Short Discernment Periods for Canon 603 Profession are imprudent and Uncharitable

[[Dear Sister, when you wrote the following recently, what did you mean by disrespecting the vocation and lacking charity for the candidate? It seems to me that long periods of discernment are meant to put the candidate off. So you disagree?? How is it loving to make things longer and harder? (Sorry I could not copy the whole passage). . .]]

The referenced passage is the following:

 [[(The diocese) must have a sense of the normally extended time frame for moving through a discernment process and not be tempted to ignore it --- an act which disrespects the vocation and fails to act with charity towards the candidate. Finally, they must understand the central elements of Canon 603, especially the silence of solitude and its function as charism of the eremitical life. Bishops are called and canonically required to be aware of and foster new forms of consecrated life. While it is a serious commitment in time given the rarity of these vocations, chancery personnel (Bishops, Vicars for Religious or Consecrated Life, Vocations directors, etc) must foster a readiness to patiently discern and assist such vocations instead of simply rejecting their possibility out of hand.]]

Again, thanks for your questions. As noted, I have substituted the actual passage you could not copy for your own shortened version so I hope that is helpful. Also, I have written some in the past about dioceses who merely put people off by telling them things like, "Just go off and live in solitude; that is sufficient" or actually prolonging the discernment process simply to discourage people, so please check the labels regarding time frames for becoming a diocesan hermit and persistence in dealing with dioceses, for instance.

Longer Discernment is not necessarily Unloving

It is true that dioceses can put people off by drawing out a discernment process. My own sense is that this is much less common than simply cutting off the discernment process prematurely and saying "no" to admission to profession or simply never allowing a person a chance to participate in a process of mutual discernment with the diocese so let me speak to that first. One small but essential piece of dioceses really understanding the vocation is being clear that eremitical solitude is different than other forms of solitude in our world, and that the need or experience of transitional solitude (usually unchosen), for instance, or other chosen forms of solitude comes in every life for many different reasons. Because this is so discerning a vocation to eremitical life is more complicated; beyond this initial discernment, distinguishing between a call to lay eremitical life and consecrated eremitical life is another necessary step in things. Thus, discerning eremitical vocations of whatever sort takes time and care.

It is not unloving to be honest about this with a candidate for Canon 603 life. As I have noted before, so long as the diocese is dealing with the candidate in good faith and not simply stringing them along this really will serve them well in the long run. It also will serve the c 603 eremitical vocation well --- something a diocesan Bishop, chancery and all hermits themselves are responsible for.  A diocesan hermit does experience a new grace and freedom with consecration, but even so, the time leading to these are important for growth and can be very fruitful so long as the diocese is dealing in good faith. After all, for one seeking profession under Canon 603, whether before eremitical consecration or even apart from it, the person is living the eremitical life and not merely setting other plans aside temporarily. One does not approach a diocese in this way just "to see" about eremitical life, or "to experiment" with it. One approaches a diocese with a petition for profession under canon 603 because over some time one has come to believe that God is calling her to consecration to a LIFE of the silence of solitude. While one can and should certainly spend some time as a lay hermit to experiment, c 603 life is really not a vocation one tries out on the way to something else or uses in order to comparison shop.

Meanwhile, longer periods of discernment will serve the vocation itself well because it will  1) cut down on incidences of non-eremitical solitary lives which are merely called "eremitical", (e.g., transitional solitude or the physical solitude from bereavement, etc which is not yet and may never be eremitical), 2) cut down on incidences where canon 603 is used as a stopgap to profession (e.g., folks who want to found a community or who treat c 603 as a preliminary to something else or those who want the privilege of being religious without the obligations of community life --- especially problematical in this day and age of individualism), 3) diminish uses of canon 603 as  merely a fallback option (e.g., those who have lived consecrated life and left for various reasons but still wish to live consecrated life; most of these will never rise to the level of eremitical vocations and some will be escapist because the person is unwilling to make the transition back to lay (secular) life, but it needs be noted well that SOME eventually can and, given time, WILL do so) 4) help prevent professions which contribute to disedifying stereotypes of the eremitical life and vocation including especially using the canon to profess individualistic and narcissistic persons --- again, a serious temptation and truly an imminent danger given today's culture. 

The eremitical vocation today is significant and edifying but it cannot be either if it is used to profess anyone just living alone, no matter how pious they are, or those seeking to be recognized as religious without the obligations or checks and balances of religious life. More positively, c 603 is meant to be used for rare LIFE vocations which clearly attest to the counter-cultural working of the Holy Spirit in our overly competitive, consumerist, individualistic and narcissistic times.

Shorter Discernment May be Unloving to Candidates and Destructive of the Vocation

It is not loving to allow someone to make vows to live a vocation they do not have. It is not loving to bind someone (or allow them to bind themselves) to the obligations of a life vocation to which they are not called. It is not loving to them or to those to whom they will (attempt to) minister. I think that goes without saying --- at least is should do. Most folks think of the rights associated with eremitical life, habit, title, and so forth as cool things they would like to be allowed -- signs of religious privilege and prestige, not as symbols of responsible lives they are called to live on behalf of God and others. They may also envision the life as one of "peace and quiet" or "rest and relaxation" which really affects no one else. But someone with that notion of the life demonstrates complete ignorance of it. These folks certainly MIGHT have the stamina and grit to live out real eremitical life, but they are not yet ready to make a profession to do so much less be consecrated to the state of life this involves. The simple fact is there are real sacrifices involved in committing to eremitical life and one must have already come to understand these in some intimate way if one is to discern they are sacrifices God and his Church calls one to make.

I know that some dioceses have gotten older candidates and perpetually professed them fairly quickly --- after a year or two. There may be real exceptions with great backgrounds, life experience, and sufficient spiritual maturity, etc, for this to work, but generally, I am certain it is not sufficient time to discern such a vocation. This is especially true when the person is still dealing with bereavement, has really desired to live in community that did not work out, is newly diagnosed with chronic illness, etc. While chancery personnel might want to be "pastoral" to the person's own situation, I am convinced that besides this they are often asking themselves, "Besides, what harm will it do?" or "Well, the vocation is isolated and of no real benefit, so who can it hurt?" or "One more person in a habit! That's a good thing." 

The problem with professions that are premature in such situations is that people are hurt, the vocation itself is harmed by being trivialized and rendered incredible, and the habit is turned into a bit of pious costuming rather than a symbol of genuine sacrifice and witness (again, all matters of disrespecting the vocation). Put more positively, perhaps, we have to say that because the gift (charisma) the solitary eremitical vocation is to the Church and World is neither understood nor valued, dioceses admit persons who will never live the gift or bring it to those who need it so very badly. Establishing such precedents only help to ensure this fragile but vital vocation will be suppressed or rendered incredible and the Divine gift associated with lives of the "silence of solitude" will be lost once again.

Two Final Clarifications: 

Let me be clear. We ought not extend periods of discernment interminably. Even so, a period of 2-3 years in solitude as a lay hermit (not merely a lone person) while participating in spiritual direction, followed by 2-4 years of mutual discernment prior to admission to temporary profession and then a period of temporary profession for 3-5 years is entirely reasonable in approaching perpetual profession under canon 603! During the latter 9 years (discernment through temporary profession) the diocese HAS to be willing to follow the candidate carefully (including visits to the person's home/hermitage for interviews). If, after the initial period of mutual discernment the diocese is seriously doubtful about the vocation they should be honest about their doubts and concerns and end the discernment unless everyone involved agrees to extending this for another year or two. If the diocese still has serious doubts and concerns then the process should be discontinued. If the individual is truly called to eremitical life --- if eremitical solitude really is the environment and goal of her life --- she will remain a lay hermit, continue working on the issues that were raised, and in a few years might be able to petition the diocese to revisit the matter.

Also, it IS the case that in time some few of those putative vocations which looked initially to be merely stopgap or fallback "vocations" will mature into authentic eremitical vocations. It takes time for this, however, and the person who will eventually come to be professed with such a history needs to be very clear that God has redeemed the initial situation in this way. A niggling sense that perhaps one was ONLY using canon 603 as a stopgap solution to personal desires, deficiencies, etc, or that perhaps a diocese admitted one to profession out of pity or because they didn't understand the vocation well enough cannot be allowed to cloud one's profession under canon 603. Dioceses need to understand clearly that one may leave religious life because one is truly called to eremitical solitude; they need to know that eremitical solitude represents the redemption of isolation and that hermits thus live something that is a gift to a church and world marked and marred by individuals' isolation. But validating isolation and redeeming it are different things. Thus some especially authentic and edifying vocations will necessarily come from such isolation (chronic illness, life failures, etc) and become strong witnesses to the redeeming power of God. Again though, teasing apart the various motivations, deficiencies, and potentialities takes time which makes long discernment both prudent and charitable, especially in such instances.

Rejecting Eremitical Vocations vs Creating Readiness for Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
      it seems to me that if Dioceses don't agree that Diocesan Hermit candidates have adequate formation then they should just not profess them until they HAVE adequate formation.  I mean that doesn't seem like rocket science to me! Also how can they simply make a blanket judgment against the vocation itself? So what is the diocesan responsibility in forming diocesan hermits? Is it really possible for solitary hermits to get sufficient formation themselves with a bit of help from a spiritual director? Thank you.]]

Well, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Reaching the conclusion you have is not rocket science, is it? First, a diocese is not actually responsible for forming a hermit; they are primarily about discerning the nature and quality of the vocation present before them. However, if a diocese believes the person requires more formation before being admitted to profession, they do need to work with resources available to the hermit to help her determine a plan so that she can get this formation. Thus, a diocese needs to be specific with the individual involved with regard to what areas in which she is deficient , what kinds of things would help with these, and so forth. The reference to needed formation cannot be vague nor can it replace actual discernment on the reality of the vocation itself. For instance, it is not okay to make an aspirant for profession jump through a number of formative hoops if the diocese has already determined she is not called to be a diocesan hermit and will not be admitted to profession. The only way this could work is if the diocese is honest with the person, says they are truly open to seeing things in a new way once the formation issues are taken care of, and then follows through with that.

It is true that sometimes elements in formation can clarify areas of the candidate's life which have caused questions about the reality or nature of a vocation, but in such cases the candidate must know that admission to profession is in serious doubt and that while further formation may assist in clarifying matters and even help take care of areas which lead to doubt, at the same time they may not change the doubtfulness. Honesty and good faith communication is imperative in such instances. Dioceses have not always been good at achieving this kind of openness in communication.  A candidate must agree to get the formation they need --- especially since they bear the brunt of any expense or time commitment required.

How can dioceses make such blanket judgments against vocations per se? Excellent question but not one for which there is a single answer. Some Vicars for Religious (few I hope!), for instance, do not value the contemplative life; if this is so, eremitical life will seem even less valuable. Some Vicars and even Bishops may have seen abuses of canon 603 and have been put off by these. Some dioceses realize that, despite the fact that dioceses do not form hermits, working with hermit candidates involves a long-term commitment to the person as well as a kind of patience and expertise their usual work may not require. They may not be up to that for a single vocation which is rare and seemingly not very fruitful or contemporary. Also, the process of discernment here involves a life with which few Vicars or even Bishops are really familiar in any meaningful sense at all. It is not uncommon for the same stereotypes which plague the world at large in regard to hermits to also plague chancery staff. Some dioceses may indeed have had several poor candidates show up at the chancery door looking for a sinecure, or may even have professed someone and had it turn into a nightmare for everyone involved. Communities have ways of socializing (forming) and supervising members at least partly simply by living with them and also may ask them to leave before perpetual vows. With hermits and consecrated virgins the same safeguards do not exist so the diocese itself needs to be patient and careful over a longer period of discernment.

If a hermit is admitted too soon to perpetual or even temporary profession, especially if the diocese doing so has not confirmed the adequacy of formation (or don't even know how to do so), if the diocese has insufficient knowledge of the eremitical tradition and life,  or if they are unwilling to invest (and demand) the appropriate time for the formation of a solitary eremitical vocation (which the hermit herself must secure), then the eremitical vocation itself is endangered. In such cases I would say better there be NO professions than bad ones. Even so, a blanket refusal to profess anyone is obviously not optimal or even acceptable in the face of canon 605 (which requires Bishops be attentive to new forms of consecrated life) and the movement of the Holy Spirit with regard to true vocations. There are sound solitary eremitical vocations in a number of countries; dioceses must become aware of that and learn from them. Meanwhile, solitary hermits have gotten the formation they have needed to live this life --- and most have done it "on their own" with assistance and mentoring they themselves have acted to include in their lives. Most of the time diocesan hermits are partly formed in religious life and only late discovered a call to solitary life. Still, while it is a longer and more difficult process for those who have no background in religious life, it is generally possible for individuals to come to all that is necessary to live this life by themselves with the assistance of a director and an openness to doing what is necessary to learn and grow theologically, spiritually, and humanly.

What is at least equally essential however, is that dioceses themselves become educated in regard to the eremitical life (especially the solitary eremitical life). They must, for instance, know the difference between a hermit and a pious person who lives alone; they must have done some work in jettisoning the common stereotypes associated with the term "hermit" --- but also be proficient in spotting those same stereotypes when they show up in a candidate who has just arrived on the chancery doorstep. They must have a sense that hermits are created by time as well as by and for  the  silence of solitude and be able to allow those to do their work in a candidate's life. They must have a sense of the normally extended time frame for moving through a discernment process and not be tempted to ignore it --- an act which disrespects the vocation and fails to act with charity towards the candidate. Finally they must understand the central elements of Canon 603, especially the silence of solitude and its function as charism of the eremitical life. As already noted, bishops are called and canonically required to be aware of and foster new forms of consecrated life. While it is a serious commitment in time given the rarity of these vocations, chancery personnel (Bishops, Vicars for Religious or Consecrated Life, Vocations directors, etc) must foster a readiness to patiently discern and assist such vocations instead of simply rejecting their possibility out of hand.

Empty Houses are Vulnerable Houses

The pericope of the house exorcised of a single demon from yesterday's Gospel passage by Luke provides some real spiritual wisdom. It also serves to illustrate Paul's own concern in what he is is writing to the Church in Galatia and is especially meaningful when read within the context provided by Paul's letter to the Galatians. Remember, the passage from Luke speaks of clearing a single demon from a house; the demon then wanders around arid spaces looking for a place to inhabit. Eventually it returns to the original dwelling and finds it all swept clean and in order, but yet uninhabited. The demon thus  goes out to find seven more demons and they all move into the now clean and orderly but empty house.

The first part of the context for hearing this Gospel passage is provided by Paul's own theology and is summarized by the first lection: namely, the Law, a Divine gift,  functions as a curse apart from Christ. It provides rules on the way we are required to be and persist in being but it cannot empower us to do what it requires. The law instructs us regarding what is truly human, it can convict us of sin and point clearly to the demons which occupy our own divided hearts  but it cannot actually bring about Communion with God. The Law is important, especially as a schoolmaster preparing us for adult life in faith, but it cannot be thought to replace faith.

The second part of the context is provided by Luke's theology itself. A major theme of the Gospel is hospitality. Luke is concerned not only with our call to provide hospitality to strangers of whom we make neighbors, but with providing hospitality for God in our world, and further, with becoming ourselves God's own guests dwelling within the Kingdom of God's own sovereignty. In  the stories we heard this week from Luke's Gospel hospitality figures largely, and so does law to some extent. On Monday we heard the story of Mary and Martha, both offering hospitality to Jesus. Martha adopts a kind of legal maximization and busies herself going beyond the strict requirements of the Law (to provide a single dish for the guest) and  in the process, avoids actually providing the guest what he most desires --- her own hearkening (obedient) company. Mary, on the other hand, sits down at Jesus' feet and "hearkens" to him. What Martha seems to do is something Paul associates with the "curse of the law,"  namely she assumes that if x is required, 5 times x will be even better.

On Wednesday we heard the Lord's Prayer, which itself is about being taught to pray and thus 1) coming to allow God a place where he may be powerfully present in our world, and 2) becoming participants in the Kingdom of Divine Sovereignty where all dwell in communion with God and one another. What the pericope makes clear is that Law has NOT taught the disciples how to pray. Only Jesus (God's own empowering presence) can do this. On Thursday, there was the story of the importuning guest banging on his neighbor's door for bread to feed an unexpected guest. It is unclear whether or not all in this story eventually act as the Law requires them to act (the entire village is responsible for hospitality) but one can hardly praise the attitude of heart or spirit of hospitality demonstrated by (or lacking in!) the man who was sought out to supply the bread, for instance! And yesterday we heard the story of Jewish leaders who are concerned with the Law and presumably keep it faithfully as God's gift, but refuse to receive Jesus as God's own presence in their lives and world. They even accuse Jesus of acting by the power of Beelzebul to cast out demons. Jesus confronts them with their inconsistency by asking what power it is by which they themselves exorcise demons; he then tells today's parable of the demon exorcised from the house with the house then being left uninhabited and vulnerable.

Probably very few of us are legalists in the strict sense, but how many of us tidy up our own hearts in a kind of spiritual housekeeping and fail to give those same hearts over to God to fully occupy? How many of us are intrigued by techniques and tools, workshops, etc, but resist actual prayer, that is, the giving of our lives over to God? I suspect this is a far more common problem in Christian living than legalism per se. Law of all sorts assists us in dealing with the demons which inhabit our own hearts: those of covetousness, greed, dishonor, dishonesty, anger, and so forth, but we have to go further and allow God to be powerfully present in whatever way he wishes. We have to allow our hearts to truly become Temples of the Holy Spirit. After all we are not called merely to be respectable (neat, clean, orderly, well looked after, with the right structure, facade, and all the right appointments), but to be Holy --- a new Creation, in fact. That means not merely being occupied WITH God or the concerns of his Law, but being occupied BY God in a way which transforms our hearts into God's own home.


Despite the humor involved in Luke's image of the returning demons, the image is serious. We have all seen houses that were abandoned, and especially we have seen houses owners fixed up but left unoccupied; they become  dens for animals, nests for squatters of all sorts, dump sites for lazy neighbors, sources for scavengers and thieves  drug houses, and so forth. In short, they are made unfit for human (or Divine) habitation. So too with our own hearts. Law helps us clean them of all those things mentioned above, and more. But Luke's Gospel also reminds us that God in Christ stands at the door and knocks. If we don't REALLY allow him to make himself fully at home, if we allow our hearts to be less than wholly hospitable to a God who desires an exhaustive Communion with us, then other and worse demons will replace the demons already exorcised: those of ingratitude, self-righteousness, complacency, fear, works-righteousness, pride, and so forth. Houses are made to be inhabited and so is the human heart; an empty house is dangerous and vulnerable and so is an empty human heart ---no matter how orderly and respectable. Law helps us ready our hearts for Communion with God, but at some point we really do have to allow God to move in as fully as He desires and take complete "ownership".

Why is it Diocesan Hermits can Wear Habits?

Sisters of Bethlehem (Not Canon 603)

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it consecrated hermits can wear habits?]]

Thanks for your question. There are several reasons which make it appropriate to allow publicly professed hermits to wear habits.  First, in light of canon 603 solitary canonical hermits are now seen as religious. In the Handbook on Canons 573-746 in the section on norms common to Institutes of Consecrated Life, canonist Ellen O'Hara, CSJ writes regarding canon 603 specifically, "The term "religious" now applies to individuals with no obligation to common or community life and no relation to an institute." Thus, the same canonical obligations regarding garb witnessing to consecration and religious poverty can be applied to diocesan hermits. (Note well that in all of this I am referring to canon 603 and those who make public vows under that canon. Privately dedicated hermits are not included in Sister Ellen O'Hara's characterization above.)

Secondly, the eremitical life is traditionally associated with an eremitical or monastic habit. Ordinarily an elder hermit granted the habit to the novice; s/he also monitored the wearing of it as a piece of mentoring the novice in the eremitical life. If the novice lived the life well, the habit stayed; if the novice did not live the life well, permission to wear the habit was withdrawn and the habit was taken away. This use of specific religious garb is older than any other in the history of Christian religious or monastic life. Since, along with congregations of hermits like the Carthusians and Camaldolese, c 603 represents a public, ecclesial continuation of this tradition, the granting of the habit is entirely appropriate to diocesan hermits, despite the fact that they are solitary hermits. The Bishop replaces an elder hermit or mentor, however, in granting permission for and clothing with the habit.

Thirdly, the habit, today especially, marks the person wearing it as somehow "separated" from the world, not only in the sense of that which is resistant to Christ, but also to some extent from the world of social relationships and some related obligations. For instance, as I have noted before, vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience significantly qualify the ways in which the professed person relates to the world of commerce, relationships, and power. For hermits who are, in fact and by definition, more strictly separated from these than apostolic or ministerial religious, the habit can serve to remind her of this dimension of her vocation even when she is out and about. While it should not make her in any way remote or distant from those with whom she comes in contact, it signals a distinction which is not always appropriate in ministerial religious.

Permission to wear the habit, as noted above, is granted by the diocesan Bishop. Beyond this, it is customary (though not strictly required) that the hermit is clothed in a cowl or other prayer garment at perpetual profession. My own diocese required the latter (cowl or other prayer garment) and desired or were open to (but did not require) my wearing a habit. Still, some hermits may choose not to adopt these forms of garb and some dioceses may not require (or even be open to) either habit or prayer garment. Reasons vary. Some Bishops dislike allowing individuals who are not members of an institute of consecrated life to wear a habit (especially if the habit is typically Franciscan or Dominican or something similar --- a practice which cannot be allowed!); sometimes, however, this is a piece of legitimately discerning an authentic eremitical vocation (bishops or Vicars may say the diocese is not open to hermits wearing habits because sometimes folks who live alone merely want to wear a habit and are not really interested in the vocation itself or in living an authentic eremitical solitude). 

In all such cases there is really no need for a habit until one is professed; one will dress simply otherwise; neither is a habit necessary for discerning an eremitical vocation. At the same time, as noted, in some cases withholding the granting of the habit may be part of discerning and demonstrating a candidate is not really interested in or able to live an eremitical life per se. Some hermits accent the hiddeness of the vocation and see a habit as clashing with this dimension of the eremitical life. Others feel that wearing such garb is contrived or unnatural outside a monastic setting and are simply uncomfortable with it. When these things are true for the individual hermit, when, that is, they are positions she holds or agrees with, her own Rule (her own "proper law") will not support the wearing of a habit.

Still, hermits professed and consecrated under canon 603 are generally allowed to wear habits if and when their Bishops agree. (Again, such permission, which seems to be granted by the majority of bishops with c 603 hermits in their dioceses, is usually not granted apart from profession, especially if the hermit is out in public because, as I have noted before (something which could be called a fourth reason), habits are associated with the assumption of public rights and obligations of a particular state of life (Religious). A habit is unnecessary and superfluous apart from the assumption of such rights and obligations, or such a state; it is also misleading and dishonest. People rightly associate habits with the assumption of public rights and obligations and tailor their expectations accordingly, It is for this reason habits are not usually approved apart from admission to vows. The cowl, when given, is always linked to perpetual profession and not to temporary profession.

Patient Trust

In light of the posts I have put up regarding the time and patience it takes to discern an eremitical vocation as well as on the impatience we often show with the newness that comes from God, I wanted to post the following poem by Teihard de Chardin, SJ.

Patient Trust

Above all, trust in the slow work of God.
We are quite naturally impatient in everything
          to reach the end without delay.
We should all like to skip the intermediate stages.
We are impatient of being on the way to something
          unknown, something new.
And yet, that is the law of all progress
          that it is made by passing through
          some stages of instability
          and that it may take a very long time.

And so I think it is with you,
          your ideas mature gradually --- let them grow
          let them shape themselves, without undue
          haste.

Don't try to force them on.
         as though you could be today what time
         (that is to say, grace and circumstances
         acting on your good will)
         will make of you tomorrow.

Only God could say what this new spirit
         gradually forming within you will be.

Give our Lord the benefit of believing
        that his hand is leading you.
and accept the anxiety of feeling yourself
        in suspense and incomplete.

Solutions to using Canon 603 as a Stopgap Way to Profession

  [[Dear Sister,   Does the situation in the Archdiocese of Boston happen a lot? Is there a real problem with eremitical vocations that are not genuine?Is this one of the reasons there are so few of them? Is it  one of the reasons that dioceses don't always want to profess diocesan Hermits? What is the solution to this?]]

I can't say that situations like the one in the Archdiocese of Boston (cf Notes from Stillsong Hermitage: Abuses of Canon 603)  happens often. In some ways I think this was pretty unique. Remember that there are fewer than 60 or so diocesan hermits in the United States so in an absolute sense diocesan hermits aren't professed or consecrated very often. A few countries have more, most have far fewer. This is partly a function of the fact that the vocation itself is really a rare one.

As I have written before, it is unusual for a person to be called to achieve fullness of humanity and genuine holiness apart from the more usual relationships and activities in which integrity and holiness are formed. While hermits live at the heart of the Church and while we have friends, directors, pastors, and delegates who help support us in our growth, we truly are formed in the silence of solitude. That is the milieu in which we are most at home, where we are healed and challenged beyond what the world outside the hermitage affords. We are CALLED by God to achieve fullness of humanity in this way and to witness to the place of the silence of solitude in every life. Significantly, as I have said many times, this is not a life of individualism, selfishness, narcissism, or misanthropy, but instead is the way in which we come to love most fully and effectively. The problem of course is that it takes a significant period of time to determine which is the case for a particular petitioner for admission to profession under Canon 603 and yes, mistakes are made and we see these in folks who are no more hermits than I am a professional violinist! (I play at the violin, usually quite well, but I am no where near being a professional player.)

You ask about the reasons dioceses don't always want to profess individuals under canon 603. While there are a number of reasons, I think it is true that they boil down to concerns over the authenticity of a call to the silence of solitude, yes. I was reminded today of something I had been told several years ago, namely, that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (and possibly the entire province including the Archdiocese --- implied in all further references to the Archdiocese)) decided a number of years ago (perhaps 20) that they would not profess anyone as a diocesan hermit under c 603 nor would they consecrate any women as CV's under canon 604. The reason given had to do with the perception that these were "fallback" vocations --- vocations chosen by those who had failed at religious life or life in general. 

A related reason given was the lack of adequate formation of these persons. Of course this kind of blanket generalization, especially in such a cynical form, is nonsense and fails to take the history of these vocations into account, but there is a real danger and a nugget of truth behind it; it is one I have written about many times here, namely, the tendency to use Canon 603 as a stopgap option by individuals to seek profession or by chanceries to profess individuals that do not have a true eremitical vocation. (A related danger is the tendency to use Canon 603 as a means to form a community. With Canon 604 there is the danger of consecrating those who really do want to be nuns and reject the secular  -- "in the world" -- nature of the C 604 vocation. Canon 604 is not about creating "diocesan Sisters".)

While I disagree with the Archdiocese/province of Los Angeles's conclusions and the reason given for them in this regard (I think it is cynical and completely inaccurate in some cases), I also have to say that I respect their clear sense that solitary eremitical vocations are truly rare and that great caution should be exercised in admitting anyone to profession or consecration under canon 603. Still, like every other diocese, Los Angeles and the Archbishop and Bishops of the Archdiocese, indeed the entire province, are charged with DISCERNING the reality of such vocations and, under canon 605, with being open to new forms of consecrated life. 

It is not right to make a blanket decision to refuse to profess or consecrate ANY vocations under these canons. It could be considered a rejection of the wisdom of the Church as a whole and the movement of the Spirit at work among the Baptized more specifically. It certainly shows an unawareness or lack of appreciation for the history of Canons 603 and 604. One would hope that this policy has changed in the past years and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (etc)  has dealt more sympathetically, prayerfully, and carefully with possible vocations. Doing so does not need to mean they have professed anyone beyond temporary vows --- if candidates for c 603 profession have even gotten that far, for instance, but it does mean they need to have worked to implement canons 603 and 604 in intelligent, informed,  and  Spirit-driven ways.

What is the Solution to the problem of Stopgap Professions?

What is the solution to problems of using canon 603 as a stopgap access to profession or what Los Angeles/province termed a "fallback" solution to failures in living life generally or religious life specifically? It seems to me there are several pieces to such a solution but all are functions of time and experience: 1) adequate knowledge of the vocation itself provided by the eremitical tradition and by hermits around the world who are living TRUE eremitical lives of the silence of solitude and by their Bishops; this would include  a clear understanding on the part of both the diocese and the hermit of the charisma or gift this vocation is to the Church and world, especially to those who are isolated in some way, 2) a discernment process which is adequate to shake out experiences of solitude which are transitional, rooted in deficiencies rather than potentials, are not yet mature or eremitical, etc, 3) a set of initial formation requirements which an individual may meet with the normal assistance of her SD, and a few others over a period of 5-7 years; 4) the demand that the candidate write her own Rule based in her own lived experience of the solitary eremitical vocation and that this be assessed not merely by canonists but by those in formation work and/or spiritual direction in their congregations, 5) interviews by Vicars, Bishop, psychologists (if it seems necessary or especially helpful) along with recommendations by spiritual directors who have worked with the person for a period of years, pastors, etc.

One piece of this last element might be assessment by formation personnel from a monastery the hermit candidate might visit for extended periods (say a month or two) once a year for 2-3 years if this is at all possible. (I consider it desirable in any case for urban hermit candidates to spend at least a month in the silence and regularity of a monastery not least to see how they do with this kind and degree of silence but also to educate themselves on what they are to foster in their own hermitages in spite of its urban context.) Finally, since inauthentic vocations seem almost always linked to a desire to wear a habit, be clothed in the cowl, etc, and since the habit is a sign of public commitments, rights and obligations, I would suggest that dioceses forbid or refrain from giving permission for the wearing of the habit (even in the hermitage) until the person has reached temporary profession (the cowl or other prayer garment is given only at perpetual profession anyway). There is really no reason for someone to be wearing a habit apart from the actual profession with its assumption of public rights and obligations. The requirements of poverty are easily met otherwise.

No solution is infallible and discernment is an art rather than a science but it seems to me we ought not be professing anyone who does not show a real aptitude for lifelong eremitical solitude or who is without a clear understanding of the significance of this vocation for the church and world. Again these are both functions of time and experience in eremitical solitude. The desert Fathers and Mothers have written famously that a hermit must dwell in her cell and her cell would teach her everything. That bit of wisdom is entirely true. It does not imply complete reclusion but it does imply that  the silence of solitude  is the charism of the diocesan hermit which she must understand intimately, esteem, and appreciate sufficiently to commit to it for life. It is true that we cannot make persons wait forever for admission to profession (or decisions on whether that will occur) but solitary eremitical life is a different matter than vocations to life in community. By definition it takes time to develop and differentiate from other forms of solitude and solitary life.

Thus, again, I recommend that a person who already has some experience of living in solitude before approaching her diocese be required to live as a lay hermit under consistent and skilled supervision for five years or so for mutual discernment. (I would suggest a religious be given this role and that s/he meet with the hermit regularly including in the hermitage itself.) I suggest that if all of the above interviews and pieces of discernment go well, that the person be admitted to temporary profession for a period of 3 years. (At this point she should have written a Rule she will live out and reflect on for those three years.) If this too goes well, and the person and those she speaks with are clear that she is maturing in this vocation, then I recommend either renewal of these vows or admission to perpetual profession. (At this point the hermit may need and be encouraged to make some changes to the Rule which reflect a greater understanding of the vocation and what she personally needs to do to live it faithfully.) This equates to a process which takes at least 8 years to reach perpetual profession --- though all of it demands the person live as a solitary hermit. At the end of the process we might then see a more-mature hermit professed for life.

If at any point this process seems to point in a different direction the person can decide 1) to live as a lay hermit, or 2) decide to leave eremitical life altogether. None of this will be a waste of time so long as everyone is honest and deals compassionately and in complete good faith with one another. After all, the hermit life itself is about the journey more than the destination; it is about being comfortable with and trusting God in the desert sojourn. A period of growth in solitude, so long as it is not unduly prolonged without true supervision and discernment, will be helpful in whatever vocation the individual eventually pursues. Besides, being too anxious about the destination (e.g., perpetual profession, wearing a habit, being given the cowl, etc) and being unable to come to terms with the journey itself in a church learning what this vocation really means in the contemporary world, is not a good sign in a solitary eremitical vocation.

The Importance of the Lay Eremitical Vocation, Followup Questions

[[Sister Laurel, 
      is there some way to live as a lay hermit and ALSO do so, as you put it, 'in the name of the Church'? One of the problems I have is that the Church does not seem to know lay hermits exist. I don't think it is a vocation that is regarded by the Church. I guess I am asking if there is a way to avoid all the institutional red tape and requirements of canon 603 and also have the Church really CARE about lay hermits! It seems to me if the Church  herself really esteemed lay hermits it would be a lot easier for people to accept that maybe this is what they are called to.]]


I think these are really excellent questions! My response to the first one is, unfortunately, no, I don't think there is any way to live this "in the name of the Church" in the sense of a special commissioning and consecration. But one still lives it by virtue of one's baptism and that particular commissioning  ---  that is, one lives it in light of the rights and obligations granted by baptism and so, one will be a part of exploring a contemporary form of life in the tradition of the desert Fathers and Mothers. 

If one really wants to live the eremitical vocation per se "in the name of the Church" then one should pursue Canon 603 profession and consecration. I personally chose to do so especially because I thought the way God had worked in my own life added something special to the witness to the silence of solitude, namely, the redemption of the isolation related to chronic illness, and other similar situations. This was something I felt needed to be witnessed to in the Church in a more official way. Without public vows I felt somewhat "unfree" in this regard. I also chose to do so because I had lived vowed life and desired to continue living vows I had come to love but to do so now in a solitary
eremitical context. Without these two reasons I could have lived as a lay hermit without any substantive difference between that life and the one I live now. The presence of these two particular reasons suggested to me that God was calling me to pursue Canon 603 profession and consecration for  reasons that had nothing to do with status nor with believing it was a "higher vocation," or something similar.

Your desire to avoid all the red tape of Canon 603 is understandable. Many lay hermits object to the various requirements, time frames, discernment processes, supervision, and other things that seem to them to constrict the degree of freedom they need within their lives. Although I don't agree with them in this I can understand their point of view. What seems to be important in your questions and desires is for the Church to really esteem the lay eremitical vocation. The question is how does one achieve this? The problem is that there is a bit of a vicious circle here, namely, lay persons won't generally embrace eremitical life unless the Church esteems it and at the same time the Church will not esteem it in more than principle if folks are not living it in exemplary ways. So who breaks the stalemate? It has to be lay hermits --- just as was the case for those desiring the eventual promulgation of canon 603. After all, the Church officially esteems both lay life and the eremitical life; she stresses the freedom and responsibility of lay persons to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit in living out their vocations. She is open to seeing how lay vocational experiments really work and has learned important lessons from the desert Fathers and Mothers, so what more encouragement do lay hermits need?

A lay hermit could well live an eremitical life in the midst of her parish. She could reflect on the life, its significance, nature, etc and write about that. She could contribute on the parish or diocesan levels or she could begin a blog and write about the eremitical life, the importance of its counter-cultural witness and the ways she personally lives it out. And of course, she could be an encouraging and even inspiring presence to those in their parishes that had to live some forms of isolated existence due to illness, age, or other problematical circumstances. This could include modeling significant ways to live the evangelical counsels as all baptized are called to do even though the person does not have public vows and it might even include demonstrating the importance of a Rule of Life for any person attempting to live a truly Gospel life. All of this and more could be done better than a canonical hermit might well be able to do because the diocesan hermit is (or is often perceived to be) distanced to some extent by virtue of her canonical standing. What is important is that this be a true lay life lived from the graces of baptism in ways which speak profoundly and powerfully to every segment of the Church. it would be a vocation which had listened attentively to Vatican II's teaching on the laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem) and on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) and addressed the necessary contemplative dimension of implementing these documents in the contemporary church and world.

If persons in the lay state of life could do this and effectively accent the generosity and love which compelled them to live this vocation, they would also go a long way to free the notion of eremitical life from stereotypes and distortions. Their lives would also underscore the notion that religious are not called to a higher form of holiness than the laity, and that contemplative life and some degree of the silence of solitude is important, indeed, foundational to all states of Christian life. Finally, if lay persons could do this they would go a long way towards assisting the whole Church to realize the goals and values of Vatican II. The hierarchy would come to appreciate the vocation and, more to the point perhaps, pastors would begin encouraging the (at least experimental) living of it in those they felt or even suspected were called to it. 

On the Significance of the Lay Eremitical Vocation --- Revisiting the Question

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I have returned to thinking I am a lay hermit, and nothing more, and though God can work miracles in our lives and does marvelous things we could not foresee, at this moment I don't see anything so grandiose [as being admitted to profession as a canon 603 hermit] happening in my life. My life is marvelous in itself, and I try in all humility to bury myself in His will, not thinking anything of myself as being in the least special at all. I feel that God has consecrated me, but any consecration the Church would do would have to be as a consecrated lay man, and I still don’t see any provision in Canon Law for such a state; perhaps you can clarify what other options may exist of which I am unaware.]]

Hi there,

      By way of introduction and since you have read this blog for a while let me suggest you and newer visitors reread some of the pieces on the importance and nature of the lay vocation and the lay eremitical vocation. I don't want to repeat everything I have said in those but I feel a need to reiterate some of it as in a partial response. 

First though,  let me say that I understand the pain you feel at desiring eremitical consecration and the difficulties of waiting on a diocese to respond to your request. You are new at living eremitical life (just two years or less) with no background in religious life; it ordinarily takes much more time to discern this vocation, much less to be allowed to live it in the name of the church. I also went through the hassle of long waiting periods,a sometimes unresponsive diocese, occasional fearful and controlling chancery personnel, lost files, mislaid letters, and so forth. It was not always easy and I almost found other ways to live my gifts from time to time, but in patient prayer and reflection I also came to see that lay eremitical life was an immensely valuable vocation and if that was what God was calling me to, then perhaps I was meant to learn to appreciate this more than I had come to already.

I will take issue with some of what you said and applaud some other things. First, any sentences referring to being a lay hermit and using words like "just" or "only" or "nothing more" to describe this are dead wrong and may well indicate you have not yet come to completely see how truly wonderful is the vocation to be a lay hermit or the way in which your life can speak to those right around you and the Church as a whole. You ARE consecrated. That happened for you at Baptism. I think you need to consider that part of what you are feeling is the reality of your baptismal CONSECRATION. There is no need for a separate vocation to be a "consecrated lay person" since lay persons ARE, by definition, consecrated or they would not be part of the laos, the laity, or People of God. I strongly suggest that part of what God may be calling you to is a stronger, clearer sense of the dignity and significance of an eremitical vocation lived in the lay state.

It is true this is not the same as being called to the consecrated state of life, but because there is nothing higher or more sacred than baptism which makes of us a new creation and calls us to an exhaustive holiness, neither therefore can we say that the consecrated state of life is a higher calling nor that the lay state is some sort of merely entrance-level vocation. As I have said many times here, these two states of life are different in their canonical rights and obligations, but neither is higher than the other. The language of objective superiority which Aquinas used does NOT translate in this way and Aquinas seemed to assiduously avoid implications of vocational inferiority or a lower vocation. I would urge you to drop any qualifying language which diminishes the dignity of the lay state or the significance of lay eremitical life. Whether or not this stage of your life leads to diocesan eremitical life it is an infinitely significant vocation and the model you are currently given to live out for all those persons living around you, many of whom are isolated elderly or chronically ill, etc, and need to be reassured of the significant value of their lives.

This week we begin the 50 year anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II and one of the most important pieces of theology it fostered was on the dignity of the lay vocation and the universal call to holiness. One of the challenges the Church still must accomplish is a move to implement this dimension of the Second Vatican Council consistently, completely. Ironically, that achievement falls MAINLY to lay persons to claim and make real! You can do this right now, without waiting for the Church to admit you to profession under canon 603. You write: [[Nor can I really speak with any authority, never having been a novice, professed monk, or anything more than just a layman. I do not want to be an "outlaw" or rebel of any kind, but the existence of people like myself means God is anything but done with moving among men to bring redemption to them by any means possible.]]

But the truth is while you do not have the training provided by religious life you do have authority. You are a baptized lay person living (and learning to live) an eremitical life and coming more and more to understand what doing so means for those living in the world you inhabit all the time. You can speak to THIS vocation and this world with a particular authority and credibility I might myself have relinquished in accepting canonical standing. What I mean by this is that my own life is separated from those around me, not merely by eremitical life, but by my canonical standing. While I am very keen on witnessing to isolated elderly, chronically ill persons who are isolated by their illness, and others who may discover that eremitical life could redeem their isolation, In the past few years I have come to realize that lay hermits might well be able to speak with greater credibility to these people than someone with different standing in canon law. I suspect this may be a special charism which lay hermits have especially; that is, I think this may be a gift of the Holy Spirit which lay hermits bring to both the Church and the world in ways canonical hermits may not be as effective in bringing.

But doing this means taking the fact and dignity of one's baptismal consecration with complete seriousness. Of course God is not done bringing people to redemption in Christ by any means possible; you are absolutely correct in this, but the primary, essential, or foundational way God does this is through baptism. Bringing the charism mentioned above  to the Church and world also means reflecting on the place eremitical solitude occupies in your own life. When you can speak clearly to yourself about what these mean you will come to appreciate what they mean or could mean in the lives of others around you. You could begin blogging about this perhaps, or finding ways at your own parish to speak about it. You have begun this process already. In what you wrote above you said, [[My life is marvelous in itself, and I try in all humility to bury myself in His will, not thinking anything of myself as being in the least special at all.]] I applaud the first part of this sentence  --- for your life is indeed marvelous in itself. But you are entirely special and so is your call. All of us, by virtue of our birth and then again by virtue of our baptism and rebirth in Christ are infinitely significant and ultimately special. Genuine humility actually recognizes this and genuine spirituality is a grateful response to it. 

I ask that you try to imagine how many people who were once catechized and inculturated to believe that vocations to the lay state were second or third class vocations and yearn to really serve God in a "special" way would welcome hearing from a lay hermit that they simply have to recognize the truth of their lives as they stand right now! During this year of Faith where we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Vatican II and renew our commitments to its achievements this could be quite a gift for you to bring to the Church and world in your own unique way! In fact, in a Church where we once again have a growing clericalism and similar forms of hardening elitism it may be a critical mission God has given you. At this point in time you are a lay hermit and nothing less!! It is a crucial vocation. Whatever the future holds for you in regard to canon 603, the only thing which can diminish this lay eremitical vocation is appreciating it inadequately and living it badly. I urge you to embrace it as an infinitely significant vocation and really make it your own.

I will respond to other parts of your email as time allows, especially to those parts which make observations based on the situation outlined in my post on the diocesan hermit in the Archdiocese of Boston. In the meantime I ask that you look again at earlier posts reiterating the significance of baptismal consecration.

Implications of Abuses of Canon 603 on the Diocesan Level

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
you have written that Canon 603 hermits are solitary hermits and that while they can come together in a laura, they cannot form a community in the proper sense. You have also written that canon 603 is not meant to be a stopgap means of achieving profession on the way to another vocation. While all that makes sense to me isn't it true that the Archdiocese of Boston has a diocesan hermit perpetually professed in 2005 who is now the superior general (Mother) of a new community? Are you aware of the situation I am currently speaking of? I am from Boston and was confused at this Sister's approach to eremitical life. You may remember I wrote you back then. But given what you have written about using c 603 as a stopgap means of profession and other things, I am now even more confused. Can you clarify things for me?]] (Redacted for this blog)

Thanks for your letter. I do remember your email from about two or three years ago. While I did not write about the situation specifically here (at least not by name of Archdiocese), it was one of the reasons I subsequently wrote posts about c 603 misuses and abuses, the use of Canon 603 as a stopgap means to profession, etc. (cf, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Solutions to Using C 603 as a Stopgap way to Profession)  At the time the situation you ask about raised a lot of questions and as I may have mentioned then, your own were not the only ones I received. What was at issue then was a diocesan hermit who was working full time as head of campus ministry at Boston University and later became Chaplain for the University's student body. Now, to be very clear, Sister Olga had an amazing background, was much-loved, worked very hard and, as I have noted before, is someone I would personally be really privileged to know. The problem then was that she was no hermit, despite being professed under canon 603. Since admission to profession under canon 603 was not her decision or responsibility, I cannot point to her as the source of the problem. Instead, it seems to me that it is more likely that she became caught up in something that was not truly right for her or for the solitary eremitical vocation under canon 603.  The responsibility for professions under canon 603 falls ultimately to the (Arch)diocesan (Arch)Bishop.

Looking at Sister Olga's Story:

A little of Sister Yaqob's story is important --- not least because it points up the exceptional person she is. Sister Olga had come here to study from Iraq. She was not Roman Catholic but had begun a congregation of Sisters in the Assyrian Church of the East. After she came here she became a Roman Catholic. However, this was something of a problem since she could not remain a professed religious in light of this change of affiliation. Canon law had two and only two options she might have pursued which deal with the consecration of individuals apart from communities. The first was canon 604, the canon for consecrated virgins living in the world. In such a case, however, the CV is not a Sister, does not have public vows, does not wear distinguishing garb, etc. She belongs to the order of Consecrated Virgins, but is not a religious and cannot begin a religious congregation. The only other option was and is Canon 603. However, this canon governs solitary eremitical life, not merely any form of pious solitary living. As you and others made clear, it seemed to everyone looking on that Sister Olga, who once claimed the term "hermit" as a "metaphor for her life", was not living an eremitical life. A description of her life noted that she set Saturdays aside for contemplative prayer and solitude and mainly worked full time at the University in a highly social job.

For whatever reason, her Archbishop had professed her in 2005 under canon 603 then, and this raised serious questions for others all around the country and the world. Some dioceses heard from people who wanted to make vows, wear a habit, and work full time outside the "hermitage" (residence) in a similar way. They were completely comfortable committing to one day of contemplative prayer per week, never mind the LIFE the canon demanded, and some had had experiences which isolated them so that they felt okay about using the term hermit as a metaphor for their lives --- just as Sister Olga had characterized  her own life. Bishops mainly refused to admit them to profession under canon 603, and rightly so.

Yet this raised serious questions for those wishing to become canon 603 hermits.  I  received several questions, letters, or emails from people wondering how, if an Archbishop could profess a person involved in full-time ministerial activity as a University chaplain as Sister Olga certainly was, their own Bishops could refuse to profess them because they were "not living an eremitical life" or needed to work full time outside the hermitage. One of these persons was living an essentially eremitical life but still needed to work alone at nights outside the hermitage. It was a difficult situation. Still, some were professed and so today we have "hermits" living primarily non-contemplative lives given mainly to active apostolates instead of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance and stricter separation from the world. The precedent was destructive and even yet threatens the vocation itself --- a vocation canon 603 was designed to protect and nurture. Thus, it continues to be problematical.

Where we Stand Today

Current descriptions of Sister Olga's life today mention her perpetual profession in 2005 but they do not mention that her vows were made under Canon 603 nor that she was (and perhaps still is) professed therefore as a diocesan hermit. It may be that her eremitical vows were dispensed, but apparently no new public vows have been made. It sounds like the Archdiocese has decided to allow the entire diocesan hermit portion of Sister Olga's life and profession to slide into the oblivion of forgetfulness in order to avoid further stumbling blocks for folks both within and outside her diocese. However, the situation still raises significant problems canonically and a number of questions are left unanswered by such silence and obscurantism.

You see, diocesan hermits cannot allow their lives to morph into ministerial religious lives. There is often a constant pressure to do more active ministry for one's parish or diocese and most of us feel some pain or regret in needing to say no (or to fail to offer to serve in various ways) because we have embraced a contemplative vocation to solitude which is much less understood and whose value is much less evident to those around us. This example of the Archdiocese of Boston thus makes living c 603 with eremitical integrity much harder for those of us who are tempted to become more active in a directly ministerial way. At the same time, c 603 hermits cannot (as I have been told at least) simply transfer their vows to a congregation. They must be dispensed from them, discern another vocation and then be admitted to vows within the congregation according to universal canonical procedures and time frames.

In fact, diocesan hermits cannot even move to a new diocese without the permission of both ordinaries involved. Though they are diocesan hermits wherever they visit and anywhere in the Church, their professions are very specific and circumscribed by a form of diocesan stability. And, though this second point (moving) is not directly applicable to Sister Olga's situation it points to the narrow constraints involved in Canon 603 profession and of course it could become significant should Sister Olga Yaqob seek to leave Boston as her new community grows. After all, if her vows are still canon 603 vows, then a new Bishop will be placed in the position of accepting a non-hermit living according to a canon governing eremitical life. Consider the precedents and questions this would raise in the new diocese!!!


As it apparently stands, the situation in Boston also raises the issues of hypocrisy and non-comp-liance: namely, if a diocesan hermit ceases to live an eremitical life she can (and should) certainly be dispensed from her vows. That remains true even if one discerns and embraces a new and different vocation to ministerial religious life . One has still ceased being a hermit and is living as though they are no longer bound by either an eremitical Rule or eremitical vows nor by the canon governing such vocations. How can one ask the Bishop of a new Diocese to merely accept such a situation (and the person's vows) and turn a blind eye? How can one ask a  new incoming Archbishop to do something similar?

And what of other newly-fledged congregations who would like to take short cuts in becoming canonical? Should canon 603 be used to profess at least the superior/moderator of such congregations? Why not if it was once appropriate in  the Archdiocese of Boston and there is still someone living out public vows made under canon 603 but now doing so as the founder of a new community? Why pay attention to expert commentators on c 603 and its history and nature, who note lauras are permissible but that these should not rise to the level of communities? Why not simply use c 603 as a stopgap means to profession for any and all individuals desiring admission to public vows never mind whether they live anything remotely resembling eremitical life? Why, that is, should we not simply turn a blind eye to the gift of the Holy Spirit which c 603 seeks to nurture, govern, and protect?

Protecting against the Repetition of this Situation

As part of the hermit's own vow formula, some dioceses require the specification that these vows are made as a part of responding to the grace of a solitary eremitical vocation.  The wisdom of this requirement is clearer to everyone involved with the canon as time goes on. Further, since canon 603 governs solitary eremitical vocations which allow for coming together in lauras but not the establishment of communities per se, it seems clear that a hermit should be dispensed from her vows in order to begin a community. Further, as one dispensed from her vows she cannot ordinarily simply begin a canonical foundation. Not only does she cease to be a vowed religious in such an instance, but ordinarily, any community she begins will need to move through the same stages any other aspiring group needs to move through: private association of the faithful, public association of the faithful, and, if all goes well over time, institute of consecrated life. This process is not only codified in law but reflects simple prudence.

Because of all these factors the extraordinary situation in Boston is still a thorn bush of difficulties. It is understandable, I think, that 1) Sister Olga dropped the pretense of being a hermit to fully affirm the truth of what she is apparently more truly called to, and 2) the Archdiocese of Boston has allowed all this to merely slip from view and memory by focusing  (a) on the fact of vows while omitting the fact that they were solitary eremitical (c 603) vows and  (b) on the new community. Diocesan hermits and others, however, are interested in and perhaps could be said to have a right to know how the situation is resolved canonically because this has significant implications for how the diocesan eremitical life is lived out concretely.

The primary reason for bringing all this up is to make sure that canon 603 is never misused in this manner again. Sister Olga (or Mother Olga as she is now known) is an exceptional person (and apparently an exceptional religious) and it makes sense that the Archbishop of Boston was particularly open to accommodating her in some way -- especially given her history, her faith and people skills, and her ethnic background and skills in Arabic language and Iraqi culture. I very much appreciate the integrity Sister Yaqob has personally shown in leaving the diocesan hermit designation behind. However, professing her using canon 603 was a serious mistake which threatened the diocesan eremitical vocation in the process.

The secondary reason for bringing this situation up then is because the canonical questions it raised are still with us and require answers. Similarly, the pastoral questions it raises are also significant and, in part, will only be answered over time with the education of the episcopacy and church as a whole regarding the nature of the solitary eremitical vocation along with a history of well-discerned professions which ensure the integrity of the life which canon 603 governs. At some point the Archdiocese of Boston also needs to clarify publicly how they resolved this situation. Sister Olga's eremitical profession could have been determined to be invalid, for instance, but if that proved to be the case then what is the canonical standing of Sister Olga now and what precedent does her situation vis-a-vis the new community set for other aspiring founders and communities? Aspiring hermits? Remember, Sister Yaqob cannot have made canonical vows as an individual under any canon but 603. Again, the situation is a thorn bush of difficulties and unresolved questions.

I know this doesn't really clarify what is largely still obscure for many of us, but hope this is of some help.

Rules of Life: Why are they required for Diocesan Hermits but not for Consecrated Virgins?

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
      why does a diocesan hermit write a Rule of Life when a consecrated virgin does not? As I understand it from what you have written, hermits are required to write a Rule of Life. Why aren't CV's required to do so in the same way? Is their vocation less significant? Less important?]]

Interesting questions and not ones I have been asked before. I am not sure I can answer why a virgin conse-crated under canon 604 (a consecrated virgin living in the world) is not required to write or live according to a Rule but I know why a hermit MUST write and live by one. Let me start there.

Remember that a Rule functions is two main ways. First, it provides a vision of  Gospel life rooted in both the eremitical tradition and also in the hermit's own story and experience. This vision honors both the past and the present. It allows the more abstract idea of hermit life to be lived in a concrete contemporary context. Since the hermit turns to the Rule frequently it serves as a touchstone to remind her of the way God has worked in history and especially in the Christ Event; it reminds her of how God has worked in her own life and in the lives of other hermits while it also affirms the way God needs to work though solitary hermits in the life of the Church and world today.

Besides reminding the hermit of these things, the Rule inspires her to persevere and live her vocation with integrity. It is especially important to have something like this when one's life is largely self-directed and counter-cultural. As I have noted before, on the negative side of things, the slide into mediocrity and lack of integrity is a very easy and quick one when one lives alone with only God as a companion. It is SO easy to let this prayer period or that period of lectio or journaling or study slide, to allow the silence of solitude which is not only the essential environment but also the goal of the life to be replaced instead by days of some silence and some solitude which allow one simply to relax and kick back.  On the more positive side of things, it is easy to embrace other goods (choices for life with others, ministry to others, etc) which have a clear Gospel value and significance but which also may eventually lead one away from an eremitical life; the value of eremitical life is not always easy to see clearly when faced with such immediate needs and goods. A Rule presents the hermit with a vision of reality which is eremitical, a rare and mainly misunderstood life which is defined in  terms of the silence of solitude, not merely a life of peace and quiet lived alone, and it reminds her how desperately the world and church needs her witness to the value of such a life.

Secondly, the Rule functions in a legislative sense. It is law as well as Gospel and the hermit is bound canonically to live it well. She has a vow of obedience and the Rule serves the living out of this and the other vows of poverty and chastity as well. Besides the Gospel-rooted and eremitical vision of reality the Rule provides, it spells out the daily ways in which the hermit embodies these in her own concrete situation. Does she pray the Divine Office? Which Hours? When does she pray quietly and contemplatively? How does she live out poverty or chastity or obedience? What limited ministry does she do outside the hermitage? How does she ensure this does not threaten a life of the silence of solitude? What activities does she undertake outside the hermitage and when? With whom? How does she support herself, take care of health care, funeral and other kinds of needs?

The ways these are spelled out need not (and, in fact, should not be) in picayune detail or without room for flexibility, but there must be a basic listing of concrete obligations which are part of this particular hermit's living her vocation well. In negotiating the challenges and opportunities which come to her through parish community, friends, pastor, and so forth, this dimension of the Rule provides a baseline for serious reflection and consideration. Always it summons her back to the fundamental commitments and requirements of a HEALTHY life, and more, a healthy eremitical life of stricter separation from the world even as it frees her to respond within limits to new and legitimate challenges and opportunities to love and minister. Without the vision the Rule provides, however, there would be no way to achieve a faithful flexibility with regard to concrete obligations or to deal with the task of negotiating the challenges and opportunities that come her way.

More fundamentally, without the Rule the hermit is more than apt to simply become a more or less pious person living alone. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it is not what she is called to nor is it the life or witness  so many who are isolated by age or illness or circumstances need today. Bereft of an overarching vision and mission she may become individualistic and even narcissistic in the way she lives physical solitude. More positively she may commit to any ministerial request that comes her way imprudent as that may be. She may say yes to many goods and commit to love in ways which are necessary and typical for most Sisters but which also will make her something other than a hermit. As I have noted before negotiating this particular set of tensions between goods IS an inescapable piece of her vocation and she ought not eschew it.  Still, she needs some assistance in negotiating it effectively and with integrity. The Rule essentially ensures that whatever she does, whether in cell or outside the hermitage she will do as a hermit.

Now, what about consecrated Virgins? Why no required Rule for them? My own sense is that a CV can be a CV anywhere in any situation and may indeed be called to that. Whether active or contemplative she can embody the mission of  the consecrated Virgin living in the world. She may well commit to praying certain Hours of the Divine Office, periods of quiet prayer, and so forth, and she may certainly benefit from living some sort of Rule, but she lives this calling "in the world" and that requires a kind of responsiveness to the everyday give and take, demands and invitations of the secular world which hermits are not called to.  Of course it is absolutely not the case that the hermit life is more important or significant, but it is radically different, witnesses especially to a vastly different group of people,  and in its own way, is less flexible and far more fragile. Thus both diocesan hermits and CV's can benefit from a Rule but for the c 603 hermit it really is indispensable; hence I think c 603 is wise in requiring it.

I hope this helps.

On Divine Paradox: The God who is truly New because he is Eternal and Unchanging

I had a conversation with someone today regarding some questions she was asked to answer about the image of God she held. The questions were posed in an either/or format: do you believe in  1) a God that is unchanging or 2) a God that seems to change? Do you believe in a God of  1) might and majesty or 2) one who can be addressed as Daddy or Mommy? Do you believe in a God that is incomprehensible or a God who can be known and even described? That kind of thing. The problem with either/or formats is they never do justice to the paradoxical nature of God. In fact they are apt to tear the paradoxical nature of God asunder and in the process lose the really amazing qualities of the God of Christian Tradition. Now, I suspect posing questions in an either/or way is designed to see where the respondent stands generally in their approach to spirituality and reality. Those asking the questions are probably not ordinarily expecting a tremendously theologically sophisticated answer which demands BOTH answers be given their due in a paradoxical form --- although they may well be hoping someone will surprise them with their answers in this regard. Even so, depending on the context, asking questions in this way may be theologically misleading. In any case I want to look a bit at the first question because it came up recently, though indirectly, in the post "Always Beginners". Throughout I will refer to the distinction between kaine (qualitative newness) and neos (newness in time) raised in that earlier post.

I have written about paradoxes here quite a bit over the past five years but it is time to say something about these kinds of questions and how one addresses them adequately because the answers are never either or but both/and, and even more sharply, one BECAUSE the other. For instance, I recently wrote about the experience of being always a beginner in prayer and I explained that it was the fact that God was eternal and living that mainly accounted for that experience. Actually, there is a significant paradox here that has to be clearly affirmed, namely: to the extent God is eternal, so too is God always new. To the extent God always was, always will be (i.e., is immutable), to the extent God never grows, matures, or deteriorates (i.e., is ungenerated and incorruptible)) and does NOT change, so too is God ALWAYS new. Or, to the extent God is genuinely new (qualitatively or kaine new, not simply novel or new in time), God is truly eternal (ungenerated, incorruptible, immutable). We speak routinely of the God who is eternal and living to express this paradox. We are not speaking of a static God --- for static would not be living OR eternal. Static refers more to the realm of death than to One who would be the ground and source of ever-renewed life. (As Thomas Aquinas noted, rest or cessation of movement implies imperfection.) ONLY the eternal is always and everywhere new. Only the eternal God is truly dynamic. Only BECAUSE God is unchanging and always fully being-in-act is God ALWAYS NEW. Conversely, only because God is always new (kaine) and dynamic is God eternal.

 Michael Dodds, OP notes while commenting on Thomas Aquinas' theology, [[ Far from implying, therefore, that God is somehow static or inert, immutability directly signifies that God. as subsistent esse [which is not the same as simply existing], is pure dynamic actuality. And while we may still rightly predicate motion of God in virtue of his immanent activity of knowing and willing and in virtue of his causative act of creation and providence, we best designate the dynamic actuality of God who exercises, or better, is this act when we speak not of a changing God, who would possess only the limited actuality of a creature, but of the immutable God who is the boundless actuality of subsistent esse itself.]] The Unchanging God of Love, Dodd, Michael OP, pp 159-160

Problems occur in theology when paradoxes are neglected or unduly softened.  Thomas Aquinas had an appreciation of paradox and spoke, among other things, of the movement of the immovable God or the motion of the motionless God. Unfortunately those that followed him often did not appreciate paradox and used the categories of his thought in ways which betrayed Thomas' own insights and work. Thus, some who argued for God's immutability in language which was similar to Thomas' ended up with a static God and no way to do justice to his dynamism. In contemporary theology we most often find theologians trying to do justice to God's dynamism in ways which deny his eternity and immutability. This enterprise is important in light not only of the Biblical witness and Christ Event, but in light of an evolutionary world where science and faith learn to relate to one another as complementary approaches to reality. On the other end of the spectrum we still find theologians trying to do justice to God's eternity and immutability by denying his dynamism, his living quality, his always-qualitative-newness; sometimes this is because they resist or deny the truth of an evolutionary world or a God who creates via evolution and sometimes it is because they have not truly perceived the depth and uniqueness of Aquinas' own thought.

To deny God's eternity in order to stress his newness or apparent changeability is to substitute a God who may be novel (neos) but one who is incapable of making all things qualitatively new (kaine). He is insufficiently transcendent or sovereign and there is no reason to believe we can really hope for anything ultimate from him. Such a "god" may indeed change, evolve, and be an exciting reality in the short term, but unless he is ALSO eternal and immutable that change may well include ceasing to be as it does for everything else. On the other hand, to deny God's eternal qualitative NEWNESS (kainotes) in order to assert his eternity and immutability gives us a "god" who cannot relate to an evolutionary creation much less ground its newness and summon it towards fullness. What has to be maintained is the ever-new God who grounds evolutionary reality and does so precisely from a position of transcendence and eternity. He summons an evolutionary world into existence from the absolute future of his own being. In other words, without an eternal and transcendent God, there would be no evolutionary world moving towards fulfillment in greater and greater levels of complexity and intelligibility.

None of this is merely an exercise in logic. We assert paradox because God has revealed himself to be essentially paradoxical. He is the eternal, unchanging God who is both always new and, in his transcendence and immanence, is the source of all genuine newness. He is the sovereign God of might and power who reveals himself perfectly in self-emptying (kenosis) and weakness (asthenia). He is the God of justice who asserts his rights over reality and makes all things right or just via mercy. He is the WHOLLY OTHER God who is revealed most clearly in turning a loving heart and human face to the world while he reveals himself in Christ as the exhaustively compassionate one, the incomprehensible God who is known only to the extent he is an essential part of our lives and knows (embraces and inspires) us intimately. No part of these paradoxes can be sacrificed without sacrificing God's very nature. Thus, answers to questions like those with which  we began this post demand formulations like: "I believe in a God who is both/and," and further, to sharpen the paradox, "I believe in a God who is one thing only because or to the extent he is the other."