Questions on Writing a Rule of Life: Why Demand a Longer Process?

[[Dear Sister, you wrote that only after a person has lived eremitical solitude for several years should a diocese ask them to write a Rule. Are you trying to draw out the process? Why can't a person write a Rule before they even approach the diocese and then turn up there Rule in hand as they make their petition for profession? Surely it can't be all that difficult to write a Rule for hermit life. I think you are trying to make this more difficult than it needs to be and I have never heard of a diocese asking a person to wait for years before writing a Rule. Usually it is the first thing they look for! Do you think you know more than dioceses do in this matter? Hardly very humble for a "consecrated hermit" is it?]]

Yes, I wrote that just recently and I have done so from time to time over the past fourteen years as well. There are always exceptions of course, but generally speaking, most people showing up seeking to be professed as diocesan hermits have never lived in the silence of eremitical solitude at all much less for an extended period of time. If you were to engage them in a conversation on canon 603, its central elements, history, or the vows it calls for, you would find they knew little if anything about these. If you asked them to describe the vision of life they live by few would be able to articulate this, and if you asked how it is they structure their lives in light of their life in and with Christ, the response you would get is a far cry from what eremitical life looks like.

In those I have been in touch with, it has seemed to me that a number of them are expecting the diocese to accept them as candidates in some sort of hermit formation program and to profess them at the end of two or three years after they have simplified their lives a bit, been kitted out in a habit, and read a few books about prayer, desert spirituality, and the vows (maybe!)!  In truth, those who are serious about eremitical life are at the beginning of a long journey, a life-long journey, in fact, which will change them to their roots -- just as it will reveal God to them in ways they could never have imagined. It is only as a person has lived this journey for some time, and have begun to glean a vision of what its shape and substance will be, that they will be able to write a liveable Rule of life.

Yesterday I "met" via ZOOM with a diocesan hermit who is making her solemn/perpetual profession on the 22. Aug. (Feast of the Queenship of Mary) I don't think she will mind my sharing this story here. You see, it has been my privilege to accompany her over the past several years --- first, as she considered what this call might mean for someone living solemn vows as a monastic for 34 years, and then, as she went through the process of exclaustration and began her formation as a solitary hermit with an ecclesial vocation. This was our very first ZOOM conversation so it was wonderful to actually see each other. (It is amazing what the light in another's eyes adds to a conversation!) One of the things we talked about briefly was the content of the Bishop's Decree of Approval, Rule of Life because hers reads a bit differently than mine does. But we did that after a bit of laughter-filled reminiscing when she asked me, "Do you remember what my first Rule of Life was like?" (I did!) . . . Do you know, there were seven drafts??!" (I did not!!) She also reminded me what my advice was after the first draft: "Set it aside [and live your life]." All of this is instructive in one way and another --- not only because of the struggle and growth it points to, but also because of a shared joy and humor at the way the Holy Spirit had worked with our limitations in all of this.

Consider Sister's experience of cloistered religious ( i.e., monastic!) life, of the vows, and of living according to a Rule and constitutions. She had served in leadership in her congregation and been a novice directress. She had felt the tug of a call to greater solitude and had to move against the tide of community life (which she loved deeply) to honor that call. And she was tested in this. And yet, it took her seven drafts to negotiate the gradual transformation from cenobite to semi-eremite and finally, from eremite to diocesan eremite  (not that all of these are experienced as entirely discrete stages), 2) who God is in her life, 3) an expression of eremitical life which is at once traditional and contemporary, and which, 4) she can truly live in the name of the Church. Those seven drafts were the record of her initial formation as a hermit. But they were much more than that. They were also the workbooks in which she claimed and articulated that formation for herself and the church in a way which aided discernment and perhaps will have served (or will serve in the future) in instructing others regarding what such a process of becoming a solitary hermit looks like when it is well (faithfully) done; (the approved Rule becomes a quasi-public document marking another hermit's assumption of a vital place in the church's eremitical tradition); moreover, these drafts were guidebooks on the way which, besides marking the landmarks of her formative journey, helped inspire that formation.

So, no, I do not suggest that dioceses have people live as hermits for a few years before asking them to write a Rule in order to draw out the process or set arbitrary obstacles for the person. The process is an organic one which takes work, and prayer, and time --- significant periods of time. Dioceses that ask someone to write a rule as soon as they believe the person  might  be a suitable candidate for profession does this person no kindness. Instead they can be setting the person up for failure. Using the gradual crafting of a liveable Rule as a guide to discernment and assistance in formation simply makes good sense and takes advantage of what the process demands anyway. In any case, I suggested what I did because I want to see people succeed in what is already a demanding process.  I want the Holy Spirit to be given a chance to work in all the ways She needs to work. My own writing of my Rule was, until the past four years of intensive inner work, the most formative experience of my life. I very much want others to have a similarly rich and fruitful experience if that is the will of God --- and yes, I absolutely want to educate dioceses on the way the requirement that a hermit write her own Rule can be allowed to be a grace for all involved!!!

Do I think I know more than dioceses do in this matter? Yes, generally speaking, I believe I do. I have learned from my own crafting of a Rule and I have sometimes mentored others. Thus, I did not impose a set process on anyone, but I urged them to allow the Rule to take shape as their own eremitical lives and corresponding vision did. Those who were able to entrust themselves to the potter's hands over what was typically a several year period, evidenced a similar process to my own. We each made the journey and allowed the journey to shape the Rule just as we allowed the portions of the Rule we had composed (and therefore, canon 603 itself) to further shape and define our journeys/lives. This is not arrogance. It is humility -- a loving honesty learned by trusting the Holy Spirit and the call we each heard or discerned in the other, a humility meant to assist dioceses and those faced with the prospect of writing a Rule of life despite never even having read, much less lived according to a Rule! (My friend was very far ahead of the game in this regard and yet, her own growth and inspired vision took time to form and more time to come to expression in a liveable Rule!!!)

I know that this requirement of canon 603 is the most concrete-sounding element of canon 603, and the most easily pinned down by a diocese with little experience or sense of how to proceed in this matter. But it is not one someone without experience living solitary eremitical life can accomplish --- nor should they be asked to try, especially without mentoring. A Rule is a tool, but it can become a precious friend --- if I may speak this way --- for the Rule accompanies us, supports, challenges, inspires, guides, instructs us, and protects our vocation. It is a window for the Holy Spirit, a living document which breathes with the life of the hermit, her Abba, and her Lord and Spouse. It (and certainly the crafting or weaving of such a sacred text [from the Latin texere, to weave]) should be allowed to function in all the ways such a process can function. This will serve the hermit, the diocesan staff who work with her, the Church universal who promulgated canon 603, and the eremitical tradition entrusted to all of these.

On Time Frames in Discerning and Forming Solitary Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sr Laurel, your post on chronic illness stressed the mutual nature of the discernment process between the diocese and candidate for canon 603 profession. You said something about time frames not being fixed under Canon 603. What did you mean here?.... Then can dioceses take as long as they want in making a decision about admitting someone to profession? How about the candidates, can they draw out the process as long as they want? (I don't mean there's any sneaky motives going on here. I hope you understand my meaning.) . . .What is a reasonable time frame and does this differ with someone with a chronic illness or disability than with someone who is entirely well?]]

Thanks for the follow up. With religious life canon law specifies the amount of time given to candidacy (a formal period in initial formation unlike the way I use the term with regard to c 603), novitiate, temporary profession, and the outside limits beyond which one must either be perpetually (or solemnly) professed or dismissed from the institute. Because of the nature of formation in community and the degree of oversight and direct supervision involved, these time frames are pretty well fixed and well-recognized as prudent and also as charitable. The eremitical life differs both in kind and in the nature of its formation and degree of oversight and direct supervision allowed. As a result the time frames for discernment and formation mainly do and must also differ. While it is possible to read even very current works by canonists today who affirm that one can simply borrow the canonical regulations for life-in-community and apply them without customization to eremitical life, such an application is naïve at best and dangerously destructive at worst. Eremitical life is neither discerned nor formed in the same way cenobitical life is; to expect it to conform to the same temporal parameters is wrong-headed.

I believe this is especially true when one is trying to discern and evaluate the vocation, formation, and even readiness for profession of the chronically ill or disabled hermit precisely because one must take the time to distinguish between isolation and solitude, and also, even within this distinction, one must understand the various kinds of isolation and solitude which may be (and are likely) involved. Chronic illness always isolates in varying ways and to varying degrees. Some of these are pathological; some are not. Some may predispose to eremitical solitude, some to temporary or transitional solitude; some speak clearly of personal disintegration or decompensation while for some this very decompensation occurs as part of a radical conversion process involving self-emptying and if given appropriate spiritual direction and support in accepting the grace of God, eventual healing and reintegration of the person's core identity. But this type of process is messy and time-consuming. It does not fit in the neat canonical boxes associated with socialization and formation in community of someone in fine physical health.

Moreover, the process being discerned is about hidden dynamics because it occurs in the silence of solitude. One must look specifically for the grace of God at work in this person's life and that means looking for the paradoxical presence of grace --- wholeness revealed in brokenness, power in weakness, strength in helplessness, and independence in dependence, for instance. One must learn to look for the Life of God within the imperfect life of one whom those in non-eremitical religious life (life in community) might well reject as "unsuitable". This takes time, courage, imagination, and a well-tempered faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the hiddenness of the eremitical life. The authors did not merely mean it all happens alone (with God) behind closed doors --- though of course it mainly does this; they knew that the real fruit and processes of eremitical life (and thus, of eremitical formation and discernment) have to do with the processes of the human heart being redeemed and transfigured (made whole and holy) by the invisible God within the context of silence and personal solitude in an intimate relationship which is mainly invisible and ineffable.

Imagine this!! Read the sentence ending in "ineffable" again! THIS IS what hermits witness to. THIS is the Gospel they proclaim with their lives and very much less so with any limited ministry they may also do. Assessing this is the key to discerning an eremitical life so it is no wonder some dioceses eschew accepting anyone for a process of mutual discernment leading to admission to canonical commitment. On the other hand maybe this is better than what often happens: it is scandalous, I think, that dioceses demand hermits live this kind of hiddenness while also expecting to discern or form such vocations on the basis of criteria culled from canon law geared to the dynamics of active religious lives which are mainly not particularly hidden.

In the Letter to the Hebrews we read that Abraham trusted the promises, no matter how unbelievable they seemed, because the One who made them was trustworthy. Vicars for Religious must be open to trusting that God is at work in the individuals that come to them and allow him the time to do the kinds of miracles only he can do. After all, God is the trustworthy one here, not the time frames culled from centuries of dealing with cenobitical religious formation. Of course this also leads directly to your questions about reasonable time frames and the drawing out of processes of discernment and formation. If the usual parameters (6-12 months candidacy, 1 year pastoral novitiate and 1 year canonical novitiate, followed by temporary profession for no more than 6 years and then perpetual profession and consecration) don't work well for hermits (and especially those who are chronically ill), then what time frames are reasonable and how does one proceed in truly discerning what is happening with the hermit's formation or growth? Is canon 603 itself helpful here or, if other canonical requirements are not helpful, are we left with nothing at all to go on?

While canon 603 does not specify time frames for discernment and formation leading to profession and consecration in the ways Canon Law does for cenobitical vocations, I believe canon 603 includes the key to both quality and flexibility here in its reference to a Rule of Life the hermit will write herself. It takes time and genuine formation in the eremitical life to be able to write a liveable Rule which is authentically eremitical and faithful to one's experience of God in the silence of solitude. This is because such a Rule involves not just a statement of ways one will live the central elements of canon 603, but also relies on and articulates the hermit's own sense of the vision and spirit which drives such a life in the 21st century. 

Thus, it is also possible to use the Rule a hermit writes (and conversations about the process of writing such a Rule) as a key to discerning the quality of the vocation standing before the diocese with a petition for profession and consecration. For this reason, after a hermit has lived eremitical solitude for several years I have proposed that only then do dioceses ask the hermit to begin constructing a liveable and normative Rule. They will then allow for the project to take several years (this is much more likely than not)! Subsequently, diocesan staff may meet with the hermit and discuss the project a couple of times a year or so to help with matters of both discernment and formation, using the Rule in its various incarnations (expect several!!) to help determine readiness for profession and consecration. Remember, the task is to write a liveable Rule rooted in the hermit's experience of the solitary eremitical life, not simply to churn out a list of do’s and don’ts

In this way, the discernment and formation process can be individually tailored and freed from the arbitrary constraints of cenobitical canonical time frames. I believe this would be particularly workable for solitary hermits, but especially for those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Time frames would not be extended arbitrarily nor shortened in a similar way. (The period and process of discernment would need to show signs of ongoing growth in eremitical life and increasing readiness for a real and lifegiving commitment; so long as it does this the process allows for prudent patience.) Using the developing capacity to write a personal Rule in this way would mean that personnel discerning the vocation would have something objective to consider; moreover, conversations with candidates could be much more fruitful and free of bias (or the perception of bias). Meanwhile careful and judicious consideration of the work of spiritual directors, delegates, and others (including physicians and psychological screening -- if seen as helpful because of real concerns) could be used to inform a diocese's decisions in conjunction with the diocese's conversations with the hermit herself.

Canonical versus Non-Canonical Hermit Life: Which is Harder to live Faithfully?

[[Hi Sister, given the rights and obligations of the canonical hermit do you think it is harder to be canonical than non-canonical? You said something about the greater freedom to be a hermit associated with canonical standing so I am a little confused. Why do you think non-canonical hermits don't think in terms or rights and obligations or see freedom in quite the same way you do? Is it really just  matter of education or formation? It seems to me that a failure to see things in these terms is a huge piece of the problem of wearing habits as self-assumed costumes. Likewise it is at the core of the problem of seeing nothing different between a public profession and private vows.]]

Thanks for the questions. In fact, I believe that in some ways it is harder to be a non-canonical hermit than to be canonical. You are correct in pointing to my comments on the greater freedom which I associate with canonical eremitism. There is no conflict. While there are greater explicit rights and obligations associated with canonical standing, the discernment and profession/consecration with and by the Church ensures that one also experiences a greater correlative permission to stand in the face of the values of the world around us and to be the person one is called to be by God in his Church. That permission is part of what leads to greater freedom to be oneself.  

Similarly, one experiences a sense of mission and understands one's vocation in terms of charism as a canonical hermit. These elements add to the richness and the purpose of eremitical life and so too, in my experience, they make it easier to live faithfully. The expectations of others in the Church (and larger world as well) work in the same way --- as does the role of those serving in spiritual direction or the ministry of authority. Finally, understanding eremitical life as a tradition that in some real sense "belongs" to the Church, and makes the hermit calling an ecclesial vocation, contextualizes an already meaningful life in a way that assures its communal nature and ecclesial significance even as it helps prevent the vocation from devolving into something less than authentic.

Non-canonical hermits must maintain the same relationship with God, the same stricter separation from the world, and the same values held by a canonical hermit, and do so in the midst of a world that militates against this.  They must choose to grow as a hermit and to continue growing as a hermit with all that demands (vows, spiritual direction, theological sophistication), and they must do so without anyone necessarily recognizing their needs or their commitments to do so. In a world that militates against eremitism and often substitutes individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, and isolation for authentic hermit life, it seems to me to be very difficult to live as a non-canonical or lay hermit.  Thus, while I recognize that hermits living authentic eremitical lives are rare whether canonical or non-canonical,  I believe canonical standing and the elements it ensures, makes it easier to live an eremitical life in today's world.

As to why non-canonical hermits do not speak much of rights and obligations with expectations in living their own eremitical lives, I do believe it is largely a matter of education and formation. When one is in initial formation and preparing for profession as a religious in community, one is carefully initiated into the rights and obligations of the life. These things are made explicit and, in fact, are the way one moves from candidacy to novitiate, to juniorate, and then to solemn or perpetual profession and full membership in the community. Moreover, one is introduced to the consequences of having been initiated into the "religious state" and begins to think in these terms. Nothing is left untouched by initiation into the "religious state" and young religious learn this. Unless such formation occurs I don't think one would think this way. Thus, lay persons who are unfamiliar with the nature of initial and ongoing religious formation are unlikely to appreciate the process or think in the same terms. 

Should such a lay person become a hermit with the accent on "eremitical freedom" and a private commitment which changes nothing in terms of rights and obligations, it becomes doubly unlikely they will understand such life in terms of  these things in either canon or proper law. (It is possible to see an example of the failure to think this way in discussions of "wearing a mask" vs "not wearing a mask" in today's pandemic. So many think of freedom as the power to do whatever I want whenever I want to do it, and not in terms of rights and obligations or ecclesial calling. They have been enculturated to understand freedom very differently than Christian theology requires, and they substitute license instead.)

Thus, I agree with you that it is the failure to either think or be able to  think in terms of rights and obligations that stands at the heart of self-assumed practices like those you mention. Another source of difficulty is the tendency to believe one is owed such rights, or can simply "consecrate oneself",  or assume the wearing of religious garb and title through one's own agency. A similar source of difficulty is the failure to understand that ecclesial vocations are never discerned by oneself alone; they must be mutually discerned and until and unless the Church extends God's call to one in a mediatory and juridical act, one cannot be said to "have" such a vocation, much less live it "in the name of the Church." Calling anything to do with canon law "legalism" is another piece of all of this. I wonder if it would assist folks if preparation for baptism included a section on the canonical rights and obligations of the baptized or lay state of life?  Just a thought.

The Beating Heart of Canonical Vocations: A Matter of Graced Rights and Obligations

 [[Dear Sister, thanks for your response. Am I right in concluding that when one leaves the consecrated state one leaves the rights and obligations of this state even though one is still consecrated by God? If there are no rights and obligations is there a consecration?]]

 I first added this to the last question you asked because it fits so well; however other  related comments have come my way so I am moving it to a new post and appending those comments. Yes, you are exactly correct. When one leaves the consecrated state even though they were once consecrated by God (something that cannot be undone), they also leave the rights, obligations, and also the expectations behind. A state of life is characterized and structured by the rights and obligations associated with it. The inner spirit of this state of life is illumined by the person's sensitivity to the legitimate expectations others rightly hold in her regard. When she is responsive to all of these elements, she lives a witness which is fruitful and contributes to the tradition her life is now a living part of.

It is important to be clear that one either is or is not in the consecrated state of life. Equivocal statements like, "I am part of the consecrated life of the Church" can be (and unfortunately, have, even recently, been) used to confuse and slide past the actual truth. When one has had extended to them, and when one has accepted the rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state of life, they exist in that state; when those rights and obligations have not been extended to nor accepted by the person, or, when one has relinquished these rights and obligations, one is no longer considered a "consecrated person" because they have left (or never been part of) this state of life. This is not meant to deny that (some of) these people were consecrated by God, but it is meant to underscore the nature of a state of life, and the importance of the rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state of life.

Meanwhile, your last question is very perceptive and follows logically! Consecration in the Roman Catholic Church is ALWAYS associated with public rights and obligations/expectations. To claim to be consecrated without being able to identify public rights and obligations (along with correlative expectations) is to claim a fiction. Just as profession is a broader and richer act than the making of vows alone, so too is the consecration of a person in the Church a broader act than we might think. To set someone apart as a "sacred (or consecrated) person" in the Church is not only to convey God's solemn blessing, but also to explicitly structure their lives in terms of public rights and obligations spelled out in Canon Law,  Rule, and/or Constitutions/Statutes.

[[Dear Sister, I do wish you had spelled out the rights and obligations of a diocesan hermit several years ago! This was the first time I truly understood the difference between a public and private commitment. It also helped me to understand what you meant a while back when you wrote about someone "having their cake and eating it too." It just never occurred to me that I actually have a right to hold expectations in your regard because your commitment is public, while not having the right to expectations on the basis of a private commitment. Also,  I think I understand better what you mean when you speak about a "state of life" or, "living a vocation in the name of the Church". 

Because I didn't understand what the rights and obligations were that were associated with your vocation, I thought having expectations in regard to your hermit life meant that I was overstepping my own rightful bounds and that calling yourself a Catholic Hermit was pretentious, particularly when you wrote that those without public profession could not do so. But  committing to live and living a vocation "in the name of the Church" implies much more than just being  a Catholic and living privately as a hermit! I think I really see that now. I just wanted to thank you for making this clearer for me!! Thank you! 

As I write this, I do have one question: do you think that hermits with private vows understand all of this? One who has written about this a lot seems to think the difference between canonical and non-canonical vocations is just a matter of formal approval. I don't think she gets there is a substantive difference made up of rights, obligations and related expectations. Do most lay hermits get this substantive difference?]]

I am glad you wrote. Thank you! In the years since I first began this blog I have become dependent on folks asking questions and that means that I don't always write about the things I need to. Sometimes I assume that if folks have a question they will ask. But that is not always true, not least because they may not have enough knowledge to raise the important questions and sometimes because they don't know how important the questions they have actually are. The rights and obligations associated with this canonical eremitical life may be among such important questions. For that reason I too am sorry I did not spell this out earlier! It really is up to me to see what is important and explain that --- though I love getting questions and am helped by them a lot!

I really don't know what most lay or non-canonical hermits do or don't understand. You are correct though in your observations that some do not understand my life or the lives of other c 603 hermits in terms of rights and obligations/expectations. At least they have usually not indicated such an understanding nor do they seem to have had it spelled out for them by those who have made such commitments. What does seem to be true is that many lay hermits (and some canonical ones as well!) do have a gut level resistance to others holding legitimate (valid) expectations of them. This is one of the things that gives their lives a distinctly individualistic shape --- and as you probably know, I believe an individualistic hermit life is inauthentic and antithetical to eremitical life within the Church. When some write about remaining anonymous, when they claim the title Catholic Hermit while also claiming they can remain entirely hidden, or when they can post all manner of disedifying things leading others to believe in the eccentricity and selfishness of this vocation, they demonstrate they do not have a clue about the way rights and obligations are extended to someone committing to live this vocation in the name of the Church.

The same is true with regard to those who treat canonical standing as though it is a matter of superficial formalism or legalism. The rights and obligations assumed by a hermit and extended to her by the Church are meant to govern and nurture a specific vocation which 1) proclaims the Gospel of God in Christ, and which 2) is meant for the inspiration and edification of others. The graces associated with a canonical eremitical vocation are the graces God gives which allow these two foundational elements to be lived with integrity and vividness. Canon 603 does this for the solitary eremitical vocation just as other canons do for semi-eremitical life (eremitical life lived in a specifically communal context with other hermits).

All of this points to one reason many bishops tend only to profess and consecrate hermits who have been formed and professed in religious life, namely, such persons understand what we mean by the consecrated state of life; they know what it means to live according to rights and obligations extended to them by the Church herself. They know what it means to have others hold legitimate (valid) expectations about the way they live their life, and they are prepared to accept the obligations as well as the rights that are part and parcel of a state of life. It is hard to get all of this merely from reading about it; one needs to have lived it. In fact, it is one of the most central qualities of religious formation ---readying a person to live a public vocation shaped by public rights and obligations and animated by the graces which make one responsive to these --- even if the life is lived in a cloister or hidden in the way eremitical lives are hidden. An individualistic life whose supposed "freedom" is shaped by selfishness and superficiality may look like eremitical life from a distance or at first glance, but the beating heart of an ecclesial vocation is vastly different than this. It is moved and shaped instead by the Love-in-Act we call God --- and thus too, is it empowered to accept and fulfill the public rights, obligations, and expectations associated with ecclesial vocations to the consecrated state.

I'll leave this here for now. Thanks again!

Non-Canonical vs Canonical Eremitical Life: Which Involves Greater Freedom?

[[Sister Laurel, is it possible to be a hermit in the Catholic Church and not be subject to any institutionalization or any canon law? Would this be a greater degree of freedom than canonical status allows for?]]

Thanks for the question. If you are speaking of canons which directly refer to eremitical life, yes one can be a non-canonical or lay hermit, that is, a person embracing eremitical life in the lay state. However, to the extent one is a baptized Catholic and in the lay state, one is still subject to canon law and there are still requirements which apply to every person in the Church by virtue of their baptism. That means every person belonging to the Church will be subject to some degree of "institutionalization" if by this you mean the responsibilities and praxis which are part and parcel of belonging to an institution. If one wants no part of this one would need to leave the Church.

The question regarding the degree of freedom of one state vs the other one seems naïve to me. It is also misleading and gets one off immediately on the wrong foot. Again, freedom in Catholic theology is the power to become and be the persons we are called to be. Thus, if one is called by God to achieve authentic humanity in the eremitical life  one will need to discern whether one is called to do this in the lay or the consecrated state. In other words one will discern which one is the way of greater authentic freedom. For those called to consecrated eremitical life the greater number of canonical rights and obligations will not result in less but in greater freedom. For those called to eremitical life in the lay state, the canonical obligations of the consecrated state might be onerous.

If you have read earlier posts you will remember the example I gave of learning to play violin. Training the hands, fingers, wrists and arms, as well as the ear and heart and mind to function in all the ways needed to play real music and to transcend the printed page (while one honors that at the same time) takes a lot of work and involves a tremendous number of constraints. For the beginner these seem onerous, but as time goes on more and more one will begin to experience a kind of freedom to make music beyond what one could have even imagined was possible. The constraints remain precisely because they are the vehicle through which one is enabled to transcend one's own inabilities and limitations and release the potentiality one has for tapping into the music which sings through oneself and the universe. At this point they no longer feel like constraints; they are the wings with which we fly. In mastering (and thus, honoring) these constraints, one and one's violin become a single instrument attuned to and capable of mediating the miracle we call music, but also, therefore, the realities we identify as God, love, beauty, truth, order, harmony, disharmony, meaning, humanity, pain, joy, grief, and so many associated emotions and sensations. Constraints or limitations are necessary for transcendence to be realized; they are an intrinsic part of authentic freedom.

When I was discerning between lay eremitical and consecrated eremitical life, lay eremitical life seemed to me to represent less authentic freedom than canonical eremitical life. This was partly because of the way the world at large militated against the eremitical life. A context within which eremitical life could be lived fully and where it was truly valued seemed necessary if I was to live it as I felt called to do in the face of the world's enmity or lack of understanding --- and also in the face of the common stereotypes and caricatures of hermits we find everywhere --- including in the church. Remember that to some extent this is what the desert Abbas and Ammas also sought in their attempt to live a radical Christianity. They sought a more stringent and (in its own way) supportive environment for their "white martyrdom" than the "anything goes" world in which Christianity had come to belong "all too well".

I was also sure that I was called to live this life as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church for the sake of others, and I felt less free to live that in a non-canonical state. Fortunately, the Church agreed with this discernment and admitted me to profession and consecration --- something which continues to serve as a significant element of genuine freedom to explore the depths and breadth of this life --- especially when there are difficulties which lead to some degree of self-doubt. Others will, quite validly, make a very different discernments and decisions. The bottom line here is that authentic freedom is related to what one is called to by God; it cannot be determined merely by measuring the number or type of norms to which one will be subject. To proceed in that way is merely to ensure one never even takes the violin out of the case, much less risks discovering and slowly coming to the incredible freedom God offers in learning to negotiate the constraints which eventuate in the transcendent realm of union with Godself.

On Eremitical Freedom and the Place of Limited Institutionalization

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I appreciate canon 603 and the vocation it defines and governs. However, I am a lay hermit who regards the freedom of eremitical life even more than that. It seems to me that when something like eremitical life is institutionalized we lose the freedom it is so famous for. So when you write about the rights, obligations, and expectations linked to canonical standing I hear the clinking of chains and the destruction of a vocation with the limits imposed by canon law. I know you don't agree with this and I am not really expecting you to respond to it but I hope you see how counterintuitive it is to say, "Yes, I have accepted the constraints of canon law and done so while respecting the traditional freedom of the eremitical vocation."]]

Thanks for your comments. I will respond to them only briefly with brand new material because, while I will also reprise a post I wrote fairly recently (January 2020), I need to comment specifically on your point about something being counterintuitive. Remember that in Christianity there is a good deal which is counterintuitive: it is in weakness that we find strength most fully revealed, earthen vessels that are the most worthy vessels of an inestimable divine treasure (true whether we are talking about the Incarnation or our own participation in that), wealth in poverty is counterintuitive, as is glorification in abject shame or overarching success in failure, etc, etc. Some would argue that these paradoxes which stand at the heart of Christianity reveal a truth that is often, perhaps always, counterintuitive.

Freedom in Christian theology is also counterintuitive which is why it is often rejected or mistaken for license. Freedom is the power to become/be the persons we are called to be by God and it will always involve constraints. Always. Similarly, eremitical solitude is a form, albeit a unique one, of community. That this is counterintuitive is one of the reasons individualism is often allowed to replace eremitical solitude and freedom. So yes, I disagree that the (careful and limited) institutionalization of eremitical life destroys it (ask any Carthusian or Camaldolese or Carmelite hermit if they believe (careful) institutionalization does so!). Freedom  to become and be the persons we are called to be, especially when that means communion and union with God, requires constraints; it requires structure, support, and the kinds of limitations that make sure there is integrity, focus, and perspective. (I apologize for the related comments on fraud in the post reprised below. When I have more time I will try to edit that out.)


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

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

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

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

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

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

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

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

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

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

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive.

In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church has found to insure maximal responsiveness to God and be maximally fruitful for the Church, the world, and of course for one's own call to human wholeness and holiness. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God Who blows where she will; the second is not, it is worldly (or fleshly) as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

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

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

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

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

Rights and Obligations of Public Profession?

[[Dear Sister, have you ever spelled out the "rights and obligations" which make your vocation different from someone's with private vows or no vows at all? I can't remember you doing that and I thought perhaps it would be a help in coming to clarity for some, but also that it might be important for people discerning whether to live as a hermit in the lay state or the consecrated state, for example. I think that could be particularly true for hermits who fall more towards the individualist end of the eremitical spectrum. Perhaps you have already written about this; if so, my apologies.]]

This is a great request. Thanks!! I remember a friend,  another diocesan hermit (New Zealand), asked me about this once. She wondered if I could spell these out for her and I remember that we constructed a list at one point, but I am not sure I ever blogged about it.***That was several years ago now so I should consider doing it again in any case. The question of rights and obligations (and, let me add, the expectations others are allowed to legitimately hold in regard to these hermits) is the one piece of things that helps us understand what it means to be part of the consecrated state, for instance. It is the one thing which calls for an affirmation of difference between the lay and consecrated states while not allowing us to say one eremitical state is better than the other. It is also the piece of things that prevents anyone from cogently making the argument that solitary canonical hermits are all about externals. Hermits with private commitments are neither better nor worse than canonical hermits, but the two are vastly different in the rights and obligations associated with each vocation. Before I speak of these let me say that the most fundamental right and obligation of the canonical hermit is the right  and obligation (the privilege, that is) to give oneself entirely to seeking union with God. That is presupposed in every other right or obligation and expectation associated with her life.  The rights and obligations associated with the canonical state are meant to help structure and shape a life in which this central privilege can be realized for the sake of all God holds precious.

The Rights:

There are certain rights that come with canonical profession and consecration. The right to style oneself as Sister or Brother and be recognized as a vowed religious despite the fact that one is not part of a congregation or community is a right associated with c 603. One has the right to establish oneself/one's hermitage as a non-profit (301(c) 3), if doing so is actually helpful to one's ministry. (I decided this option does not assist me at all because I don't have retreatants or others coming for whom I might have expenses; nonetheless, I have this right). Canonical hermits have the right to call themselves Catholic Hermits and live this life in the name of the Church. In fact, they are commissioned to do so at profession. (Some have mistaken this as meaning the hermit speaks or writes in the name of the Church, but no, one lives eremitical life in the name of the Church and represents this vocation as best one can do with all the assistance the Church and Holy Spirit provides.)

When given specific permission by one's bishop, canonical hermits under c 603 have the right to reserve Eucharist in their hermitage, and wear a habit (though not the habit of an identifiable Order or congregation).  Additionally they may be given the right to wear a prayer garment (cowl, etc) publicly as a sign of their commission to undertake this specific ministry in the name of the Church and part of  their representation of a place in the Church's long eremitical history. Any other perks attached to civil law having to do with public vows of poverty, for instance, will also apply to the c 603 hermit. Finally, one has the right to expect one's local bishop (and/or the person delegated in this matter) to give one time to meet as needed, to take the time necessary to get to know the hermit and the way she lives this life. This means one (or one's Delegate) has a right to get an appointment with the bishop when needed --- something that others may not be considered to have a right to; this is so because canon 603 refers explicitly to mutual responsibilities entailed in the responsible "supervision" of this vocation.

The Obligations:

Far more important than the rights associated with canonical standing are the obligations. Some are attached to the rights already mentioned.  The right to style oneself as a religious or to wear a habit is associated with the obligations of a religious. There are a number of these: living a formal life of prayer and penance for the sake of others, giving one's residence over to God and to seeking God in all things, living a life informed and structured by the evangelical counsels and one's vows (which means living a life of material simplicity/poverty (which may or may not include a cession of administration), a life committed to loving God, oneself, and others as well as all that God has created, to seeing all of these with the eyes of God, and to proclaiming the Good News of God in Christ rooted in one's own experience of the resurrected and ascended crucified One. One is obligated to be obedient --- meaning one is obligated to be open and attentive to the life and will of God, and therefore to engage in an active way in discernment with directors, delegates, and others who are similarly committed.

Likewise one is obligated to participate in ongoing formation for the whole of one's life. As part of this one is obligated to engage in regular spiritual direction and the related inner work that might call for or include; similarly one is required to make retreat at least once a year, and simply to do all it takes to make that an organic part of  one's life --- not something exceptional to the rest of one's life. One is ordinarily required to make a will before perpetual profession, and to work out what one needs for care as one ages since the diocese does not provide for such needs; this can include nursing or retirement home care or something similar in a convent if this is available,  and one will fill out a durable power of attorney for healthcare or living will, and other similar arrangements. These are the basic obligations of anyone with public vows within the Church.

The c 603 hermit's obligations include all of these and all of those things required by c 603 and her own Rule or Plan of Life. She will live a life of stricter separation from those things which are resistant to Christ, of assiduous prayer and penance in the silence of solitude. This means she will maintain a context defined in terms of all of these things, and she will structure her life in ways which make sure she will embody the silence of solitude and become God's own prayer in the world. Where most religious are active and proclaim the Gospel by what they do (teaching, nursing, ministry to families, to the marginalized, etc), hermits testify in a particularly vivid way to the dignity and meaningfulness of each and every individual life. They witness to the completion and authentic humanity stemming from the relationship we each have and are with God. 

Thus, the obligations of eremitical life are reflections of the basic truth that God alone is sufficient for us --- not in the sense that we can and must exist as isolated monads --- but in the sense that that this single relationship is the heart and ground of all authentic humanity and the one thing without which NO ONE can be whole or their lives truly meaningful. (This relationship always exists, even when it is merely implicit or entirely denied.)  The hermit lives in a way which proclaims the richness and joy of a life with and in God, even when, paradoxically, one must let go of discrete gifts and talents to make this witness. Moreover the hermit will do all of this in a way which is Eucharistic and which speaks of both thanksgiving and the incarnational presence of God in all she says and does. (Eucharist will be central to her life, not just devotionally and liturgically, but in all the Eucharist symbolizes and makes  absolutely real in our world. cf. Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality)

The Expectations:

 Rights and Obligations imply expectations on the part of others. Because religious vocations (including c 603 vocations) are public and ecclesial vocations, this means that even when we are speaking of cloistered monks and nuns or hermits hidden in their hermitages, others both in the church and in the larger world have the right to hold expectations of such persons. Remember that religious during the Rite of Profession are called forth from the assembly; they answer some questions from the presider (bishop) re their readiness to embrace this commitment and thereafter the assembly witnesses as the vows are made, the consecration is mediated, the symbols of profession and consecration are given, and the vow formulas are signed and witnessed by (in my case), myself, the bishop, pastor, delegate, as well as being notarized by the ecclesiastical notary. All of this says, "What is occurring here is significant and you have the right to expect to be able to trust everything it says about these people, this commitment, and the God who empowers all of this." I cannot say that my life is private or hidden and for those reasons others may not have expectations regarding the way I live the elements of the canon, my vows, or my Rule.

It is true that I have a right to privacy (as does any other religious), but at the same time others have the right to expect I live my commitments as vowed. To some extent there must be trust that the individual will do this without external prompting, but there will also need to be trust that the relationships constituting " the ministry of authority" in supervising, or otherwise working with the individual are serving both individual and church as they ought. Let me be clear, the very fact that there is a structure of authority contributing to the individual's integrity and providing ongoing assistance and support, itself witnesses to the fact that others have the right to expect this vocation will be well-lived. If there are real questions about this occurring in a given case, then one has a right to bring those questions first to the person and then to those who are themselves responsible via the ministry of authority. This does not mean one can intrude on the person's privacy, but one does have a right to have serious concerns heard and responded to. 

That is a very different thing than is true of private commitments. For instance, if someone makes private vows of some sort, even if I know that person, I have no right to expect them to keep that commitment beyond the expectations of simple honesty and integrity. I  certainly have no  right to turn to their pastor or their bishop and complain that this private commitment may not be being kept! Yes, if they are a friend I may have a right to ask them how it is going; I can certainly pray for them, but, beyond a general expectation that a person will do whatever they say they will do, the fact of a private commitment does not create the right to have expectations regarding how or even whether the person keeps this commitment.

 So what concrete expectations do folks have a right to hold in my regard, for instance? Those who know me have a right to expect to see the fruits of a life of prayer, penance, and the silence of solitude in a fairly direct way. If they see me struggling in some way, they have the right to expect me to get the kind of help that assists in this struggle (say, for instance, medical help, financial assistance, or spiritual direction) --- or to accept reasonable assistance from them if they offer it. They have a right to see me living an essentially healthy life in conditions that are wholesome, no matter how spartan; they have a right to see that I am growing in my life with Christ and to some extent to benefit from that life in a more direct than indirect way. (In this regard I am thinking of doing homilies or reflections, leading Communion services, teaching Scripture, and doing spiritual direction, as well as writing or blogging; other c 603 hermits will specify different ways of directly benefiting their communities). Generally speaking people do not have the right to enter my hermitage or check out how I live my life, but they have every right to see evidence of the kind of life only the love of God makes possible, and to get hope from the Gospel my life witnesses to. They have the right to expect and see a life motivated by love --- genuine, passionate, and chaste love --- and thus too,  a life lived simply with a strong sense of what is truly central and essential for every human being. They have a right to expect professional competence and a generous sharing of that and whatever else I have to share within the limitations of eremitical life. (Remember, eremitical life will often mean letting go of discrete gifts and talents for the sake of the vocation itself.)

I have probably left some things out, especially in the sections on rights or obligations, but I think I have gotten the essentials. (I'll add to this piece if other things come to mind!) I am used to saying here that the term Catholic Hermit means one whose public vocation means they live eremitical life in the name of the Church. At this point I should also suggest that a Catholic Hermit is accountable in a catholic way through the structures of authority which ensure both freedom and responsibility. Thanks again for this question. As always, if this raises more questions or omits something you believe is important, please get back to me!

*** Turns out I have written about this before, once only a couple of years ago. Please see, Rights and Obligations Associated with C 603 Vocations, and labels associated with that post,

On the Hermit Vocation, Inner Work, and the Call to Metanoia

Jesus Meets His Mother**
 by Bro Mickey McGrath OSFS

I received another question on the place and appropriateness  of the "inner work" I have mentioned from time to time here. The questioner specifically wondered how this works in the life of a hermit. Rather than write another response, I decided to reprise one I posted about three years ago. here it is:

[[Hi Sister, when you refer to inner work or the personal growth work you are doing with your director I wonder how this fits in with the life of a hermit. I also wondered if the tears you experienced were really less the "gift of tears" which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit and more the result of some therapeutic process involved in the inner work. No offense of course!]]

No offense taken; your questions are natural and good ones. I know I have spoken of the focus of the inner work I am doing with my director right now but let me restate it as I understand it in case some have not read past posts --- or in case I am mistaken!

We are made in the image of God but in our lives that image is sometimes distorted, often crippled, and almost invariably prevented from unfolding in all its glory due to our own woundedness. We are marked and marred by sin (a state of alienation from God, self, and others) and we ratify that sin ourselves -- often as we meet and react to the sin of others; and all of this has an effect on our being able to be our true selves. The project of our lives, the journey we are making is the journey to the revelation or realization of our true selves which only occurs to the extent we exist in communion and union with God. The goal of this ongoing journey is to become the covenantal persons, the relationship with God we truly are and in which our genuine individuality consists. In Christ, the One who is the very definition of union with God, we are called to become imago Christi: persons who are truly, fully and exhaustively human, and who thus (similarly) reveal God (Love-in-Act) to the world.

The task before us is, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to work through anything that prevents our communion and union with God. In the language of the desert and of monastic life in particular this is the life of repentance, of metanoia. As Hunt notes in Joy-Bearing Grief,  [[The experience of the desert monk is his most active work. "It is a contract [covenant] with God for a second life." according to Klimakos. Through it [the monk] takes responsibility for the exercise of his free will, the working out of his divinely given humanity. . . . The flight to the desert has at its heart relationships, primarily, those between the individual and God and the individual with him/herself. The physical journey may [and is meant to] give way to an interiorized one. . .]]

This approach to the desert rests on the profound relationship between repentance and prayer. The two are inextricably wed in a single dynamic towards authenticity which the Rule of Benedict and monastic and eremitical life more generally call "seeking God". In my own Rule I stress this sense that prayer and repentance are so closely allied in the journey to becoming the person we are called to be that they rely on one another and cannot be easily teased apart. Repentance is empowered and accompanied by prayer just as it also prepares for prayer. The task before the hermit is to become a person of prayer (a person in whom God is powerfully active and who is open to allowing this to be exhaustively true in every dimension of her life); this will also mean participating every day in a process of metanoia, of repentance and conversion. The inner work I have spoken of is one of the principal forms of embracing metanoia and becoming the person I am called to be; it is so central to my vocation that it is actually written into my Rule. It focuses in very specific and powerful ways on the imago dei which exists deep within and on the process of recovering and realizing the potential of that imago in order that I may actually become imago Christ.  

When you ask how inner work fits into the hermit life this is the answer. The hermit seeks God, she gives her life over to this seeking and to God's intimate seeking of her. She realizes she will only be the person she is called to be if her life is lived in obedience (open attentiveness and responsiveness) to the call of God. She is committed to embodying call and response in the single self who is a covenant with God. Only God can complete her. Only God is the source and ground of her human life. She is made in God's image and likeness, made to be a relational being just as the Trinity is relational in every sense. She is thus called to become imago Christi and this means living a life of prayer and repentance or metanoia.  Inner work is an integral part in responding to this vocation.

The Gift of Tears:

I am not sure it is possible to entirely tease apart or distinguish the gift of tears from "ordinary" tears that are the result of the inner work. Both are therapeutic; both can come from the deepest places within us and both are gifts of God. But, there is, I think, also a qualitative difference between "ordinary" tears and the gift of tears. I suppose that at this point --- with what is very limited experience --- I would say that "ordinary" tears are healing in ways which allow us to continue functioning as the persons we are; they express and ease our suffering, they express our joy.  The gift of tears functions to transform us and our hearts in more profound and extensive ways, and it does more as well. This gift opens our hearts to the presence and power of God in ways more "ordinary" tears do not. In a single moment it touches every part of our lives, memory, history and selves --- body, spirit and mind and results in their reconciliation, healing and integration. These tears make us into whole and holy human beings who, in Christ, are instances of embodied spirit, incarnations of the Word of God. My own sense is that the inner work I am doing, for instance, heals and opens me to the deep reality of God alive and yearning to live within me. The paradox here is that I am truly myself when God is allowed to live exhaustively in and through me. Perhaps what I am saying similarly then is that our "ordinary" tears reach their own fulfillment or perfection in what has been called "the gift of tears."

This is a very provisional and clearly basic answer on my part. As with all things this gift will be measured by its fruits --- and, while some will be immediately evident, fruits also take time to grow. I believe I have experienced something singular. I feel sure it is a charismatic gift in line with the penthos (weeping) and katanuxis (compunction) which are central to the desert tradition. I also feel sure that receiving this gift in fullness is something which takes time and that it will come. However, if it is the gift of tears it will need to do the kinds of things the desert tradition says such tears do; it will need to transform my heart into one entirely measured in terms of compassion and the courage, generosity, and self-gift compassion makes possible; in short it will need to allow me to see and relate to the world as Christ sees and relates to the world. It will need to help transform me from imago dei into the historical  embodiment and expression of the Risen Christ we know as imago Christi. It will need to empower me to see and love with Christ's own vision and love. By their fruits we shall know the gifts of God. I am reminded of a passage in Soul Making, The Desert Way of Spirituality. In this work Alan Jones distinguishes the gift of tears from ordinary tears when he writes,

[[The "gift of tears" is  concerned with something much more radical, threatening and life-bearing than the occasional and necessary release from tension that "having a good cry" affords. The tears of which the desert bears witness are not tears of rage, self-pity, or frustration. They are a gift and their fruit is always so. . . Tears flow when the real source of our life is uncovered, when the mask of pretense is dropped. . .[and as Andre Louf writes] "Tears come when we begin to live more and more out of our deepest longings, our needs, our troubles. These must all surface and be given their rightful place. For in them we find our real human life in all its depths.. . "]]

The inner work I have spoken of (part of my own work of spiritual direction) gives the Holy Spirit space to work in my life. This is another reason I am reticent to entirely distinguish between "ordinary tears" from those which are more clearly charismatic. As noted, I feel both are empowered by the love of God, both are the work of the Consoler. Finally, we often and too easily distinguish the "ordinary" from  that which is "super ordinary" or even extraordinary. The truth is that all-too-often we miss the God who comes to us in the ordinary so this is something I bear in mind as well.

** N.B. the picture of Jesus meeting his Mother is Bro Mickey McGrath's painting of the Fourth Station of the Cross. It is available in many different formats from Trinity Stores.

Once Again: "Perennial" Questions and Problematical Statements

[[Dear Sister, the Vicar for Religious in my chancery explained to me that the following passage was mistaken in some important ways. She explained why and also said I might want to read what you had written about this in the past. I just can't find what you said about this. Can you help me?]]

[[This is simple enough to comprehend. The three evangelical counsels are chastity in celibacy, obedience, and poverty. These professions may be made publicly but not always: they can be private professions. If public, there is the option to go the way of Canon 603 which more formalizes the profession. This option can be read more in depth in a guide that was compiled by a religious sister about ten years ago and which is being revised. In that guide are collected writings and suggestions for the hermit life, including some revised statutes for the eremitic life by the Bishops' of France, the citation of CL603, and other sundry aides such as possible rites and sample rules of life. 

This guidebook has been used as that--a guide--in some Dioceses. Or, if public profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession of promises or vows, Canon 603 does not need to be utilized or incorporated. If not, the hermit is publicly avowed and consecrated, but not bound by that Canon. Regardless of Canon 603 or not, a public profession is that: public. People know. If private profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession, the process is not known to others in general and sometimes not in specific. A priest or Bishop may receive the profession (vows and promises). Perhaps it is between the cleric and the hermit, or perhaps a witness or a few are present. A ceremony may be selected from the above mentioned guidebook of compilations, or the hermit may research and develop a ceremony for this private profession. A token may be used, a type of habit may be selected, a form may be signed and dated. But these would all fall in the realm of that which would be hidden from the eyes of others. It is private.]]

Ah, unfortunately, there are a number of different posts which speak to the issues in this passage; I have written about them all over the past decade, sometimes many times. The labels you should look under are included below in emboldened and italicized type. The guidebook being spoken of is one written by Sister Marlene Wiesenbeck (for the Diocese of La Crosse) so you might check the labels of this blog to see if I have referred to her in any posts. I don't remember doing so except that I am pretty sure I once mentioned my own diocese used parts of her guidebook in 2007 for my own profession. Sister Wiesenbeck's work in this had significant value when it was written and, while updating is necessary, still does today for those dioceses implementing canon 603, and for those seeking to be professed under canon 603. I should say that it is emphatically not the source of any of the problematical statements you have cited in the passage commented on by your Vicar for Religious.

One fundamental problem, as I have written about a number of times here, is with the mistaken use of the term public and the purported optional nature of canon 603. "Public" in regard to profession does not refer to the number of persons who do or don't attend; it refers to the fact that profession initiates one into a new (and public or canonical) state of life with additional public (canonical) rights and obligations. Strictly speaking private vows are not profession because they don't initiate one into a new (in this case, consecrated) state of life. Similarly, then, private means simply "A commitment which does not grant or embrace canonical (public) rights or obligations beyond those granted and embraced at baptism."

Such commitments are still quite serious personally but they do not allow much less call for others in the Church or elsewhere to have specific expectations of the person making the commitment as public commitments do. (A public vow of poverty, for instance, which is part of the larger act of profession, sets up public expectations on how the person lives in terms of consumerism, simplicity, dependence on God, etc. People have a legitimate right to expect someone who is publicly professed to honor their vow. This is not the case with a private commitment/vow.) A second fundamental problem is with the notion that one may become a solitary hermit who is professed (profession is always a public act) and consecrated but without using canon 603. Canon 603 doesn't just formalize a profession, nor is it optional for solitary consecrated eremitical life; canon 603 is the only way one can  make profession or be consecrated as a solitary hermit. There is simply no other option if one is talking about public commitments and/or consecration in the Roman Catholic Church.

While there is room for creative expression and personal choice in these matters, especially in terms of readings and music, there are also limitations; certain elements will be required by your bishop and canonists as part of the ceremony if you are admitted to profession. Please check with them on this. My own diocese used the Rite of Religious Profession which is normative for such things and allowed usage of a couple of the vow formulas from Wiesenbeck's Guidebook (one can write one's own; I chose not to use any of these because I already had a vow formula which I had lived for some time and loved; I made some minimal changes in it to reflect this new (eremitical) context).

Also, in reading your Rule, a canonist will very specifically read your vow formula to be sure you are actually making vows in the way which will be valid,  I remember our Vicar for Religious who was also the canonist that did this for me for perpetual profession explaining why I could not say "I will. . ." in addition to "I vow" at one point in my vow formula. It seemed nit picky, especially since it followed and modified but was entirely dependent on the phrase, "I vow", but once I understood the explanation it made a lot of sense. (To say "I vow"  is a performative act which makes the commitment immediately real and binding in the very saying of the words; to say, "I will" is temporally indefinite, even conditional, and raises the question of "When (and under what conditions) will you. . . Do you mean next week, or maybe when you feel like it?")  The passage you are citing is pretty dated, so I am not sure when I wrote about it as such, but please look for posts on public profession vs private vows, consecration vs dedication, canon 603, reception vs witness (a question you should have a sense of), and perhaps Guidebook on Eremitical Life and/or Sister Marlene Wiesenbeck. Labels are found in the right hand upper column of this blog.

If these aren't as helpful as you need, please get back to me with another question or set of questions and I will try to give you a more comprehensive response. Especially, I would suggest you compare your notes of what your Vicar for Religious told you and what I have written. I appreciate her comments seem to indicate general agreement, but if there are gaps, or if we seem to be saying something different from one another here or there, please do get back to me on these specific points. If they seem substantive and there is real disagreement, I would like to talk about them --- perhaps with your Vicar --- to be sure I understand her reasoning on them. That would be of real help to me and to this blog.