Followup Questions: God as Master Storyteller

[[Dear Sister, thank you very much for your post on God as master storyteller. [cf.,God as Master Storyteller:Picking up the pieces of a Broken World]   I have struggled with the idea of understanding how it is that bad things are the will of God. When people say it is all the will of God I just can't believe it. Children get cancer or starve to death. Genocide is something that happens all the time in our world. Recently there was a mass shooting in Santa Barbara and a couple of years ago in Newtown. How can anyone say that any of this is the will of God? As you have said yourself, what kind of God would this be? So here is my problem. My mother has a history of being misunderstood and sometimes even treated badly by others in her parish. She has begun to say it is all the will of God. I don't believe it but I don't know what to say to her about this either. She is a devout Catholic and I don't want to shake her faith in God. Your post and the quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer may help me find the words I need to explain what I believe to her but I wondered if you have any advice for me?]]

First, I will send you a copy of the post you referred to. Perhaps that will help a little. I think the example of the game the parish staff played and which I wrote about in that post can be very helpful in making clear how it is that God is constantly present and always working to bring good out of even the worst circumstances, but also that God is not responsible for the sometimes inadequate way we tell our own stories or the mess we make of these sometimes.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as you noted, is also a good choice in explaining things because he witnessed the holocaust first hand and was murdered by the Nazi's at Flossenburg concentration camp near the end of the war. As you mention and others will remember it was Bonhoeffer who said, "Not everything that happens is the will of God, but inevitably, nothing that happens happens outside the will of God." He knew full well that what the Nazi's were doing could not be considered the will of God --- not in the least stretch of the cleverest (or most distorted or pathological) imagination but he also believed profoundly in the Gospel --- namely, that with God this would not be the last word, nor the deaths of so many the final silence. In God nothing would be lost, nothing would remain ultimately senseless, etc for God is the creator God and makes all things new and eternal.

One thing I would remind you of is that sometimes people seize on the "it's all the will of God" explanation when they have nothing else to hold onto. They might be profoundly disappointed, emotionally worn out and see no purpose or meaning in anything. Some of these folks will have a very hard time admitting that the problems they have had are at least partly their fault and that they will have to change to really do the will of God in this. In these cases the persons seizing on the "It's all the will of God!" notion are fragile and desperate to affirm that their world makes sense. They also lack the resiliency necessary sometimes to change even when they are their own worst enemies. In situations where it is really not the person's fault, when they may be more amenable to a realistic perspective it may be enough to ask them "what part of the situation was really the will of God?" and then provide an analysis from your own perspective. For instance, you could ask then question and then point out, "What x said to you was certainly not the will of God as I understand it, but your courage in the face of it was." "The way that parishioner acted was unjust and certainly not something a God of love could will, but God's being with you to support you in this is!" You could do this occasionally, and gently. Subtly if possible. The point is to affirm  your own faith in God's will and power, but at the same time to allow your mom to see other "powers and principalities" as Paul puts the matter, are also still at work in our world (and sometimes within us!).


At some point it may be helpful to talk about the story of Jesus' trial, torture, and crucifixion. Ask the same question, "What part of this was clearly the will of God?" but also ask, "What part could NOT be the will of an infinitely merciful (just), and loving God?" (Though of course such a God can and will use these things and bring meaning out of them nonetheless!) When you share what you believe on this you could point out, lying witnesses was not the will of God, a cowardly Pontius Pilate was not the will of God, the rabid behavior of the crowd was not the will of God, etc etc, but look what God has brought out of all this anyway!!!" No wonder Paul says, "O happy fault!" Our own inhumanity, not to mention the chance or randomness that really does exist in the world causes things to happen which are not the will of God but God's providence encompasses these and will still bring good out of them. We often need to learn to look for that good and to be realistic without being either cynical or pollyannaish! Or, you could pick stories from the lives of those your mom loves in ways similar to the way God loves her. Do the same kind of question/analysis. Explore how she thinks (or begins to see) God might bring good out of the terrible things that happen and how, with God's grace she and you might help that to happen.

In the end you will be giving your mother a theologically sound alternative she might just adopt more and more. If she does it could also give her the courage to look at her own role in things and change to whatever degree this is needed, or simply to forgive others and not set herself up for continuing "victim" status and collusion with  the powers of sin and death at work in our world still --- which is precisely what claiming "It is all the will of God" in a naive sense actually does.

Canon 603: Normativity and the Prevention of Distortions, Abuses, Counterfeits and Frauds

[[Sister, you wrote that Bishop Remi de Roo gave several different reasons for asking the II Vatican Council to make eremitical life a state of perfection and include it in canon law. Could you please post these here? I could not copy them.]]

Sure. They are 1) The fact of a growing renewal of the life, 2) the sanctifying value of the hermit's life, 3) the hermit's contribution to the life of the church. This would include the hermit's prophetic role, a modeling of the Church's call to contemplation and the centrality of prayer, being a paradigm of the way we are each called to confront evil within our own lives and world, or allow heaven (God's own life shared with others) to interpenetrate our reality, etc 4) the ecumenical value of the hermit's life (especially re dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity) 5) a correction of the impression that the evangelical counsels is limited to institutionalized community life known as religious life. Question continues:

[[I can see where these really are positive reasons for establishing Canon 603. Was it also a way to regulate the growth of the vocation or minimize distortions or abuses even if these weren't the reason the Canon came into existence? Thank you.]]

Yes. to point out the normative and ecclesial nature of canon 603 vocations is to say that the Church desires to respond to the Holy Spirit in authentic ways. This also therefore means that abuses, distortions, disedifying stereotypes, and destructive eccentrics or eccentricities cannot mask themselves as Catholic hermits or the stuff of canon 603 life as well as that the Church has a stake in being sure this does not occur. The big difference between noting that canon 603 ALSO helps prevent abuses and saying that it actually grew out of an attempt to deal with abuses should be clear. Since these elements are something of an informal vision of the place of the eremitical vocation in the Church, and since they are positive and ecclesially focused, they too underscore that the flip side of the positive normative nature of the canon involves the prevention of abuses.

What remains true however, is that unless the Church was (and is) faced with a true gift of the Holy Spirit  in eremitical life no canon would be necessary; nor would any exist. The Church could simply ignore (as "hermits", not as needy people!) the fraudulent or counterfeit "hermits" populating the various wildernesses (including internet sites!) of the world. The corollary then is that with this canon (i.e., this norm) the proliferation of counterfeits and frauds alongside those very few authentic vocations who consider this vocation seriously because of the canon, makes recognizing, exploring, and honoring the normative nature of the canon even more critical. While it is not meant to validate eccentricity and inauthenticity, it does pique the interest of many lone individuals who will never be professed accordingly for these same reasons (and better ones as well!).** As former detective Monk might say, in this regard Canon 603 is both a blessing and a curse.

I am not entirely sure about the idea that the canon was meant to regulate the growth of such vocations if by that you mean it was meant to prevent there from being lots and lots of them, for instance. The Church knows this is a relatively rare vocation and that few are called to human wholeness in this way. However, the specific non-negotiable  or defining elements of the canon do prevent just any lone pious person from thinking of themselves (much less portraying themselves publicly) as a hermit just as it prevents some of the practices which would surely proliferate without it: e.g., solitary apostolic religious for whom being a hermit is a "metaphor" for their lives, misanthropes, and others seeking to validate their strangeness or their failures at charity and relationships by applying the word "hermit" to their lives, Saturday-only contemplatives, married hermits, and any number of other examples I have mentioned in the past 7 years.

You may have noticed that I posted an answer to the question as to whether the Episcopal solitary was the same as the RC Hermit. In fact, it turns out that the Episcopalians use a canon which is sort of a catchall for unusual cases --- cases in which a person is not professed as part of a recognized Order or Community, for instance. While the solitaries I know personally in the Episcopal Church live lives which resemble my own in all the elements Canon 603 requires of the hermit, the Canon under which they are professed does NOT spell out these elements in the same way Canon 603 does. Thus, while I don't know if the Episcopal Church has problems with Bishops professing individuals as "solitaries" even if they do not live a desert spirituality, this too makes it clear that Canon 603 does limit the growth of the vocation to those persons who DO live its central and non-negotiable elements.

** Should anyone doubt that Canon 603 (and those professed under it) has subsequently led to MANY people seeking to be professed accordingly one story might help here. I was speaking to a Vicar for Consecrated Life about his diocese's experience with hermits, hermit candidates for profession, etc. This diocese has professed one diocesan hermit in the history of the canon, and that was only within the past decade. However, he said that every month (he may have said every week, I can't recall exactly now) people approach the diocese seeking to be admitted to profession as diocesan hermits. None of them has gotten as far as this one diocesan hermit in regard to the process of discernment and admission to public profession. (Note well that this is a diocese open to having diocesan hermits.)

If we take the lowest average possible while omitting periods of holidays and possibly the Summer months (and my sense is this is a fairly conservative number) that means that of at least 100 or so persons seeking admission to profession as a diocesan hermit in the past decade only 1 has been professed under canon 603 in this one diocese. Many dioceses of course have professed none and some have actually determined they will profess none in the foreseeable future. (There are significant pros and cons to this decision.) A few have professed several (we sort of laughingly call them "hotbeds" of eremitical life!). I think this too indicates that Canon 603 does naturally limit the growth of this vocation --- and rightly so. It also indicates, I think, why it is important to write publicly about this canon and the meaning of its central or defining elements. Some of these people will  actually one day become diocesan hermits if they can only come to understand and embrace the life it defines. Others never will, while a number of others probably never should.

A Contemplative Moment: The Silence of Solitude

Solitude

The truest solitude is not something outside you, not an absence of men or of sound around you; it is an abyss opening up in the center of your own soul.

And this abyss of solitude is created by a hunger that will never be satisfied by any created thing.

The only way to find solitude is by hunger and thirst and sorrow and poverty and desire, and the man who has found solitude is empty, as if he had been emptied by death.

He has advanced beyond all horizons. There are no directions left in which to travel. And this is a country whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. You do not find it by travelling but by standing still.

Yet it is in this loneliness that the deepest activities begin. It is here that you discover act without motion, labor that is profound repose, vision in obscurity, and, beyond all desire, a fulfillment whose limits extend to infinity.

Thomas Merton, OCSO, Seeds of Contemplation

Will Canon 603 disappear due to the many Abuses it has Suffered in its short life?

[[One lay hermit has said that because of "all the abuses" of canon 603 by canonical hermits and Bishops, the church will one day go back to having only one pathway of hermit life. She says that Bishop's (sic) leniency and lack of knowledge about the lives of eremitical saints or rules of life have allowed dissident nuns to be professed in some dioceses when others [bishops] like her own would never allow them because they are too visible, read books by heterodox nuns, etc. . . . even while orthodox candidates are prohibited from being canonically professed because they must work in hospitals. She forecasts the situation will continue to require more and more laws because of such abuses. It seems like she believes one day the Church will just get rid of c 603 which only came to be to prevent abuses anyway but she didn't [specify] this. How accurate is this perception and how reasonable this opinion?]]

Hmmm, this hermit's version of the situation sort of makes me want to check to see what books I have either mentioned reading or recommended here!

But seriously, I think that first of all it must be granted that canon 603 is a new (31 year old), demanding, and at the same time, flexible canon governing a little-known and less-well understood vocation which, as I have mentioned just recently, combines non-negotiable elements with the requirement that a hermit write her own Rule. Some problems associated with the common requirement that a hermit be self-supporting in some way have occurred for instance; this requirement does mean that Bishops differ on things like the amount of active ministry or other work outside the hermitage a hermit may do --- though all tend to prohibit full time work, especially outside the hermitage. Others problems have occurred because the central elements of the canon must be read from within the desert and hesychastic traditions if they are to be understood, and Bishops and would-be hermits have not always done so. When I spoke of some Bishops needing to learn that "the silence of solitude" was a Carthusian term this was part of what I mean here. Have there been abuses or at least misuses? Yes, and I would call one or two of these doozies! However, I would not call the number high. In fact, to suggest the canon has been fraught with abuses to the extent that it will simply go by the wayside is alarmist nonsense I think.

What is more the case is that there have been occasional mistakes made as Bishops and chanceries continue to determine what authentic contemporary vocations which embody traditional essential elements look like on the ground. These mistakes, however, are more like growing pains than actual abuses and because there are so few hermits in an absolute sense, they are of greater import for the faithful and the vocation itself than they might be otherwise. As the canon gets older, however, and examples of authentic contemporary solitary eremitical life become more numerous, more prevalent, as well as better established and known, and as the problematical issues involved in practical implementation of the canon which have not and cannot really be specifically dealt with by the canon itself are explored by those living the life,  or by theologians, canonists, and historians, the misuses of the canon as well as simple misjudgments or mistakes will diminish and outright abuses (which are truly rare) will cease. I should note that it is precisely because the Church has not multiplied laws that ambiguities and unclarities continue or remain.

At the same time I think we must be careful to not identify legitimate diversity or variation as "abuses." Hermits have always differed from one another: some are scholars, some are not; some are very conservative in various ways while others are less so. Some are completely reclusive or anchorites while others are more peripatetic or at least more involved in their parishes; some are writers and spiritual directors while others, of course, are not. Some strike us as eminently sane and others strike us as complete nutcases. They may all be authentic hermits.  We must realize that canon 603 allows for genuine diversity even as it remains normative of eremitical life in the Catholic Church. What we must let go of is the notion that canonical standing is necessarily related to legalism or that admission to canonical standing under canon 603 is equivalent to a diocese's or bishop's imprimatur or even a nihil obstat on a book --- only applied to a person. It is not.

"Canonical Standing" is not really "Canonical Approval"

You see, as my response to an email last week noted, the use of the term "approval" in the phrase "canonical approval" is misleading and more than a little superficial when it leads to these kinds of notions. It should probably be used only very cautiously to indicate "approval for admittance to profession and canonical standing". Otherwise, "canonical standing" is the better phrase. After all, what the church does in extending or admitting to canonical standing is not precisely the same as "approving" the person's theological preferences, taste in reading material, or even their orthodoxy (though we can of course presume they are faithful Catholics!). Instead the church has discerned the presence of a Divine vocation and is admitting the person to the constellation of stable relationships which will continue to mediate this very call to the person and, hopefully, allow her to respond with fidelity, integrity, and grace. What approval exists does so for the sake of admitting the person to a place of  ecclesial trust and commensurate obligations with regard to this specific vocation in the life of the Church.

Neither does the church thereby say that THIS person has status in the church whereas, for instance, the lay hermit has either a lesser status or none at all. They both have status in the church (meaning they each have standing in law and are (or, in the case of a lay hermit, are already) initiated into a state of life; as I have said a number of times, status in this case is not a matter of social priority or different positions in a merely social hierarchy); in one hermit this occurs by virtue of the sacrament of baptism alone, and in the other hermit by virtue of baptism and a new consecration which involves the acceptance of the rights and obligations linked to additional canon laws and the relationships these imply.

It is true that bishops, like anyone charged in the Church with nurturing, protecting and discerning the existence and quality of a vocation, exercise some subjectivity in professing and consecrating hermits, but my own (admittedly limited) experience is that generally they move beyond their own personal biases or theological preferences and look to the good of the vocation itself. Neither, again, can we identify legitimate mistakes or missteps as abuses. For instance, occasionally some bishops will profess very young adults as solitary hermits only to find when s/he seeks a dispensation from her vows and/or desires to start or enter a community that the c 603 or solitary eremitical vocation tends to be a second-half of life vocation and that the young person usually does better entering an eremitical community. At worst this is simply a mistake --- if in fact, it even qualifies as that.

Abuses, on the other hand, occur when the non-negotiable elements of the canon are  actually disregarded or treated as optional or merely "metaphorical." (By the way if one cannot live these elements one's supposed orthodoxy hardly matters.) As we discussed recently, one of the reason for blogs like mine is to discuss the nature of canon 603 and of profession and consecration under this canon from the perspective of lived experience. What I write comes out of my reflection on my own vocation and how the Holy Spirit is working in the Church and world today with regard to this form of eremitism. Other diocesan hermits are also contributing by sharing their own experience with their bishops.

Proliferation of Laws and the Disappearance of C 603??

I honestly don't have a clue what the hermit you are referring to is talking about when s/he suggests there is or has been some proliferation of rules to combat abuses. That simply is not happening --- nor is it the way the Church deals with difficulties on such a small scale. At most what we see with regard to canon 603 are anecdotes about experiments (or trials) with the canon in specific dioceses which resulted in problems along with calls for informal guidelines on specific topics (age, formation, work, insurance, ministry, etc). These guidelines will again come from lived experience gained through dialogue between Bishops, canonists and hermits in their dioceses. Still, I don't foresee a proliferation of rules --- not with regard to eremitical life under canon 603 --- and certainly I don't foresee a proliferation of canons per se. With history and lived experience will come wisdom, and with wisdom, resources (commentaries, dissertations, guidebooks, articles, even blogs (!) etc) that dioceses may draw on and which can guide further prudent and inspired (discerning) usage of canon 603. Even so, ordinarily Bishops and those that assist them in their discernment will have the final word here --- not another law or laws. They will use or refrain from using both these resources and canon 603 as they deem wise in each individual case and they and their curia will grow in their own ability to determine appropriate usage and evaluate the candidates that come before them.

More specifically, I don't see canon 603 going anywhere or disappearing from the Code of Canon Law. It will continue to be used more and more wisely and prudently across the board --- which will free some who have hesitated to use it at all to go ahead when authentic vocations come their way. What is unquestionable is that it is an important piece of legislation which stops the gap in universal law regarding one of the most ancient, rare, and significant forms of Christian existence in the life of the church. It helps protect a gift of the Holy Spirit; any other way of seeing it is inadequate at best. Further, by the way, it is not the second of two pathways to eremitical life; it is the third of three main avenues, lay (non-canonical), semi-eremitical (usually canonical and associated with congregations), and diocesan eremitical life (canonical and solitary) --- each admitting some variation or personal diversity.

Neither, as I have now written several times, is establishment in law really merely a Johnny-come-lately idea whose birth was due to abuses or the desire for social status by some unhappy lay hermits. Eremitical life since at least @ the 5th C. has often been lived under the supervision of diocesan Bishops, or other local ordinaries (e.g., Abbots, Priors, Abbesses, etc). Correspondingly, dioceses and regions had canons and statutes regulating these vocations on the local level. To suggest otherwise is historically (and ecclesiastically) naive. Canon 603 differs because it is a universal law and a precedent-setting one at that. For these reasons I have to say I think the hermit you referred to is mistaken in her conclusions, more than a little overly-cynical in her analysis, and inaccurate in her perceptions and predictions.

Catholic Hermits vs Episcopal Solitaries: the Same Thing?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, are the Catholic Hermit and the Episcopal Solitary the same things?]]

What a terrific question!  Until recently I have thought they were the same because the couple of Episcopal solitaries I know use the term hermit in an interchangeable way to indicate the similarity of our lives. More, they live in the same kind of situations most diocesan hermits do with a focus on the silence of solitude, prayer, penance, etc. However, I am now really uncertain that the two things are identical, partly because I don't know the canon which governs the life, and partly because, despite similarities, the word "solitary" and the word "hermit" are different in some ways.

You see, the term hermit means a "desert dweller" and while this implies (or in canon 603 explicitly requires) a solitary life, it also implies much more besides. It is not enough to simply live alone and do as one pleases. That is why canon 603 spells out the requirements of this way of life in terms of stricter withdrawal, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels, Rule, supervision of Bishop, etc. Neither does canon 603 govern the life of a religious who simply doesn't live in or belong to a religious community but may also live a ministerial or apostolic life. Such a religious might be a "solitary religious" but she would be no hermit. Perhaps it is the case in the Episcopal church that solitary refers more to "solitary religious" and means a religious without a religious congregation than it does to one living "the silence of solitude." I really don't know and until recently had not even considered this might be the case.

One thing this underscores for me is the wisdom of canon 603 and the importance of the non-negotiable elements which qualify and define the solitary life it calls for. Similarly the choice of "the silence of solitude" as the central and (I would argue) charismatic element of the canon rather than simply "silence and solitude" or even just "solitude" becomes much clearer as I consider your question. In any case, again, I don't know the answer to your question and will try to find out for you.

Postscript: I have the answer to your question. I was reading the Rule of Rev Susan Creighton yesterday and discovered that she was professed in the early 2000's as a solitary in the Episcopal Church under a canon (Canon 14) which does indeed cover "exceptional cases" and so, religious or priests who are not part of a community. Thus, she was professed under a canon which does NOT specifically describe, or even require, an eremitical life. Instead the canon is much more general and allows a Bishop to profess someone who really does not fit the usual canonical categories. While Rev Creighton's life closely resembles that of a canon 603 hermit in the Roman Catholic Church (in fact, I believe she has used canon 603 as a guide for her own life in some ways), and while some Episcopal Bishops may require that those they profess also embrace such a desert life, there seems to be no specific canon defining the solitary eremitical life as such within the Episcopal Church. In other words, this canon is used for solitary religious or consecrated persons, but not necessarily for desert dwellers. It is not normative of eremitical life in the same way canon 603 is.

After the End by John Shea, STD

Last Saturday I had the great joy of spending some time with the Franciscan Sister who met with me regularly for five years as a representative of the Diocese of Oakland  (Vocations Office/Vicar for Religious) when I was seeking initially to become a diocesan hermit. But over the years, and especially recently, we have become friends. Sister Susan was in the Bay area giving a day of retreat to the associates of her community in the Sacramento area. Afterwards she drove the hour and a half here and we reconnected. (I had last seen her in August when I was on retreat at the Old Mission Santa Barbara and otherwise only once since she had left the Diocese of Oakland.)

Fortunately for Sr Susan (not to mention for me!!), my pastor was more than happy to let her to spend the night in a guest room at the parish so she didn't need to drive all the way home afterward nor find a room at a retreat house in the diocese. After talking for a while, going over to the parish to get her settled, introducing her briefly to Father John, etc, we went for dinner and talked. I haven't laughed quite as much since a friend in the parish couldn't get the automatic book drop to work at the library and frantically (and miraculously) sailed the book frisbee-style through a narrow slot in the almost-fully-closed window as we drove away! (My sides ache just remembering THAT occasion. We drove and laughed uncontrollably for MILES.) Hopefully I can share a couple of Susan's stories another time!

Anyway, after dinner, and after we had talked there for at least two hours (well, maybe only an hour and a half), we went for a walk and talked some more! We talked about Christ and the resurrection and ascension and the thin places between heaven and earth and religious life and while we walked back along the trail toward my hermitage Susan recited a wonderful poem by John Shea called, "After the End." (She also told the story of meeting John Shea once and surprising him with the fact that she had memorized it!) She sent me a copy and it is that I really want to share here. The poem is the three-stanza story of what happens after Jesus' crucifixion in three of the post resurrection appearances. Stanza one is about Mary Magdalene's experience, stanza two is about Peter's, and stanza three is about the encounter with the two young men on the road to Emmaus. I hope you find it as wonderful as I did and do!

After the End by John Shea, STD

Like her friend
she would curse the barren tree
and glory in the lilies of the field.
She lived in noons and midnights
in those mounting moments
of high dance
when blood is wisdom and flesh love.
But now, before the violated cave
on the third day of her tears
she is a black pool of grief
spent upon the earth.
They have taken her dead Jesus,
unoiled and unkissed
to where desert flies and worms
more quickly work.
She suffers wounds that will not heal
and enters into the pain of God
where lives the gardener
who once exalted in her perfume
knew the extravagance of her hair
and now asks whom she seeks.

In Peter's dreams, the cock still crowed.
He returned to Galilee to throw nets into
the sea and watch them sink

like memories into darkness.

He did not curse the sun

that rolled down his back

or the wind that drove the fish

beyond his nets.

He only waited for the morning 

when the shore mist would lift

and from his boat he would see him.

Then after naked and impetuous swim

with the sea running from his eyes,

he would find a cook with holes in his hands

and stooped over dawn coals

who would offer him the Kingdom of God

for breakfast.

On the road that escapes Jerusalem
and winds along the ridge to Emmaus
two disillusioned youths
dragged home their crucified dream.
They had smelled "messiah" in the air
and rose to that scarred and ancient hope
only to mourn what might have been.
And now a sudden stranger
falls upon their loss
with excited words about mustard seeds
and surprises hidden at the heart of death
and that evil must be kissed upon the lips
and that every scream is redeemed for
it echoes in the ear of God,
and do you not understand:
what died upon the cross was fear.
They protested their right to despair,
but he said, "My Father's laughter fills
the silence of the tomb."
Because they did not understand,
they offered him food,
and in the breaking of the bread
they knew the imposter for who he was:
the arsonist of the heart.

After the end comes the conspiracy
of gardeners, cooks and strangers.

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.