What Motivates You to Live and Work as You Do?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal (Laurel?), I also really enjoyed our conversation on hermits and friendship. I did not want to drop it but I haven't seen similar conversations on your blog. Too, it was holiday time and I had family to prepare for, shopping to do, and I wanted to help around my own church.  When you write about the hermit vocation I admit to being really surprised at how you describe it. I had always thought of hermits as people-hating, bitter, isolationists, who said some pious things about God in an attempt to salvage what was very unhealthy. Nothing about it seemed to be "edifying" (this is your word and one I never heard, much less used, before this!); I could not envision anyone wanting to becomes a hermit unless they were emotionally unwell.

So, you can imagine how I felt when I read what you had written about the importance of friendships or the kind of inner work you are doing with your Director.  You stressed wellness and the connection between holiness and wholeness. You talked in terms of reconciliation with God, self, and others and of the importance of being known and knowing others. And you talked about solitude in terms of community while you rejected isolation. Really, it just blew me away!! Do you think part of the church's renewal of this vocation opens the way to re-envisioning it or experimenting with it? Can you do something new with it because your bishop said what he did at your profession (you wrote about this recently but I could not find it to quote)? What motivates you in this? Some people would say what you write rejects traditional values, so what motivates you to write about eremitism in the way you do? Thank you in advance for your response!!]]

Thanks again for your follow ups. I left this one mainly intact rather than cutting and pasting as I usually do because it expresses so well things which have interested me for a long time now: stereotypes and combatting these, my sense of the prophetic quality of eremitical vocations today (and always when these are authentic), the importance of the life codified in canon 603, the distinction between eremitical solitude and personal isolation, the importance of ecclesial standing in such a vocation, etc. What struck me (what blew me away) in what you wrote is your summary and also the way you asked the crucial question in every case, viz., what motivates me -- especially in relation to the comments Abp Vigneron made during his homily at my perpetual eremitical profession re exploring the breadth and depth of contemporary eremitical life.

You see, there are so many really bad reasons for pursuing eremitical life and so many disedifying examples of this throughout history. I believe the ways I live, or think and write about eremitical life reflect some of the important ways eremitism can be a witness to the Gospel and assume real relevance in today's world. I also believe that not all instances of "hermits" in the history of eremitical life have been healthy or authentic instances of eremitical life. Even today, not all glorify God or provide a key to understanding the dignity of the human person with and in God alone. Not all reflect a loving life or a life of relative wholeness, nor are they interested in growing towards these. Some seem instead to be or have been little more than instances of misanthropy, escapism, narcissism, and so forth. The journey I am on with God and with the assistance of my Directors is about living a life both deeply loved and loving, profoundly rooted in the Gospel, and generally edifying to the Church, but especially, to those within the Church who are isolated in one way and another and who have no apparent way out of such isolation.

As to your specific questions, I am not much motivated by a need to re-envision or experiment with eremitical life. It is true that most of the time I am aware of contending with stereotypes and considering authenticity, but even in these, my overriding motivation is simply to live well this vocation to which God in (his) Church has called me in light of canon 603 and the Camaldolese tradition. What this means for me is to live this call in a way which leads to the abundant and abundantly loving life God promises all believers. The eremitical vocation is meant for this and it gains flexibility because of it. As a result, for instance, I define solitude in terms of personal wholeness, genuine freedom, and individuation in and with God; I understand the silence of solitude as the physical environment, but also as the personal goal, and charism (gift) of this vocation to the Church and world. I understand this vocation speaking most powerfully to those who are chronically ill, disabled, or otherwise isolated from others in ways they cannot change, but which God can indeed transform and transfigure in light of a deeper healing!

I also understand this vocation as speaking to those who, because of life-circumstances, believe they have nothing to offer the Church or world, and I try to witness to the fact that their own life with God is a supremely important and precious gift that can be offered to others even when, for instance, they cannot undertake active ministry. I believe that a hermit's life can give hope to those who lack it and a sense of meaning for those who have been unable to see this in their own lives. I think this is true because, as important and necessary as these things are, this life is not about our own talents and gifts, but instead it is about the way God loves, values, and completes us. When we really allow God to love us in this way we are empowered to love ourselves and others. Our life comes to make a sense it did not make apart from this. Naturally, I live and work as a hermit in the silence of solitude because I have the sense that this is precisely the way God has called me to wholeness and holiness, precisely the way he has called me to spend myself for others, and precisely the way he redeems my own life.

I am able and morally obligated to do these things, not only because (Arch)bishop Vigneron spoke at my perpetual eremitical profession  of my call to exploring the breadth and depth of this contemporary vocation and defined part of the shape of this life in doing so, but because I have a sense that God calls me to do so. Moreover, I am guided by Camaldolese spirituality in my oblature and am obligated in this way as well. Camaldolese spirituality has three pillars or "goods" (triplex bonum) which work together to give us the vision of eremitical life put forward by St Romuald, and St Peter Damian. These are: solitude, community, and the proclamation of the Gospel or "martyrdom" (witnessing). As a solitary hermit whose profession is made in the hands of the local Bishop, I have to work this out in terms of my parish faith community and diocese. What I am doing generally on this blog and in my daily living out of this vocation is working out the non-negotiable terms of canon 603 in light of Camaldolese values and a Camaldolese vision of eremitical life because this is precisely what I am called to do 1) by God, 2) by virtue of my association with and commitment to Camaldoli, and 3) by virtue of my Rule and profession under canon 603. Others professed as Camaldolese are doing something similar while living as solitary hermits under canons other than c 603 --- partly because c 603 has appealed to their imaginations as well.

Certainly there are other esteemed but differing visions of eremitical life, Franciscan, Carthusian, and Carmelite in particular. Diocesan hermits (solitary hermits professed under c 603) work out the shape of the non-negotiable elements in canon 603 in light of their own spiritual traditions and discernment. One hermit I know does this in terms of a Franciscan vision and tradition -- though he does not live as hermits did under Francis, while another does it in terms of a Carmelite vision. Canon 603 lends itself to this, but I don't think any of us are motivated by a drive or urge to experiment. Instead we are simply trying to live out our legitimate (canonical) and moral obligations in service to the Church and world -- always in response to the God of life who calls us to this. However, it is the Camaldolese tradition which allows and even calls me to think about eremitical life in the way I do. A central work reflecting the nature of Camaldolese life is entitled, The Privilege of Love, and it is this collection of essays I come back to repeatedly for guidance in how to live out my vocation. This is true of three essays in particular: "Koinonia: The Privilege of Love" (Dom Robert Hale), "Golden Solitude" (Peter-Damian Belisle), and Bede Healey's, "Psychological Investigations and Implications for Living Together Alone".

Father Bede's essay informs my own thinking and living in a number of ways: with his stress on the relational self and the importance of not using solitude to run from community or community to flee solitude, the distinction between true and false selves, the capacity to be alone as a function of healthy object relations, the nature of contemplative knowing which comes from sitting with and working through our life experiences (precisely the nature of the inner work I do with my Director/delegate!), and growth in interiority as increasing freedom from ourselves and the "tyranny of our inherent falseness," --- what Scripture calls purity of heart. Fr Bede's work informs my understanding of "the Silence of Solitude" as environment, goal, and charism throughout. Dom Robert Hale (who assisted me in evaluating my Rule prior to perpetual profession) writes about love and communion as the foundation and ground of every stage of the hermit's life. Here Dom Robert is not speaking of love as a bloodless abstraction or empty idealization but as a concrete living out with and for one's brothers and sisters in space and time; it is the love of God we are all called to incarnate or enflesh and an outworking of the ministry of reconciliation St Paul says we are meant to be about.

So, these are some of the things which motivate and shape my life and work as a canonical (consecrated) hermit. They demand an eremitical life which is antithetical to those things you once saw as typical of eremitical life (and typical of the inauthentic and unloving life lived by counterfeit "hermits" throughout history and even today)! I do think the Church has taken care in making canonical something which is healthy, loving, and edifying as it eschews individualism, narcissism, misanthropy, and isolationism. Thanks again for continuing this conversation. A few people write here regularly (though not frequently) and though this kind of serial posting hasn't happened before, I am open to exchanges of this kind. And yes, Sister Laurel is just fine; I prefer it to Sister O'Neal.

On the Questions of Freedom vs License and Fraudulent Hermits

[[Dear Sister, why would you be concerned with the incidence of so-called fraudulent hermits? It seems to be a big deal to you but how can one even tell what it means to be "fraudulent"? Isn't it true that the hermit vocation is known for its freedom? If that is so then a hermit should be able to do anything he wants to do or live any way he wants to live. I think people should be able to call themselves "hermit" if they want to or feel God is calling them to this. I think you are too hung up on legalisms. Hermits have always been  eccentric and rebellious so why not let them be that now? Don't take canon 603 so seriously and don't be so concerned with "fraudulent" hermits! It's fake news!]]

Well, it is very clear that you and I stand on opposite ends of a spectrum of opinions with regard to the term and reality "hermit". I have written about this a lot and won't repeat all of that but perhaps I can summarize why it is that fraudulent hermits are so neuralgic for me. Let me begin with a couple of facts which suggest why it is I take canon 603 and the ideas of authenticity and fraud so seriously:

• 1) c 603 has inspired some of us to imagine, explore, and embrace a way of life that has proven life-giving (graced) and a means to living our own integrity as a service to God and others. Though "hidden" our lives have been allowed to be lived "publicly" in the name of the Church according to this canon which means that our own frailties have been and are being transfigured into a gift of the Holy Spirit to, by, and through the Church's ministry, into a witness to the whole world, 
• 2) c 603 grew out of the integrity of a number of hermits who left their solemn vows as monks and risked everything on a perceived vocation to eremitical solitude. The canon was built upon these Brothers' commitment to authenticity and honors them when it is lived in the same way. Similarly then, it dishonors them and the God who called them, whenever it is lived less than authentically or when some pretend to an ecclesial eremitical vocation the Church has not entrusted them with.
• Authentic hermits are rare today. They typically battle not only the demons within their own hearts and the lack of understanding they meet in parishes and dioceses throughout the Church as well as their own sinful tendencies to inauthenticity, but also stereotypes of hermits which are powerful and pervasive. When we add the occurrence of fraudulent "hermits" misrepresenting themselves as "consecrated Catholic hermits" or "professed religious" with the capacity to take advantage of the fact this vocation is little-known and less-well-understood, the situation is made inordinately more difficult for the Church involved in discerning and consecrating authentic vocations, and for parishes trying to learn to recognize and value these.
•  I am concerned about it because it is becoming a significant pastoral issue about which Rome is rightly concerned, but also because I represent a legitimate (c 603) instance of this vocation and am concerned that my own life and the vocation more generally be truly edifying to the Church as a whole.

You see, lives have been built upon the authenticity of others' witness to the power of the Gospel throughout the history of the Church. This is the way we are moved by and from faith to faith. It is the way the Church grows and the Gospel is spread.  Canon 603 reflects a small but significant and normative (canonical) piece of the eremitical way of discipleship. Those called to embrace and embody this norm are called to embrace and embody Christian discipleship in a way which is recognized by the Church herself as a paradigm of solitary eremitic life lived in the name of the Church. She entrusts this call to very few, relatively speaking, by (publicly) professing, consecrating, and commissioning them to follow Jesus in the solitude of the desert. The Church does so so that others may be moved to faith and thus too, to authenticity and fullness of life in whatever deserts their life finds them. This journey in different existential wildernesses is similar to the very journey Jesus made to consolidate his own identity as God's beloved Son, the One in Whom God delighted. It mirrors Jesus' struggle to authenticity, to humility, to fullness of humanity when faced by his life's temptations to live his authority and identity otherwise.

With Canon 603 the Church charts the landmarks of a journey into the desert where those called by God may learn and embrace who they really are vis-a-vis God, just as Jesus did after his own baptism. In this journey, driven by the Spirit as Jesus was driven, one really becomes a desert dweller and to the extent this is true one lives from and for God and all that God holds precious. One lives this identity authentically or one lives a lie; there is no other choice. More, if one lives a lie it is an act of unfaith, an act that says we do not trust the God who calls us to this vocation --- or to whatever vocation he does call us. Beyond that such an act of unfaith is a refusal to love others as God calls us to do; it involves a rejection of our own journey to fullness of being and thus, to the maturation of our capacity to love as Christ loves. To refuse the call to live authentically is to refuse to live fully and to bear the good fruit of the lmago dei God has willed we bear and be.

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

With those comments as a background let me try to respond to a couple of your questions or objections. First, why can't a hermit live any way at all? Why isn't this the vaunted freedom of the eremitical life? The canon 603 hermit finds her own freedom defined in terms of the Gospel and the Church's vision of consecrated eremitical life. She is free to live this definition and this vision in whatever ways her own gifts and weaknesses invite her to shape them --- but living them is still what she is called to. She is free to explore the depths of contemplative life with God alone for the sake of others, and to do this in the name of the Church. She is free to be and become the person God calls her to be. Canon 603 creates a context for this specific freedom; I can't emphasize this enough! But in all of this let's be clear. The consecrated hermit is not free to do or be just anything at all. Once a person buys into this libertine notion of "freedom" she has given herself over to many things and definitions of self which may conflict with that which is deepest and truest in herself. Authentic freedom is responsible freedom. After all, that which is deepest and truest is a gift of God she is responsible for living out.

One example comes to mind. It has to do with violin. To the extent one develops the technical ability and discipline involved, one is free to play the entire violin repertoire, both solo and orchestral, and to play it in ways which express the heights and depths of the music and the violinist's mind and heart as well. One does not have to be limited by technical imperfections or incapacities because one has developed the discipline and technical skills necessary to move beyond mere technique. One is free precisely because there are technical constraints one has met in one's training and respects in one's playing. The demands of technique and technical skills can, when met, set one free to transcend these in the act of making music.

If you hand a child a violin and bow and tell them, "Do whatever you like!" the only thing you are apt to insure is that this child will never be technically able to explore the instrument or the repertoire to the extent her inner talents may lead her to yearn to do. If you make sure the child knows there is/are a way(s) to hold the instrument and bow which allows her the freedom to move in all the ways violin music requires she be able to move or make sound, and if you provide lessons, pieces, and etudes which accustom her muscles to the limits and potentialities which are part and parcel of playing freely you will provide the raw material needed for the transcendence found in making music. In any case, consider what happens when someone is called a violinist and, when asked to play for others, shows only that she does whatever she likes with the instrument with no limitations, discipline, or actual knowledge of the instrument and its capacities or the repertoire with which she should be familiar.

Think of what happens with a football or basketball team of really talented players. These players are free to do what they can do as excellent players precisely because of their own training and discipline as well as because of the rules and parameters of the game. But were every player to do whatever he wants, people would be injured and their training made relatively worthless, team work would go by the wayside, scoring would decrease, and the game itself would devolve into chaos no one could enjoy or genuinely follow. Finally, think what would happen with language if we were all entirely free to use language (words, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc) any way we wanted. Our world would quickly fall even further into tribalism and isolation; it would cut down those conventions and compromises which allowed us to speak, worship, do business, govern, and otherwise understand and work with one another.

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive. In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church defines it. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God; the second is not, it is worldly or fleshly as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

Fraud in the entirely common way I have used the term, simply means to be something other than what one claims to be. All kinds of forms of isolated and misanthropic life have been passed off as eremitical or "hermit life" through the centuries. In the late 20C. with c 603, the Church codified in law what she recognized as canonical solitary eremitical life and in this she said the life was sacrificial, generous, assiduously prayerful and loving. She said it was lived for others and was a witness to the Gospel. More, she recognized this as a form of consecrated life for those recognized in law (meaning canonically professed, consecrated, and supervised), and living their own Rule and the Evangelical Counsels under the canonical authority of one's Bishop.

The Church (and only the Church) has the right to do all of this, and also to determine therefore, who lives solitary eremitical life in her name and can thus call themselves a Catholic Hermit. If someone claims to do this apart from these canonical parameters and without the specific permission of the local ordinary mediated in public profession and consecration, then they are a fraud or counterfeit. Perhaps they are a fraud because of ignorance or mental illness and are not culpable, for instance, but a fraud or counterfeit they remain. When folks pretend to a standing in the Church they do not have people will be misled, some will be hurt as they follow the pretender or take her advice. Because eremitical life is little understood it becomes even easier for this to occur. One of the reasons I am especially concerned with fraudulent hermits is because I have heard from several people who were seriously hurt when they followed a pretender's advice on becoming a Catholic Hermit. At the same time it is the case that Rome is concerned with the problem as well.

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

Finally, to honor laws is not legalism. It is instead a form of humility and love, a way of participating in community and ensuring the wellbeing of all. License, on the other hand, is unloving, selfish, and uncaring of others. It leads to confusion and disorder; people are hurt by it. Please realize that canon 603 defines the essential landmarks of a vast and rich adventure with God. It draws limits because these point directly to the heights, depths, and breadth of this specific adventure and no other. In the Roman Catholic Church a hermit is defined in law not to diminish freedom but to establish a realm of freedom where, if one is called by God to this specific vocation, one may come to fullness of being, serve others, and glorify God in the silence of solitude. One doesn't  achieve any of this by eccentricity, or rebelliousness, but by a profound obedience to God, the Church, one's own heart, and the commitments one has been allowed and honored to make.

By the way, thanks for your patience. I know it has been a while since you emailed about all of this. It has been sitting unfinished in the drafts collection and other questions on the same topics made it especially relevant again. I apologize for the delay.

On the Way the Church Records Sacraments and Significant Life Commitments

[[Hi Sister, you wrote that a person's baptismal Church always keeps a record of professions, marriages and ordinations. I never heard that before. How does it work if I am married hundreds of miles from my original parish? Is this because they want to be sure people are free to undertake these life steps?]]

Thanks for the question. The way this works is that whenever a Catholic desires to make a life commitment the Church will need for them to demonstrate they are free to do so. One who is married is not free to be professed or consecrated, nor, of course, can they be ordained. In demonstrating their freedom a person (or their diocese or seminary) will write to the person's baptismal church. The first thing they want to know is whether or not the person is baptized and also whether they have been confirmed, and made first Eucharist. A record of these initial and initiating sacraments will be recorded in the parish's registers even if they happen many years after baptism; the parish where they occur will notify the baptizing parish.

Beyond these, a home parish will receive notices of further commitments (like marriages, divorces, decrees of nullity, professions, consecrations, and ordinations as well as dispensations of vows, laicization, etc.) and will add these to their permanent records. Wherever one is baptized will have a complete record of one's entire sacramental and "professional" history. At the same time, for instance, my own diocese, the diocese that professed and consecrated me as a Catholic hermit, will keep a file with copies of this same record -- and a number of other things as well. Something similar happens in religious communities, seminaries, and so forth, because these keep files on every person that applies, enters, is received, professed (temporary and perpetual), consecrated, and/or ordained, as well as a record of all departures (in whatever way that occurs), and deaths.

Yes, this happens to be sure a person is free to undertake the life step they propose to take, but also because these steps build on one another. One needs to be baptized and have received the other sacraments of initiation in order to move to some forms of commitment (profession, consecration, and ordination). Sometimes a person will not know if they were baptized and may want to enter RCIA. Contact with the person's home parish can clarify whether they will be baptized and receive the other sacraments of initiation, or merely Eucharist and confirmation, or none at all for instance.

The same is true when one approaches marriage. One's home parish can provide a record of reception of the Sacraments of initiation, as well as demonstrating some grounds re one's freedom to marry, etc. (A person will need to provide a death certificate if one's spouse has died; the home parish will not have this recorded nor civil divorces; they will have declarations of nullity recorded.) The Church does not repeat some sacraments so knowing one has received them is a pastoral help to the person and to pastoral staff. Likewise, the Church does not admit to profession, consecration or ordination unless the person is a mature Catholic and free to make this step. Canon law and the proper law of congregations require persons seeking to enter have been baptized for at least two years before they will even consider allowing them to enter a religious congregation, for example; they will need evidence the person is a practicing Catholic free of life commitments beyond this.

This is not mere formality, of course. The Church recognizes the place of the Sacraments in leading to growth in grace and faith. Freedom itself depends on growth in grace and the Sacraments have a place in this. Neither can we allow Sacraments to be trivialized. It is thus important to have a record of these seminal steps in a person's faith life. But yes, mature Catholic life and admission to profession, consecration and ordination require one to be 1) fully initiated into the Church's sacramental life, and 2) (also in the case of marriage) free to undertake such a commitment. The Church thus keeps a record of our Sacramental and life-commitment history.

By the way, there is a longer view which I have not really touched much on here, namely the historical import of every person in the life of the Church. Church registers help keep an historical record and sense of the life of the Church for those looking at Sacramental records, etc with an eye towards the place of the Church in the life of a community, a country, or the world itself, etc. The illustrations accompanying this piece help to remind us of this.

Eve of Solemnity of Epiphany (reprised)

There is something stunning about the story of the Epiphany and we often don't see or hear it, I think, because the story is so familiar to us. It is the challenge which faces us precisely because our God is one who comes to us in littleness, weakness, and obscurity, and meets us in the unexpected and even unacceptable place. It is truly stunning, I think, to find three magi (whoever these were and whatever they represented in terms of human power, wealth, and wisdom) recognizing in a newborn baby, not only the presence of a life with cosmic significance but, in fact, the incarnation of God and savior of the world. I have rarely been particularly struck by this image of the Magi meeting the child Jesus and presenting him with gifts, but this year I see it clearly as a snapshot of the entire Gospel story with all its hope, wonder, poignancy, challenge, and demand.

If the identities of the Magi are unclear, the dynamics of the picture are not. Here we have learned men who represent all of the known world and the power, wealth, and knowledge therein, men who spend their lives in search of (or at least watching for the coming of) something which transcends their own realms and its wisdom and knowledge, coming to kneel and lay symbols of their wealth and wisdom before a helpless, Jewish baby of common and even questionable birth. They ostensibly identify this child, lying in a feeding trough, as the King of the Jews. Yes, they followed a star to find him, but even so, their recognition of the nature and identity of this baby is surprising. Especially so is the fact that they come to worship him. The stunning nature of this epiphany is underscored by the story of the massacre of the male babies in Bethlehem by the Jewish ruler, Herod. Despite his being heralded as the messiah, and so too, the Jewish King, there is nothing apparently remarkable about the baby from  Herod's perspective, nothing, that is, which allows him to be distinguished from any other male baby of similar age --- unless of course, one can see him with eyes of humility and faith --- and so, the story goes, Herod has all such babies indiscriminately killed.

One child, two antithetical attitudes and responses: the first, an openness which leads to recognition and the humbling subordination of worship; the second, an attitude of a closed mind, of defensiveness, ambition, and self-protection, an attitude of fear which leads not only to a failure of recognition but to arrogant and murderous oppression. And in between these two attitudes and responses, we must also see the far more common ones marking lives which miss this event altogether. In every case, the Christ Event marks the coming of the sovereign, creator, God among us, but in the littleness, weakness, and obscurity of ordinary human being. In this way God meets us each in the unexpected and even unacceptable place (the manger, the cross, human being, self-emptying, weakness, companionship with serious sinners, sinful death, etc) --- if we only have the eyes of faith which allow us to recognize and worship him!

Home Again From Tahoe!!

Home! Well, we made it home safely and though I love the house in Tahoe --- not least the fireplace, the sunroom and, of course, the shared solitude with Sister Sue --- it is good to be home! As I had planned, I did some work during the week on 2 Corinthians, though there is still a lot to do, and was able to pray and sleep as I needed. I didn't get done any of the coloring/painting I had hoped to do, but that was also okay because I got needed writing and thinking done and was able to relax and just enjoy the week doing stuff I love. The sunroom where both Sue and I worked and prayed together had an amazing view. Above (left) is a piece of what I could see while writing or reading.

There was not nearly as much snow on the CA side of the lake as had been other times I have been here but the weather was beautiful. It was cold or very cold until the second half of the week. The second picture shows our work space. My stuff is on the left, Sister Sue's is on the right. The window in the above picture is behind Sister Sue's space. Another looking out on the side yard is directly behind my work space.

Ordinarily I prayed in my own room, or, because I was up earlier or in the middle of the night, alone in the darkened sunroom. It was quiet and there were some profound moments, mainly related to something in 2 Corinthians and Paul's theology there, but also related to the nature of holiness and what the inner work I am committed to can actually empower or enable with the grace of God. I am grateful to God and to Sister Sue for the opportunity to spend a week like this. Sitting and working in silence together is not something I have ever done with anyone else since college and I consider it a very special gift. At the same time I am glad to be home -- and my cat is also very glad I am back!! (A neighbor watched out for him and I owe her a big "Thank you!)

On working With God Towards Wholeness and Holiness

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you write a lot about working toward wholeness and holiness. I had always thought that holiness was something God gave us and so something we prayed for, like humility or other virtues. Can a person get to genuine holiness without working towards it themselves? Can't they just pray to God to make them holy, or humble, or courageous, or whatever?. It is not that I have gotten the impression that you are trying to make yourself holy, but I have read blogs by people who have a lack of this or that and pray that God will take care of their deficiency. Could you say a little more about what you mean when you speak of working towards Communion and union with God?]]

Completely great questions! Important questions!! Thank you. First, I am very grateful you added that I have never given you the impression that I am working in a way which means I am trying to make myself holy. That would be completely futile but also it would give a very skewed notion of what spirituality is all about. To think we could  do this is akin to jumping off a cliff and then trying to stop our fall by pulling on the tops of our shoes!! After all, God is the only source of holiness because God is holiness itself, just as God (him)self is love, truth, beauty, and so forth.

At the same time one can approach things like holiness, reconciliation, humility and other human virtues, as though they are ordinarily and simply infused by God without much more than a prayer for this here or there. These are all great graces but ordinarily this is not how such things work, nor is it ordinarily how God works! Growth in holiness is part of our growth in authentic humanity. We cannot simply pray for God to make us authentically human as though it takes no cooperation (and so, no real effort) on our own part. Cooperating with the grace of God is something learned as well as it is enabled by grace itself. It is also something that requires the healing of obstacles --- obstacles to listening deeply and responding equally profoundly, obstacles to loving and allowing oneself to be loved, obstacles to trusting as profoundly as Jesus or Mary and Joseph (and so many others) trusted!

The work I have spoken of here recently and in the past is work which fosters the ability to cooperate with God and to allow God's grace to flourish in my life. It is particularly helpful in learning to be attentive to my own heart, and therefore, to that place within myself where God laughs, sings, and speaks to me in ways which create me at the same time. Beyond this learning to be attentive, the work I do with my Director helps me to be reconciled with my deepest self and potentialities. What I mean here is that it assists in the healing and doing away with obstacles which prevent these deepest and God-given potentialities from being realized in my own self, and thus too, in my ministry, attitudes, relationships with God and others, etc.

We all have wounds leading to defense mechanisms that cripple or skew our ability to respond authentically --- or which cause the numbing of awareness of the God-given potentialities which exist deep within us. We all have things which stand in the way of our becoming the persons God has created us to be. We all have forms of woundedness which make loving and being loved difficult sometimes, or which prevent us from trusting ourselves and others, or from walking courageously in our world, satisfied with and even exulting in who God made us to be. (Sometimes these wounds and obstacles prevent us from even knowing who we really are made to be!) The work I have spoken here of doing, both alone and with my Director (delegate), is a methodical approach to dealing with the things which prevent us from responding whole-heartedly, responding exhaustively with body, mind, heart, and soul, to the love and creative will of God, just as it helps enable us to make and become that whole-hearted exhaustive response to God's Word we are called to be.

It involves prayer, of course, but also it involves writing which nurtures one's capacity for a healthy interiority; it is focused on learning to listen attentively to everything that goes on within oneself (body, mind, and heart). The aim of the work I have been doing is not just wholeness but also transparency --- meaning that when a person sees me they are seeing the real me in a way which allows the Spirit and Life of God to shine through. It is a simple matter of "what one sees is what they get" -- no pretence, no defenses, no crippling insecurities, and no need to bend to peer pressure or the expectations of others. (Meeting appropriate expectations is another matter entirely!) We human beings, I have written often here, are a covenantal reality, a dialogical "event" where God, who is a constitutive part of our very being, speaks or calls and we respond in ways which create us as God's own persons. We become a response to God's call, to his love, beauty, truth, and simplicity. We become an incarnation of the God Christ himself revealed fully and exhaustively; that is what I believe is the vocation of every human being as we share in the life of Christ and witness to his uniqueness. Again. the work I have spoken of helps enable this to become true as a (more and more) fully embodied reality in my own life. It not only helps me to be completely honest with God, myself, and others, but to be an expression or incarnation of Divine and human truth. I believe this transparency in wholeness is what the tradition refers to as holiness. It is an expression  of Union with God.

I suppose that I see all dimensions of this work as prayer or at least prayerful. Of course it is not as peaceful or quietly challenging as quiet prayer, for instance, most usually is. In fact it can be extremely painful and "bloody" (so to speak!). But even so, it is simply part of a life committed to attentiveness and responsiveness to God and God's will for my own life and the life of all creation. There has always been a danger in Christianity that folks would sit back, pray, and wait for God to do it all for us. (Think of Paul speaking to the Thessalonians about those who will not work: "those who will not work will not eat"; he was not speaking to those who were merely lazy, but to those who sat back waiting for the second coming.) Sometimes that route was known as "quietism". While there are such things as infused graces, infused virtues, and infused contemplation, for instance, and while anyone who prays regularly will know these things first hand, these  are not the ordinary way God works in our lives. It is possible to see all of those things I spoke of above as obstacles, as manifestations of sin in need of reconciliation. The work I have written here about doing is simply part of cooperating with God, working with God so that he may live and work within me freely and so the creation he seeks to do within and through me can be fully and exhaustively realized.

I have only just touched on the surface of things here (especially the notion of genuine holiness as transparency in wholeness), and I may decide to write more about it as follow up, but if it raises questions for you or leaves anything especially unclear please get back to me and I will give it another shot. Thanks again for a really great couple of questions!

Chronic Illness, Disability and a Question about Dispensation of Vows

[[Dear Sister,  I understand you have written that disabled hermits should seek dispensation from their vows. Why should hermits stop being hermits because the suffering gets bad? Someone blogged you said this recently so I am wondering where you get off doing that!]]

Despite the misrepresentation, I have certainly never written such a thing. Nor would I. Not only do I live with  chronic illness/disability, but I am also perpetually professed as a canonical hermit who values her profession and the witness illness/disability can lead to through the grace of God. More, one of the things I have written and published articles on in journals like Review For Religious, is chronic illness and disability as vocation --- and in fact, as a potential eremitical vocation! This blog has a number of posts on eremitism and chronic illness/disability including those that point out hermits' vows are not dispensed should they become ill or disabled after perpetual profession and positing the charity and justice of such a practice. That said, I did write a couple of posts recently which referred to chronic illness and eremitical life; one of these discussed the option of dispensation, but not because of disability or illness per se! Instead, I wrote about the obligation a hermit has, no matter their disability or suffering, to witness to eremitical life in a healthy way and as a healthy form of life --- not just generally, but for the hermit him/herself. The question at issue was and is not disability or illness, but the capacity of one to witness to a transcendent, and even more compelling or foundational health in Christ.

What I said there (cf below) was that if, because of illness or disability (and other things as well), one could no longer live or witness to the eremitical life in a healthy way -- and that means a way which edifies --- if folks got the sense that this vocation was unhealthy for one or the hermit was giving others the sense it was itself an unhealthy way of life generally, then one would might well need to consider getting their vows dispensed. A diocese would certainly need to do this in such circumstances. You see, in the main I was speaking of public vocations where responsibility for the vocation also belongs canonically to the Church, but those who have private vows (or none at all!) need also to consider the witness value of their lives. God does not call us to vocations that are unhealthy for us; he calls us to abundant life despite and even through our chronic illness and disability. Should one's vocational path fail to witness to this for some reason or other --- and should there be no evidence of rehabilitating or remediating the situation to change matters -- then it is time to consider seeking or accepting  a superior's decision to seek dispensation of one's vows.

Here is the final paragraph of the piece (the entire article can be found at: Chronic Illness as Special Challenge). I would strongly urge you to read the entire thing for yourself -- and that when you write me, you speak on the basis of what you know yourself. I would sincerely appreciate that.

[[Public profession will commit one to witnessing to eremitical life as a way to a fruitful, healthy life which sings of God's grace and strikes others as being happy. Should health demands or other life circumstances move the hermit away from being able to witness in this way in spite of the suffering involved the hermit may be required to consider seeking or accepting a dispensation of her vows. Still, while the vows are binding a person may well be bound to the elements of canon 603 and eremitical life others do not "get". It is important to be clear these vows are made freely and can, if necessary, be dispensed if the calling is no longer truly healthy for one. Meanwhile, if one's embrace of eremitical solitude is a matter of an entirely private commitment (private vows), one is always obligated to keep the superseding values of their public baptismal state. Such private vows will not, generally speaking, include any commitment to eremitical life per se nor any obligation to live under an eremitical Rule, and they may well reflect an inadequate discernment process in any case. A private commitment to eremitical life may well need to be left behind if the life proves unhealthy for the person whether or not private vows of the evangelical counsels also need to be dispensed --- something easily done by one's pastor, in every case.]]

Happy New Year!

Another year come and gone. My Director shared the details of the Feast of the Holy Family she celebrated with her community on Sunday and one of the things they did struck me as appropriate for marking the end of an old year and beginning of a new one. Each Sister was asked to name the greatest loss of the year; this was followed by a recounting of the greatest blessing she had received. I want to suggest that we do something similar today. As we move into this new year we begin by getting in touch with our own hearts and name in what ways God has blessed us this year, and in what ways we still seek to be blessed by God. For what are we most grateful and in what ways do we hope for God's powerful presence in our lives in the coming year?

We Christians believe that because he is eternal and living our God is the ground and source of genuine newness. We believe that he is a God who transfigures all of reality into something hope-filled and meaningful. We believe that in Christ we can cooperate with God in his creative and redemptive activity as he brings about a world where heaven and earth profoundly interpenetrate one another and God is all in all. On this holiday, as so many make lists of goals and resolutions for the New Year, may each of us look to the God who is source of all blessings, and recommit ourselves to a time in which God's own projects in us and in all we know and love may be brought to fulfillment. May (he) respond to our deepest needs with a presence that transform need into blessing!  All good wishes for a wonderful year!

On Formerly-Married and Consecrated Hermits

[[ hi Sister Laurel, I was just wondering about something. You have written it is not possible for married persons to become hermits. I looked that up this morning. But how about a person who has been married and gotten divorced? Can they become a consecrated Catholic hermit? If so is this usual? What happens with their children if there are any?]]

 Thanks for your questions. Yes, it is entirely possible for a person who was married and divorced to become a hermit. There are two provisos: 1) their children must be grown and no longer need them in any substantial way (they, of course, always will need (and should have) their parent's love!), and 2) if the spouse is still alive the Church must have granted a declaration of nullity.** (Please note: I have been told that a dispensation may also be granted as is sometimes done when one wants to enter cenobitical religious life after divorce. This is exceptional and I admit it makes little sense to me because it is an exception not granted for remarriage. If a dispensation is to be granted, there must be no chance that the person's spouse will exercise or demand marital rights.) In any case, to make public profession under canon 603 or as part of a canonical community of hermits, a person must be free of life bonds in order to make her profession (another life bond). Marriage is a life bond and in the eyes of the Church civil divorce by itself does not and cannot end this bond --- although the death of the spouse will do so.

The principle is simple, if we give ourselves entirely (and exclusively) to another in marriage and give ourselves to God through this marriage, we are not free to then give ourselves exclusively to God in religious/eremitical profession. The reverse is equally true: if someone is professed (meaning publicly vowed and given entirely and exclusively to God in this way) they cannot give themselves to another in marriage; they are simply not free to do so until and unless the vows are dispensed or expire, in the case of temporary professions. Until and unless a decree of nullity is granted (and the marriage bond declared void, null, or never to have truly occurred) or a dispensation is secured, the person is simply not free to make profession or be consecrated as either a diocesan (solitary) or religious (community) hermit. In religious life one must demonstrate one is free of other life commitments before one is even allowed to enter the community, much less to make even temporary vows/profession. Though c 603 has no equivalent formal or canonical stages of formation, the constraints on life commitments hold for one seeking admission to profession under this canon.

Again, as for children, a diocesan or canon 603 hermit can certainly have been married and had children but s/he cannot have minor children, nor can grown children require parental care. Such situations (minority or dependency) constitute another way in which the hermit is not truly free to give herself to profession in the way the vocation and profession require. A consecrated hermit may leave her inheritance to her children (or anyone else) just as is true for anyone. She will also arrange to remain in regular contact in whatever way works best for everyone. There will be limits, of course: young adults will not be able to come home to live with their hermit Mom or Dad, there will be no way to borrow money from the hermit (who is unlikely to have any!), and the hermit will not be able to babysit the grandchildren more than occasionally or spend much time away from the hermitage with her kids and grandkids. She will not be free for these things; her life is given over to God and structured in a new way which makes her unfree for what might have been usual otherwise.

Similarly, the family is unlikely to be able to visit the hermitage all that often -- though this is something I expect the hermit will work out with the assistance of her Director (delegate) and/or Bishop. (If it cannot be worked out to the satisfaction of the bishop, et  al, the person will not be admitted to eremitical profession. If, for instance, a hermit's family needs her in ways which make embracing eremitical solitude unloving or selfish, admission to profession is unlikely to be extended to her.) Otherwise, I think things will be pretty much as they are for any parent with grown children. I do believe the reality of the former marriage with children will add moments of poignancy and depth to the hermit's life and prayer. Separation from her family/children may well sharpen her solitude and add a dimension to her love of God and humankind that other hermits without such family may not have. Thus the person who becomes a hermit after divorce/annulment and raising her children will find her circumstances add both richness and suffering to her life as a hermit.

I don't think formerly married hermits with grown children are all that usual, but they are not unheard of. I know and/or know of several such hermits. In other faith traditions that also see eremitical life as a second-half-of-life vocation or which see solitude per se as a vocation for the elderly, it is quite common for folks to become hermits for the final stage of their lives. At this point they tend to have fewer responsibilities for their family, have often lost a spouse to death, have a mature faith life, and will really blossom themselves in solitude -- including beyond solitude as therapeutic or part of their grieving process. However, within the Roman Catholic eremitical tradition I would say it is relatively uncommon for there to be formerly-married hermits -- though with the provisos mentioned above it is perfectly fine.

I hope this is helpful.

Follow up Question: [[Sister, yes your answer was helpful so thank you. I thought you would deal with this question in your [original] answer so let me ask it directly. Would  someone in the same position be able to make private vows as a hermit? I mean, is there a difference with whether the hermit or wannabe hermit (no offense intended) wants to make private vows or public ones?]]

That's a great question and a good follow up since your earlier question referred only to consecrated hermits but not to those who are hermits with  private vows. Yes, there is a very great difference in this. When marriage is contracted the parties enter a new state of life, the married state -- though they remain laity. They become one flesh through the Sacrament of matrimony and, as noted in the earlier question, the bond effectuated in the Sacrament cannot be undone by civil divorce. Instead it must be found and declared to have never actually occurred in a declaration of nullity or a dispensation secured. Unless and until this occurs the Church would consider either member of this couple to be unfree to make another life commitment like religious life, consecrated eremitical life, priestly ordination, etc. In other words, profession is closed to such persons until and unless they receive an annulment/dispensation.

In part, this is because profession is a matter of public vows or other sacred bonds and consecration by the Church by which a person enters another state of life (a religious, or  consecrated state) involve now legal rights and obligations. Private vows however, are an entirely private matter which do not ever initiate a person into another state of life; they are an act of self-dedication with no corresponding ecclesial act of reception or consecration. (Private vows are witnessed, but not received.) Thus, neither do private vows ever convey the rights and obligations associated with religious life or consecrated eremitical life. For this reason, a person who has been divorced without benefit of annulment/dispensation can make private vows at any time. Nothing in her state of life changes, there is no canonical life commitment or assumption of new legal obligations or rights to which one's remaining marriage bond would be an impediment.

If, however, such a person were to decide they wanted instead to become a consecrated hermit in the Roman Catholic Church, they would need to pursue the annulment (the declaration of nullity which says the Church finds there to have never been a sacramental marriage bond at all beyond a civil contract). The Declaration of nullity (or, again, the prior death of one's spouse) would therefore establish there is no impediment to profession or consecration and would thus establish a person as free to begin a mutual discernment process with their Diocese, something every person seeking to be admitted to public profession and consecration would need to do.

Again, good follow up question! It really helps to underscore the difference in Catholic theology between private vows and public profession as well as the necessity of responsible freedom to make a life commitment which is truly binding in all the ways such a commitment should be within the Church.

Follow-up Question #2: On the Need for a Declaration of Nullity:

Dear Sister,  another blogger in Married Hermits and Other Considerations has written that what you have written is your opinion and someone can be married and a consecrated or Catholic hermit. She claims you are making up Rules and regulations! I don't know who to believe in this. Help!

In many things here I post my own opinions based on lived experience as a hermit and my theological expertise; I always attempt to give the very best and most accurate opinion I can and I will always try equally diligently to reflect the Church's own practice. However, in the matter you first asked about regarding the need for ecclesiastical annulment (or dispensation) if one has been divorced and is seeking to be admitted to public profession and the consecrated state as a hermit in community or a c 603 hermit, this is not an opinion; it is the way things work in the Church because matrimony effects the union of two people so they become "one flesh". I am merely stating the Church's theological and canonical position on the freedom necessary to make another life commitment.

Here is the way one religious congregation (Carmelite) states the need for canonical freedom for those seeking to enter them. The requirements are the same for profession under canon 603: [[Yes, we do accept women in our congregation who were formerly married. You would need to produce the necessary documents establishing that you are canonically free to enter religious life; death certificate of spouse, or civil divorce decree and [an ecclesiastical] decree of nullity.]] (Emphasis added.) The pertinent canons are 597 and 643 sec 1.2 and 2.

The author of the blog you referenced (also The Complete Hermit, Christ in the Present Moment, and several others) also once knew the truth of what I have written here, though perhaps she was unaware of the theological rationale for the Church's position. She and I once spoke about the necessity of establishing one's free status to become a canonical hermit when she reached out to me about becoming a diocesan hermit during the Summer of 2007, prior to my perpetual eremitical profession on 02. September. (Remember canon 603 hermits have to submit copies of their baptismal certificates -- which include records of other life commitments -- and prove free status in ways similar to the above if they are to undertake public profession.) After our email conversation, Ms. McClure eventually spoke to someone in her own diocese and subsequently blogged about that. Here is what she wrote (the link to the relevant excerpt of the blog article, which I copied this morning is included at the end):

[[Friday, August 31, 2007

nullity of marriage

Yes, as a hermit of a different diocese informed me, and now verified by a canon lawyer, in order to be "canonically" consecrated, one must have nullity of marriage. However, private consecration does not require the annulment.

The next step, then, is for me to activate my annulment file at the Tribunal. I have made the call, and they are checking the file to make sure all information is up-to-date regarding witnesses. Sadly, the only witness who knew me before my marriage and during the marriage, knowing my ex-husband, is a woman with severe pain in her wrists and who cannot write without great difficulty. (She has pain elsewhere from a virus that settled years ago and caused permanent damage.) Hopefully she can do this writing required on whatever forms.

It is, at minimum, an act of charity for my ex-husband who has been remarried for years, in case he would ever desire to convert to Catholicism. He hates Catholicism, but in God all things are possible such as changes of heart and mind. . .]]The Complete Hermit :Nullity of Marriage

** Since writing this piece a canonist informed me (27. January.2021) that a person who is divorced may also receive a dispensation to become a professed/consecrated hermit, just as they might if they were entering cenobitical religious life. I have a couple of questions outstanding still, so more about this when I get more information. I have redacted the piece to include the possibility of a dispensation from a decree of nullity.

Feast of the Holy Family

Of all the feasts I have come to love, the Feast of the Holy family is one which has grown to have most meaning for me. That is, naturally, due to my close connection with Sister Marietta and the ways in which she has shown me the heart, mission, and charism of the Sisters of the Holy Family. A few years ago, when I had given Marietta a copy of my newly revised eremitical Rule, she gave me a copy of the Constitutions of the Sisters of the Holy Family (Fremont, CA). In that set of constitutions is an image of the painting by Jean Francois Millet of Gleaners at work. These peasant women toil in the fields to garner all the bits of precious harvest that might otherwise be left behind to die or be raked together to be burned as waste/chaff. In the OT (see Ruth) the poor followed behind harvesters and were able to glean bits of wheat that had been dropped or otherwise abandoned as fruitless or without relative value.

So many were fed in this way and in many Christian kingdoms throughout the centuries "gleaning" came to be a legal right of the poor who followed behind the reapers. Millet's picture was made in 1857 and featured the lowest classes of French rural society in a sympathetic way. Apparently it was not well-received by the French upper classes. It is the charism of the Sisters of the Holy Family (1872-present)  to be present in our society to the weakest among us, especially families and children, in a way which allows the least and lost to be valued and nurtured in the way God does. 

Families are meant to be sanctuaries where the weakest and neediest among us, our children, are loved, fed, taught, nurtured, and protected from harm. It is the family which is the natural context in which human beings grow to maturity and begin to realize the potential that is given them by God. Every family is meant to be a network and context of loving and challenging relationships where an infant can become the kind of loving, trusting, and trustable human being who will one day go their own way in strength and integrity to change society and the world for the better with their presence. The potential for things to go awry in such a situation is huge of course, but it is on today's Feast that we celebrate one of those graced occasions when family was all it was meant to be. 

This tiny community of love gave us a savior, someone like us in all things yet without sinning! Yes, of course Jesus was the Son and gift of God entrusted immediately to Mary, Joseph, and their relations, but it was the family, this holy family that allowed Jesus to grow in his relationship with God, with God's People, and humankind as a whole --- and ultimately, to realize the potential of his identity and calling. When Luke recounts Jesus returning from Jerusalem with his family and says he "grew in wisdom and stature," this is what Luke (2:4) is speaking of. It was this Holy Family that was iconic of what every family is meant to be --- and too, what the Sisters of the Holy Family give their lives to help assure happens for every family and child to whom they minister.

Bro Mickey McGrath, osfs

My thanks to God this feast day for the Holy Family and to the Sisters of the Holy Family, their Associates all of whom renew vows and covenant bonds on this feast, and any and all who share in such an awesome ministry and mission! God comes to us in littleness and weakness; it is the Holy Family and those who act in their name who show us what it means to truly offer this God our hospitality, our love, and our commitment to (his) own enterprise of love. At a time in our own culture when children and families are being harmed at an alarmingly increased rate, I pray the image of the Holy Family, and the mission of the Sisters of the Holy Family to carefully glean so that nothing and no one might be lost or treated as inconsequential stubble and fruitless chaff, will be a prophetic image and mission we each and all make our own. 

On Being and Becoming a Religious

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you speak of profession or being admitted to profession you also speak of undertaking and being entrusted with rights and obligations beyond those of baptism. In some ways this sounds sort of legalistic, but in other places you speak as though something changed in you at the moments of profession and consecration. Is there both internal and external change with profession and consecration? Because you have written about the difference between private and public commitments, between authentic and counterfeit Catholic hermits, and coming to act or live your vocation in the name of the Church as opposed to doing so in your own name I suppose, you seem again and again to be saying something changes within you as well as external to you in your relationship with the Church.

Is there such an internal change? Is this part of distinguishing as you do between hermits in the lay state and hermits in the consecrated state? I know that priests when they are ordained are somehow changed so that they can consecrate the Eucharist, and so forth. Is there something similar that actually happens to you and within you when you are perpetually professed and consecrated? Is this why you insist (or why the Church insisted at Vatican II) that the distinction between dedication and consecration be maintained?]]

Yes!!! Yes!! Yes!! You have understood me (and the church's theology of consecrated life) well I think. There are both external changes (the assumption of rights and obligations including the right to style oneself as a religious, the relationships necessary to live one's vows and be adequately guided and supervised in these via the ministry of authority, and the privilege, right, and obligation to live one's life in the name of the Church) along with internal changes (God sets one apart via consecration as a "sacred person" (I am not thrilled with this phrase, but I don't know a better one) and graces the person in ways (or constellations of ways) not necessarily found in the lay (vocational) state. It is traditionally referred to as a second consecration. This "second consecration" has sometimes been explained in terms of betrothal or espousal --- something that does not generally apply to baptism per se and which adds to one's baptismal consecration. While this is not the same as the "character" associated with priestly ordination, what is critical to understand here is that in the making of one's vows and the prayer of consecration associated with perpetual profession one becomes what one was not before, namely, one becomes a religious with a soul configured as that of a religious initiated into an external religious state to match.

When I write that we cannot consecrate but instead, can only dedicate ourselves I am saying the same thing: we cannot change ourselves, we cannot make ourselves into "sacred (divinely consecrated or set apart) persons", or give ourselves the rights and obligations which are intrinsic to the religious state. We cannot claim or assume on our own something only the Church has the right and ability to mediate to us on God's behalf. We can put ourselves in the position of those who desire to embrace these rights and obligations as well as the graces associated with this particular state of life, this identity within the Church (for this too is a reason we call religious or canonical eremitical life ecclesial vocations), but again, we cannot assume, much less claim to have such an identity unless and until the Church extends them to us and, through acts of mediation which are performative in nature, make us into that thing we so profoundly desired. The word performative is important here; it points to a kind of language in which the thing spoken comes to be in the very act of speaking. In religious life the vow formula is such a piece of performative language; so is the prayer of solemn consecration. In the praying of these forms of language the thing spoken is realized in space and time in the very speaking of the words.

A metaphorical way of saying this is that in the act of speech of profession we "say ourselves (an act of dedication) into" a state that stands ready for us; the Church receives this act of profession and extends God's own consecration to us in her own solemn consecration. According to Vatican II and traditionally, we dedicate ourselves but only God consecrates. Speech is the way truth is mediated, the powerful way in which reality is changed -- the significant or meaningful way in which we ourselves are changed and assume a NEW identity, a differently graced identity we did not have even an hour earlier. In religious profession and consecration, God is doing something new just as he was doing something brand new at our baptisms! Vocations are, it seems to me, not about us so much as they are about what God has done and continues to do within us through the mediation (of both call and response) of the Church. In any case, to be a religious, to have this identity means much more than to desire profoundly to be a religious; it means in ways which are both internal and external, to be made a new reality with public rights and responsibilities and the graces (both internal and external) that attend the state. These are not icing on the cake, so to speak, they are absolutely intrinsic to the reality of a religious or public vocation.

Yes, all of this is at issue when I speak of counterfeit hermits vs legitimately professed and consecrated hermits. Those, who, without benefit of public profession and consecration, claim the title Catholic Hermit, for instance, are, whether they realize it or not, claiming to be living eremitical life in the name of the Church. Whenever the word Catholic is appended to an enterprise, project, and so forth, someone is claiming that this reality is being lived, done, undertaken, or enacted in the name of the Church --- and that they have been extended and accepted all the rights and obligations thereto. A Catholic theologian is not a Catholic who is also a theologian but one given a Mandatum by the Church to do theology in her name. When someone claims to be a consecrated hermit they are claiming to have participated in a public rite of profession and consecration where God's own act of making sacred or uniquely blessed has been extended to the person through the formal and authoritative mediation of the Church. Not just any priest, for instance, can act in such a way, nor can just any person desiring this. One online hermit has said that in her belief "we are all religious" if we make (private) vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. But this is exactly wrong and fails to see especially that the making of a religious involves a divine/ecclesial act in which something that did not exist before comes to be!

Religious today rightly make a great deal of the fact that in a hierarchical sense they are lay persons and not clergy, that they do not stand in an intermediate state hierarchically between laity and clergy. This allows them to assume a rightful place with everyone else in the Church and serve, not from a position of superiority, but of equality. This is right and good and it is an important fruit of the second Vatican Council Sisters and Brothers are right to underscore. But at the same time Religious know that vocationally they are not lay persons and are no longer in the lay state. They have been changed exteriorly with the assumption of rights and obligations appropriate to this new state; but they have also been made new inside as well and become someone formed by new manifestations of the grace of God precisely so they are able to assume the rights and obligations associated with their new state of life.

These two changes, external and internal work together to shape, challenge, console, and shape the person some more, in an ever-ongoing interplay of grace  and nature which is distinct to this state of life. If one is consecrated but leaves the consecrated state of life in terms of the external rights and obligations, then one, despite one's consecration, is no longer a religious and cannot grow as a religious (though one can and likely will certainly grow as a person!). If one tries to take on the rights and obligations of the religious state as though grace and ecclesial admission granted and received through public profession and consecration were unnecessary, one will not and cannot be a religious. To be initiated by the Church into this distinct (not superior but distinct!) and formative stream of grace and challenge, this unique dialogue between nature and grace, and to respond in continued dedication to this ecclesial vocation is to become and be a religious. Personal potential and desire notwithstanding, before and apart from this initiation one simply is not and cannot be a religious.