be single (or if divorced, have received an anullment) and be otherwise unencumbered of minor or dependent children, etc. Note that I have heard of some diocesan hermits who work part time caring for elderly parents, for instance, but this is not universally accepted and the signs of eremitical vocation and readiness for canonical profession must be clear nonetheless, not simply for the individual and hierarchy mutually discerning the vocation before them, but for those to whom the hermit will witness and minister in and from the silence of solitude within the parish, diocese, etc.

In many ways then, the steps would be the same as for any other person, but the church hierarchy will be especially sure Canon 603 is not being seized on as a stopgap means of profession or a merely compensatory fallback position for someone who would much rather live in community, etc. In particular the Church would need to be sure that whatever individuals seek to live according to Canon 603 and who might THEREAFTER seek to come together in a Laura, have EACH discerned a vocation to solitary eremitical life and are not using Canon 603 merely to reconstitute a remnant of the Intercessors or find a merely alternative way back into habit and (finally, admission to public) vows!! The question which must be answered satisfactorily for everyone concerned (not least for diocesan hermits who HAVE discerned, are professed to, and live the life with integrity!) is "Why, if you truly feel called to this, did you not seek profession according to Canon 603 BEFORE the suppression of your group? Why now??"

Thus, the entire process of discernment from initial experimentation with the life through perpetual profession could well take the same time as it does for anyone else (from to 8-12 years or more) with no assurance that temporary, much less perpetual profession will actually occur until quite late in the process. Given the current situation especially, it would also probably be prudent -- if such permission was granted at all -- to allow such hermits to come together in a Laura for mutual support, etc, only AFTER perpetual profession under Canon 603. (I would argue this is necessary anyway for proper discernment and assurance regarding the solitary nature of the vocation, but that it is especially important in the former Intercessors' situation. After all, lauras fail far far more often than they succeed but the vocation and vows of the diocesan hermit remain nonetheless. Living the vocation without benefit of a laura, and without the formation of the laura must be possible for the individual hermit, but it is especially important for those whose whole experience of professed life is semi-eremitical at best, or for whom the term "hermit" was an ideal or metaphorical term only.)

Regular readers of this blog know that I have written in the past about the dangers of inappropriate use of Canon 603 to profess persons who have no real vocation to solitary eremitical life. I think your question is an important one because there will be a great temptation to "just profess" members under Canon 603 without appropriate discernment, or true understanding of the difference between solitary and communal or semi-eremitical life. This is a temptation former Intercessor members and hierarchy must take care to resist and avoid. Similarly the temptation to form a community and merely call it a laura to justify it (and get members professed) is equally problematical today, so the situation of the formerly privately professed members of the Intercessors of the Lamb raises this issue as well. There are very real differences between the two and sometimes canonists focus more on subtle technical or juridical elements to the exclusion of the substantive elements rooted in the nature (charism, mission) of the life itself. (I am thinking especially here of a dissertation on Canon 603 I read several months ago, and which I -- and some other diocesan hermits I know -- believe is especially flawed in this way. (It is helpful in others!) The dissertation argues for what is canonically possible in light of other canons but what is "possible" canonically is not always the same as what is prudent for or theologically and spiritually sound in terms of the solitary eremitical vocation itself.)

I hope this helps.

Catching Up: Belated Congratulations to Sister M Veronica, OSF

I couple of years ago I posted a notice of Sister M Veronica's reception as a novice with the Sisters of St Francis of Peoria. Well, on August 6th, Sister M Veronica, OSF, made her first profession of vows. First my apologies for not having posted about this in a more timely fashion. I realized I had not checked in on things on the Feast of St Francis and only just now rectified that!

Secondly though, my congratulations to Sr M Veronica on this step. I can honestly say that NOW the adventure begins because living the vows is not really the same as preparing to live the vows. Being professed is not really the same as preparing for profession. Sister Veronica, be assured of my prayers as you move through life and approach what we hope will be eventual perpetual profession and an even greater adventure! In that regard my congratulations to Sister Rose Therese (left in the above picture) who did indeed make perpetual profession the same day!

On Visibility, Canonical Standing, and betrayal of the Eremitical Vocation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal,
Do you feel the visibility of your vocation detracts from the "hiddenness" of the eremitical life? Does living according to Canon 603 limit and taint the purity of the contemplative life? Someone calling themselves "Catholic Hermit" writes the following: [[This journey is for anyone, and to be consecrated by a canon law label or an increasingly visible, institutionalized hermit vocation would not allow for writing and living out the Order of the Present Moment, a spiritual order without temporal limits that confine by labels, definitions, visibility and temptation to personal hubris. While the hermit vocation is viable and willed by God for some, it is to be lived then, as the Church defined in the Catechism and then in CL603, which very much requires being hidden in Christ. Since the trend being promoted by some is not that, there is resultant taint and limitation in the label.]]

I have written about this before so I ask you PLEASE to check out posts with labels like "essential hiddenness," "eremitism and hiddenness" or "institutionalization of the eremitical life" which deal with the paradox of a public vocation which is also one of being "essentially hidden in Christ", etc. The obvious answer to your questions is no, I don't think there is any necessary conflict or detraction or else the Church would be guilty of this herself in promoting a public vocation under Canon 603. Further, it makes very little sense to 1) suggest that the Church, precisely in nurturing and governing the solitary eremitical vocation with specific definitions, requirements, ritual, etc is buying into increased institutionalization which is destructive of the vocation, and then 2) affirm that one should live the life just as C 603 and the catechism outline. What diocesan hermits and their Bishops are doing is exploring the meaning and limits of Canon 603 with their lives and commitments. This is what it means to live a vocation in the name of the Church. They are seeking to honor and foster precisely this meaning in her rituals, etc. Despite the elements of the canon sounding simple or obvious, the life defined in the Canon is NOT so very self-evident as the author of this statement would like.

The fact that I have needed to write about the distinction between lives of some degree of silence AND solitude and lives of the silence OF solitude, or that the term hermit is widely associated with stereotypes which look nothing like the life fostered and governed by C 603 should underscore this. The idea of married hermits, communities of "hermits" including parents and children, "hermits" who work full time in active ministry during the week and spend Saturdays in silence and contemplative prayer, misanthropic, selfish, or merely deranged "hermits." etc, also suggest that the nature of the life defined in Canon 603 (which precedes the Catechism in normativity and in publication date) is not so clear and self-evident as some would like. The same is true regarding the nature of the hiddenness of the life. Note, by the way, that hiddenness as a defining term is not included in the Canon anywhere and anonymity is certainly not alluded to. What is spoken of is "stricter separation from the world," "the silence of solitude," and "assiduous prayer and penance". If we are to understand what hiddenness is necessary or essential to the vocation itself it will only be as diocesan hermits live the vocation and contribute what they learn about it to the Church as a whole. In these and so many other ways the need to spell out what Canon 603 does and does not allow or call for, especially in regard to the contemporary world, is simply necessary if the Canon is to do its job in nurturing, protecting, and governing the solitary eremitical vocation.

Freedom is not the Absence of Limitations or Constraints

As far as there being limitations in the label "diocesan hermit" or C 603 hermit, yes indeed there are limits involved. Again, one can hardly suggest that exploring these limitations and the eremitical realm they define is problematical or that there should be no such limits while in the same breath affirming that "the trend promoted by some" diocesan hermits is contrary to the Canon." That is a bit like saying, "I am going to use the word hermit any way I would like --- none of these silly limitations or canonical definitions for me -- but you others, YOU must use the term as I define and use it!" In any case, are limitations necessarily perversions? Do they define a life contrary to eremitical freedom? I would say not necessarily. This is so not only because the absence of limitations creates meaningless amorphous blobs of reality and little more (actually, one can argue there would be nothing at all without limits or "lines" of definition), but because the very nature of Christian Freedom is that it is a life lived fully and abundantly within the constraints of life. Words, for instance, are free to have and take on meaning only to the extent they are limited by context and usage. Without limits (definitions or defining parameters) they are meaningless and are not free to be used fruitfully. Human lives are truly free not when there are no constraints, but when they are empowered to fullness and transcendence in spite of and even within and through various constraints. That is why Catholic theology (and the NT) defines freedom as the power to be the persons we are called to be within the spatial temporal reality of historical, embodied, existence.

The Freedom of canonical eremitical Life and the Present Moment

By the way, this notion of freedom is actually necessary to understand what it means to live in the present moment. Despite the author of the comment you cited desiring it otherwise, "the present moment" is a temporal designation but it is a paradoxical one. It does not mean ceasing to be temporal but rather discovering in the temporal the presence and meaning of the eternal. Living in the present moment means dwelling in a way which allows that "eternal now" (to use Paul Tillich's terminology) to become clear and lifegiving. It means living within space and time, but as those not bound in slavery to the past or in useless anxiety about or fear of the future. It means living within the constraints of space and time, but in a way which allows the eternal to fill and redeem it. It is an exercise in attentiveness, obedience, and freedom, but only insofar as one does NOT attempt to escape the limitations of time into some imaginary atemporal and non-spatial existence. When contemplatives speak of living in the present moment they speak of being completely present to whatever is at hand, however ordinary, however limited, but doing so in a way where eternity (God's own life) is allowed to break in and pervade that reality, or where that reality mediates God's presence (eternity) --- just as Christ's incarnation of the logos did for God in our world.

I don't particularly understand how one could suggest that canonical (diocesan) eremitical life would not allow for writing or living out "the order of the present moment," because of institutionalization, etc, unless of course one simply does not have or understand a call to this life. I have the freedom in my life to freely explore the infinite and eternal realm of union with God precisely BECAUSE of canonical standing. It is a freedom I possess because in being professed publicly I am also publicly free from the common requirement that my life make sense in worldly productive, competitive, and consumerist terms. The Church supports me in this at every point. She asks me in fact to do this in her name and on her behalf. And of course I am responsible to do so --- to do, in fact, what my heart yearned for. If my relationship with God and my experience of the silence of solitude ALSO leads me to write (or compose, or minister to some limited degree, etc, etc) I am completely free to do that.

Do I need permission for these things? Yes and no. If by permission one means prior authorization for every little thing, then no. (Big changes in my Rule, etc are a different matter.) However, what "permission" actually means ordinarily is the responsibility to genuinely discern the place of these and other things in an authentic eremitical life and generally my delegate or my Bishop (who share in this discernment process in varying ways) will permit or encourage this. Thus, I explore the "limits" (parameters) of this vocation with care and fidelity, prayer and reflection, and I act on what I discern. Regularly I meet with my delegate or my Bishop to inform them of what this means. Occasionally it becomes clear I have not discerned wisely or accurately as they reflect back to me their own perceptions (or as I realize in explaining my discernment that it was really inadequate!) So, again, this requirement of my vow of obedience is hardly a limitation of my freedom, but rather an expression and extension of it.

Concretely this means I am free both to fail and to succeed in this life, free to try again as often as I need precisely because I AM consecrated (set apart and specifically graced by God through his Church) as a diocesan hermit, free to explore everything it does and doesn't include, free to explore the gift this life is to the church and world, free in fact to understand my own life AS a gift when once I saw it as meaningless and unproductive. I am free to love, and therefore to minister in the ways my vocation and limitations in life permit --- and to constantly find I can transcend some of these limits because of the "constraints" of Canon 603. I am free to withdraw (in the sense of anachoresis) in greater reclusion, or to move into more activity at my parish or diocese and some greater visibility otherwise.

Will I make mistakes? Yes, and with the help of God and my superiors (not to mention that of my friends!!) I will also correct them. I am free day in and day out to spend my life in prayer, study, writing, and to explore the source and "limits" of human fulfillment and joy without worrying that perhaps I am called to something else. I am free to attend to the requirements of my own true self, to work on healing and integration, to give myself over to the process of redemption and becoming whole and holy as a result of God's love without fear that I am really being selfish. (What selfishness there is will soon be revealed and dealt with!) It is canonical standing with perpetual vows which guarantees these freedoms and many more. How can one argue that such constraints limit or prevent one's ability to dwell in the present moment???

Temptation to Hubris

And as for the accusation of "temptation to hubris", well temptation is not sin, nor is it something we need be protected from so long as we can triumph over it in the power of Christ. Indeed in the real "order of the present moment" we continually transcend or triumph over temptation. It is part of the dynamic of not being enslaved by anxiety or past memories, etc, which do still pull at us and the way we exercise continuing choices for God and his Christ -- choices which strengthen, purify and mature us. Hubris can easily be projected onto another, so we ought be careful concluding that a diocesan hermit who accepts public profession, wears a habit and/or cowl, writes a blog, or carries on her rightful ministry (which may include doing some theology or reflecting on the nature of eremitical life) is doing these things because of hubris. At the same time, we also ought be very careful not to call hubris a person's joy at being called or their very humble (i.e., honest) awe and pride that the Holy Spirit deigns to use her as s/he does!

When Mary says, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit exults in God my savior because he has done great things for me" we hardly identify that as hubris! I would say instead that she is rightfully and humbly proud. When she ponders these things in her heart we see the essential hiddenness of such a life. When she speaks to her Son regarding the needs of the wedding party or tells the disciples to "do as he tells you" at the Cana feast, we hardly fault her for failing in this essential hiddenness! We see very little of Mary in the Gospels really, but when we do see her she has a tremendous impact. It is important not to mistake this for the kind of visibility our world cultivates today and which eremitical life especially opposes.

Visibility of "the World" and Hermit Bloggers

While my life is not anonymous, it is essentially hidden, and besides what the term means in eremitical life through the centuries, it is hidden in ways the world seems no longer to understand. We all know people whose every daily detail goes on their blog or facebook page, or is put up on twitter. Within limits some of this is fine. We are a global village and some of this contributes to growth and maturation in this. But most of it is simply the inability to respect others, ourselves, the nature of privacy, and the need to aggrandize and publicize every aspect of one's life as a result. I will think more about this issue of visibility, what is acceptable, what drives it, etc but for now I can honestly say that my own limited visibility is not driven by anything more than the need to share what the Holy Spirit is doing through this relatively unknown vocation and the way it is a gift to Church and world. I believe that is what drives other diocesan hermits with blogs, for instance. It seems that our Bishops agree, by the way, or, of course, there would be no blogs!

However, even within this blog there are limitations in what I make known or "visible." I have been asked in the past to share more about my everyday life, and I have once considered allowing comments on this blog. Both possibilities I rejected as serious intrusions into my solitude, privacy, and essential hiddenness (of which this blog is actually an extension). In fact this blog serves as a kind of grill or turn --- or better, an anchorite's window on her world --- where I pass things out to the world outside the hermitage and the world has a chance to address or at least read what I share as well. But most of the time the world outside my hermitage has no sense of me whatsoever, and certainly no sense of what is happening on a daily basis in my life. I have the sense it is this way for other diocesan hermits with blogs as well. So, yes, my life has a certain visibility but as I have explained before, the fact that I am a diocesan hermit is a public matter; what goes on in my daily life is mainly something that remains between me and God (which includes my director and/or delegate).

Suppression of the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb

I am posting the following stories about the suppression of the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb because they raise a number of issues I have written about in the past. Included would be the use of the designation Catholic (Catholic hermit, Catholic Congregation, Catholic organization, etc), the right (and responsibility) to wear a habit or use a title as something which is given (and taken away) by the Church and cannot be assumed by individuals on their own, the difference between canonical and non-canonical vows (Religious Sisters and Brothers v Hermit Intecessors), and the issue of being cautious about new charisms or communities which are moving (or wish to move) towards canonical status.

Also alluded to in the earlier article (second below) is the fact that the move to canonical standing is meant to be overseen at every stage by the diocese, and well should be. I have treated all these issues as serious because the Church holds them to be so, not because I am legalistic, but because I am strongly pastoral. They are not, as some persons would like to contend, abstract or merely intellectual issues. They affect lives at every level, and almost every one of them is reflected in the situation with the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb. I believe the following letter and story underscore the same concerns at every point. 

Personally while I have never understood the designation "hermit" in the group's name or much else about them (I did not know they were a "mixed community", for instance, nor did I know that the "hermits" had a schedule like the one I wrote about recently --- 5 days of activity and Saturday devoted to solitude and silence, for instance), but given my knowledge of this now I would say the inaccurate use of the term hermits raises the question as to whether the group was trying or planning to try to use c 603 rather than the canons and procedures for congregations to become canonical. If so, I would object to that. On the other hand, I have no opinions whatsoever on the suppression. I simply do not know much more than is included in the following letter from Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Omaha, Timothy McNeil or the preceding article (placed after the letter though), and that is not enough to form an opinion in the matter. 

Clearly suppression is a very serious and significant move, and we should pray for those members who are now formerly privately vowed** and must find ways to live out their Christian commitment in new ways and contexts, but more than that I cannot say without research and reflection. 

N.B., I am, however, including a picture I just saw (from the CMSWR website under members) which has a CHILD wearing a habit and professed person's veil. (There is a small boy with what looks like a monk's habit/hood in the same picture but the details are hard to make out.) Consider what I have written about casual practices which empty the habit of meaning or significance and see if this does not fit that bill. The trivialization of the habit in this way would raise questions for me about the group as a whole all by itself --- and perhaps about their putative membership in CMSWR and what it says about that organization's policies and stances regarding non-habited communities as well.) ** It should be noted that the vows of ANY of the HIOL were considered private or non-canonical vows since the group/organization had not been established as an institute of consecrated life yet. Vows of those who are part of an association are considered private. Only those of religious and diocesan hermits are considered public, while those of members of secular institutes are a kind of anomaly which are considered semi-public. The vows of Societies of Apostolic Life are also considered private. 

 Despite these distinctions what should be noticed is 1) that vows of whatever sort represent significant commitments, and 2) nonetheless, the HIOL have not been reduced from the consecrated state because they had never been initiated into the consecrated state. It is important to keep that in mind in evaluating the Church's actions here. 

[[October 15, 2010 Today, for grave reasons, I suppressed the Hermit Association of the Intercessors of the Lamb. The reasons for this suppression are noted in a separate news release, principally, the refusal of the lay civil board of the Intercessors of the Lamb,Inc., a Nebraska corporation, to acknowledge my authority in making much-needed reforms in the community. The way of life of some fifty vowed members was in peril due to actions of a handful of civil directors. The vows of the former members have ceased (c. 1194), and they are to set aside the habit and refrain from using the titles “Mother,” “Brother,” or “Sister.” They are no longer considered to be in consecrated life or assimilated to it in the Church. 

I am providing for the care of the former members in the short-term, and remain committed to helping them in any way I can in the future. From this point forward, The Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., is in no way associated with the Catholic Church. As Archbishop of Omaha, and in view of my authority to govern and guard the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church (c. 835 §1), I hereby decree that no liturgical or sacramental celebrations are to occur on any property owned by the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., within the Archdiocese of Omaha. Priests, deacons, and lay ministers are to observe this prescription. The chapel formerly known as the Our Lady of Light Chapel on the Bellwether campus in Omaha is no longer a Catholic chapel. Catholic faithful worldwide should be aware that any alms given to the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., are not being given to a Catholic organization. 

Those who previously had scheduled retreats or other Catholic ministry opportunities there should look elsewhere. Those who consider themselves “companions” or “associates” of the Intercessors, some of whom have even taken [private] vows, are hereby informed that such vows were never canonically recognized in the Church. Even if such vows were binding in conscience, they too cease in view of the suppression of the Hermit Association of the Intercessors of the Lamb and c. 1194. 

Of course, Catholic faithful are always welcome, in virtue of their baptism, to associate together and to pray. I would encourage those companions and associates to continue to pray for the former vowed members of the Intercessor community, for the Church, and for the needs of the world. 

An Earlier Piece of the Story (Status of Group, Leader steps down)

[[Deacon Timothy McNeil, chancellor of the archdiocese and director of communications, explained to CNA on Monday in a phone interview that Sr. Nadine had approached the newly installed Archbishop Lucas last year in order to move the group's status to the next canonical tier. In an effort to familiarize himself with the group before advancing Sr. Nadine's initiative, Archbishop Lucas had canon lawyer Fr. James Conn act as his delegate in conducting a canonical visitation of the Intercessors. “We learned some things that were kind of alarming,” said Deacon McNeil, adding that the findings showed that “they were not ready to make the next step.” “The findings were such” that if the group was going to advance to the next canonical status, he noted, “it would have to be under the leadership of another individual.” For that reason, the deacon said, Archbishop Lucas asked Sr. Nadine to resign “and she agreed to it.” 

When asked what the specifics findings of the visitation were, Deacon McNeil explained that they included “discord within the group, widespread dissatisfaction with current leadership, reservation of the Eucharist in a way that is not provided by ecclesiastical law,” poor “management of temporal goods” and an inability of group members to articulate the Intercessors' charism. “The combination of all of these things,” he added, “resulted in the group needing a new leadership change.” 

 Deacon McNeil said that Archbishop Lucas has appointed Fr. Gregory Baxter – a pastor of the local St. Margaret Mary parish who has held numerous archdiocesan positions – as trustee of the group. In a statement released by the Omaha archdiocese on Oct. 4, the archbishop said that “Father Conn’s preliminary findings, as well as Father Baxter’s appointment as trustee, will help chart a course forward for the community. I’m grateful for Father Conn’s good work, and I have full confidence in Father Baxter’s ability to guide the visitation to a successful conclusion.”

Validation vs Redemption of Isolation: Questions

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, in your own vocation did you move from the idea of "validation" of isolation to the redemption of that in solitude? Since you say that dioceses should be clear the transition should be negotiated before admittance to temporary profession, is it the case that this happens "neatly and cleanly"? What I mean by this is is one looking for validation of isolation one day and looking at its redemption the next? Is one dealing with isolation one day and solitude as you have defined it the next? ]]

Great questions! And important ones. The answer to the first question is yes, in part. I was looking for a way to validate my own isolation or aloneness and so in part my motives with regard to Canon 603 were unworthy. However (and thanks be to God!), in part there was something more at work than this for, as I have explained before, I was looking for a context in which all the parts of my life could make sense and be truly fruitful (an element of "making sense" in my mind). This need or yearning was deeper than the more egocentric motives. What I was seeking to contextualize was all of the gifts, but also all of the weaknesses, deficiencies, and even brokennesses of my life. This, I think, is a yearning for transcendence and meaning, a yearning for God though I would not have identified it so easily that way 27 years ago and more.

Thus, in my own journey to eremitical profession it took some time to even recognize, much less admit, the merely selfish motives and distinguish them from those which were of God and reflected his will. It took longer to tease them apart in order to see them clearly. Thus too, for many years elements of both co-existed within me and struggled for dominance. It was only through spiritual direction and the personal work associated with that that the truly unworthy motives were mainly dealt with and their roots healed, while the more authentic motives were strengthened and purified allowing it to become clear that I was pursuing this vocation because, unusual and paradoxical as it was, it was the way to living and loving fully for me as a whole human being. In other words, I was called by God to this.

But while there was significant ambiguity there was also a point when a clear shift took place. It didn't happen in a single day and instead was more like lots of small bits and pieces coming together over time (years) so that in the space of a few weeks (or maybe less) everything had changed for me. (This may be what some refer to as a "paradigm shift." I suppose this could have happened in a moment but really it took some time for me to realize not only that a remarkable shift had occurred but to understand what the shift was. In a way, I also had to let go of an habitual way of seeing as a piece of the transition; that letting go took time.) So, no, the transition is not neat and clean as you put it if by that you mean black and white, but it is clear and describable. I realized that I had somehow moved or been moved to a place where isolation no longer defined me and instead that I was right smack in the heart of things and being asked to live from this reality more and more every day. In Merton's language the door to solitude had been opened to me. In my own experience I knew I was a hermit in some essential way whether or not I would ever be professed according to Canon 603. Illness was still an ever-present reality but at the same time it was no longer the defining reality of my life. Hardly anything had changed and yet, nothing at all was the same.

Still, illness which has crippled and isolated in so many ways retains power and letting go of behaviors associated with its domination takes time (and usually assistance!). Learning what is truly possible in this new context where the values of "the world" ought to hold no sway, as well as coming to terms with the ways one's limitations still preclude some things is part of this as well. Even so, this struggle had for me the quality of a kind of "mopping up" after the main battle has been won or the firestorm been put out. It was really as though the outcome was no longer in question. As with the crucifixion, the power of death was definitively broken but death still had some power until God became all in all. The "mopping up" I experience(d) is a piece of moving to a new reality, to taking hold of it with both hands (or letting it take hold of me) and living from it with all one's heart.

As a kind of postscript to my answer, it is the growth of this last piece which I associate with the silence of solitude more than with simply external silence or physical solitude. One finds that God and oneself are a covenant reality (really one's very Self is such a relationship with God) and one grows to embody it more and more as a hermit. There are still bits of unworthy motives, things needing healing, etc, but essentially one KNOWS (in the intimate Biblical sense) that this covenant relationship lived out in the eremitical silence of solitude is not merely a vocational path but the essence of one's personhood. In other words, the silence of solitude is what is created by God and the hermit together in an eremitical environment of silence AND solitude. It is both present reality, environment, and goal of the eremitical life.

Thus, the growth never stops. One has had the door of solitude (union) opened to one and stepped through. What lies before one is an unexplored "country", a largely unexplored love really which is infinite in scope. Everything which once isolated now is capable of mediating meaning and God's love. It may in fact also marginalize, but it is the marginalization of the prophet, or of anyone who must stand back from a reality in order to speak God's Word to and into it. For this reason it is a marginalization which paradoxically also places one in the heart of reality --- especially the Church and the world which she penetrates.

I hope I have actually answered your questions. If not, or if my response raises more questions please get back to me --- as always.