Will Canon 603 Replace other Forms of Eremitical Life?

[[Dear Sr Laurel, why don't you think c 603 will take the place of other forms of eremitical life? Do you know other hermits living that in the lay state? I  think maybe it would be a good idea if you could introduce them once and a while here on your blog.]]

Thanks very much for writing! Your questions are good ones. First of all, my belief is rooted in the relative rarity of eremitical vocations generally, and because of the relative infrequency with which canon 603 has been used in the past 37 years not only generally but in my own diocese. There are a variety of reasons for this rarity of vocation and infrequency of the canon's use so let me point a few of those out. 1) simple ignorance of what an eremitical vocation is: people believe being a hermit is a way of justifying "anything goes" and substitute various stereotypes for eremitical life. Some of these are lone individuals whose lives are motivated by escape or isolation. Some of these believe eremitical life doesn't differ from their ordinary lives lived alone, so, for instance they do not reflect or live a desert spirituality.

Some simply want to be a religious without the responsibilities or expectations which come with life in community (I.e., in an institute of consecrated life). They have not lived in solitude, experienced the redemptive character of a life lived in the silence of solitude, nor is the silence of solitude a charism they have embraced for the sake of the Church. Some have needed a way to validate lives of personal failure and misanthropy, etc. One once wrote me he wanted to reserve the Eucharist in his space but saw no other reasons to become a hermit. Still, he was willing to consider it --- though his reasons were inadequate at best. 2) Misusing the Canon in other ways: some wish to create religious communities by using this canon first and then gathering others around them. This is not an uncommon desire from some approaching their dioceses seeking profession under c 603. The church has other well-established ways to create institutes of consecrated life and commentators on canon 603 are clear it is meant for solitary eremitical life. A final reason (and perhaps the most fundamental) is that human beings come to wholeness in relationship with others. Solitude is a rare form of community and few are called to achieve wholeness or holiness in this way.

While all of this has been going on and dioceses have been working with those they consider suitable for profession, many more individuals have come seeking information and accompaniment by their dioceses in discernment. Even so, vocations to consecrated solitary eremitical life are rare. For instance, though some dioceses have professed several hermits over the years, I was told my own diocese has heard from somewhere around 120-144 inquirers in the past 10-12 years and none have been perpetually professed or consecrated. Each of those persons is still entirely free to live non-canonical eremitical life in the lay state or (if a cleric) can try to do so in the clerical state (it is very rare for bishops to allow priests to become hermits); a number could try entering a community of hermits. 

If only half of these 144 lived as non-canonical hermits successfully, my diocese would still have more than 70 non-canonical hermits right now and only one diocesan hermit. We also have a large community of Camaldolese oblates in Northern CA as well as a small Camaldolese Monastery in Berkeley as part of our diocesan resources related to both Benedictine life and hermits. The Monks in the monastery are also consecrated hermits and contribute to the lives of oblates; meanwhile, most oblates are not hermits in any sense but some few are interested in living eremitical lives. This snapshot of a small part of my diocese indicates that eremitical life in this contemporary local Church might be quite vibrant and likely to carry on into the future. However, the bottom line remains that the number of consecrated hermits will always be quite small relative to non-canonical hermits.

I should point out again that c 603 grew out of a situation where monks discerning eremitical calls in their later years and after many years in solemn vows, were required to seek dispensation and secularization. To sacrifice so much for eremitical life called for the Church to give this series of monks' experiences some real attention and regard. Bishop Remi de Roo became bishop protector of about a dozen hermits. Eventually from this came his intervention at Vatican II, and then the revision of the Code of Canon Law with canon 603. The Church did not expect for there to be hordes of consecrated hermits taking the place of lay hermits. What they meant to provide was an option for the rare instances of solitary hermits called to live this in the consecrated state of life. For this reason too, along with the historical fact that most hermits have always been a lay vocation, I believe non-canonical hermits will continue to live eremitical life not least because they don't feel called to the consecrated state. After all, Vatican II stressed the importance and place of the Laity in the Church; non-canonical hermits drawn from the laity are a significant and longstanding instance of the eremitical life the church is meant to esteem

Raven's Bread is a newsletter some of us get. It is open to anyone interested in solitude or the eremitical life. I read with interest the sharing of lay (that is, non-canonical) hermits and solitaries. There is a growing interest in the eremitical life and it is real in every state of the Union and in many other countries. Regarding your suggestion of presenting or introducing some of these hermits on this blog, I like the idea and will do what I can to do something about that. Perhaps some will write and volunteer for a brief bio and picture. If I find someone like Regina whose story is so inspiring I will consider posting it. In any case, I'll give your suggestions some thought and see what might work. Thanks very much for writing.

Once Again: On Esteem for the Vocations in the Lay State

[[Sister, you wrote about Regina [Kreger] -- the new lay hermit --- on a way which makes it clear that you think a lot of the lay vocation. What makes her life different from yours? Is it the evangelical counsels? Is she called to a lesser degree of holiness? Lesser separation from the world? I am trying to hear what changes with consecration.]]

I've written about this a lot so let me give a brief answer and you can look up the specific topics. Every person is called to holiness, an exhaustive holiness, rooted in one's baptismal consecration. Every person who is baptized and a member of the laity is obligated to embrace the evangelical counsels though poverty and obedience will not be religious poverty nor religious obedience because 1) such persons (most anyway) are responsible for raising a family, and 2) they are free from having legitimate superiors. Still, while they have not received the second consecration associated with initiation into the consecrated state of life, and while they have not been graced in the way God graces those with the new and differing rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state, they have been consecrated in baptism and called to a life of genuine holiness.

There have always been lay hermits. Think Desert Abbas and Ammas. They live the evangelical counsels and the call to holiness rooted in the consecration of baptism. But they do not live this vocation in what the church calls "the consecrated state" because this state is entered through a second consecration and associated with rights and obligations beyond those associated with the baptized or lay state. Until 1983 there was no possibility of such a solitary hermit being admitted to the consecrated state of life (hermits in institutes of consecrated life are a different matter). That only came with canon 603. I would say the consecrated state differs from the baptized state in these terms. It is not better than the baptized state but it is different, both in the way it is constituted and in its rights, obligations, and expectations -- as well as the grace associated with these so that one might adequately live this state of life.

In terms of its call to holiness I would argue it is the same as the call to holiness in any other state of life, lay (single, married), or ordained. This is exhaustive. What is important to recognize is that  the life of the lay hermit may look exactly like mine, for instance; they may even live a more exemplary hermit life in greater solitude, poorer circumstances, etc. What differs is the presence or absence of the second consecration and the rights, obligations, expectations of the faithful, and the associated graces (which includes structures and relationships for the ministry of authority). Still, the call to holiness and the requirement of the evangelical counsels (as value or vow, but not profession) are very much part of the lay hermit's life. This is true by virtue of the sacrament of baptism; the second consecration is often called a "specification" of one's baptismal consecration.

Since Vatican II, a particular challenge and call the church has left the laity with is the refusal to see the lay state as a second class vocational state; they must esteem it appropriately. That means lay hermits need to clearly identify and claim the state in which they live eremitical life because it too is a way to live and come to an exhaustive holiness. To do so will be a significant witness to others and an affirmation of the potential of every life. Thus we have hermits in the lay, the consecrated, and the ordained states of life. In every case the well-lived vocation is a rare and admirable one which glorifies God and serves the Church.

Regina Kreger to Make private Vows as a Hermit

One of the things I have written about a lot here is the fact that it is entirely possible to be a privately vowed hermit within the Catholic Church as an alternative to consecrated eremitical life under canon 603 or within a canonical institute of hermits. Recently it has been suggested that this option is going away as c 603 becomes "the way of the Church". I have disagreed with that and continue to disagree. Lay hermits (hermits living their lives in the lay state but living excellent and paradigmatic eremitical lives exist and have done since the days of the Desert Abbas and Ammas who followed Christ in this. One discerns what is right for oneself and takes the steps necessary to achieving it. (If one believes they are called to consecrated eremitical life, one will discern this with the diocesan Vicar for Religious and/or Bishop.)




In the video above I was quite impressed with this hermit's clarity and ability to express the landmarks of her journey. Felicity (Regina's newly-taken hermit name*) has, like many who become hermits, had difficulties throughout her life that she has had to learn to live with and through. She speaks matter-of-factly about these from the perspective of one transcending them through the grace of God. She has clearly had the kind of redemptive experience I recognize as central to any eremitical life and frankly articulates that. For Felicity, it is private vows and a life of silence, solitude, simplicity and (because she is a Benedictine Oblate), conversatio morum, which are the way she recognizes God is calling her to live a call to holiness in the lay state. She is clear that she is not going to be a canonical consecrated hermit, but seems not to find any need to be one. Exactly!!  She strikes me as genuine, joyful, and someone I personally will learn from if I can** as she continues the tradition of eremitical life in the Church after the example of innumerable hermits from the Desert Abbas and Ammas onward.

I wish her very well in this  chapter of her journey and am grateful for the significant sharing this video represents!! Especially, I am glad to find a hermit clearly and courageously representing an edifying example of an eremitical vocation in the lay state. She especially indicates with her life how important and what a significant call to holiness life in the lay (i.e., the baptized) state is! Her witness is incredibly important to the whole church but hermits and those discerning hermit vocations especially will benefit.
______________________
* Regina can take a new name as she might at oblation as an OSB Oblate in some monasteries. This is not truly the same as a Religious name because she is not a religious, nor (unless she changes her name legally) can she use it in civil documents, for instance. She will not style herself as Sister, but in this private (in-house) way she will mark and celebrate the life step she is taking.

** I am hoping to be able to get a way to contact her occasionally.

Guidelines for Those Asking Questions

Over the years I have posted this (or versions of it) at least a couple of times before this, but it is a good time to do so again, and also to add a clarification or two:

1) If you cite a blog or other source by name please be sure you are citing a public blog. [I will treat public blogs the same way I treat any other form of public media, namely, wherever possible I will cite the material and identify the author as possible as well as the date if that is included. I will also review the entire post cited to be sure nothing is being taken out of context.]

2) In some cases my answer may delete references to the person you are citing, but ordinarily I will treat names and blog titles as normal forms of attribution. I will leave your attributions intact both for the sake of accuracy and in order to be sure that critical questions are specific and not unreasonably generalized. For instance, if a diocesan hermit (or lay hermit, etc,) says something I disagree with I will use the person's name rather than risk appearing to criticize a whole group of hermits or an entire vocation.

3) If you can ask your question without direct quotes please consider doing that; if the quote is essential to the question then feel free to include it.

4) Please be sure your question is relevant to the topic of c 603 or eremitical life (or to my own life). If you believe I may have answered something like it before, please read up a bit before submitting it. This practice may answer your question or it can improve or even sharpen it. As a matter of course, however. I will answer all questions on the blog unless you ask for confidentiality.

Thanks for your consideration and for helping make this blog one I receive lots of thanks for.

On the Profound Benefits of Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sr. Laurel, I am one who considers himself a non-professed solitary. I have considered consecration under Canon 603, but have not found a reason to follow-through. Essentially, I envision formal consecration as a matter of primarily professing poverty, chastity, and obedience, but without benefit. For instance, confessed hermits do not receive stipends, medical insurance, pensions, or help establishing their life work, as other consecrated folk do. Recently, I read one of your posts that mentioned the "benefits" of consecration, but you did not list them; would you please expound on this topic?]]

Thanks for your question. I believe I have recently said "without benefit of consecration" rather than speaking of "the benefits of consecration" but it is true I believe consecration is beneficial to the Church as well as to the hermit and those she serves with her life. It is true that canonical (consecrated) solitary hermits do not receive stipends, insurance, pensions, assistance establishing one's life's work (which is eremitical life, nothing less and nothing other), financial support for library, retreat opportunities, housing, or expenses associated with limited apostolic ministry, and so forth. However, I think that this way of measuring the benefits of this vocation, is narrow and even superficial. It is also, at least ostensibly, self-centered. In any case, it is incomplete at best.

Thus, as I measure the benefits of canonical eremitical life, I do so not only in terms of associated rights, but in terms of obligations as well as in terms of others' expectations and the grace associated with consecration. Especially, I measure them in terms of the responsible freedom and witness value canonical standing and consecration create and sustain. Note that this way of measuring the "benefit" of consecrated eremitical life necessarily points directly to its benefit to others; it points directly to the Church and world as a whole, as well as to the hermit herself. Thus the term I use to "contain" and reflect on these dimensions of the consecrated or canonical eremitical vocation is "ecclesial"; that is, this vocation belongs to the Church and participates in a conscious, deliberate, and public way in the proclamation of the Gospel entrusted to her. 

All of the characteristics of public or canonical vocations contribute to this proclamation, and this is so whether we are speaking of the vows, the Rule a hermit writes, her stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, limited apostolic ministry, or the supervision of the vocation by legitimate superiors. All of these elements help produce a responsible freedom in the hermit which is very specifically directed to the living of the Gospel in the service of God, the People of God and a needy world. Moreover, because the Church herself recognizes and constitutes these vocations canonically, they are capable of doing so in ways private dedication ordinarily cannot and will not do. This is one of the reasons I persisted in pursuing canonical standing. It became clear to me that the Holy Spirit was working in my life in a way which made of my life a unique proclamation of the Gospel, especially as it so often is stated in paradoxical terms: divine power perfected in weakness, comfort in suffering, wealth in poverty, completion and wholeness in brokenness, and so forth.

You identify yourself as a solitary. Perhaps I can contrast that with the way I see my own vocation precisely because I am canonically professed and consecrated. Of course, I don't know how or why you use the term so I am not commenting on that, but I will say that because of the ecclesial and eremitical nature of my vocation I just can't use the term solitary as a definition of my life. The emphasis in the word solitary seems to me to stress aloneness and a lack of significant bonds; this, in turn, seems antithetical to who I am called to be.  At the very least it is a dimension I do not want to emphasize at the expense of the significant bonds associated with ecclesial vocations. Neither do I want to substitute a generic or unspecified solitude in place of desert spirituality as the Episcopal canon seems to do. Yes, I am a solitary hermit, that is, one who lives a very particular kind of solitude rooted in desert spirituality but without belonging to a community (aka, an institute) of hermits. Even so, it is my canonical standing which explicitly links aloneness with significant bonds and establishes the whole as a paradigm of paradoxical gospel meaningfulness. It is canonical standing that both requires and allows me to live my whole life in terms of the Gospel and, as one with an ecclesial vocation, to do this in the name of the Church.

At every moment I and other diocesan hermits are both called and empowered to do this in the very heart of the Church for the sake of the proclamation entrusted to her for the salvation of others. I understand the benefits of profession and consecration under canon 603 in these terms. When I write about the vows, canonical standing, responsible freedom, or freedom vs liberty and the capacity to become the person God calls me to be, or about the importance of the ministry of authority in this, etc., I am describing the benefits of canonical standing. I am doing this as one whose consecration means she is participating in and has been entrusted with the rights and  obligations of an ecclesial vocation in which she can become her truest self --- and in doing so, serve others and glorify God. Thus, again, I resist seeing myself as a solitary, while the way I measure the benefits of consecration is not in material terms, but in who I am called and empowered to be in light of this ecclesially mediated Divine call and setting apart.

Hermit Sisters of Mary and Marymount Hermitage

[[Dear Sister, do you know the hermit Sisters at Marymount Hermitage in Mesa, ID? I was wondering if they were "the real deal"? If they are, are they c 603 hermits? You see, I have been thinking about eremitical life but I think I would like to live in a laura of hermits. Since I live a couple of hundred miles from them and since my grown children live in Boise, I thought maybe they would suit me. Can you recommend them? Will they accept a divorced woman?]]

I do know the Sisters of Marymount Hermitage, yes, but not well. I first wrote them around 1984 or 1985 after canon 603 was first published. At the time there were two Sisters there, Sisters Rebecca and Beverly; they were very responsive and helpful to me in those early years of canon 603's new life. Occasionally, I check their website to see how they are doing (they have good newsletters there) but, until I checked the website this morning, it had been a while since I had done that. Yes, they are (or were originally) c 603 hermits but I believe they were considering establishing themselves canonically as an institute of consecrated life. I'm not sure I have that exactly right, where they stand with that now, or how far they ever got with the process. I believe one of them (Sister Rebecca) is now living in a convent in OR where she can receive skilled nursing care. I don't know if they ever grew beyond just Sisters Rebecca and Beverly. I  do believe there might have been a third Sister as well. I do know that personally, I resonate with their spirituality; it is 1) Benedictine, 2) rooted in the Desert Ammas and Abbas, and 3) an authentic expression of the high desert in which the Hermitage is located. (Personally I love the high desert; it may be one of my favorite settings in the entire world.)

Still, I'm sorry. I can't say I know enough about them currently to recommend them or not. Yes, they are definitely "the real deal". They have been living this life since around the first anniversary of canon 603 and maybe a year or so before I first contacted them. That means they have lived as hermits for about 37 years or so and, like many of us, came at it from religious life. My sense is they have a good relationship with their new bishop (Bp Peter Christiansen, Bishop of Boise) who has been their local ordinary for about 5 years. They also clearly receive support of parishes in the area. (That is, members of parishes come to help with maintenance and have done so with building needs in the past, etc. 

However, I also have reservations. One thing in particular gives me pause when I consider whether to recommend them or not because you specifically said you were drawn to a lavra; however, as far as I know, only Sister Beverly now lives at Marymount. Because I don't know either her age or the state of her health (or yours for that matter!) I ask you bear in mind that you are considering associating yourself with a lavra which apparently consists of only one Sister; that is both a difficult and a precarious situation at best, especially if (as your remark about grown children suggests) you don't have a background in religious life or much experience with significant silence and solitude. For the rest of this post, I am assuming the hermitage is still accepting new vocations --- something you should understand is not at all assured.

Your mention of adult children raises several issues on your side of the equation as well. The first issue is that of canonical freedom. Like anyone desiring to be professed and consecrated under c 603, you will need to be canonically free to be admitted to the community and, after suitable discernment and formation, profession and consecration. This would mean a.) if your spouse is deceased the marriage bond no longer exists and you are canonically free; b.) if your spouse is still living you will need to get a declaration of nullity to establish the fact of your own canonical freedom. The second issue is age. While eremitical life is ordinarily a second half of life vocation, communities still tend to have limits re how old one can be and still enter. This is something you will need to research with the Sisters and/or the diocese.  

A third issue is that of health and physical stamina. Marymount is very secluded and the weather is typically rugged for the high desert in a state that gets snow anyway. The physical plant is relatively large and requires good health to negotiate. I suggest you bear all this in mind and maybe arrange to make a retreat with them at the very least. The fourth issue is whether they have experience with forming solitary hermits or whether it is preferred they have already-professed c 603 hermits join them post-profession along with some experience living the vocation in other than a group setting. (This is especially important when a lavra appears to be coming to the end of its natural life as core members die, move to care facilities or convents, or are too remote to allow for regular caregivers to do what the other hermits either can't or are not really called to do.)

My best advice is that if you are really serious about testing a vocation with the Hermit Sisters of Mary or even just want to discuss an eremitical vocation seriously no matter where or how ever you live it, I would advise you to contact them and have several conversations with Sister Beverly and/or personnel of the Diocese of Boise.

Citing a Canonist: What are Private Vows?

I wanted to post this as an addendum to my last post but since that post was long, I decided to post it separately. Some have wondered by what authority I contend that private vows do not initiate one into the consecrated state. Let me quote Therese Ivers, JCL, a canonist specializing in consecrated life. In this excerpt Ms Ivers briefly defines private vows and continues by defining "competent authority":

[[It seems that there is always a lot of confusion regarding private vows. Private vows are any vows that are not public vows or semi-public vows. What is the difference, you may ask? It is very simple. Public and semi-public vows are accepted by the competent Church authority and are necessary for consecration. Private vows are all other vows]] . . .She continues: [Competent authorities are] 1)  The diocesan bishop for diocesan/canonical hermits, diocesan right religious communities and diocesan right secular institutes.  Any other ceremony involving vows is done by the bishop as a witness and not as a lawful superior.  Therefore, anything that a diocesan bishop witnesses or blesses outside of these limited circumstances is automatically considered private even if done in the cathedral in front of a million viewers. 2)  The superior of a religious institute, personal prelature, or a secular institute for members of the institute!  They are the competent authority designated by the Church to receive vows in the name of the Church. 3)  No one else!  All others are merely witnesses and cannot receive vows in the name of the Church.  This includes Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Confessors, Spiritual Directors, and others!!!]]

Ms Ivers then explains:

[[What is a private vow? A private vow is a promise made to God for a greater good and is NOT accepted by a competent authority. Who are NOT competent authorities? Spiritual directors, confessors, pastors, and others!!! Even bishops if they are not admitting someone to an institute of consecrated life (that is, a religious community that is of at least diocesan right or a secular institute that is at least of diocesan right or to consecrated life as an individual as a diocesan hermit!). Private vows do not constitute someone in the consecrated state! Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a person under private vows is consecrated. They are dedicated individuals who have promised, resolved, or vowed to live a life of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom! Again, private vows do not entail a true consecration. Consecration is mediated by the Church through the competent authority (see above for who the competent authority is). Because there is no legitimate authority who can receive a private vow in the name of the Church, consecration, or the setting aside of a person for God’s service that is over and above the consecration of baptism does NOT take place with private vows!!!]]  (cf., Private Vows Revisited) Folks should read the entire article.

Anyone with doubts or who still thinks that they can make private vows and become a consecrated or Catholic hermit should ask their chancery (Chancellor, Canonist, Vicar for Religious, Bishop) if private vows initiate one into the consecrated state. Anyone who believes the Catechism has precedence over the Canon Law should do the same. (Remember that c. 603 was promulgated years before the CCC,  which alone would mean that it is thus no mere proviso, or addition to the CCC.) The issue here is truth and a need to protect people from being misled. God calls canonically free hermits to live eremitical life in every state of life: lay, clerical and consecrated. It produces a wonderful diversity and witness we are all called to respect.

On Lay, Clerical, and Consecrated Solitary Hermits

[[Dear Sister, given what you wrote about hermits as a valuable vocation whether consecrated or lay, canonical or non-canonical, am I correct in believing you accept Joyful Hermit's vocation as a hermit? Is your difficulty just that you contend she does not have the right to call herself a consecrated Catholic Hermit or do you believe her whole life as a hermit is "counterfeit" or fraudulent"? Do you consider c 603 as the only way to really be a hermit? If a hermit considers c 603 to be a form of "shackles and baggage," does the Church require they be professed anyway? Is there a difference between having a vocation blessed and the consecration that occurs in c 603 profession? "Joyful hermit" (aka "Catholic hermit") wrote about a lot of this in her blog recently. (cf., Refocus: New Spiritual Director) I wonder what people are to do when they are unsure of whether or not a person is a consecrated or Catholic Hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions. The issue I have written about directly and by name with regard to Joyful Hermit  and her various public blogs is the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the consecrated eremitical state of life is only entered with public profession. This can occur in a religious community or, for solitary hermits, by making profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop under canon 603, but it is never done with private vows. If one wishes to call oneself a consecrated Catholic hermit then we all expect them to be using the same language or terminology and theology of consecrated life the Church uses. I have never asserted that "Joyful hermit" is a counterfeit hermit. However, she asserts she is a consecrated Catholic hermit and thus implies she is living her life in the name of the Church;  she also claims she is not a lay person in the vocational sense but is a religious. In this specific regard she is counterfeit. She is claiming to be and presenting herself on her blog and other places as something she is not. Unfortunately, she instructs others to become "Catholic Hermits" in the same way.

Vatican II made and maintained a distinction between dedication (which is a human act and can use private vows), and consecration (which is properly an act of God only mediated through legitimate superiors in the Church). While we use "to consecrate" loosely as a form or dedication, the truth is the Church  maintains a distinction between consecration and dedication. The distinction becomes important whenever someone with private vows starts claiming to be a consecrated religious, a consecrated hermit, a Catholic hermit or religious, etc. Public profession comes with canonical rights and obligations and also the grace to live these; private vows remain private acts of dedication; they are significant but they do not rise to the level of consecration.

Since the author of the blog you cite. is privately vowed but not professed (profession is an ecclesial act that includes but is also larger than the making of vows; it is a mediated and juridical act of the whole Church) and since she claims to be able to tell folks how to become Catholic Hermits via private vows, I take serious exception to what she writes on her blog in this specific regard. My concerns stem from the fact that I have heard from folks who followed her advice and were hurt (or at least badly embarrassed) in the process. I completely accept that Joyful is trying to live an eremitical life. She is entirely free to do this just as any lay person is free to do. Likewise, she is free to grow in her own lay vocation and eremitical life as we all grow in our vocations. But to reiterate, what she (or any other hermit with private vows) is absolutely not free to do is to represent herself as a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" or a "consecrated religious". She is neither a Catholic hermit nor a person in the consecrated state of life; she is a lay person in both the vocational and hierarchical senses of the term; thus, I tend to limit my direct criticism of her blog to this single issue.

"Shackles and Baggage"

I have read the post JH put up re her conversation with her new spiritual director. I hear him saying the same things I have been writing about in one way and another for the past 10 years and more, namely, one does not need to be professed under c 603 to be a hermit in the Catholic Church. One needs this to be a solitary hermit of and for the Catholic Church. One can certainly be a hermit in the lay state and indeed, most hermits in the church have been lay hermits (the church did not admit solitary hermits to the consecrated state until 1983); most hermits always will be lay hermits (i.e., most hermits will never be consecrated). The Church recognizes this even as she continues to value such hermits. Contrary to some confusing material Joyful posts about this, nothing suggests that c 603 has been meant as the only way to become or live as a hermit. Nothing suggests the Church will ever assert lay persons cannot live as solitary hermits in the future unless they are professed and consecrated under c 603. This would actually infringe on the freedom lay persons have in the Church. In any case, that is not the point nor is there any indication it is a concern for the church. (On the other hand, the church is certainly concerned with hermits claiming to be professed and consecrated hermits when they are not, but the answer to that situation will never be requiring lay hermits to submit to consecration under c 603 against their will or personal discernment.) To do that destroys the nature of vocation as a personally truthful reality and gift of God.

JH's SD has apparently observed that for her c 603 is a matter of shackles and baggage. It would be a serious mistake to generalize from this limited truth to the idea that canonical eremitism shackles all hermits or places unnecessary burdens on them.  For some of us, c 603 is a means of freedom to live eremitical life. We take on the rights and obligations of the vocation with joy and seriousness; we live our lives as the means of living God's will and serving the Church and world. We also thus take on the title Catholic Hermit or consecrated hermit; we become religious. C 603 for us is neither a matter of shackles nor is it an unnecessary burden. For us, the yoke of canonical standing under c 603 is easy and light and makes eremitical life possible and meaningful. Jesus graced us with this yoke and we embraced and bear it with joy. For us, it is a source of genuine freedom.

JH is quite clear she is not called to this. Instead, she lives eremitical life in the lay (baptized) state alone and, given her extensive criticism of c 603, apparently will do so the rest of her life. That is wonderful; I sincerely wish her well in this!! But what is also true is that the Church will never oblige her to do otherwise; a competent SD will never do such a thing. Nor have I ever argued c 603 is the only way to be a hermit in the Catholic Church. It is, again, the only way to be a solitary hermit living this life in the name of the Church. Joyful is entirely free to live her lay Catholic vocation in whatever way she desires so long as she does so honestly in a way that honors her baptismal commitments.  (One must petition and enter into a process of mutual discernment which may take years before one can be admitted to profession and consecration. NO ONE is obliged to undergo something like this if they do not truly feel called to do so.) The priest hermit whom Joyful is now working with illustrates this point with his own life. He is ordained and lives eremitical life in that (clerical) state, but he is not a consecrated hermit despite his ordination or the fact that he received his bishop's blessing. Innumerable hermits and anchorites have done the same in the lay or clerical states and the Church has appropriately esteemed them. She will continue to do so!

Blessing vs. Consecration:

You asked about the difference between the blessing the bishop gave the priest in Joyful's narrative and consecration (or, for instance, between the blessing she received when she made private vows and consecration through the mediation of the Church). As I noted above, these are not the same thing. Consider that in the Rite of temporary profession, the making of vows concludes with a blessing by the celebrant. In the Rite of Perpetual Profession, however, this simple blessing is replaced by a solemn act/prayer of consecration. Consecration and solemn or perpetual profession represents the event with which a person is initiated into the consecrated state of life and assumes the full rights and obligations associated with this. Until this moment (and until this occurs for any religious) the fullness of rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state are withheld. Someone making temporary profession accompanied by a simple blessing has not yet been fully initiated into consecrated life; for those living in community certain rights are withheld even though the person is much further along than they were as novices or candidates.

The call and the prayer of solemn consecration in conjunction with the making of solemn or perpetual vows are the essential parts of the act of solemn or perpetual profession. In this profession a person is fully initiated into the consecrated state; they are made to be a consecrated person with the second consecration adding to baptismal consecration. The graces associated with this act are different than those associated with temporary profession (and certainly than those associated with private vows.) There is an ontological change in the person and she forever becomes a consecrated person with different rights and obligations, and different expectations by the Church and with all the graces necessary to live this new identity.

One other difference exists between a simple blessing even when this is done by a bishop, and the consecration associated with perpetual profession; namely, in blessing a person or enterprise with a simple blessing the priest (even as a bishop) does not intend nor (in the case of a priest who is not a Bishop or his delegate) does he have the authority unless specifically delegated by the local ordinary to consecrate the hermit. For that matter, the hermit is not prepared to become a consecrated person in the Church. Bishops, meanwhile, bless people all the time; in doing so they do not usually initiate the person into the consecrated state --- nor, despite their authority to do so when certain qualifications are met, do they intend to do so. Further, in a simple blessing, the one being blessed does not intend (and is relatively unprepared) to enter the consecrated state of life. So, yes there is a vast difference between a blessing and consecration itself.

What is One to Do?

I have written about what one is to do when they are uncertain whether or not a person is really a consecrated hermit before. If one desires to clarify this the first step is to ask them. If questions persist, ask them if their vows are public or private. If private they are not consecrated. If there is still a question ask them in whose hands they made their vows or ask them which Bishop perpetually professed them. A diocesan hermit can move to another diocese but she will remain a diocesan hermit only if the bishop in the new diocese agrees to accept her vows.(Cf., more below.) The bishop doing so will become the hermit's legitimate superior; there are canonical bonds established in the public profession. So, a hermit making a canonical vow of obedience will exist in terms of relationships capable of ministering to the hermit via the ministry of authority.

To expand on this, if a c 603 hermit moves to another diocese, then unless a bishop agrees to receive her formally, the hermit's vows cease to be valid or publicly binding due to a material change in the context of the vows themselves. The c 603 hermit who is not relieved of her vows in these ways remains consecrated (God's consecration cannot be undone) but she no longer exists in the consecrated state of life. N.B., the hermit needs to ascertain the bishop's agreement before making the move. To do otherwise is to cause the canonical vows to cease to be binding because of a material change in them (they are made in the hands of the local ordinary of her home diocese; she is a hermit OF the Diocese of _____ ). Similarly, before moving and being accepted by another bishop she will need her current bishop to affirm she is a consecrated hermit in good standing in her current diocese.

Feast of the Conversion of St Paul 2020

This last week we began a new series for Bible Study. We are reading through 2 Corinthians as a follow up to Galatians, something I hope will continue to provide a greater sense of Paul, his character and his theology. On this feast of the Conversion of St Paul I am very grateful I chose this Letter. In the past week, and mainly because of this Letter I have come to a deeper understanding of Paul's theology, and especially his theologies of the cross and of suffering.

In particular I came to appreciate  how radical the difference between Paul's paradoxical theology and the non-paradoxical theology of those Paul calls "Super Apostles". As a corollary to this I came to even greater clarity on what it means to reject certain ways of thinking as "worldly" or "fleshly" and to accept another way of thinking as being, "of Christ" or, "of God". As Isaiah reminds us, God's thought is not like our thought, his ways are not our ways. As high as heaven is above the earth, so God's ways are higher than our ways, and his thought is above our thought. All of this points to the way Paul would like to get the Corinthians to continue their conversion to Christianity, namely, by the renewal of their minds. The remaking of  minds referred to in 1 Corinthians 2:16 is not merely about accepting new doctrinal statements or truths; it is not even about simply saying yay or nay to the resurrection, for instance. Instead it is about allowing our minds to be reshaped by the Holy Spirit in a way which shifts us from non-paradoxical to paradoxical thinking rooted in the risen crucified Christ.

Because of his experience on the road to Damascus where Paul met the Risen Crucified Christ and clearly saw the paradoxes of Christianity embodied in Him, the theology Paul developed and proclaimed is essentially and radically paradoxical. It gives us strength perfected in weakness, triumph fully achieved in failure, eternal treasure consisting of the life of an infinite God revealed in flawed and breakable vessels of clay, and so forth. A non-paradoxical way of thinking can never see that in Christ the poor are truly rich, that the last are really first, that a crucified man is actually the exhaustive revelation of the God of truth and life, that the shame of crucifixion reveals the glory of God, that only the one who accepts suffering knows the God of all comfort, or that in death exists eternal life. The non-paradoxical (Greek) way of thinking says instead, if poor then NOT rich, if cast down then NOT raised up or glorified, if first then NOT last, if weak then NOT strong, if fragile and breakable then NOT a vessel holding (or capable of holding) an eternal treasure, if human then NOT Divine (and vice versa), if shamed then not glorified, and so forth. Paradoxical thinking drops the word NOT from each proposition. In Christ if we are weak then we are strong, if cast down then we are (really) raised up, etc. Paradoxical thinking is what allows Christians to see the world as sacramental and to perceive Christ as truly present in consecrated bread and wine.

Paul's encounter with the Risen Christ changed forever the way he saw reality. (I think this is part of the truth illustrated in the story of Paul's resulting blindness on the occasion of his conversion and commissioning. Because of this encounter Paul moved from non-paradoxical to paradoxical thinking and in light of it his mind was remade. It is not merely that he changed his mind about Jesus as Messiah, it is that he became capable of holding apparent contradictions together to reveal a new and always-surprising truth: God's Messiah is a crucified Messiah, the glory of God is revealed in shame; it is where one is helpless and weak that we see a portrait of Divine strength and sovereignty. All of this and more was embodied in Paul's vision on the road to Damascus. Because of this event Paul's mind was reshaped and empowered to embrace a paradoxical God and radically paradoxical Messiah.

As Paul worked out his theology in his occasional letters written in conjunction with the situations of various churches, Paul's heart and mind were reshaped, his conversion deepened, and he moved from faith to faith. Consequently he became more and more the Apostle God called and commissioned him to be. As a result we have a Church which is not merely a Jewish sect but instead, a world-wide people called to be similarly converted and remade in Christ. We celebrate all of this on this Feast day. I am reminded of one of the first classes I ever had in theology. John Dwyer told us, it is very difficult to think paradoxically; we just don't do it, but in order to do New Testament theology you have to be able to do this. I think  now that it is the gift of the Holy Spirit that one is able to think and view reality this way. It certainly is not natural! We have to learn to look at reality and be ready to perceive paradox but, I believe, we also have to be empowered by the  Spirit in this.

I am  also reminded of when I had my first appointment with (Arch)bishop Vigneron in seeking admission to profession under c 603. As a kind of ice-breaker the bishop asked me who my favorite Saint was. I named Paul and explained that if I could spend the rest of my life coming to understand his theology of the Cross I would be a happy camper. I laugh at myself now: "Better watch what you ask for Laurel! God just might take you up on it! And so he has.  In my deepening appreciation of the paradoxes at the heart of the Christ Event, Paul's thought inspires, challenges, comforts, and gives hope. It enlarges my heart and remakes my mind. I should not be surprised; this is the very thing Paul had hoped his letters and ministry would do for his converts in Corinth. Thanks be to God!

Canon 603 Helps Assure Prophetic Life Within the Church

[[Dear Sister, . . . in what you just posted on what is tried and true would you say that keeping a prophetic form of life within the Church rather than leaving it like the Desert Fathers and Mothers did is one of the things canon 603 achieves?]]

That's a great question and it is a point I was making in my last post --- though I admit it was done only implicitly and could have been made more explicitly and clearly. First though, I would correct the notion that the Desert Abbas and Ammas "left the Church". Rules for participating in the Church in a meaningful way were not developed as they are today and the Gospel of Jesus was unique and recognizable amidst the cultures of the time. The Desert Abbas and Ammas lived a radical Christian discipleship and they did so explicitly; they lived lives of prayer rooted in the Scriptures and praying the prayer of the Church. Beyond this they were knowledgeable about Church happenings and concerns and concerned themselves with these as well. (Remember that Anthony, for instance, assisted his friend Athanasius in his battle against Arius, and Anthony was one hermit associated for parts of his eremitical life, with the deepest of deserts.

Today, hermits are called to participate in Church life in more well-defined ways, but again, there is significant freedom so long as the steps hermits take in their solitude are mutually discerned or discerned under appropriate supervision. Lay, priestly, or consecrated hermits are part of the Church. Consecrated hermits live their lives "in the name of" the Church, and traditionally hermits are spoken of as existing in the heart of the Church. Of course, this must be made real in various ways; one's living ecclesial life cannot be merely nominal. We can't effectively leave the church and cover that over with the label "hermit" or "eremitical solitude" or "eremitical hiddenness". Canon 603 is one way of assuring this too.

But back to your question. Yes, the Church in publishing canon 603, not only protects the eremitical life from isolation, eccentricity, and engulfment by "the world" (by values which contrast with and supplant those of the gospel),  but she has brought a prophetic vocation right within her life. She thus assures everyone that folks living lives like those of the Desert Annas and Ammas do so not just within the Church, but in her name as well! Cynics can say she does this to blunt the force or impact of their prophetic quality, but this will not wash. Generally, Hermits today are regarded as incredible or entirely irrelevant. They may be objects of curiosity or interesting matter for a wildlife or psychology journal, but significant lives? Hardly. Had the Church feared the prophetic power of this vocation they could have simply ignored it. Instead she recognizes this life as a vocation and gift of God and composes a canon which defines normative characteristics and makes some instances of it part of the consecrated state! The Church only does this with the things she holds as valuable and even indispensable to her own life.

By the way, this could be said to be another dimension of the way the vocation is ecclesial: it is formally and explicitly (canonically) lived within the Church for the sake of the Church herself! This is an implicit part of the rights and obligations of canonical eremitical life. Thus, those things that protect eremitical life in canon 603 also assures the potential for a vital prophetic presence within the Church --- something which likewise will help to maintain the Church's own prophetic presence in a world so much in need of it.

On What is Tried and True in Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, what would it mean for someone to refuse to become a consecrated hermit under c 603 because it "is not  tried and true over the years and centuries"? . . . What needs to be "proven"? In the blog piece I read this seems to be built on the idea that because it is a canonical form of life it doesn't allow for sufficient freedom?]]

Thanks for your questions! I have already written several times recently about the freedom canon 603 creates or helps empower.  But, "What is "tried and true"? It's a very significant and complex question. This is so because hermits as a whole don't have the best pedigree in terms of what is "tried and true". There is often no agreement on the purpose of the life, the motivations necessary, much less the central characteristics of such a life or what its goal is. Life lived in caves, on pillars, locked away from all contact --- sometimes from childhood, sometimes peripatetic and never pausing in roaming, lauras (colonies) of hermits, semi-eremitic communities, and solitary hermits --- there is really no end to the variation or number of possibilities. If someone were to fill in the following, "The tried and true way to be a hermit is ____", the responses would be all over the map.

The definition of the term hermit can be drawn any number of different ways, some healthy, some not, some edifying, many more disedifying. Some have been drawn from portraits of rugged, even heroic individualism, others from notions of authentic humanity and the social nature of the human being. Some have been gentle, creative, and ecologically sensitive human beings; others might well have been raised by hyenas for all their hermit lives reveal. Some are misanthropic, selfish, or embittered and motivated only by a desire for isolation and diminishment; others are drawn from various examples of Desert life marked by their generosity and compassion, as well as their faith and impulses to prophetic integrity.

Yes, there are hermit saints and religious founders like Benedict, Francis, Bruno, and many others who spent at least some time as hermits, but nonetheless, these, along with contemporary hermits like Thomas Merton are generally seen as exceptions in what today is mainly seen as 1) eccentric, 2) anachronistic, and 3) irrelevant. The idea that eremitical life could be a way of proclaiming the Gospel to contemporary persons is, understandably, one that is remote at best ---and that is also true even for bishops and chancery staff entrusted with implementing Canon 603 in wise ways. When speaking of what is tried and true in eremitical life we actually have to pare away a lot of  what we know about hermits, anchorites and solitaries through the centuries because much and maybe even most of what went by the name "hermit" (or cognates.) was neither edifying (it did not inspire or build up the Body of Christ) nor worthy of being identified with the Gospel of Christ.

The Church's Response to this Varied Phenomenon:

All of this is one reason the Church has never recognized the eremitical vocation on a universal level. The absence of a universal codified set of canons is another. During the centuries bishops in individual dioceses, especially in the Middle ages did implement measures to allow and protect anchorites, preaching by hermits, and so forth in local churches. They did so cautiously and asserted limits -- not only because they valued eremitical life but because so much that is disedifying or irrelevant is connected to the phenomenon we know as eremitism. Apart from the Desert Fathers and Mothers, who lived their lives as a prophetic protest against the worldliness of the post-Constantinian Church, or in connection with religious orders, the really memorable examples of eremitism, the people folks could point to as paradigmatic were hardly ever more than examples of eccentricity and misanthropy --- and if they were more or other than this no one knew it unless there was heroic sanctity which became known, for instance.

 In the 20 C. several different examples of eremitical life as an authentic vocation came to the attention of the Church Fathers. Of course there was Thomas Merton who was not at first permitted to live as a hermit, had to consider transferring to the Camaldolese, found himself blocked in this too -- though, in order to keep Merton, his Trappist community offered alternatives and provided helpful accommodations to help meet his need for greater solitude. There is no doubt the church as a whole was, or at least became, aware of this. Prior to Vatican II and over a period of time, a dozen Monks in solemn vows left various communities or houses who had no option for eremitical life in their proper law. Their communities did and could not accommodate their discerned calls and made secularization necessary.

These former monks, whether in their resulting lay or clerical states of life, became hermits and came under the protection of Bishop Remi de Roo. They established a laura in British Columbia. Eventually, as a result of his first hand experience with these hermits, Bishop de Roo made an intervention at Vatican II praising eremitical life and seeking to have it become a recognized form of consecrated life (a "state of perfection"). Vatican II did nothing directly but they ordered the renewal of the Code of Canon Law. The revised code was published in October 1983. It recognized for the first time in universal law solitary eremitical life in Canon 603 and provided a means for establishing solitary hermits in the consecrated state.

 With canon 603 we have to argue that finally the Universal Church has found a way to define and recognize solitary eremitical vocations and ensure that the very best of eremitical tradition is lived today by those the church consecrates. She recognizes and for the first time has created a way for individuals who are not part of an institute of consecrated life (or not part of an institute allowing for eremitical life) to live this vocation as consecrated persons with the rights, obligations, and the grace appropriate to such a vocation. That is an epic shift in matters and people recognize that. In my own lived experience this provides an important and better way of living eremitical life than on my own as a lay hermit, for instance, and as I have written many times here, some just recently, one which ensures the freedom appropriate to authentic eremitical life meant to witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It raises to the consecrated state of life that which is "tried and true" in such a life.

Even those critical of canon 603 don't appear to dispute this. Thus, I will also note that in the post you referred to (Back in the Saddle) even the author there now in a new diocese and continuing her newest blog, was still (or again) clearly -- albeit briefly -- considering seeking consecration under canon 603.  I think it is striking that she does this after many blog posts and videos condemning c 603 (and, some hermits professed accordingly) and suggests once again that it might just be the will of God for her. Equally striking is the way she refers to its central elements (the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, lived for the salvation of the world, etc) as important in defining her life. I think that suggests that she, though a consistent critic of c 603, also understands it as an important and positive change in Church law and praxis worthy of modeling one's life on. At the very least it seems to suggest she really believes the canon, as noted above, makes normative essential ("tried and true") elements of eremitical life. In this I agree with her: canon 603 is a model for eremitical life in the Church whether for hermits in the lay or clerical states, or those publicly professed and consecrated under the canon.

What is "Tried and True"?

 Solitary hermits can choose to be professed/consecrated under c 603 or live eremitical life in the lay or ordained states. (Again, there are also hermits in canonical communities not using c 603 but others.) Whichever state the person feels called to, whatever state of life the person chooses, what is "tried and true" (or what are characteristics of the "tried and true") are the elements listed as essential in the canon, namely: the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, a life commitment to the evangelical counsels and a self-composed Rule all lived under the supervision of someone capable of doing this. This last may be ongoing spiritual direction or regular work with one's pastor, for instance; it will also include active participation in the life of the Church (sacraments, liturgy, etc.). For those who are consecrated hermits supervision is a canonical process and involves the bishop and his delegate. The Church has recognized that these are necessary elements in living a healthy eremitical life that is more than a self-centered withdrawal from society.

What c 603 was crafted to assure is the vocational quality of the life as well as its ecclesiality. What I mean by this is that the if the call to be a  hermit is to be lived as a vocation the Church recognizes and commissions one to live in her name, this call will be discerned by more than the hermit herself. Given the high incidence of eccentric lives of escapism and isolation through the centuries, and numerous forms of anti-social life today (e.g. cocooning) having a discernment process in which the Church participates along with the would-be hermit is also something that has proven necessary. The second element, ecclesiality, is an extension of this. Over the years I have written about several other dimensions of ecclesiality.

First the eremitical vocation I am discussing, like other ecclesial vocations, belongs to the Church, not the individual; it is mediated by the Church and entrusted to the individuals she consecrates to live this in her name. For this reason, although there are differences in the way a hermit exercises her membership in the Body of Christ, this is overseen by those directly serving the Church and the vocation, viz, bishops, delegates, Vicars for Religious or for Consecrated Life, and (more indirectly) pastors. The way and frequency with which the hermit participates in community, Sacraments, liturgy, and so forth are all discerned and supervised. And all of this is because the Church allows the faithful to look at the eremitical vocation with genuine expectations that hermits will be edifying, that they will proclaim the gospel with their lives, that the Church will work to ensure all of this (and herself be edified by it) even when the hermit's life is clearly prophetic as were the lives of the Desert Fathers and Mothers!

These things are what is "tried and true" in regard to eremitical life and now, the central elements of canon 603 codifies these in universal law. It took the Church almost 2000 years to do so but canon 603 evolved from a long history of lives which were sometimes significantly edifying and all-too-often extravagantly disedifying. Moreover, she did this during a period of heightened individualism, selfishness, and personal isolation from others. This is important because canon 603 distinguishes what the Church recognizes and honors as solitary eremitical life from so much of what passes for normal in contemporary society.

So, while canon 603 is relatively new (1983), it is a summary of what the Church recognizes as essential if an eremitical life is authentic and avoids the mistakes of history; it will be a life of stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels, a Rule of Life rooted in the hermit's lived experience and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Finally, it is a life which is directed by those competent to do so and is supervised (for those canonically consecrated) by the Church herself because this vocation has, finally, been understood to "belong" to the church and to be both too vital,  fragile, and precious to be lost.

Follow up on Canon 603 and Freedom

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I just read your recent post on freedom vs license. I thought the examples you used re playing the violin or playing as an elite athlete on a basketball team were an excellent way to illustrate the distinction between these two ideas. I would have thought that canon 603 limited hermit freedom. While I don't know a lot about canon law I have always had the sense that it curtails freedom. What is it about canon 603 that makes it different from the rest of canon law? Does it really result in freedom for the hermit?]]

Thanks for your comments and questions. This will build on the post on freedom and license On Questions of Freedom and License so please bear the examples there in mind. Maybe this will surprise some folks but I suppose I have always felt the same way about canon law as you. I think I feel that way still with the exception of canon 603. I have lived as perpetually professed under this canon for over a dozen years now and I have experienced it as a source of great freedom throughout that time. Neither has anyone who might have done so (chancery personnel, bishop, delegate) interfered with that freedom by imposing requirements on me beyond my Rule or the canon itself. What makes canon 603 different to my mind are two things: 1) the essential elements are left undefined; they are mysteries to be explored and embraced, and 2) these elements are combined with a Rule the hermit writes herself based on her own lived experience. I think the way these two things come together in the power of the Holy Spirit is the key to a hermit being really and authentically free. They are also the thing which sets this apart from most other canons.

Regarding the essential elements, these have meaning in light of the  lived tradition and the lived life experience of the hermit. For instance, when I first read the canon (@ December 1983) I misread it as calling for, "silence and solitude," rather than "the silence of solitude" and lived those first realities mainly in terms of external silence and physical solitude, Only a while later did I come to see the canon said "the silence of solitude", a Carthusian  reality which is much richer than the sum of its parts; only much later had I moved from seeing this as just an environment in which the hermit lives to also seeing it as a symbol of the goal of life with God. Even later still I came to see this same essential term as a description of the charism (gift quality) of the solitary eremitical vocation, which, when understood by chancery personnel, could prevent problems in professing or dismissing candidates for profession. It took time to live into and truly understand this mystery. Something similar happened with the terms assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, and living this vocation for the salvation of the world.

Each term was and is absolutely central to the vocation, and yet the Church did not define them; some might have thought the meaning of these terms to be self-evident, or they might have given dictionary definitions and thought these sufficient. Either alternative would be a serious mistake. Though one is not free to create an entirely new meaning for these terms, each one embodies a whole world and constitutes an invitation to discover and explore this world of Divine power, presence, and love. Each also reflects a long and varied history of eremitical tradition and freedom and each one will call one to make choices pertinent to one's life circumstances and God's personal call to wholeness and holiness in light of these elements. Those who wrote the canon knew this, I believe; those who professed me expected me to come to deeper and deeper understanding of these mysteries as well as those of the evangelical counsels (which are themselves geared towards freedom) and live (and live into) them ever more deeply. The call to embrace and explore these mysteries was and is both a right and an obligation whose fulfillment was extended to me as well as empowered by the grace of profession and consecration. The bottom line here is that I was truly free to do this in whatever ways and according to whatever timetable worked best for me. Moreover, as I did this, as I entered more deeply into each mystery (and thus, into the world of God's love they opened to me), my own freedom to be the person God called me to be would increase.

A part of this deepening freedom and faithfulness involved the writing of a Rule the Church received  and officially approved with a Bishop's decree. This too is a non-negotiable part of the canon like the others mentioned above. The Rule was written and rewritten on the basis of my own lived experience and codified a particular vision of eremitical life which drew not only from my life experiences (including now the inner work I am doing with my Director), but from Camaldolese and Cistercian spirituality, as well as from the substance of the canon itself. Additional sources were the lives and spirituality of hermits through the centuries, but especially the Carthusians and the Desert Ammas and Abbas, and the Camaldolese St Romuald and St Peter Damian. The living out of this Rule has asked me everyday to grow in understanding, freedom, wholeness, and holiness. The writing  of this blog too has been a source of growth and deepening freedom. Canon 603 is at least indirectly responsible for my taking this project on and continuing it.

Another part of my experience of freedom with regard to canon 603 has been the Church's public commissioning of me to live this life. When everything around me and (sometimes) even within me seems to militate against the silence of solitude, I can remind myself of the mutual discernment process the chancery and I negotiated, the prayers for my vocation I know people offered and still offer, and my assurance that these things indicate the granting of a very real freedom with regard to the pressures acting against eremitical life. Canonical standing and God's own consecration which was mediated by the Church, results in freedom to resist other self-definitions and affirm the deep truth of self in God. What I want to stress in all of this is the degree of freedom c 603 and the Church herself gives me to discern various things within this eremitical context  I would not be free to undertake from outside it. When I fail in one way or another I don't  need to worry whether my own initial discernment of this vocation was accurate; the Church has weighed in on things and tips the scales towards an affirmation of this vocation and a renewed commitment to persevere. Finally, a central piece of the way c 603 has afforded me real freedom is the intense work I have undertaken with my Director. I would not have been free to undertake this in the way we have done it had it not been for canon 603 and the public commissioning associated with it. Likewise, as I have written recently, the ministry of authority which is a significant part of a canonical vow of obedience has been incredibly freeing as well.

I think it is important to understand that the freedom I have discovered and come to live more and more is not the freedom to be anything or just anyone at all. However, through canon 603 I have been made more truly free to be myself. There are constraints, of course and the ability to use certain gifts and talents is among these. Still. the rich sources of freedom which make up life under canon 603 are inspired by the Holy Spirit and they have led me deeper and deeper into the heart of eremitical life which in turn has made me even more free as hermit and as a human being. Canon 603, with its combination of essential or defining elements and a Rule I necessarily wrote myself with its dependence on my own lived experience and vision of eremitical life, created a realm of God-given space which I can explore and in which I could hearken to the voice and Word of God as I become the person God calls me to be. Remember that in Catholic theology freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. What canon 603 does in my life (and, I would argue, in the life of anyone truly called to this vocation) is to ensure me the invitations, space, and tools to become myself as I explore the heights and depths of life in communion with God.

To summarize then: I think that, generally speaking, Canon Law is meant to protect various realities in the Church. This always involves setting parameters or limitations --- but parameters and limitations which also define a realm of freedom. Again, one is not free to be anything at all but, if one is called by God to this, one is certainly free to be themselves as a hermit who lives this life in the name of the Church. Even so, I believe canon 603 is truly unique in combining the hermit's own Rule and other non-negotiable elements in a way which allows the hermit to explore the depths and heights of the mystery we identify as solitary eremitical life and thus, life with and in the God who inspires and empowers it. I find the canon to be genuinely beautiful in the way it is composed; it creates the necessary space for the Holy Spirit to work if one really has an eremitical vocation. (This is one reason its non-negotiable elements are built into the lives of non-canonical or lay hermits' lives as well.) I would not have thought these things were I looking at the canon from the outside in. But I have now lived this life for some time and things look differently from "within" or under canon 603 itself.