Whom Could It Hurt?

[[Dear Sister, I wondered why it is dioceses are so reluctant to profess hermits when they don't have to support them financially? I mean if money isn't the issue, then what is? Who will be hurt by professing someone if they don't quite fit the description of canon 603? When I approached my diocese they asked  that I live as a hermit under direction for a year or two, and then re-approach them. I don't see the need and I don't see the need for a spiritual director either! I have God and He directs me better than any human being ever could. I just don't get why it's a big deal to just profess someone if they desire it.]]

Thanks for your questions. They are important and timely. I heard someone ask the first one just a couple of weeks ago, and over the years I have been asked variations of it many times -- often without the reference to finances; sometimes a person will ask as you did, "Who will it hurt?" or, "What does it matter?" (Sometimes I have thought this bishop or that has professed someone they don't really believe is a hermit while asking themselves the very same question!!) All of these are questions usually raised by non-canonical hermits or by those who desire to be hermits and who may desire to be canonical. Sometimes the responses given by dioceses sour these persons on seeking canonical standing, and often the reasons are simply not understood or appreciated. When I heard the question two weeks ago it surprised me because of the reference to money. Your own question is surprising because it comes so quickly on the heels of that other one. The answer I gave two weeks ago was, "Because it is very rare for human beings to come to wholeness or authentic humanity in eremitical solitude," and that is where I will begin here.

It is very rare for a human being to come to wholeness or authentic humanity in eremitical solitude; most of us are called to love and be loved in ways eremitical existence does not really allow for; the need for society is real and necessary for most people in ways it is not for the hermit. Nor is this merely about the difference between introversion and extroversion. It is about the meaningfulness and fullness of one's life. Moreover, for the Church to allow someone to live this vocation in her Name, she must be as sure as possible that the witness the person gives is similar to the witness given by Jesus in the desert: she must see clear signs that it is in the desert of eremitical solitude that one is, through the grace of God, victorious over the powers of evil and solidified in one's identity (one's authentic humanity and capacity to love) in God. Another way of saying this is to affirm that very few people are called to witness to the victory of the Gospel of Christ through the silence of eremitical solitude.

For the church to admit someone to eremitical profession and thus, to canonical standing, is to allow that person to live the life in her name; this means she sees clear signs that this vocation is leading this person to wholeness and holiness and that they will serve others with their witness. It also means the church is relatively well-assured of the fact that the one professed will be open and attentive to the directives of superiors and others in the church in order that this witness be the best it can be. This is why the discernment process for canonical vocations is mutual. The issue is not financial; it is one of authentic witness, and so too, of participating in the Church's own mission and the very great charism of eremitical life.

 The Richness of Canon 603:

Can 603 is not merely a brief description of eremitical life, though I agree it is that. More, though, it defines a vision one is called to embrace, a piece of the church's own spiritual tradition one is invited to represent afresh, a commitment one is called to make as an expression of the Gospel of God in Christ. When I have written about the central elements of the canon before, I have written about them as mysteries to be explored. (cf.,  Followup on Canon 603 and Freedom) Canonical standing is both the right and the obligation to engage in this specific exploration all the days of one's life; it signifies the right and obligation to do so in the Church's name -- not only for the sake of hospitality to God, and for the sake of the Gospel, but for the sake of one's own freedom, wholeness, and holiness in incarnating and witnessing to these things. Because of this it is important for the Church to be sure that the individual whose vocation is in question (i.e., being discerned) really does give every indication of being called to all of this and to authentic freedom (which includes the ability to love compassionately) precisely as a hermit who can live the vocation in the Church's name.

For instance, you say forthrightly that you "don't see the need" either to live as the Church asks you in this situation, nor to work regularly with a spiritual director.  As baptized you have every right to decide in this way that you will not be subject to the directives of the Church in these matters. But what you do not have the right to do is to reject these directives and at the same time expect to be granted the right to make public vows as a hermit who lives her life under the supervision of the Church, under regular spiritual direction, and who is therefore publicly bound to do so obediently in her name. The Church, in the person of your diocesan personnel, asked you to live a particular way for a year or two so that she could adequately discern the potential presence of an ecclesial eremitical vocation. She is not discerning a vocation to individualism with you, nor does she mistake the freedom of the hermit for the license of the individualist. When you ask whom could it hurt to profess someone anyway, the answer is, a significant number of people and the solitary eremitical vocation itself as it has been entrusted to the Church. Let me explain.

Asking to Profess a Commitment to a Specific Desert Existence for the Sake of Others:

Those who approach the Church requesting admission to perpetual profession, are asking to live a desert existence which is almost infinitely meaningful in Christ and the power of the Spirit. We do this because, in one way and another, we have known desert experiences throughout our own lives and learned that God is always there in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. We do this because these desert experiences have made us desirous of loving and witnessing to precisely such a God, and we do so for the sake of all of those others whose lives will find them at one time and another in various deserts or wildernesses with all of the constraints, dangers, deficiencies, and also the potentialities of such lives. We do not do so simply so we may do as we like. We accept the constraints and the great potential of this ecclesial definition of solitary eremitical life because, 1) we know this ecclesial vocation does not belong to us but to the church,  2) because we know that God is found in a privileged way here, and 3) because we appreciate that this Presence will make of our lives an instance of Gospel victory and freedom which can serve others in profound ways.

Individualism simply doesn't do this. If I am witnessing to someone who finds themselves in a desert or wilderness situation from which there is no escape --- say the desert of chronic illness, for instance -- I cannot "kick off the (relatively minor) traces" of canon 603 supervision and obedience, and expect my life to say anything important to this person. They are searching for a way to live their potential and to find freedom despite the serious and inescapable constraints of their illness. My life as a canonical hermit with its constraints and correlative freedom to explore the depths of God and humanity, witnesses to the possibility of doing so; life as an individualist rejecting the constraints of law, ecclesiality, and so forth, is far less likely to do so. Besides, as I pointed out in the article linked above, the foundational and essential elements of canon 603 are not merely constraining elements for the solitary canonical hermit, they are doorways to the Mystery of God and the Human person constituted in dialogue with God, and I embrace them as such.

Whom Does it Hurt?

To profess someone who does not feel called to embrace and, in fact, refuses to embrace these same elements, witnesses to something other than the c 603 hermit does --- whatever that is. It is damaging to the power of the canon's vision and witness to profess someone who cannot and does not witness to the very thing the canon stands for. One has a responsibility to discern how and where one best witnesses to the way God has worked and is working in one's life. The Church has an obligation to do the same with regard to canon 603. If one is called to witness to something else or to do so in another way, it would be irresponsible of the Church to admit one to profession under canon 603. (cf. Eremitism or Exaggerated Individualism?).

We do not honor the vocation or charism of a vocation (the way it is a gift of the Holy Spirit) by professing those we don't believe are truly called to come to human wholeness and holiness in this specific way. For that matter we demean their true vocations by doing so, just as we deprive those to whom their lives might otherwise speak, of this vocation's appropriate message and messenger. That is significant damage, damage to the Church's witness, to the vocation's power and relevance, and to those touched directly by this dishonesty; that is whom it hurts. And ultimately, because very few truly come to wholeness or holiness in this way or witness to the power of God to bring one to holiness and wholeness in this way,  the Church professes relatively few hermits under canon 603 (or in congregations). Again, it is a rare vocation which the Church honors, not in numbers, but in appropriate fidelity, care, and truthfulness.

A Contemplative Moment: Breathed into Wholeness

From Chapter 9, "Breathing With the Spirit Into Mission"

  Breathed Into Wholeness, Catholicity and Life In the Spirit

by

Sister Mary Frohlich, rscj

[[We have focused predominantly on the challenges of spiritual living from the perspective of the individual person, but it must always be remembered that the proposed model of personhood assumes that, both psychologically and spiritually, there is no person apart from participation in relationships. On the psychological level the dialogical model of the self places relationships with others into the very structure of the self, as each "part self" is formed within an ongoing dialogue with other persons, groups, or anthropomorphized beings, real or imagined. From the spiritual perspective, there is no person apart from the foundational relationship with the creator-God. Consequently, the authenticity of personal life is not to live simply for oneself, but always with and for others.

Thus, focusing on the individual does not mean downplaying the urgency of community building and communal change. Despite common tropes that suggest increasing individuality and increasing community centeredness work against each other, the opposite is the case when individuality is developed as the uniqueness of each one's relation to the Spirit. Indeed, Karl Rahner has noted that even at the subhuman level "the true law of things" is not: The more special and distinct in character the more separated, isolated and discontinuous from everything else, but the reverse: The more really special a thing is, the more abundance of being it has in itself, the more intimate unity and mutual participation there will be between it and what is other than itself." Thus, the greater is the individual capacity for individual relationship to the Spirit, the greater also is the capacity for intimate relationships and community building at all levels. . . .Individuals must become both more united and increasingly different.]]

Rahner quotation from "On the Significance in Redemptive History of the Individual Member of the Church" Mission and Grace, vol 1 (p. 118)

Canonical Hermits, Non-Canonical Hermits, and Humility

[[Dear Sister, do some hermits chose not to become canonical because of their humility? I have read one hermit who chose not to do so because she wished to remain "small" and another because she wished to remain "hidden". Is there an advantage in making such a choice for these reasons?]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me define humility as I understand it and then try to answer your question about smallness from that perspective. Humility is a form of honesty, specifically, a form of loving honesty (both elements are critical here) about who one is (and who others are) in light of the way God sees us. We are humble when and to the extent we regard ourselves (or others) in the same way God regards us, neither disparaging ourselves (or others) nor engaging in self-aggrandizement. I have written here before about this and especially on the distinction between something that is truly humbling and something which is instead, humiliating. Too often in various threads of spirituality, the verb associated with humility has been mistakenly construed as 'humiliate'! But God does not humiliate --- ever! God's love humbles us. It reveals our true dignity. It raises us to the ability to see clearly and lovingly just who we and others are in light of God's own deep regard for and delight in us.

There can be many sources of the notion that canonical vocations are about pride or a lack of humility. Consider, however, that if God calls some to be diocesan hermits under c 603, it is also the case that acceptance of such a vocation might well be a wonderfully humbling experience. Surely it could be argued that God would intend any vocation to be a humbling (or humble-making) experience rooted in God's love for that person and those to whom they are called to minister in this specific way.  No? My own sense is that we tend to associate pride or arrogance with canonical standing because we often neglect to ask ourselves whether or not God calls anyone at all in this way. If a way of life represents a form of divine call, why should we assume that those who seek this specific form of life lack humility or that the way of life lacks sufficient "smallness" where another form of the vocation (non-canonical eremitical life, for instance) does not?

I participated in a couple of conversations this last couple of weeks on a list on "Hermit Vocations" --- a list apparently made up largely (but not exclusively) of self-designated hermits in the lay state. I was saddened to find the degree of judgment I did which is present regarding diocesan (c 603) hermits and the arrogance or pride they were thought to reveal simply in having sought (and been granted!) canonical standing. One opinion was that for those seeking standing in law under c 603 "was all about show" and concern with externals. It is seriously harmful to any form of eremitical life to paint them with such a cynically broad brush and I was surprised to find this response to be so immediate and, in some ways, pervasive. But, to be misunderstood is nothing new with eremitical vocations and I think the question of God's call is critical here: If canonical standing is something God wills for at least some hermits, then how can we automatically conclude that canonical standing and all it brings is something only the arrogant or prideful embrace? (By the way, please note that when folks criticize canonical hermits they tend only to criticize solitary canonical (or diocesan) hermits, not those living eremitical life in canonical communities. I wonder why that is?)

I am not certain what you are asking when you speak of advantages in making decisions in terms of "smallness", for instance, but I believe one's personal discernment can certainly benefit from being concerned with one's own personal and spiritual strengths and weaknesses and how the grace of God is working in the Church and one's own life to make the very best of these. If this means realizing that one sees diocesan eremitical life as lacking in "smallness" or "hiddenness", then it can certainly be of benefit to work through all of this with one's spiritual director. Similarly, if one is looking for a "higher" or "purer" form of eremitical life, perhaps one needs to spend some time working through this aim and all that motivates it. At the same time, if one is unable to see the real value in non-canonical eremitical life, the dignity and worth of such life, then one needs to work through whatever it is that causes one to see this form of eremitical life in this way. Whenever we get into competitive ways of seeing that accent "better", "superior" or "lower", "meaner", "purer," "less pure," etc, it is time to take real care regarding what is going on in our own hearts.

That said, it is important to also ask if there are ways each form of eremitical life challenges the other to greater authenticity. For instance, canonical standing calls hermits to understand that the eremitical vocation belongs to God and the Church, not to the individual. It calls hermits to find ways to embrace, live, and express the truth that eremitical life serves others from within the Church --- whether or not the vocation is technically an "ecclesial" vocation or not. Canonical standing emphasizes the place of mutual discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, and the necessity for regular spiritual direction and participation in the sacramental life of the church. It does not allow one to substitute license for genuine freedom. It stresses the need for a Rule, a vision of how one is to live the life and a commitment which binds in conscience and as well as in law, and which affirms what is foundational and what is not. Lay (non-canonical) eremitical life reminds hermits of the roots of eremitical vocations in the life of the Church, the profound prophetic character of hermit vocations as typified by the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and others throughout the history of the Western church. These two forms of solitary eremitical existence should be in conversation with one another, NOT in competition.

 There are temptations associated with each form of eremitical life. For instance, it is true that canonical standing can lead to the temptation to consider canonical hermits as "better" hermits than non-canonical hermits. This particular temptation needs to be assiduously eschewed and that may require one learning to see oneself merely as called to one valid form of eremitical life rather than another equally valid form. If one has a problem with pride, for example, then perhaps that is a good reason for one's diocese to require one to live as a hermit without the benefit of canonical standing until one appreciates the way God works in and through lay or non-canonical hermits. Even so, the conversations I have recently had remind me that non-canonical hermits can easily fall into the same trap -- that is, they can easily believe they are "better" hermits than canonical hermits because, for instance, they are more like the Desert Abbas and Ammas who did not have (and of course could not have had!!) canonical standing (institutional standing and support in law), or are (supposedly)  "smaller," or "more humble," or more "hidden."

But to get back to your questions and what I began this post with, namely, an understanding of humility, in all of this we need to recognize that real humility does not engage in such a competitive way of characterization and discourse. Real humility recognizes that both canonical and non-canonical eremitical life can be rooted in the call of God;  though they differ in their relative canonical rights and obligations, both have all the dignity and importance of true vocations of God and both can reveal the tremendous diversity and freedom of eremitical life.

Taking a Second Stab at the Previous Question: How I understand Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, I saw an exchange between you and another hermit on a list for hermits. (I am not one but I aspire to be.) He is non-canonical and you are canonical. Near the end of the discussion he said that you and he have completely different conceptions of hermit. I wondered what the differences are between his notion of a hermit and your own.]]

I wanted to take a second shot at this question because what I did not do was state my own notion of what a hermit is. Instead I compared canon 603 with Giustiniani's conception. Obviously, since I am a canon 603 hermit, and also a Camaldolese Oblate, I live according to the canon and it defines eremitical life for me --- though in a way influenced by Camaldolese spirituality and writers like Giustiniani. However, it is important to be clear about my own understanding of what several of the foundation elements of that canon actually mean. I've written about these for almost fourteen years here, so I will only give a summary in this post.

My own conception of the Christian hermit is a person living the truth that in Christ we are each authentic persons only to the extent we are grounded in and completed by God. We know this is true for every person without exception and we wish to live the truth of this in a way which witnesses as clearly and vividly as possible to the nature of authentic humanity from, in and with God in Christ in the power of the Spirit. God loves us with an eternal love and we know we and everyone is incomplete without that love. This is, perhaps, the most important reasons we live the silence of solitude and one of the reasons hermits have always resonated with the refrain "God Alone is Sufficient." This is also the reason we live lives of assiduous prayer and penance; in this way we open ourselves to allowing God to work in our lives, indeed in our very selves. as widely and profoundly as a human being can possibly do (and be).

Canon 603 also requires "stricter separation from the world,  "World" (cf Handbook for Canons 573-

746) is defined as all that is resistant to Christ, all that resists him, all that offers completion and meaning apart from him and the life in and of God he offers to everyone. It does not mean everything outside the hermitage door. It means everything in my heart which separates me from God. In this too hermits seek to be known by and come to know God alone. They honor and delight in God's creation. They sing its praises, love it with a chaste and compelling love, recognize its goodness and capacity to mediate the very presence of God, and in all the ways appropriate and possible for one living witness to the message that God Alone is Sufficient for us, they will serve it by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ --- with our lives and solitude, and (if we are called to it) in other, limited ways as well so long as they do not contradict the essential solitariness of our lives.

Canon 603 is an ecclesial vocation. This means the church is the immediate context for this life, not only as it is for any lay person in the church, but in the sense that the Church herself has discerned this vocation, mediated God's own call to the hermit, admitted her to profession and consecration, and commissioned her to live eremitical life in the name of the church. The hermit's solitude is always a unique form of community. She never is an individualist nor does she live in isolation, but always constrained to some extent by the rights, obligations, and appropriate expectations of those faithful who look to her for some sign that God really is present and active in our lives, completing us and making those lives meaningful. And so she lives vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. She has superiors who serve her in the ministry of authority --- a ministry of love which helps assure she lives God's call as fully and faithfully as she is capable without threat from anyone who says the hermit life is nonsense and meaningless or insist she follow the crowd, accept their values facilely, and so forth. Instead, the limits and constraints associated with canonical standing constitute a paradoxical realm of profound freedom with and in God which the hermit is called to explore and live into more and more deeply every day of her life.

So, those are the essential ways I see the hermit life. I don't know how the person you first referred to envisions it, but this is the way I think resonates with Paul Giustiniani's vision of the life, and certainly reflects the Camaldolese ideal of the triple good: solitude, community, and evangelization or martyrdom. I hope this succeeds to do what my earlier post failed to do. God bless.

On the Correspondence Between Paul Giustiniani's Vision of Eremitical Life and The Central Elements of c 603

Dear Sister, I saw an exchange between you and another hermit on a list for hermits. (I am not one but I aspire to be.) He is non-canonical and you are canonical. Near the end of the discussion he said that you and he have completely different conceptions of hermit. I wondered what the differences are between his notion of a hermit and your own.]]

Thanks for the question. I can't say very much about his idea of eremitical life because I haven't seen him post much about it. He has cited the work of Merton's friend, Dom Jean LeClercq and his fine work,  Alone With God. I believe all of his ideas of hermit life come from there since he made a comment which contrasted other forms of eremitical life with that found in Alone With God.  The conception of the hermit in this book is Paul Giustiniani's, a Monte Corona Camaldolese founder and hermit who broke away from the original Camaldolese when he was driven to reform them. His eremitism as described by LeClercq, was constituted as a 1) pure contemplative, 2) living in solitude and pure poverty or simplicity, 3) living in and with God in Christ and aiming for total union with God. One other thing which might be said to contextualize or provide a framework for all of these, and constitute a fourth element is what Paul Giustiniani  describes as 4) the "role of the hermit in the church." This is really critical because how ever we approach those first three elements above, insofar as we are Christian hermits, we must do so within the Church and on behalf of the Church. It is also here in relation to this last element, that, in reflecting on the eremitical vocation and other vocations in the church, Giustiniani perceives the importance of diversity within unity.

In other words, Giustiniani's vision opens up a strong notion of the hermit whose solitude is marked and framed by community with and within the whole church in Christ, including what we would call today, "A preferential option for the poor" and all the necessary conditions of a life of the silence of solitude in order to grow in communion with Christ to the point of union. The ecclesial framework of eremitical life was very important to Giustiniani. So are states of life which allow for differing expressions of the eremitic life. Giustiniani accepts that the religious (we would also say consecrated) state is far safer for living a good eremitical life. This is so because it allows for  Rule and legitimate superior who can exercise the ministry of authority. Generally speaking, that is my understanding of Giustiniani's view of eremitical life.

Dom Robert Hale, OSB Cam

Now, I don't know this for certain but it seems to me the authors and consultants on c 603 drew in major ways from Alone with God and the concerns and observations of Paul Giustiniani when they created this first-ever universal (canonical) way for solitary hermits to become the kind of hermits Giustiniani always desired. Canon 603, the canon by which my own eremitic life is lived sounds to me very like what Giustiniani considered essential for good hermits on their way to union with God in Christ; it includes: 1) stricter separation from the world, 2 assiduous prayer and penance, 3) the silence of solitude, 4) the evangelical councils embraced by vow or other sacred bond, all 5) lived according to the Rule the hermit writes for herself and all lived 6) under the supervision of the diocesan bishop (who exercises the ministry of authority for the hermit).  The two approaches to eremitic life seem very similar to me, so I can't understand how the person you referred to might have affirmed he and I each hold completely different conceptions of what a hermit is. If he doesn't hold Giustiniani's view of ecclesial import and the place of obedience and legitimate superiors, then he has not said that. At the same time, he does seem to hold some antipathy towards institutionalization and considers it antithetical to eremitical life -- so in that he may differ from both Giustiniani and myself depending on what is meant by "institutionalization."

This is very general and was merely meant to describe Giustiniani's view of eremitical  life and the way it largely corresponds to canon 603. Please ask for clarifications if there are things you want me to go into in more detail. I am actually pretty excited to reread Alone With God and to consider where I am in my life in comparison to what Paul Giustiniani describes and even requires, so I will post more on this comparison I think. It's a great subject and if you have more questions, it could be helpful because they would fit right in. Again, thanks for the question!

Image of a Transfigured Victimhood: On the Paradox of Victimhood Seen in Light of the Christ Event

 I received a Comment and Question from a friend last night. It's an important topic and I wanted to share some of my response here. I have made changes in the text to make the conversation more general, less specific to a particular person or persons. [[Dear Laurel, Today we dealt with the question: Have I ever been a victim?  Loaded word, that.  I know there are some who view Jesus as a victim, but I have often found that characterization repugnant. What is your sense of things here?]]

Sister, in doing theology I have long seen that in approaching Christian truths there will be paradox. There will and must ALWAYS be paradox. I have often found when struggling with this theological position or that and trying to understand why it falls short that most of the time it is because I have not located or articulated the paradox involved. For instance, how do we adequately emphasize the humanity of Jesus without diminishing his divinity? How do we emphasize his divinity without sacrificing his humanity? The answer here is less a doctrine of “two natures” or some kind of divine arithmetic re natures and persons than it is a paradox.  Namely: To the extent Jesus is truly human he reveals (mediates, makes real in space and time) the power and presence of God. Jesus is truly human to the extent he is transparent to God. And to the extent he is entirely transparent to God he is seen as himself at once human and divine. In some ways, this is precisely what we are each called to. And it is why the Eastern Church especially speaks in terms of theosis or divinization. Wherever there is authentic humanity there is the face/power/presence of God. It is what we mean when we speak of living/praying/working in the Name of God.

Regarding Jesus as victim, I think you have to see that as part of a whole host of related paradoxes; for instance: only to the extent Jesus was a victim, embraced victimhood freely in integrity, and remained open to God does he embody freedom. Only to the extent Jesus was a victim, are we enabled to see the power and reach of God’s empowering presence and love. Only to the extent Jesus becomes subject to the powers of this world, and does so obediently (openly) can the God he reveals (makes known and makes real in space and time) truly become victorious over those powers. And so forth.

There is shame in the incarnation and that deepens incredibly on the cross. I know you are aware of theological writers today who talk about God’s redemption of shame. Jesus’ victimhood was one of the most repugnant aspects of the cross, one of the things that spoke most profoundly of abject powerlessness and godlessness; it was this that proved to the Jewish leadership that he could not be God’s Messiah --- one expected to reveal (make real in space and time) God’s sovereign power. It is probably really good that you feel repugnance for this dimension of the passion because it means you have not “domesticated” the cross. It is a reason too to listen to Paul in this:[[ God chose the things despised by the world, things counted as nothing, and used them to bring to nothing all the world considers important.]] Or (better), [[God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.]] 1 Cor 1:28

Victimhood is the epitome of being stripped and emptied --- but it is the “sinful” expression of this kind of emptying, the precise opposite of the kenosis we seek as disciples. It means the loss of dignity and even of selfhood. You and I both know how real and terrible victimization can be and victimhood is. But that is only one side of the paradox and it must be pressed to its extreme if we are going to understand the depth of the other side of the paradox. And, at least as I understand it, the other side of the paradox is that in the depth of the loss/emptiness caused by victimization and reflected in the wounds of victimhood is, IN CHRIST, a love which gives one a self, calls one by name, confers and  absolutely delights in one’s dignity and freedom, and gifts one with almost infinite potential. . . The bottom line on the cross is that we now know we can find God (or, better perhaps, be found BY God) in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. In Christ God precedes and accompanies us there. It is this other side of the paradox which transforms the distorted, sinful stripping and emptying into fruitful kenosis as well, I think.

So Sister, feel the repugnance. Identify what causes it. Feel it deeply. It gets you in touch with something truly shameful in the Christ Event (and shameful not just in terms of real victimhood but also the culture of victimhood which so denies grace and trivializes real victimhood), but do it as part of your appreciation of a paradox: In victimhood, Jesus reveals a God who knows and redeems that reality as well. In the shamefulness and shame of victimization and victimhood, Jesus reveals the nature of genuine freedom and the source of all authentic selfhood and it is a God who meets us in the unexpected and unacceptable place. Thanks be to God! (I would note for those who simply believe themselves to be victims, this would call them to greater courage and to adopt a new way of seeing themselves, a new way of being.)

Very sorry for all the preaching!! Many whom you or I work with have been (and in some ways still are) victims themselves (i.e., they have been and still are wounded in significant ways by victimization), but they are that while on the way to theonomy (being a self where God is sovereign is much better than autonomy –  being a law to/unto oneself!) and thus, to the authentic personhood/selfhood that is the gift of God and the result of their own responsiveness in Christ/the Spirit. That could never have happened had Jesus not known their own suffering in its depths and emptiness and still remained open (obedient) to God and from that, empowered them to do the same. In my work, I can see their shame and the destruction it occasioned, but also the new possibility in that cross and (its transfigured) victimhood. I am very clear that this theology doesn’t "work" unless the paradox is seen, held, and radicalized as much as possible! Maybe naming the paradox is helpful: Jesus is not a victim; He is the image of transfigured victimhood --- another way to say God-With-Us.

On White Rabits, Cheshire Cats, and Losing and Finding Our Way

A friend gave me something to reflect on or use for prayer until we can talk about it later this morning (when she will let me know the context of the quote with regard to her Franciscan Congregation). Specifically, Sister Susan wondered what rose up in me as I considered something from the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland. You may remember that Alice asks what road she should take and as part of his response the Cheshire Cat says, "If you don't know where you are going, any road can take you there." It was an interesting exercise and I had fun doing it. I had not expected such a simple thing to lay bare my own heart in quite the way it did, nor did I think my response would be autobiographical, but it was. Here's my initial response:

[[My primary reaction to this aligns with the sense that if one doesn’t know where one is going, one is apt to find oneself lost with all roads leading nowhere at all. For instance, I think in terms of becoming the person I am called to be, of fulfilling the vocation which serves this purpose best, or looking to Christ as a roadmap of what my own journey is meant to be or the narrative template of the way my own story is to be shaped. In all of this my primary reaction involves the same constellation of thoughts and feelings that occur with the observation, “It is possible to be so open-minded one’s brains fall out!” Foolishness! Waste! We need some limits, norms, goals, and certainties to proceed intelligently. Without them we are lost!

And yet, another voice, quieter, gentler maybe, but no less insistent, reminds me that there can be blindness and crippling rigidity in this approach. I recognize the times in my life I have taken roads with no sense or assurance of where they would lead me. I thought they could be helpful; I thought perhaps they would shape me in important ways; I thought I would come, in time, to recognize what they really offered me, and I hoped that I was at least a little right! And all along these roads I found incredible gifts and grace at every turn. They always felt like they held exactly what God wanted for me and there could not have been a better road --- even when they included obstacles, injuries, mishaps and apparent dead ends.

It is this second voice that reminds me, “It is the journey that matters” --- not because destination is unimportant, but because the one I am called to be is precisely one who is capable of recognizing and journeying in light of the grace that pervades everything all along the way. That IS the destination. That is “the WAY” that Christ was and revealed, the WAY of being truly human he showed us and made real in space and time! Part of me still grieves that I missed "this" particular road or "that" specific landmark or “achievement”; part of me mourns the journey I would like to have made once upon a time. (That first voice in me is quite strong and still learning to see in this new way!) But in the main I recognize the deep (and non-cynical) wisdom of the Cheshire Cat’s observation because I now know God is present on every road and I understand that learning to make the journey with and in God is what the real destination actually is and always was.]]

After sitting with what rose up in me yesterday, I know that these two voices within me need not be in conflict with one another. This is not an argument between two irreconcilable parts of myself, but a dialogue leading to greater personal integration and holiness/wholeness. One voice provides a certain and necessary kind of strength and vision which, without the gentleness and openness of the second voice, can also be blind and lacking in flexibility; it may even be shattered by circumstances. The norms, goals, and "destination" so important to the insightful wisdom of first voice don't go away by attending to the observations and lived wisdom of the second voice. Instead, they are enfleshed and made richer than I ever could have imagined they might really be. I need the first voice. It gives continuity and focus to my journey, but the second is equally necessary: it opens me to newness and mystery beyond my limited ken; it transforms my journey into a pilgrimage -- the very Life I was called to in the first place and certainly the life of a hermit.

I do suggest you try this little exercise yourself. [[What rises up in you as you listen to the Cheshire Cat's observation: "If you don't know where you are going, any road can take you there."?]]

Follow Up Question:

[[Dear Sister, I was wondering what this exercise had to do with Sister's congregation. You never explained that. Would you mind?]]

No, I don't think that is a problem. Sister Susan's congregation has both Sisters and Associates whose task it is to help the congregation as a whole live their charism between Chapters (Affairs and Elections). These persons fill the role known as "Charism Animators". The province meets regularly and recently that has meant that everyone is learning to use ZOOM in order to do this effectively. As part of their last meeting, the quote from the Cheshire Cat was used to provide both a focus for meeting in smaller and larger groups and a completely non-threatening way of exploring actual content as well. I noted I had not anticipated this exercise revealing so much of my own story and personality and I believe that other Sisters participating in their own exercise found the same to be true. 

Common Reasons Dioceses Decline to Profess Candidates Under Canon 603 (Reprise)

[[ Dear Sister, what are some of the reasons a diocese would decide not to profess someone as a diocesan (c 603) hermit? What happens if the hermit disagrees with the decision?]]

I am reposting an answer I put up about eight years ago. I think it will answer your question in an initial way. If it is insufficient or raises more questions please just let me know and I will follow up. That is especially possible with regard to what to do when one disagrees with the decision a diocese makes because I have posted several times on this topic.

[[Dear Sister, I don't think you took into consider-ation the very real possibility that those "discerning" a person's vocation may have let personal prejudice creep into their ultimate decision. If a lay person who has lived their vocation as a lay hermit as long as the writer has, is rejected, I have to question whether they really ever wanted to conclude in favor of the petitioner in the first place. Sometimes it is not the person's deficiency; sometimes it is a problem with people disliking the person under scrutiny. Your advice could be very healing for such a terrible moment in a person's life.]]

Many thanks for your comments. I admit I have not run into such a situation myself, and though I agree it is possible, I honestly don't think it is all that common. However, let me discuss it directly after I mention some of the more common reasons lay hermits (or those calling themselves lay hermits) are denied admittance to canonical profession/consecration. I think this will help demonstrate what in most cases is far more often apt to be at work than simple prejudice. (Let me be very clear, none of these examples should be assumed to apply to the original poster's situation!! Neither do any of these necessarily make the very real difficulty of diocesan denial of one's petition any easier to bear.)

The Problem of Self-Identification

First of all, generally speaking, the problem with lay hermit vocations is the IF in your conditional sentence, "If a lay hermit has lived this vocation. . .for such a length of time. . .". This is, unfortunately, a VERY big IF. One problem with self-designations is that one can call oneself a lay hermit without any checks or balances and be something other than what the church recognizes as a hermit, lay or otherwise. Obviously, this can come from many causes -- including a simple lack of adequate spiritual direction or other challenging feedback, and a lack of access to others who can educate one regarding the meaning of terms like "silence", "solitude", "the silence of solitude", "the world", "stricter separation from the world", etc. 

But whatever the reason, self-identification is a problematic practice and may or may not represent the truth of the situation. One of the reasons I have written recently about the hyperindividualism and even narcissism of our culture is to indicate that this is a real danger in discerning true eremitical vocations. One of the reasons I have distinguished between just living a pious life alone and living eremitical solitude is because this is true. Not everything that goes by the name "hermit" is authentic. (Remember the story I posted here re Tom Leppard?) Sometimes the application of the term "hermit" is a way of trying to validate isolationism, misanthropy, narcissism, social failure, as well as a piety which is more than nominal Christians live, but which falls far short of the eremitical life required and marked by canon 603. Unfortunately, such reasons are not uncommon.

In such cases, these people are not truly hermits. The designation "hermit" is self-assumed and neither the church nor society approves nor monitors the way they live their lives nor calls them directly to do a better job of it! Private vows are significant personal commitments but they are private in every way. Neither the church nor the persons witnessing such vows have a role in supervising these commitments to see how well the person is living them. Thus, there is simply no way to easily verify 1) if the person lives what Canon 603 describes as essential to the eremitical life, nor 2) what the designation "hermit" really means on a daily, year in -- year out, basis. While some have contempt for the legal aspects of canonical standing, accountability is a big piece of standing in law and the church tends to make publicly accountable those who demonstrate they have been faithful to and accountable for a genuinely generous eremitical vocation without canonical standing. Unfortunately, when dealing with non canonical hermits, sometimes the diocese in question simply cannot establish this to their own satisfaction.

Making the Transition to Hermit Life

Others not only do not live, but do not even want to live an eremitical life; they simply want to be able to wear religious garb and be called "Sister" or "Brother"; canon 603 seems the easiest way to do that as a lone person. (For every person who genuinely wants to live a canonical eremitical life, there are dozens who approach canon 603 as a stopgap measure only.) Such persons typically never make the kinds of breaks with their former way of life which are necessary to eremitical life. When I speak of people living pious lives alone rather than living an eremitical silence of solitude I sometimes am referring to these kinds of people. Some watch several hours of TV a day (or participate similarly in some other personal activity or hobby (even those with significantly more value than TV) in ways which make these the defining activities of their lives) while they add in an hour of prayer here or there, and so forth; the basic approach here means that the radical break with the world (especially as it is represented in their very selves and living space) is not made. Such persons may even be fine writers, artists, etc, but this does not of itself make them hermits in the church's sense of that term.

Tweaking one's prayer and penitential life here or there is not what is called for. Stricter separation from the world (that which is resistant to Christ and not yet under his sovereignty), as I have said a number of times, does not mean merely closing the hermitage door on the world outside oneself while one continues the life one lived before. I recall my former Bishop in his homily at my perpetual profession referring to my giving over of my living space to this call. At the time I had not thought of what I was doing in these terms, but he was exactly right. The giving over he was speaking of represents part of the "stricter separation from the world" the canon calls for. While such persons are perhaps learning to live as lay hermits they are not, or at least are not YET, good candidates for canon 603 profession. If the motivation and effort to move beyond such lives into real eremitical silence and solitude, assiduous prayer and penance is not evident, then a diocese may simply be dealing with a person who wants a diocese to rubber stamp a lone, perhaps pious, but non-eremitical life and give them the permission they desire to dress and style themselves as religious. In such cases dioceses will rightly decline admission to profession/consecration.

Simply not Called to Public Profession

Beyond this, there are people who MAY indeed have lived faithfully as lay hermits for some period of time who are simply not equipped to represent the eremitical tradition in some public or normative way. While one would never want to deprive them of the designation lay hermit (something they are free to explore and live or at least try to live by virtue of their baptism -- and which itself is a source of our eremitical tradition), neither would one be able in good conscience to admit them to public vows. In one case I am aware of, for instance, a lay hermit regularly and publicly expresses contempt for canon 603 and all he mistakenly feels it stands for. While he is willing to "turn in (his) paper work" occasionally to see if his Bishop "desires to have (him) professed", it is his stated feeling that canon 603 is actually a betrayal of the church's eremitical tradition. This person has been denied admittance to public profession once or twice in the past and, it seems very likely to me, this had nothing to do with simple personal prejudice on the part of those discerning these vocations for the diocese.

Some are not good candidates for consecration and public vows for different reasons: Perhaps they are seriously mentally ill or significantly personality disordered; perhaps their theology is so off-the-wall, or the "rule" by which they live so inadequate and eccentric that canonical standing (which makes of the Rule a quasi-public document via Bishop's decree) would set a precedent which is detrimental to the vocation generally and may cause problems for other dioceses dealing with similar situations and persons. Some lay hermits have notions of obedience which are far from those more healthy ones used today in the contemporary church with regard to public vows; they require permission for even the smallest decision or change in daily living, and show a concerning lack of autonomy in their capacity for discerning and implementing God's will. One person has joked that they suspect these persons would put their Bishops on speed dial if they allowed it! For such persons, admission to vows and the legitimate superior-subject relationship with one's Bishop and/or delegate which this establishes can be truly detrimental for the person and for the c 603 vocation. At the very least it does not represent the mature obedience of vowed life.

Physical Incapacity

In the absence of such difficulties there are persons who are simply physically incapable of living the life outlined in canon 603. Certainly one does not have to be completely well and one could well be a hermit with chronic illness and conceivably even a caregiver, but one does need to be able to live a disciplined life of assiduous prayer, penance and eremitical solitude without turning, for instance, to hours of various distractions from the symptoms of one's illness.

While it is personally difficult for me to suggest that some persons' illnesses apparently prevent them from living an eremitical life, it does happen. In my experience, sometimes physical illness can be a dominating reality to such an extent that one is unable to live an eremitical life effectively. This can certainly change, but what I am suggesting is that so long as illness is the defining (not just an important and influential) reality in one's life, one may not be ready to live canon 603 life. In such a case it would be important to clarify with the diocese that they will look at one's petition down the line should the nature of illness change. (Note well, I am not suggesting that the illness itself needs to change or be healed but that the way one lives with this illness has to do so if that is possible. In some way God and all of the fruits which life with God produces --- including the silence of solitude and the other-centered, generosity and compassion that result from it --- must become the defining realities of one's life, not one's illness. Ordinarily this occurs in some essential way during the period of lay eremitism one lives before petitioning the diocese for admission to profession but there must be signs of it happening before one is admitted to vows and it should be very clearly established by the time of perpetual vows.)

Steps usually taken in the process of discernment of canon 603 vocations which help insure the wisdom and objectivity of the process.

To be honest I think these cases are far more prevalent than instances of unfounded or merely personal bias on the part of diocesan personnel. With regard to the way discernment of eremitical vocations is carried out in dioceses I am familiar with, here are some of the steps usually involved: 1) a more or less loosely supervised period as a lay hermit with regular spiritual direction, involvement in a parish, and (later on in this period) regular meetings (including home visits) with the Vicar for Religious or Consecrated Life; 2) psychological screening when this seems prudent or helpful (occasionally dioceses do this routinely for c 603 aspirants, just as congregations do for their own aspirants), 3) time for the writing of a Plan of Life or Rule based on lived experience of eremitical life and preparation for living the vows, 4) submission of the Rule to canonists (usually third parties outside the diocese, especially those who specialize in c 603 or consecrated life) who will critique and make suggestions for such a document, 5) assembling of various recommendations (pastors, spiritual directors, physicians, psychologists, former Vicars of Religious, or others who have dealt with the individual), 6) usually concurrent assembling documents of Sacramental history in the Church including the Sacrament of matrimony and decrees of nullity, 7) a period of discernment beyond all of these perhaps leading to a recommendation to the Bishop to admit to profession, 8) a personal meeting with the Bishop who (in my own experience) only then reads all that has been submitted, whether by the petitioner or others, meets with the aspirant several more times, and does his own separate and final discernment in the matter.

I should note that a person's admission to temporary profession is actually a continuation of the discernment process, though this occurs in a different way. Still, temporary vows are made for a certain period of time and during this time the hermit will meet with her Bishop, regularly with her delegate, and regularly with her spiritual director; she will petition for renewal of vows or admission to perpetual profession near the end of this period and another process of decision making rooted in discernment will occur at the diocesan level. Changes in the Rule may be needed, and this again may be submitted to canonists for approval. Another period of temporary profession may be requested of the hermit by her diocese. Discernment --- so far as the diocese is concerned --- ceases only with perpetual profession.

What Should a Person do if they are still convinced they are the victim of prejudice in the diocese's decision?

But what should a person do if they are convinced that they cannot get a fair hearing from diocesan personnel? This is a tough question actually. The first thing, however, is to ask to speak to whoever has been dealing with one's petition directly. Ask the same kinds of questions I have already noted in earlier posts. See if there is anything which could cause a change in one's opinion in this matter. Ask if there is any single document or recommendation which is the sticking point and speak again to that person --- open to having them be honest with you --- hard as that might be. If the Bishop has not yet received the case (or has not received a positive recommendation) write him a direct letter and lay your concerns and perception of the situation before him. If the Bishop is the source of the negative evaluation then still try to see him for a clarifying conversation. This could be one of those rare situations where someone should consider moving to a new diocese and trying again --- but one should contact the new diocese beforehand to see if they would look over your documents and consider ANY petition to be professed under canon 603.

Another reader made an additional suggestion which could be helpful for both the individual and diocese. They suggested that a "come and see" period at a contemplative house or monastery might be helpful in clarifying issues and concerns. This could provide a more objective source of discernment for either the diocese or the individual. I don't know how common are houses which would participate in such a project, and certainly some individuals would not be able to leave their homes to try such an extended (say, a month  or two long) period, but for those able to do so, this could really be helpful. The community would need to be willing not only to welcome the candidate into their daily lives, but also assist in their acclimation and (in the person of their superior or formation director) meet with both the candidate and the diocese to frankly assess the experience. This could either be affirming for the individual and reassuring for the diocese in ways which allow it to adjust its thinking, or it could confirm all of the reservations the diocese has already.

I have personally suggested such periods are important for candidates for canon 603 profession given our culture which shuns solitude and is allergic to silence. We have candidates who think that silence is turning off one's iPod while leaving the TV on (an exaggeration in most cases, but a good illustration of the general problem nonetheless)! In such cases an extended period in a monastic community where one meets true silence --- as well as the solidarity of love in solitude and what canon 603 calls the silence of solitude --- lived by a number of healthy people is extremely helpful. However, I had not thought about these other aspects before. I am grateful to the reader who wrote me about this.

My experience is that generally diocesan personnel work very hard at discerning such vocations. They serve the church and those in positions dealing with discernment are usually pretty savvy in their regard. They are ordinarily good enough at their jobs and their people skills not to fall into the trap of rejecting an individual vocation out of mere prejudice (rejecting the eremitical vocation itself is a little more common unfortunately). Of course this does not mean it cannot and does not happen --- only that in my estimation it is far less prevalent than other common causes of refusal of admission to public profession and consecration.