Followup Questions on Ecclesial Vocations, Canon 603, Freedom, Constraints, and Commitment

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am so profoundly grateful for the article in which you tackle some of the differences between lay and canonical eremitism.  One thought that struck me was, when a person opts to remain a lay hermit (or solitary as in the Episcopal Church), might that imply that the words, the obligations, of Canon 603 could be modified?  Well, now, I mean, what if my understanding of solitary life is different in some ways? ]]

Of course one can remain a lay hermit in either Church community and act with the same Christian freedom but with greater liberty in some ways as well. While I think that canon 603 is remarkably adaptable (witness the fact that no two diocesan hermits write the same Rule, follow the same horarium, or approach the question of active ministry in exactly the same way), and while I have never found the relationship with superiors to be onerous, it is true that in accepting the rights and obligations associated with a public commitment to and under canon 603, I am not able to simply explore anything that captures my imagination or shape my life in any way at all. While I think the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 apply to any form of eremitical life worthy of the name (and here I mean stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance as well as some form of the evangelical counsels and the notion that this is lived according to a Rule the hermit herself writes --- all for the praise of God and the salvation of the world --- I can't really imagine or recall a meaningful or authentic eremitical life that wasn't an expression of these in one way and another) the other elements are not strictly necessary and certainly not in the same way for lay hermits.

You clarify your question when you write: [[I do not feel that my vocation is an ecclesial one.  It would exist if there were no institutional religion on the face of the earth.  Ideally, the church and its structures should be supports for spiritual life, not members of the church living to support the church qua institution, and a top-heavy one at that. Yes, Jesus described us as part of himself, himself and the father as one, so that we are all members one of another.  But where does he say that law should be multiplied and that each personal spiritual expression must be defined by a hierarchical structures of men? I take advantage of the church for my prayer.  I go on retreat at RC retreat houses.  But any manifestation of institutionalism just doesn’t work for me.  I feel as if, were I much younger and went through the steps to become a professed Hermit, I would probably then run away to have more freedom.  And I know the freedom of life in Christ.  It’s just that that is not quite the same as any hypothetical freedom of life in the Church.]]

The Church seems pretty present in your life:

 Well, first of all let me point out that in "taking advantage" of the Church as you describe, or even in considering canon 603 as a guide for your life in some way, reading about hermits (much less articles BY hermits!), considering writing for your church publication or newsletter, seeking spiritual direction, etc, etc, you are indeed dealing with expressions of the institutional church. While an institution, organization, or even an organism can become deformed or dysfunctional the simple fact is that even the simplest grouping of people will have institutional elements, rules, customs, standards, values, common beliefs and practices (rituals, etc), boundaries, and so forth. In your own home I know for a fact that you have instituted (note that word!) some of these in order to protect and nurture the quality of your eremitical (solitary) life. Because of this you also know, I think, that the constraints applied here have led to a real freedom to pursue your vocation as you perceive and receive it from God.

I think what you are concerned with is not the institution of the Church which is a living reality manifest in even the least among us (which is one reason Peter Damian referred to hermits as eccesiolae -- little churches) but, as you say, institutionalism, which is a rather different animal. To that end I would caution you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Similarly, I think you are confusing freedom with license to some degree. The same caveat applies here. When I chose to seek admission to vows, whether as a Sister in community or as a solitary hermit under canon 603 it was my experience that I was choosing among goods and that though there were significant constraints in the choices I had made, these served a deeper freedom.

No place we go or choice we make in this world is free from constraints --- even when those are the constraints of age or heath or intelligence, etc. The task is always to choose that set of constraints (or embrace them in a way) which allows God to do the very best within and with these. To do otherwise is indeed to choose a merely hypothetical freedom and to mistake mere license for genuine freedom. So long as we are not choosing sin vs faithfulness or indulging our falsely autonomous self I think our choice is always not so much freedom versus unfreedom as it is the choice between one expression of freedom and another one, one set of constraints and another one. If the constraints associated with the expression of freedom you choose do not serve you well or are impossible to bear, then by all means, you should select a different expression of freedom (by which I do not mean a different version of freedom) with a different set of constraints insofar as that is possible or prudent --- for sometimes, as you well know, our inability to bear constraints points to our own need for growth, faith (trust), and conversion. That is one of the key lessons of monastic (and eremitical) stability.

On Constraints and Commitment

One point here, of course, is that we cannot do away with constraints. That is simply impossible. Constraints help define our truest freedom. They are the result and the way of genuine commitment! Commitment always entails both constraints and freedom; in fact the language of commitment is that of responsibility and obligation. Both curtail our liberty while they lead to a more profound freedom. Another is that the constraints  themselves are not the point; the reality (or true freedom) they serve is. You also write: [[If it comes right down to the truth of the matter, I feel very deeply and definitely Christian, and called at the same depth to a life of liberty in solitude, with no one and no rules or expectations of how I’m going to live.  I trust myself, I trust in Jesus to lead me.  Because I’ve begged for this opportunity for so many years, studied about it, lived bits and pieces up until the past few years when I’ve been able to “grow” it, I feel pretty clear that the openings which have come my way, in bunches and with the feel of God all over them, this is what I’m called to. ]]

You may recall that  at one point when you wrote me before you said, [[I am writing a provisional Rule of Life and the variety of hermit lives and Rules raise some questions for me. For instance] if someone is a true Christian, and who can judge that?, and says she is a hermit, lives alone sincerely giving herself to prayer, to the heart of the world and by extension and above all, to God, what makes her less a hermit? Less "worthy" (and I know how you hate that distinction) of being called a hermit?]] I responded: [[Dear Poster, Thanks for your questions! If you take a look at the content of your conditional sentence above you will see that you have laid down some very stringent requirements for recognizing someone as a hermit (although I personally would switch God and world in your sentence so that the heart of God comes first and then the heart of the [next] world by extension). Essentially you have described what I refer to as the distinction between a person merely living alone (implicit in your post) and a desert dweller or hermit (which you actually describe explicitly):

IF someone is a true Christian

IF she consciously claims the life of a hermit (desert dweller) and lets that define her (desert spirituality)

IF she lives alone (or, in cases of real need, with a caregiver who does not get in the way of her Rule and actually allows her to live it as fully as she feels called)

IF she sincerely gives herself (not just a bit of time here or there) to prayer, (add penance, silence, solitude and the silence OF solitude).

IF she lives in the heart of God (or is genuinely committed to doing so) and by extension gives herself to the world in this way. . . (all of this I refer to especially as the silence of solitude). The devil is in the details.]]

Definitions as Constraints that Free Words to Have Meaning

I might also have noted in that post that your very description implies a set of constraints which allow you to see or establish the reality of someone and the genuineness of their commitments. Definitions are nothing more than constraints which allow (i.e., free) a word to be meaningful in a particular way. If you look carefully at your own life you will finds rules and other constraints galore. There is simply no meaningful or truthful life without them, and there is certainly no way to be the persons God calls us to be without them. Freedom, after all, is the power to be the persons God calls us to be and that also means not being the persons so much of reality (including our own super egos) tells us we can or cannot, must or must not, should or should not be.  The whole question is full of constraints --- those we must embrace to be true to ourselves and those we must eschew at the same time if we are to reject or at least refuse to collude with our false selves. Sin is a reality; false selves are realities; the presence of cultural voices and norms which militate against truthful or authentic humanity not only exist, they are rampant.

In my own life I also trust myself and I certainly trust Christ to guide me. He has never failed in that. But I also know myself as sinful and I know that the Rule I follow, the Canon which governs my life, the Word of God I focus my life on and in, the Sacraments that only come through the institutional Church, and  the superiors I am obligated by vow to listen carefully to in obedience, are some of the privileged and necessary ways I hear Jesus speak to me daily, sometimes even moment by moment. That is especially true not only with regard to Scripture and prayer, but with regard to my delegate, to those friends who know me well and challenge me to transcend and leave behind the false self who so often is too much a dominant voice in my life. Even so, I do not always listen well or respond generously or lovingly. These bits of "institutional life" are part of the way Christ speaks to me, but for that very reason I also need them to help mediate the grace which transforms my mind and heart. To be frank, I believe anyone who says they can hear Christ adequately apart from the institutional Church is probably kidding themselves. Calling the ecclesial the body of Christ is not merely some touching bit of poetry; it is also literally true.

You see, I could not say with you that my vocation would exist "if there was no institutional religion on the face of the planet". If Christ's church did not exist neither would my vocation; that is true because it is profoundly Christian in every way, not simply because it is a formally ecclesial vocation. I need Christ --- not least to call me to authenticity in the desert. I need Christ to show me the difference between isolation and solitude, between real independence in God (what Tillich called theonomy) and individualism, between the eremitism of the Tom Leppards of this world and his own. And that means I need the mediation provided by the Body of Christ. There is no resurrected Christ unless there is also still an embodied Christ and that implies a Church. By the way, while I am sure you meant no offense, let me point out there is absolutely nothing hypothetical in the freedom to which Christ has called me through and within his Church. I sincerely wonder if you and I are really all that different.

Discerning one is not Called to an Ecclesial Vocation:

The bottom line, however is that you have clearly identified that for the time being at least you are NOT called to embrace an ecclesial vocation. There is a thread of anti-institutionalism running through your heart and mind which, in some ways mirrors the concerns and lives of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. The difference is that the Desert Fathers and Mothers truly loved the Church and worked at their lives as an important part of being and encouraging the existence of what they perceived to be the TRUE Body of Christ and its Gospel. You see, they were committed to that and that made their vocations ecclesial in yet another and profound sense. While I don't think you are entirely different than they are they did have rules, customs, mentoring, etc to prevent them from simply going their own way on a whim (or in the clutches of the noonday devil!). I believe that is also true of you but some of what you have said makes me wonder. In any case, your desire to be entirely free of rules, etc means you will spend a lot of energy and time re-inventing the wheel. In some ways it will mean you will fail unnecessarily. In some ways it means that bias will keep your heart closed to some of the central ways Christ's presence comes to us and challenges us to commit ourselves and be remade. But it also means that to the extent you are truly committed to and in Christ you may discover a way to be a prophetic presence in the world which I will not.


As to your original question none of the essential terms of the canon can be modified in any significant way if one wants to live the vision of the eremitical life Christ's own Church sets forth as consistent with her tradition. Remember that the central elements of this canon were also lived by the Desert Fathers and Mothers who ALSO were engaged in a profound and extensive criticism of the worldliness of the Church. Indeed, they are part of these elements' very source as normative.

How you or anyone else chooses to embody these elements is actually part of the flexibility of the canon --- within limits of course (remember words can be emptied of meaning). Part of the canon need never apply to you, namely section 2 which reads, [[A hermit is recognized in law as one dedicated to God in a consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by a vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan bishop and observes his or her own plan of life under his direction.]] You need never embrace any part of this section of the canon. You, like many other lay people will live as a hermit or solitary in exemplary ways perhaps, but you will simply not do so in the same way as one publicly professed/consecrated in an ecclesial vocation.

Fraudulent "Catholic Hermits": Is it a Big Problem?

[[[Hi Sister Laurel, is the problem of fraudulent hermits a big one? Do many people claim to be Catholic hermits when they are not? I am asking because you have written recently about the normative character of c 603 vocations and some who pretend to be Catholic hermits. Was the Church concerned with frauds and people like that when they decided to create this canon?]] (redacted)

No, on the whole this is not really a huge problem, or at least it was not a problem when I first started the process of becoming a diocesan hermit. I don't think it is that much of a problem even now though I do hear (or know firsthand) of cases here and there of folks who pull on a habit (or the gaunt visage and behavior of a  supposed "mystic"), don the title "Catholic hermit" and then turn up on the doorstep of a parish expecting to be recognized and known in this way. There was also a website a couple of years ago using the names of legitimate (canonical) diocesan hermits to get money through paypal without the knowledge of these same diocesan hermits. Part of the problem is that the authentic vocation is so rare and little-understood in absolute terms that a handful of counterfeits or frauds can have a greater impact relatively speaking. Those disedifying and fraudulent cases aside, however, the origins of the canon are actually pretty inspiring and  had nothing to do with frauds or counterfeits. To reprise that here:

A number of monks, long solemnly professed, had grown in their vocations to a call to solitude (traditionally this is considered the summit of monastic life); unfortunately, their monasteries did not have anything in their own proper law that accommodated such a calling. Their constitutions and Rule were geared to community life and though this also meant a significant degree of solitude, it did NOT mean eremitical solitude. Consequently these monks had to either give up their sense that they were called to eremitical life or they had to leave their monastic vows, be secularized, and try to live as hermits apart from their monastic lives and vows. Eventually, about a dozen of these hermits came together under the leadership of Dom Jacques Winandy and the aegis of Bishop Remi De Roo in British Columbia (he became their "Bishop Protector"); this gave him time to come to know the  contemporary eremitical vocation and to esteem it and these hermits rather highly.

When Vatican II was in session Bishop de Roo, one of the youngest Bishops present, gave a written intervention asking that the hermit life be recognized in law as a state of perfection and the possibility of public profession and consecration for contemporary hermits made a reality. The grounds provided in Bishop Remi's intervention were all positive and reflect today part of the informal vision the Church has of this vocation. (You will find them listed in this post, Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation.) Nothing happened directly at the Council (even Perfectae Caritatis did not mention hermits), but VII did require the revision of the Code of Canon Law in order to accommodate the spirit embraced by the Council as well as other substantive changes it made necessary; when this revised code eventually came out in October of 1983 it included c. 603 which defined the Church's vision of eremitical life generally and, for the first time ever in universal law, provided a legal framework for the public profession and consecration of those hermits who desired and felt called to live an ecclesial eremitical vocation.

So you see, the Church was asked at the highest level by a Bishop with significant experience with about a dozen hermits living in a laura in BC to codify this life so that it: 1) was formally recognized as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and 2) so that others seeking to live such a life would not have the significant difficulties that these original dozen hermits did because there was no provision in either Canon Law nor in their congregations' proper laws.

The majority of diocesan hermits (i.e., hermits professed in the hands of a diocesan Bishop) have tended to have a background in religious life; it is only in the past years that more individuals without such formation and background have sought to become diocesan hermits. This has left a bit of a hole in terms of writing about the vocation; it has meant not only that the nuts and bolts issues of writing a Rule of life, understanding the vows, and learning to pray in all the ways religious routinely pray have needed to be discussed somewhere publicly, but that the problems of the meaning and significance of the terms, "ecclesial vocation", "Catholic hermit," etc. as well as basic approaches to formation, the central elements of the canon, and so forth have needed to be clarified for lay persons, some diocesan hermits, and even for those chanceries without much experience of this vocation.

My Own Interest in the Ecclesiality of the C 603 vocation:

I have been interested in all of these issues since I decided to pursue admittance to canon 603 profession --- now about 30 years ago ---  and as I grow in this vocation, in my appreciation of it and of the wisdom and beauty of the canon which governs it, my interest remains --- but for rather different reasons. It took me 23 years to work out for myself many of the issues mentioned in the above paragraph; now I am able to give back to the larger Church community in ways that I sincerely hope allow others to more fully understand and esteem this vocation. Most important is what I have said over the past few days (and the past several years!!): this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world. In particular it can witness to the fact that the isolation and marginality so many experience today can be redeemed by one's relationship with God, just as it stands as a prophetic witness against the individualism, narcissism, and addictions (especially to media and to remote, packaged, and soundbite-approaches to reality and relationships) which almost define the world around us today. However, frauds, counterfeits and curmudgeons can get in the way of or detract from this witness --- not least because, unless they are simply ignorant, they are generally mired in pretense and self-centeredness which makes the vocation incredible.

One of the least spoken of non-negotiable elements of canon 603 is that this is a life lived for the praise of God and the sake and indeed, the salvation of others. The usual focus in most discussions and in discernment as well tends to be on the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world, as well as on the content of the vows, but I have not heard many talking about or centering attention on the phrase, "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." However, this element very clearly signals that this vocation is not a selfish one and is not meant only for the well-being of the hermit. It also, I believe, is integral to the notion that this is an ecclesial vocation with defined rights and obligations lived in dialogue with the contemporary situation.  

To say this vocation has a normative shape and definition is also to say that not everything called eremitism in human history glorifies God. Further, calling attention to the fact that this is a normative or ecclesial vocation is just the flip side of pointing out that this is a gift of the Holy Spirit meant for the well-being of all who come to know it (as well as those who do not). I am keen that diocesan hermits embrace this element of their lives fully --- and certainly I also desire that chanceries understand that the discernment of vocations cannot occur adequately unless the charism of the vocation is truly understood and esteemed. The ecclesial nature of the vocation is part of this charism as is the prophetic witness I spoke of earlier. By far this is the larger issue driving my writing about the normative and ecclesial nature of this vocation or continuing to point out the significance of canonical standing than the existence of a few counterfeit "Catholic hermits".

 Letting Go of Impersonation: the Real Issue for all of us

As I consider this then, I suppose the problem of frauds (or counterfeits) is certainly more real than when I first sought admission to profession under canon 603 (the canon was brand new then and few knew about it), but for most of us diocesan hermits the real issue is our own integrity in living this life and allowing the Church to discern and celebrate other instances of it rather than dealing with the sorry pretense and insecurity which seems to drive some to claim titles to which they have no right. What serious debate takes place does so on this level, not on more trivial ones. The question of fraud is an important one for the hermit both personally and ecclesially because as Thomas Merton reminds us all: [[The . . .hermit has as his first duty, to live happily without affectation in his solitude. He owes this not only to himself but to his community [by extension diocesan hermits would say parish, diocese, or Church] that has gone so far as to give him a chance to live it out. . . . this is the chief obligation of the . . .hermit because, as I said above, it can restore to others their faith in certain latent possibilities of nature and of grace.]] (Emphasis added,  Contemplation in a World of Action, p. 242)

In any case, as Thomas Merton also knew very well, some of those who are frauds (and I am emphatically NOT speaking here of lay hermits who identify themselves as such) might well embrace true solitude in  the midst of their pretense; if they do, if they find they have a true eremitical vocation, it will only be by discovering themselves getting rid of any pretense or impersonation as well as finding their craziness or eccentricity dropping away. After all, as Merton also noted, one cannot ultimately remain crazy in the desert (that is, in the absence of others and presence of God in solitude) for it takes other people to make and allow us to be crazy. He writes: [[To be really mad you need other people. When you are by yourself you soon get tired of your craziness. It is too exhausting. It does not fit in with the eminent sanity of trees, birds, water, sky. You have to shut up and go about the business of living. The silence of the woods forces you to make a decision which the tensions and artificialities of society help you to evade forever. Do you want to be yourself or don't you?]] (Idem, 245, emphasis added)

You see, the simple truth which makes the existence of fraudulent hermits not only intriguing but also tremendously sad and ironic -- and which is also the universal truth we all must discover for ourselves -- is that alone with God we find and embrace our true selves. If we must continue in our pretense or various forms of impersonation then something is seriously askew with our solitude and therefore too, with our relationship with God (and vice versa).

Continuation of a Conversation of the Normative Nature of Canon 603

The following post is a continuation of a conversation begun in email regarding my own online presence and the seeming harshness of my criticism a couple of years or more ago of the Archdiocese of Boston for using canon 603 as a stopgap means of professing Sister Olga Yaqob. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is not about Sister Yaqob per se (I continue to think she is an amazing person and a fine religious), but about the  appropriate implementation and meaning of canon 603. The OP's comments and questions are italicized.

Sister Olga is amazing in her willingness to plunge into work that kept her fed, and then had a chance to live in solitude on her days off. So her definition of hermit might be equally true as yours, and she carried her hermitage in her heart, as saints of encouraged. Her choices were limited.

Yes, you are correct that her choices were limited just as they are for all of us seeking to live LIVES of eremitical solitude. Canonical hermits, however cannot go out and get full time jobs outside the hermitage nor can they be satisfied with one day of contemplative prayer a week. Those too are limitations which the very nature of their lives, personal and public commitments, and the canon which governs these impose. Canon 603 hermits are not wealthy --- at least generally speaking. They do live poor lives and quite often live at a subsistence level.

They mainly work from within the hermitage (or on the property) and do a variety of things to keep body and soul together. Some do receive disability or other subsidies (depending on the country, etc) but all mainly and often only work from within their hermitage doing any number of things consistent with their contemplative and solitary life. Typically, if a person cannot do this, it is understood by dioceses as a sign that the vocation is not one they can pursue at this point in time. It is sometimes seen that they may therefore not be called to eremitical life just as it is also the analogous (though reversed) case that those who cannot work full time as religious or who are disabled, for instance, are ordinarily unable to enter a religious congregation. While it might be a good idea to have dioceses assist perpetually professed hermits to live their lives so that more folks CAN pursue a truly eremitical life (there is a debate about this among hermits and others), there is NO real debate that full time work outside the hermitage is incompatible with eremitical life as the Church understands it.

What Sister Olga saw as a valid definition of eremitical life you see is not the real question. What constitutes the normative vision of the eremitical life is defined clearly in canon 603 according to which she was (as the rest of us are) obligated to live and shape her own life. That canon is clear: a LIFE of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world. Canon 603 does not define an eremitism of the heart ONLY. It defines a life measured both externally AND internally, institutionally and personally in these terms. Olga's life at BU did not meet this criterion by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that she has dropped any mention of canon 603, does NOT refer to herself as a hermit, as well as the fact that her diocese has stopped referring to her profession as made under canon 603 suggests to me she knew this to be true and agrees with this assessment --- as, I think, did Boston and a lot of folks who questioned the situation --- including faithful, diocesan hermits, other Bishops, canonists, Vicars for Religious, etc. In any case she has moved on and continues to do wonderful things with her life.

I can see the unusual circumstances Sister Olga was in, and she probably felt far more solitary being in a strange country, and trying to stay close to the Church, than many other hermits. I do not think Canon 603 is necessary to protect a hermit, and the Holy Spirit can handle this without laws, and has risen up this type of vocation since the beginning of the Church, so I do not think you need to be worried about it, as you offer your viewpoint.

I agree that Sister Olga's circum-stances were difficult and the way she dealt with these is one of the things that makes her so admirable. The problem here, however, is that feeling solitary is not the same as being a hermit. MANY people today are isolated and marginalized. Many feel alone and disconnected from their families, homelands and cultures. Nonetheless the intensity of Sister Olga's feelings (or those of these many others) is somewhat beside the point; we do not call the isolated, marginalized, and lonely "hermits" unless they also ARE truly hermits, nor do we automatically profess and consecrate them under canon 603 as a stopgap solution to their situation.

One does not need to be professed as a religious (much less a hermit) in order to "stay close to the Church" (we baptized ARE Church) and there is no apparent reason Sister Olga could not, for instance, have embraced consecrated virginity for women living in the world as a way of life if she was looking for a form of consecrated life which allowed her to live fully in the world while serving the Church through active ministry --- unless of course she (and/or her Bishop) was looking, for instance, to eventually create a religious community and seek canonical standing for that. (In such a case c 604 would not have worked and c 603 was not meant for such a purpose either.) As for needing the canon or not, I have argued and continue to argue that the canon is precisely the way the Church assists the Holy Spirit to raise up authentic solitary eremitical lives. It is not that the charismatic and the canonical conflict. Instead they come together in this ecclesial vocation where law serves love.

You speak of Sister Olga as an acceptable exception to this eremitical norm. The problem of course comes when every Bishop in every diocese decides someone he knows should also be counted as an exception. Canon 603 describes a rare vocation; we must accept that fact. It also describes an infinitely valuable vocation which is a gift (charisma) of the Holy Spirit. We must also accept and honor that fact with our actions and policies. Using canon 603 to profess and consecrate exceptions to the rule is an inevitable way to empty the canon of meaning and vitiate the gift this vocation actually is. The canon is not there to accommodate folks who simply cannot be professed any other way --- unless of course they ALSO have a truly eremitical vocation; it is not there to give lonely folks a way to belong (though it assuredly often ALSO does this). It is there to profess those relatively rare instances of eremitical life raised up by the Spirit which the Church considers NORMATIVE of the living eremitical tradition.

There are probably far more personal differences and definitions than a canon law could capture, and that is where the bishop has the authority to work with it the best he can. It is wonderful the bishop gave Sister Olga a sense of belonging. I cannot imaging being in her position.

Actually, I find that the canon is beautifully written not least because it strikes an amazing balance between normativity and flexibility. It is composed of 1) certain non-negotiable elements and 2) the requirement of a personal Rule which applies or configures these elements in the way which is personally best for the hermit herself. There is a vast variety in the way c 603 hermits live the non-negotiable elements of the canon/life. The canon is thus a wonderful example of law and love combined as an expression of truly responsible freedom. Still, the point is that it is a canon; it is a norm for the way the Church understands the solitary eremitical life lived in her name. The hermits professed this way are meant to be exemplars or paradigms of a particular way of life. Again,the canon is not a stopgap way to profess anyone who cannot or will not join a congregation.

I think I can see the root of the confusion, at least mine, when you said Canon 603 was written in 1983. So this is not an ancient church law with a long history of defining it, and now you are in the arena trying to define it. You are defining it with use of the internet, while others may define it differently, not encouraging internet activity. 

Yes. Canon 603 is indeed a modern canon; there is no precedent for it in the Code of Canon Law. That means 1) that it is not the revision of something from the 1917 Code and 2) it supersedes any local diocesan statutes which may still be on the books from throughout the centuries. I believe it is clear in some ways regarding what it calls for even though it does not define these terms. For that reason although I don't need to create a definition it is often important to spell out the history of the vocation and the meaning of the terms used within it (which I think is what you mean) so that it is not seized upon as a canon which applies to just ANY lone person or just ANY isolated and marginalized life.

For instance, stereotypes of eremitical life can blind people to the fact that the life is a healthy one, or that in the main hermits have always tended to live on the margins (and sometimes in the center) of society (rather than in very deep deserts) and offered both the fruits of their skills (in agriculture, for instance), sold goods (created things, art, calligraphy, woven mats, etc), offered advice and spiritual direction (think of anchoresses and their windows which were central spiritual  hubs in medieval towns), or otherwise interacted with their culture and times in ways which 1) protected an essential and contemplative solitude,  2) witnessed to the fact that this vocation is lived in the heart of the Church as well as for the sake of others, and 3) served as a kind of prophetic presence to the Church as whole.

Similarly, because a person does not KNOW the history of the canon or is unfamiliar with eremitical life does not mean the terms of the canon can be defined anyway at all. After all, these terms really DO have meanings just as the term "Catholic Hermit" has a particular and normative meaning within the Church.

But it is understandable that people are literally ignorant of these meanings or (in less understandable and more unfortunate circumstances) choose to ignore them; for this reason it means their definitions may need to be made clear by someone knowledgeable about the eremitical tradition and especially about the history and nature of canon 603. Thus, for instance, a Bishop --- even if he is a canonist --- might not know that "the silence of solitude" is a Carthusian term with a particular range of meaning both far broader and more intensive than mere "physical solitude" and "external silence". Certainly individuals who become intrigued with c 603 as a possible way of  "getting professed while living alone" don't usually know this. Likewise, "stricter separation from the world" has a meaning but it is not "isolation," "reclusion," (at least not usually), nor "separation from and disdain for created reality as a whole."

So yes, I am doing some of this with the aid of the internet. It is a way of preserving my own eremitical life of the silence of solitude while contributing to the development (or at least the understanding of this new piece) of the living tradition I am publicly committed to. Other hermits explore the same constitutive elements of their lives (and the canon) every day; a number have blogs which allow them to share their reflections on these and other matters for the edification of the Church. Each one does so with the knowledge and approval of her superiors, and I would wager, each one does so in a careful and discerning manner because she values the gift this vocation is to the Church and world.

Knocking on Pope Francis' Door on Behalf of the LCWR

From the Editorial Staff of the National Catholic Reporter

In his address to pilgrims in St. Peter's Square May 11, Pope Francis departed from his prepared text and told them to "knock at the doors" of their pastors, saying it would make them better bishops and priests. "Bother your pastors, disturb your pastors, all of us pastors, so that we will give you the milk of grace, of doctrine, and of guidance."

The very next day at morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, Francis preached on Acts 11:1-18, in which Peter tells the church gathered in Jerusalem that Gentiles, too, had come to believe in Jesus. Francis said that Peter had opened the doors to the church for all. "Who are we to close doors?" Francis asked. "In the early church, even today, there is the ministry of the ostiary [usher]. And what did the ostiary do? He opened the door, received the people, and allowed them to pass. But it was never the ministry of the closed door, never."

Pope Francis, today we're here to bother you, to knock on your door until you open it. We are knocking on behalf of faith-filled U.S. Catholics, who are among the millions worldwide whom you have inspired and encouraged in your mission to renew the church. And today we are specifically knocking on behalf of our hurting and misrepresented women religious whose visions of ministry they entrust in the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. LCWR is the thinking head to the body of Catholic sister service.

Francis, we are not alone. Catholics across our nation are knocking at your door on behalf of these faithful, Christ-centered women. They are highly educated women, whose assemblies occur in a spirit of prayer and contemplation, and we feel they continue to be maligned by the characterizations we find in statements from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Visit our new website, Global Sisters Report! LCWR's work should not be impeded or diminished. It needs to be encouraged and celebrated. We find a painful disconnect between how they are being treated and the church of encounter that you preach. We are knocking, waiting for your response.

We ask ourselves: What is the cause of this severe disconnection? The answer, we come to conclude, is fear. Fear of allowing women to sit at the table. Fear, perhaps, of what an inclusive church might look like. Does this stem from a fear of change? Is this fear generated by not spending time in collaboration with women? Our experience tells us that listening to their ideas, their perspectives, their insights would result in building a stronger, healthier church. Keeping them out diminishes us all.

Francis, nothing you have shown us since the first day of your pontificate indicates you are a fear-driven bishop. On the contrary, you appear whole and at peace with yourself. Your humble confidence says you trust in the Spirit. These are all healthy signs the Spirit is alive within you. Trust that Spirit. That trust will serve you well. It will lead you to open the doors of which you speak -- to all the faithful, including, no, starting with the LCWR leadership.

LCWR does not claim to be perfect. But the "mistakes" they might have made do not come out of a lack of faithfulness. Any mistake would have come out of a dedication to the very faithfulness you articulate in your vision of church: a prophetic vision that makes room for change and is fearless as it moves forward, taking risks on behalf of the needy of the world.

Francis, LCWR grew out of the Second Vatican Council, a council you hold dear in your heart. It came out of the vision of St. John XXIII. The council espoused renewal, collegiality, justice and service, the very principles out of which U.S. women religious congregations have operated since that council. These women need not be feared. They need, rather, to be embraced.

Francis, something is askew. Cardinal Gerhard Müller's sharp attack on LCWR is not justified. This is not just the opinion of this publication. It is the opinion of faithful Catholics throughout our nation, including theologians who are deeply involved in ecclesial matters.

The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asks aloud if LCWR's focus on new ideas robs it of the ability to "feel with the church." Francis, the opposite is true. It is because LCWR feels with the church that it is exploring these new ideas. Failure to explore what is new will cripple the church mission in the years ahead. Like it or not, change is the norm of contemporary society. Expressing changeless teachings requires new understandings and articulations. Furthermore, the unyielding nature of Müller's comments are out of step with -- and far removed from -- the spirit of the church you are reimagining and trying to build.

Francis, listen to the knocking of your people. Open the doors to LCWR and break the impasse with the doctrinal congregation. Open the doors for all the people of God to pass through. We remain confident you will respond led by your Gospel instincts of mercy, love and inclusion. How this impasse gets resolved -- or fails to get resolved -- in the weeks and months ahead will undoubtedly give clearer and sharper form to your pontificate.Knocking on Behalf of the LCWR

Which three words do you see first?

Thanks for Explaining the Pastoral reasons for Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for explaining the PASTORAL reasons for canonical standing. Does keeping the seriousness of all this in mind help you to live your vocation? I would think it must. Is it your position that canonical standing is necessary to live a good eremitical life? You mention lay hermits but since you emphasize the pastoral importance of canonical standing I wonder if you believe it is really possible to live as a lay hermit.]]

Yes, keeping the public and especially the ecclesial nature of this vocation in mind (two dimensions of its serious-ness) is a great help to me in persevering in this vocation. Don't get me wrong, I love this call and every day I thank God for gifting me with it but it is not always an easy thing to be faithful to. For instance, as I have written before it is not always easy to discern what expressions of ministry are appropriate. Sometimes I would like to withdraw in more selfish ways than might be healthy or called for by eremitical anachoresis itself but the ecclesial nature of my vocation and the canonical nature of my commitment help me to recognize and resist this temptation. Other times I might desire to minister in some active way which might not be what is best for the vocation more generally or I might be inclined to spend time outside the hermitage in ways which draw me out of the silence of solitude; again, the ecclesial and canonical nature of my commitment assists me to be true to both myself and my call. Because I am not in this alone, because I am responsible in a public way for this vocation, because I have legitimate superiors (or quasi superiors!) and others (parishioners, pastor, friends, Sisters) who are also responsible in varying ways and degrees and to whom I can turn for assistance and support, living this vocation is both richer and easier than it would be otherwise.

However, it is absolutely not my position that canonical standing is necessary to live a good eremitical life. Lay hermits do it all the time and they do it in a way which may minister and be more accessible to those who will never seek nor desire to seek canonical standing in their own lives.  I would suggest you read some of the posts I have put up on the lay eremitical vocation specifically to understand my thought here; I believe I have been pretty clear regarding how much I believe in this (the lay eremitical) vocation and in its possibility and importance today. When I say the public rights and obligations associated with canonical standing cause my own vocation to differ from the lay eremitical vocation but that the absence of these public dimensions does not constitute a deficiency in the lay hermit vocation I am both quite serious and entirely sincere.

In fact one of the things which makes me saddest is the fact that lay hermits seem generally not to take their own vocations as seriously in terms of its significance to the Church and world as they do the canonical version. Few that I can find write about it, reflect on its charismatic nature, or recommend it to others. Few offer to talk occasionally to their parishes or diocese about it, etc. While I know lay hermits who do not, many seem instead  to continue to subtly elevate the eremitical vocations connected with canonical standing (semi-eremitical and solitary eremitical life) when these are not accessible to them for a variety of reasons. Some do this by resisting  and never using the actual designation "lay hermit" while others make it their business to disparage canonical standing and those who seek and receive it, but the bottom line is that many lay hermits seem to treat lay eremitical life as a second class form of eremitism. Still, the specifically eremitical elements and dimensions of these two (or three!) vocations are identical --- especially if the lay hermit lives some form of the evangelical counsels, as all Christians really are meant to do.

Again, thanks for your comments. I am glad I was able to convey to you some of the pastoral reasons for canonical standing and canon 603. Others may be found in posts on the relationship of freedom and obedience, for instance, or the relational nature of standing in law (cf., labels below). As I said in the post you referred to, the critical question is really this one: if this vocation were NOT a gift of the Holy Spirit then why would we care about canonical standing? What the Church sees clearly is that  canonical standing and the activity of the Holy Spirit are not in conflict with one another nor  (as one person I spoke with recently commented) does the Holy Spirit's action makes the canon unnecessary. What is true is the canon exists precisely as one significant way the Holy Spirit nurtures, protects, and governs the contemporary solitary eremitical vocation in a world which militates against it in every way including especially: 1) its allergy to silence, 2) its isolationist and marginalizing tendencies, and 3) its heightened individualism --- all of which are antithetical to and cry out for genuine eremitical solitude.  All good wishes.

What does it mean to say a vocation is normative, canonical, or ecclesial? What does it matter?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you say that a hermit with public vows has embraced a "normative (canonical)" and ecclesial vocation do you mean that all other hermits measure their lives according to these people? What does it mean to call a vocation ecclesial? Why does it matter? Is this important to the person in the pew? Also, if you live your life "in the name of the Church" does this mean that when you speak out here you do so on behalf of the Church or as some sort of official spokesperson?]]

I have written about these topics a lot -- though not so much recently --- so I really encourage you to look them up in the topics or labels list at the bottom of this post as well as to the right. In any case this answer will reprise a lot of what those posts already contain. (The need to repeat this kind of thing as questions occur is one of the deficiencies of a blog format.) Still, your questions are also a little different than what I have answered in the past, especially in wondering about what it means to say a vocation is an ecclesial one or what it means to say "in the name of the Church" so I am glad to look at these things again. That is especially true when some question the need for canonical standing with regard to eremitical life --- as one person wrote to me yesterday morning.

Normative Vocations:

When I say that a hermit has embraced a normative (canonical) vocation through public profession I mean that her vocation is governed and measured by the canon defining her life. In my case and the case of other diocesan hermits it is mainly canon 603. While one hopes that anyone professed accordingly lives her life in an exemplary way it is first of all the life described by the canon, and so, the canon itself which is normative; that is, the canon tells us what the Church herself understands, establishes, and codifies as "eremitical life" for the benefit of her own life and the salvation of all. A person admitted to a public commitment to live under this canon has committed to living this specific understanding of the eremitical life and is publicly responsible for doing so in recognizable, fruitful, and faithful ways. She does so  in order that the life and holiness of the Church may be augmented and may serve to witness to others in terms of eremitism itself. You might say that a diocesan hermit is responsible for enfleshing or incarnating this canon and the form of life it describes for the healing and inspiration of her local Church, the universal Church, and the world at large. Only in this sense does the hermit herself become "normative" of the eremitical life. (The diocesan hermit is so-called because she is publicly professed and consecrated by God in the hands of the diocesan Bishop and is bound to this specific diocese unless another Bishop agrees to receive her and supervise her vowed life in his diocese).

Canon 603 has a number of non-negotiable elements to it. It describes a vowed life (603.2 specifies a publicly vowed life) of stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance according to a Rule the hermit writes herself and which is lived FOR the salvation of the world. All of this is undertaken in law and under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop who is the hermit's legitimate superior (superior in law). In other words this c. 603 hermit lives a solitary eremitical life of poverty, chastity, and obedience according to the canonical specifications of the Catholic Church so that others might hear the Gospel of Christ in a particularly vivid way through her life of desert spirituality. She is not a misanthrope, a failure at life or relationships, nor is her solitary life a selfish or self-centered one. The requirement that this life be a loving one lived for the sake of others is no less significant than the requirements of assiduous prayer, stricter separation from the world, or the silence of solitude.

Because she does this in the heart of the Church and for others the canon stands between them and her as a kind of signpost and point of entry. It tells her fellow Catholics (and all others as well) what her life as a Catholic hermit is about (the term Catholic here implies one who is publicly and thus, normatively committed to this life; it specifically means a life lived in the name of the Church; in other words, it is a right (with commensurate responsibilities) granted BY THE CHURCH, not one which is self-adopted). The faithful can read the canon and question the hermit about what it means for her life; the canon gives the faithful in particular the right to specific expectations with regard to this hermit. This is not the case when one's commitment is private. Similarly it constantly summons the hermit to faithfulness to a specific and normative vision of eremitical life as the Catholic Church understands and codifies it. Both the hermit and the Church itself are mutually responsible for the faithful living out of this vocation. Both are publicly committed to this. If the hermit continues to allow her life to be shaped by God in the heart of the Church in this particular way and if her superiors work with her to ensure the same then this eremitical life will be truly edifying --- meaning it will build up the Church and the Kingdom of God.

Non-Canonical Hermits, authenticity vs counterfeits:

Many people live as hermits but not in a way which is normative and sometimes not even in a way the  Church would consider authentic. I have a friend whose brother lives in the Pacific Northwest in a small secluded cabin. He has lived there for at least thirty years that I know of. He is a hermit who lives a significant physical solitude, but he is not a hermit in the sense the Church uses the term. Further he is a Catholic but he is emphatically NOT a Catholic hermit and to think of him as one could be disedifying. If you look at other posts on this blog you will find the story of Tom Leppard an eccentric and curmudgeonly misanthrope who lived as a hermit on the Isle of Skye in significant physical solitude, deprivation, and psychological isolation for a number of years. Tom also fails to meet the criterion of those called "hermit" set forth by the Church. Recently a "hermit" in Maine was arrested for stealing. He was indeed a hermit in the common sense of the term, but he would have thought canon 603 the description of an entirely alien landscape and certainly could not have lived as a hermit in the name of the Church. These examples could easily be multiplied many times over. A quick search of the internet will uncover other equally eccentric and frankly alarming examples of counterfeit eremitical life.

Not all authentic hermits are canonical of course. Lay hermits who will always represent the lion's share of the eremitical population may well live most of the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 and do so in exemplary ways (I know several who are wonderful examples of eremitical life) but they live their commitments to this way of life privately, neither publicly called, publicly committed or commissioned, nor accepting the public rights, obligations, nor the expectations associated with canonical standing. This is not a deficiency but it is still a significant difference which those considering one form of eremitical life or another need to be aware of. The faithful in general also need to be aware of the differences here not least so their own expectations can be appropriate ones. While our private commitments should be serious and something we live with integrity, members of the Church have no real right to complain or question if they do not see signs that this is occurring in an exemplary way. In my own life, while members of the church will be concerned for me if I am having problems living my eremitical commitments with integrity, these concerns can actually be taken to my legitimate superiors with the justifiable expectation that the situation will be rectified in all necessary ways. Not so with private commitments.

Ecclesial vocations:

I think you may already see that a normative (canonical) vocation and an ecclesial vocation are closely related  even overlapping ideas. Still, we do mean one thing I have not yet explicitly mentioned here. An ecclesial vocation is one mediated to the person by the Church. One cannot claim such a vocation on one's own. Such vocations are mutually discerned. The person whose vocation is mutually discerned is then called forth from the midst of the assembly to respond publicly to this vocation and commit her life to it. Her vows are received in the name of the Church and the rights and obligations attached to this state are mediated to her as well (things like the right to be known as a diocesan or Catholic hermit, the right to wear a religious habit or prayer garment publicly, the right to use the title Sister (etc) along with all the obligations attached to these and the expectations associated with them, etc. are included here). The very state itself with all the graces attached are mediated by the Church. When I spoke above of the mutual responsibility of hermits and superiors for making sure the life is lived well I was also referring to the ecclesial nature of the vocation.

On the ground canonical standing also means that the Church has vetted these folks over some period of time and, as well as possible, found them sane, spiritually well-grounded, theologically sound, and committed to living this life for the sake of others. They are not seeking a sinecure nor a place to live a life of idleness. Again, they are not misanthropes, failures at life, eccentrics, or self-centered and self-pitying misfits. They understand the vocation, have significant positive reasons for pursuing it and are deemed to have been called by God through the ministry of God's Church to do so. They live disciplined lives of prayer and penance according to a Rule they have written.  The Rule by which they live their lives and the vows they have made have been approved by canonists and others to be sure they represent a healthy and sound version of vowed eremitical life which can truly serve as a witness to others. As a piece of this their lives and efforts are also supervised and supported as they meet regularly with a spiritual director and/or diocesan delegate as well as less frequently with their Bishop. In other words, an ecclesial vocation is one in which the person and the Church more generally --- especially through the agency of the local ordinary or other superiors --- are publicly and mutually committed in an effort to be faithful to this vocation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Why Does this Matter? Is It Important to the Person in the Pew?


I hope you can see that all of this does matter to the person in the pew. In fact all of the requirements and vetting is done so that the Church as a whole is able to see and respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in her midst. The key word in all of this is CREDIBILITY. The Church understands the eremitical life as a great gift of the Holy Spirit but she also knows that it has become associated with all sorts of stereotypes and nutcases as well as authentic hermits. As I have noted, our world is fraught with individualism, narcissism, the aggrandizement of victim status, misanthropy and self-centeredness --- all of which have been confused with authentic eremitical life and the words "solitary" and (more problematically) "solitude". The silence of solitude has been confused with the silence of emptiness, lack, and personal deficiency whereas it is really the silence of communion and fullness. Canonical Hermits are specifically called to witness to the vast differences between a solitary life lived in communion with God and for the salvation of the world and these perversions , distortions, or counterfeit versions of authentic eremitical, and indeed, authentic human existence.

I believe that is terribly important to the rest of the assembly (ecclesia) and especially to anyone struggling to make sense of lives where they or others they love are now alone, feel their lives have ceased to have meaning because of loss (job, money, status), bereavement, or illness, etc. I believe it is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world peopled with the marginalized, prisoners, the poor, sick, and suffering who are in search of a peace the world cannot give. And of course, it is because I believe this vocation IS a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and World that I am sensitive to its normative and public character. In other words, it is because this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit and is lived for the sake of others that emphasis on such things as normativeness, canonical standing, or ecclesiality are important. If the vocation meant nothing and was not a gift of the Spirit to the Church and world, if it was really nothing more than an expression of  a selfish or misanthropic individualism whether a relatively pious form or not, then indeed, why should we care about such things?!?! Why indeed, should we codify it, invest it with rights and obligations, or encourage others to seek it?

Living Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church

No, when I write here I do not do so as an official, a spokesperson for the Church. However I do write as one commissioned and one who does live diocesan eremitical life in her name. In other words I am responsible for being a solitary Catholic Hermit in the sense the Church uses that term. I and others like me are, that is, charged with representing a living eremitical tradition in the Church and we are, as noted above, publicly and legally bound to do that with faithfulness in a way which adds to the tradition (especially in its dialogue with contemporary culture I think) and to the holiness of the Church herself. Anyone claiming the title "Catholic Hermit" should be able to say the same or they are actually breaking faith with the Church herself. Because by education I am a theologian I am also called in a charismatic way to reflect on the vocation itself more systematically than many others living the life. Still, every diocesan hermit I know reflects on the life c 603 outlines precisely as part of living it with integrity. Moreover, almost all those I know regard the importance of working with their Bishops to ensure the health and beauty of this gift of the Spirit. All of this is a normal part of living the life in the name of the Church as "Catholic hermits."

(By the way, the Church is very careful about folks calling institutions, forms of life, etc "Catholic" and actually forbids this in law unless the right is granted by the appropriate authority.) You see to call oneself a Catholic priest, a Catholic Sister, a Catholic hermit, a Catholic lay person, etc, is another way of saying, "I have been publicly commissioned (publicly ordained, professed, and/or consecrated --- including baptismal consecration) to live this life in the name of the Church." It is another dimension of a normativity whose purpose is really a profoundly pastoral one. Canonical standing nurtures and governs the vocational gifts of the Holy Spirit to the entire Church;  it also helps prevent faithlessness, hypocrisy, and even outright fraud. After all, in a vocation as rare, little known, and unusual as authentic eremitical solitude, especially given the stereotypes that exist and the individualistic tendencies in our culture, it would not be hard for some to misrepresent the vocation or call themselves "Catholic Hermits" when they are really no such thing.

Circumcision and Law as well as Gospel: What's all the fuss?

[[Sister, what is the issue with circumcision about in the early Church?]]


This week's readings from the Acts of the Apostles focus mainly on the huge disagreement that led to the Jerusalem Council, namely the Judaizers' insistence that new Gentile Christians be circumcised and submit to the Mosaic Law. I suspect that like you most of us are apt to ask what the big deal is. After all if we follow Christ we will also keep the Law, so why the great flap from Paul and those who work with him?

The answer Paul's theology gives us is pretty simple. When he encountered the Risen and Ascended Jesus he realized that Jesus was the goal and fulfillment of the Law, the fulfillment of the covenant with God, the one in whom salvation was achieved and available to all. Reunion or reconciliation with God was achieved in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of this man who was, in fact, crucified according to the law, and then vindicated by God. This vindication was also, therefore, a judgment on the law and its fragmentary and partial nature. As a result none of the fragmentary or partial ways of achieving or at least remaining in union with God were necessary any longer --- and that included the law that had been shown to be such a fragmentary vision of the will of God. If one was in Christ, if one had been baptized into his death and resurrection, then one had fulfilled the law in him as well. Either this is true or it is not. Either life in Christ alone is a means, sign, and measure of our covenant faithfulness and life with God or it is not. Either we are carried by the grace of Christ into God's presence or we must get there according to our own feeble works. Paul saw this clearly and because he did he rejected laying extra burdens on Gentile Christians.

 Remember that the Law was a partial revelation of God's will for us. The task before human beings is not merely to keep the Law in the sense of not coveting, not bearing false witness, not committing adultery, etc. We are to fulfill the law, that is we are to be the authentic human beings who do the will of God and love God, ourselves and others in the exhaustive way God calls us to. The Law can summon us to love and set the minimalist guidelines beyond which we may not go if we wish to remain on the path to and with God, but it cannot empower us to love. It can call us to live truthfully but it cannot make us true. It can sometimes prevent ever greater estrangement from God but it cannot lead to union with God. All of those things come to us in Christ who is the "end" or telos, the goal and fulfillment of the law. Once the goal has been reached (or once those on the way have seen or "known" this goal) the path markers are no longer necessary and, if our focus is drawn to them, may even cause us to crash short of our goal.

( N.B., I am thinking here of something I wrote about with regard to increasingly detailed definitions of the requirements for admission to consecration as a virgin. It is something Paul knew well about the Law: [[ It's a little like riding a bicycle between two posts. If a person looks at the posts, first one then the other, then again, etc., she will invariably crash into the posts. If, on the other hand a person sights along the top of the wheel to gauge its projected  movement along the path or, even better,  focuses as well as one can on the path beyond the posts --- that is, if she looks at where she wishes to go and is actually heading rather than where she does NOT wish to go --- she will pretty much sail through the posts without concern.]])

Moreover, to focus on these as signs of covenantal faithfulness is to risk being divided within the believing community. This was the primary issue for Luke I think and Paul would not have disagreed. To the degree we live IN Christ and are empowered by his Spirit we no longer need the Law itself. To turn back to measuring our lives and those of other Christians in terms of Law would be an example of what Jesus himself forbids, namely, putting our hand to the plow and then turning back, or refusing to let the dead bury the dead. It would also be an example of entering the wedding banquet without the garment (the works) provided by the Bridegroom himself as well as of the lection we heard a couple of weeks ago regarding entering the sheepfold as a thief and robber because we have come in in some way other than the gate that is Christ himself. The Johannine affirmation we heard last Friday, "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" is, in part, the same truth Paul and Barnabas are insisting on in this week's readings. It is also the reason we heard the story of the vine and the branches (remain in me!) today or are given Friday's Gospel admonition that we act in Jesus' name (that is, in the power and presence of Jesus) and love one another as Jesus loves. To the degree we do these things we no longer need the law; in fact, to the degree we do these things we are FREE of the Law and of course, free to fulfill it as well.

The tension between Judaism and the new Way and between Law and Gospel informs all of these gospel stories and more besides. In Christ God has done something absolutely new and entirely sufficient in giving us access to the abundant life of God; there is no going back to older or "dead" or far less lifegiving realities. The transition that was called for in light of Jesus' resurrection was both total and truly world shattering.

Wearing Habits: Helpful to Prayer?

[[Dear Sister, you once wrote, "A habit is unnecessary and superfluous apart from the assumption of such rights and obligations; it is for this reason they are not usually approved apart from admission to vows." I think that I pray better when I am wearing a habit of some sort. No, I am not publicly professed but I had one made and I really feel more comfortable when I pray in it.You must know what I mean!  Don't you feel more comfortable praying in your habit? ]]

I suspect this may be the shortest blog post ever but the answer is simply NO. I honestly have no idea what you mean. So long as I am physically comfortable (i.e., warm enough, not constricted, etc) what I am wearing is of no consequence at all.

But let me say a bit about prayer and how what you describe doing strikes me. To be frank (and pardon me for this) I believe you are fooling yourself and making of prayer something marked by pretense. I also think you would do well to speak with someone you know and trust about this practice, especially someone who does spiritual direction. Not least you need to understand (and perhaps work through) why you are comfortable when dressed one way but not so comfortable in prayer otherwise. You see prayer is simply being who we truly are before and with God. If who we are involves the right and obligation to wear a habit then fine; if it does not, then wearing one before God is pretense --- that is, one is pretending to something one has no right to; one is pretending to be someone one is not.

Because I have been given the right (and privilege) as well as accepted the obligation of and responsibilities associated with wearing a habit --- and because I wear it routinely --- yes, I am entirely comfortable praying  in it. However, I am equally comfortable praying in jeans and a work tunic, pajamas, or even (for some forms of prayer anyway!) naked in the shower. In other words, I am comfortable in my own skin before and in the power of God. You must be yourself in prayer. Nothing else makes sense. Nothing else is truly reverent or really open to God. Anything else is an offense to the God of Truth who truly accepts us as we are and loves us into wholeness. Anything else is contrary to our being  humble persons who are and allow ourselves to be wholly dependent upon the mercy of God. Playing dress up in a habit is contrary to humility which is a loving form of truthfulness; neither is it the basis for prayer to or empowered by the God who makes all things true.

By the way, what you might like to do instead of dressing up in a religious habit is to use a prayer garment. I do not mean a cowl, for instance (this is associated with solemn public profession and monastic or eremitical life), but many people use prayer shawls or garments like a Jewish "Tallit" .  Meanwhile, thank you for your question. It is actually a significant one and I am truly grateful you asked it.

Seeking Eremitical Consecration When one's Director Disagrees

[[Dear Sister, I am a lay person and would like to become canonically approved as a diocesan hermit but I am not sure my spiritual director thinks it is something I should go ahead with. I wouldn't want to go against his wishes in this. Do you have an opinion?]]

Thanks for your question and for waiting the past several days for an answer. First of all, petitioning for canonical standing (standing in law) means asking the Church to admit you to public profession and allow you to accept the public rights and obligations associated with the consecrated (and in this case, the eremitical) state of life. It means petitioning to be allowed to live eremitical life in the name of the Church and so, being publicly responsible not just for your own vocation, but for the living eremitical tradition as well.

If you are accepted and admitted finally to solemn (perpetual) profession and consecration as a diocesan (c 603) hermit, you become responsible for continuing this stream of the tradition in a normative way which allows an ancient vocation to be lived in inspired and fruitful dialogue with the contemporary situation;  again, you do so in the name of the Church. It is a significant public responsibility and while there is some degree of "approval" more fundamentally canonical standing is about being given a place of trust in the public (and the hidden) life of the Church. (By the way, this is also why only publicly professed hermits, whether those that live in community or those professed under c 603, are called Catholic hermits. The use of the term Catholic here points to the public, normative (canonical), and ecclesial nature of the vocation one has both been admitted to and assumed, not to the individual's membership in the RC Church.)

The language of "approval" as in "(a) canonical or bishop's (stamp of) approval" is therefore misleading and superficial in this regard and I would suggest you mainly avoid it. I have really only heard one other person use this language routinely and she did it mainly to trivialize the vocation and to criticize hermits who desire "status" and "approval" --- as though seeking canonical standing (standing in law) was merely (or mainly) a matter of personal aggrandizement or pride. A consistent theme in her posts and videos was a downplaying of the ecclesial nature and responsibility of the vocation in order to focus on more superficial notions of "status" (as prestige) and approval. Your own language reminds me of these posts in which the nature of canonical standing was so badly misrepresented so I want to address this issue as well as those you asked about specifically. In general this language represents a perspective which actually prevents one from understanding the nature and significance of this vocation as ecclesial or the real nature of standing in law.

Similarly, your post reminds me of this person's posts and videos in the way you speak of your spiritual director. In my experience competent contemporary directors do not assume the kind of responsibility you are describing. I know I do not, nor does my own director (as director) or any of those with whom I am familiar. I am not my clients' legitimate superior nor do I tell them what I think their vocation is. I may certainly have opinions about a person's readiness or lack of readiness to pursue a particular vocation but I do not tell them to either pursue or not pursue it. That is beyond my purview as a director and the directors I know feel the same way about this. More importantly, however, the fact that you are considering not exploring something you apparently feel called to because your SD may disagree with you about it may actually suggest that you are really not ready to pursue consecrated life generally or consecrated eremitical life specifically.

You see, this life is a mature and independent one where every day one is called on to listen to and follow the voice of God in one's heart of hearts. A director can accompany you in this and assist you in learning to hear and respond appropriately to this voice of God --- which is why you of course should listen carefully to what she has to say in this regard and pray seriously over her concerns --- but s/he cannot (and really should not) replace this entire dynamic by telling you what you should do. That way encourages a juvenile approach to life and discernment, not authentic or mature obedience. By the way, the relationship between a legitimate superior and one bound by a public vow of obedience is more complex than (on the subject's part) simply doing as one is told or (on the superior's part) simply telling someone to do things. Instead both parties are bound to listen closely to God's will in this person's life as well as in the life of the community, diocese, eremitical tradition, etc, and for that reason the vow means careful work together motivated by love in Christ. It is actually relatively rare today for a legitimate superior to simply tell a person bound by a public vow "what to do."

In any case bear in mind that simply petitioning to be admitted to canonical profession and eventual conse-cration does not mean this will happen. It means that you are seeking to enter into a process of mutual discernment with members of your local chancery, first Vicars and/or vocation personnel and then, if that goes well, the Bishop. (They will, of course, request a reference from your director and they might possibly seek her recommendation or at least listen to concerns she might have.) Because canon 603 life is an ecclesial vocation it is not one you can embrace all by yourself; neither does your own sense of call ensure a call exists nor therefore, that the diocese will agree in this matter. The discernment MUST be mutual and your diocese may decide to allow you to enter into such a process or they may determine that you are not ready to do this. They may even determine you are not suited to the vocation or they may actually be unwilling to profess anyone at this point in time. If you are admitted to a process of discernment which eventuates in profession and consecration, actual admission to even temporary vows is likely several years in the future -- so be prepared for that.

By the way, if your director is pretending to bind you in obedience or expects you to simply do as s/he says in the way you have described (since you are not a religious and since this person has no legitimate authority over you this can only be pretense) I would personally suggest you look for another director or, at the very least, see if the relationship cannot be significantly modified in this regard. I have never heard of competent contemporary directors relating to lay clients this way but I have sometimes heard directees speaking of their directors in these terms when those same directors really do not encourage it or relate to them in this way. While I am not saying you are doing this (I honestly don't know of course) it is important if you ever want to be a diocesan hermit that you have internalized a truly adult model of obedience and ways of relating to authority in your life --- legitimate and otherwise. Because diocesan hermits' legitimate superiors are their Bishops it is really unusual for them to meet with one another more than twice a year at most. Once a year is much more typical so one can hardly "wait for permission," or "wait to hear what he thinks" until one sees her Bishop. To assist in this situation diocesan hermits tend to have diocesan delegates with whom we meet more frequently (four to six times a year or so as possible); these persons serve as quasi-superiors but they also tend not to encourage the hermit to turn to them for permissions or approval, for instance, except in very occasional and significant matters.

Consecrated Virginity, Eschatological Secularity and the Descent and Ascent of the Bridegroom

[[Sister Laurel, when you talk about consecrated virginity as a form of eschatological secularity you are talking about it in terms of this same eschatology you have been explaining the Ascension in aren't you? The bridal imagery Jesus uses to explain the Ascension applies directly to this vocation then doesn't it? It is an icon of this new creation and this new heaven and earth the Scriptures talk about. Is that right? If that is the case then I understand better why you have insisted this is a "significantly qualified secularity" defined in terms of eschatology and consecration. It is not only that CV's are icons of something still to come but that they are icons of something already here; both consecration and secularity are essential dimensions of this. . . .]] (Paraphrase and transcription of part of a conversation I had with another Sister on this matter. It builds on the following article among others: Consecrated Virgins and the Interpenetration of Heaven and Earth)

Yes, exactly.  When I write about consecrated virginity lived in the world as a form of eschatological secularity I am specifically thinking of the ascended Jesus and his mediation of God into the world as well as his mediation of the saeculum or created world into God. The new heaven and new earth we look forward to, that reality in which God is all in all has begun to exist but is not here in fullness. CV's living in the world are icons and apostles of this proleptic reality in a way which is unique not only because of the bridal imagery associated with the vocation but because of the vocation's secularity as well. Just like the Bridegroom CV's are called to mediate between heaven and earth by representing both fully. They are not to flee the world as some forms of religious life stress, nor do they represent an unchanged secularity. Instead they are icons of the ascended Christ and the new creation, the new heaven and earth his own life in God represents and mediates.

You see, when I think about Jesus as mediator there is an amazing symmetry about it. It is quite literally beautiful to me to see the way Jesus as God's Christ stands between two worlds and brings them together in himself.  All vocations participate in Christ and in his role as mediator but the bridal imagery used in the Gospel of John to speak of the Ascension and his "going to prepare a place for us" in the very life of God seems to me to be especially explicit in the vocation to consecrated virginity. So is the transformed secularity, that is, the eschatological secularity, of this new heaven and new earth. It may well be that any Christian consecrated in baptism can represent this kind of secularity but because of the explicit bridal imagery associated with it it seems to me that consecrated virgins represent this is a more vivid, explicit, and perhaps too, a more integrated way than other forms of consecrated life.

In the early Church folks were in greater touch than we are today with the fact that they belonged to an earth which was objectively different than it had been prior to Jesus' death and resurrection. They lived and breathed a truly eschatological secularity because they saw the new heaven and new earth both now present and its coming in fullness being right around the corner. We have lost touch with this sense but the renewal of this vocation, it seems to me, could represent a completely new (and very ancient) approach to the cosmos which is profoundly eschatological. Christ as Bridegroom models the movements of descent and ascent, kenosis and pleroma, self-humbling and glorification. It is in Christ that things which were once separated and alienated from one another are reconciled so that God might be all in all.

Remember that it was typical of religions to believe these things did not belong together in God or in the Divine (God could not be associated with kenois, humbling, sin, death, godlessness, suffering, etc); thus it was similarly typical to believe that created reality or material reality did not belong to the spiritual realm or vice versa. The Christ Event changed all that and it is Jesus as mediator and bridegroom that makes the reconciliation and eventual transfiguration of these both real and vivid. Christ mediates the sacred to the secular and the secular to the sacred, so to speak; the reality that comes to be in him, whether proleptically or in fullness, is an eschatological secularity --- a new heaven and a new earth. His Bride (the Church) shares in this mediatory vocation. It should not be surprising then that consecrated vocations serve to demonstrate a similar paradoxical "belonging together" of those things which were once seen as incompatible and rightly alienated.  So you see, I continue to believe CV's living in the world are called to demonstrate this in a privileged way. Those who reject the eschatological secularity of their vocations seem to me to have missed this central piece of what the NT bridal imagery is really all about.