On Conscience and One-Issue Voting

[[Dear Sister, I think you wrote a piece about elections and one-issue voting in 2012 or 2016. Could you summarize that article here now? I have family who are arguing that anyone who votes for a candidate who is not anti-abortion  who votes for a party that supports a woman's right to choose is necessarily damned to hell. I don't believe the current President is really anti-abortion but even if he is everything else he is about does not exactly scream "pro-life". . . . At the same time I don't think VP Biden is necessarily anti-life because of his support for abortion. . .]]

Thanks for asking about this; I posted this piece in August but decided that might have been missed by many. So here it is again. I also noted then that I had seen a post around then which criticized a bishop for restating Benedict XVI's analysis, so yes, there is significant misunderstanding on what the Catholic Church teaches about conscience judgments/decisions and the difficulty with one-issue voting. Abortion tends to be the single issue around which such misunderstandings and their attendant arguments are marshalled. Here is the article you were asking about. I have cut some of it to limit it to the key points: 1) what it means to have an informed and a well-formed conscience, and 2) how one determines one is to vote in a situation which is ambiguous or (misleadingly) marked as a "one-issue" situation.

Hermitage Chapel and Cave of the Heart

. . .Let me restate 1) the pertinent part of the Church's teaching on the nature and primacy of conscience, and 2) Benedict XVI's analysis of elections which involve, for instance, the issues of abortion and contraception when neither candidate or party platform is really completely acceptable to Catholics.

First, we are to inform and form our consciences to the best of our ability. These are two separate but related processes.  This means we are not only to learn as much as we can about  the issue at hand including church teaching, medical and scientific information, sociological data, theological data, and so forth (this is part of the way to an informed conscience), but we are to do all we can to be sure we have the capacity to make a conscience judgment and act on it. This means we must develop the capacity to discern all the values and disvalues present in a given situation, preference them appropriately, and then determine or make a conscience judgment regarding how we must act. Finally we must act on the conscientious or prudential judgment that we have come to. (This latter capacity which allows us to reason morally about all the information is what is called a well-formed conscience. A badly formed conscience is one which is incapable of reasoning morally; such a conscience is incapable of discerning the values and disvalues present, preferencing these, and/or making a judgment on how one must act in such a situation. Note well: those who merely "do as authority tells them" may not have a well-formed conscience informed though they may be regarding what the Church teaches in a general way!)

There are No Shortcuts, No Ways to Free ourselves from the Complexity or the Risk of this Process and Responsibility:

There is no short cut to this process of informing and forming our consciences. No one can discern or decide for us, not even Bishops and Popes. They can provide information, but we must look at ALL the values and disvalues in the SPECIFIC situation and come to a conscientious judgment ourselves. No one can do this for us, nor can we abdicate our own responsibility to embody Christ in this given situatiuon. The human conscience is inviolable, the inner sanctum where God speaks to each of us alone. It ALWAYS has primacy. Of course we may err in our conscience judgment, but if we 1) fail to act to adequately inform and form our consciences, or 2) act in a way which is contrary to our own conscience judgment we are more likely guilty of sin (this is  actually certain in the latter case). If we act in good faith, we are NEVER guilty of sin --- though we may act wrongly and will always have to bear the consequences of that action. If we err, the matter is morally neutral at worst and could even involve great virtue. If we act in bad faith, if we act against our conscience judgment, we ALWAYS sin, and often quite seriously, for to act against a conscience judgment is to act against the very voice of God as heard in our heart of hearts.  Please note: in moral theology we speak of "certain conscience judgments"; this does not mean we are certain we are absolutely free from error but rather, this is the judgment our own (always imperfectly) informed and formed consciences have come to in this place and at this time. This we know certainly and for this reason, because we are acting in good faith, we do not fear we are in error. We must act on such a judgment.

And what about conscience judgments which are not in accord with Church teaching (or in this case, with what some Bishops are saying)? I have written about this before but it bears repeating. Remember that at Vatican II the minority group approached the theological commission with a proposal to edit a text on conscience. The text spoke about the nature of a well-formed conscience. The redaction the minority proposed was that the text should read, "A well-formed conscience is one formed to accord with Church teaching." The theological commission rejected this redaction as too rigid and reminded the Fathers that they had already clearly taught what the church had always held on conscience. And yet today we hear all the time from various places, including some Bishops, that if one's conscience judgment is not in accord with Church teaching the conscience is necessarily not well-formed --- never mind that church teaching can never acount for all of the values and disvalues present in a given situation; this is what the individual believer can and is called to do. But this minority position is not Church teaching --- not the teaching articulated by Thomas Aquinas or Innocent III, for instance, who counseled people that they MUST follow their consciences even if that meant bearing humbly with excommunication! Again, the certain conscience judgment MUST always be followed or one sins and can be sinning gravely.

Benedict XVI's Analysis on one issue voting:

Now then, what about Benedict XVI's analysis of voting in situations of ambiguity where, for instance, one party supports abortion but is deemed more consistently pro-life otherwise? What happens when this situation is sharpened by an opposing party who claims to be anti-abortion but has done nothing concrete to stop it? MUST a Catholic vote for the anti-abortion party or be guilty of endangering their immortal souls? Will they necessarily become complicit in intrinsic evil if they vote for the candidate or party which supports abortion? The answer to both questions is no. Here is what Benedict XVI said: If a person is trying to decide for or against a particular candidate and determines that one candidate's party is more consistently pro-life than the other party, even though that first party supports abortion or contraception, the voter may vote in good conscience for that first candidate and party SO LONG AS they do not do so BECAUSE of the candidate's (or party's) position on abortion or contraception.

In other words, in such a situation abortion is not  and cannot be the single overarching issue which ALWAYS decides the case. One CAN act in good faith and vote for a candidate or party which seems to support life as a seamless garment better than another even if that candidate or party does not specifically oppose abortion. (Please note that in this analysis a candidate may support a platform which includes the right to abortion or the "right to choose" and not be a supporter of abortion itself.) One cannot vote FOR intrinsic evil, of course, but one can vote for all sorts of goods which are clearly Gospel imperatives and still not be considered complicit in intrinsic evil. By the way, this is NOT the same thing as doing evil in order that good may result; it is about maximizing the good one chooses while avoiding choosing evil!! Benedict XVI's analysis is less simplistic than some characterizations I have heard recently; theologically it seems to me to be far more cogent and nuanced than these. For more on Benedict XVI's own position, please look for original articles on Benedict's analysis.

Smiling Jack

 

Just a little bit of humor and nostalgia in a new key!! I grew up in the Los Angeles Harbor Area and when I was just turned  three they began painting one of the huge tanks at a nearby refinery as a Jack-O-Lantern each year. I think I really did believe it was the world's largest Jack-O-Lantern! Smiling Jack has been part of that area's familys' Halloween celebrations since @1952 and for several years when we were small our parents would drive us up to see him (well-lighted at night) and how he had transformed yet again. This year they have added something new to Jack. Much as I miss many peoples' smiles these days, I personally miss some of his smile (his widely-spaced snaggle teeth always made me laugh) but the message is a good one: Mask up!!! I know in this case I am preaching to the choir, but if it's not too much trouble (or too "macho!") for Jack (and those who care for Jack), it's certainly not too much trouble for us!!

Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi (partial reprise)

My God and My All! Deus Meus et Omnia!  Despite being displaced by the Sunday festivities, all good wishes to my Franciscan Sisters and Brothers on this patronal feast! I hope it is a day filled with Franciscan joy and simplicity and that this ancient Franciscan motto echoes in your hearts. In today's world we need more than ever a commitment to Franciscan values, not least a commitment to treasure God's creation in a way which fosters ecological health. Genesis tells us we are stewards of this creation and it is a role we need to take seriously. Francis reminds us of this commission of ours, not least by putting God first in everything. (It is difficult to exploit the earth in the name of consumerism when we put God first, and in fact, allow him to be our God and our All!) 

Another theme of Francis' life was the rebuilding of the Church and he came to know that it was only as each of us embraced a life of genuine holiness that the Church would be the living temple of God it was meant to be. The analogies between the Church in Francis' day and our own are striking. Today, the horrific scandal facing a Church rocked by sexual abuse and, even more problematical in some ways, the collusion in and cover-up of this problem by members of the hierarchy, a related clericalism Pope Francis condemns, and the exclusion of women from any part in the decision making of the Church makes it all-too-clear that our Church requires rebuilding. So does the subsequent scapegoating of Pope Francis by those who resist Vatican II and  an ecclesia semper reformanda est (a church always to be reformed). 

And so, many today are calling for a fundamental rebuilding of the Church, a rebuilding which would sweep away the imperial episcopate along with the scourge of clericalism, and replace these with a Church which truly affirms the priesthood of all believers and roots the Church in the foundation and image of the kenotic servant Christ. The parable of new wine requiring new wineskins is paradigmatic here (and part of the reason we speak of ecclesia semper reformanda est). On the other side of this "silent schism," some are calling for a Church that retreats into these very structures and seeks to harden them in an eternal medieval mold. Yes, in some ways we are already a Church in schism; we are a divided household, so it is appropriate that on this day we hear Jesus' challenging commission to his disciples (Luke) or grapple with the lection from Job where Job struggles to come to a mature and humble faith in the midst of his suffering, and to do so in order to remind us of the humble world-shaking faith of St Francis of Assisi.

Francis of Assisi, despite first thinking he was charged by God with rebuilding a small church building (San Damiano), knew that if he (and we) truly put God and his Christ first what would be built up was a new family, a new creation, a reality undivided and of a single heart.  Like so many today,  Ilia Delio calls for the systematic reorganization of the church and the inclusion of women at all levels of the church's life, but she adds the need for a scientifically literate theological education as part of achieving the necessary rebuilding. So, in a broken world, and an ailing church, let us learn from these  Franciscan "fools for Christ" and begin to claim our baptismal responsibility to work to rebuild and reform our Church into a living temple of unity and love. The task before us is challenging and needs our best efforts. 

Again, all good wishes to my Franciscan Sisters and Brothers on this Feast! Meanwhile, as a small piece of my own continuing education towards a genuinely "scientifically literate" theology, I am reading again in the area of Science and Faith (John Hough) and then, because I need to get in better touch with my Franciscan roots over the next weeks, I am or will be rereading Daniel Horan's The Franciscan Heart of Thomas Merton, along with  Ilia Delio's  Francsican Prayer; Crucified Love; and Clare of Assisi, A Heart Full of Love. I wholeheartedly recommend all of them but especially Franciscan Prayer and Clare of Assisi. If you are a fan of Thomas Merton (or Daniel Horan), that one is also really excellent.

Fire still burns but New Camaldoli Monks Return to Hermitage!!

Over the past several weeks a source of real anxiety has been the way the fires up and down the state of California threatened so very many. But among these, and particularly important to me and some I love, have been the Motherhouses of the Sisters of the Holy Family, the Mission San Jose Dominicans here in the Bay Area (evacuation was threatened and prepared for, but not needed), and the New Camaldoli Hermitage of Big Sur. Today Dom Cyprian published the following account of the Camaldolese return to New Camaldoli. 

Dear friends,

Our mandatory evacuation order was lifted on September 15, and the brothers came home on September 16, which happened to be the feast of Saint Cyprian. In spite of everything, the timing was perfect, because the refrigeration repairman also came on the 16th, and we are slowly getting up and running. Still to come, a repair on the broken water main to the retreat house and a pretty damaged section of a portion of the new road, for which cost the US Forest Service has committed to reimbursing us.

My list of thanks goes on and on: to Fr. Zacchaeus and Brother David who stayed behind with me and kept singing our liturgies and celebrating the Eucharist and cooking up meals; to our incredible staff, particularly Michael Richards, our genius head of maintenance, and all who stayed behind and helped in so many ways––from ember watches and guides for the fire fighters all the way to Wade calmly making coffee every morning and quietly working away in the cloister garden and feeding left-behind cats with ashes falling around his head; to the absolutely amazing firefighters from the US Forest Service, the Vandenburg Hotshots and CalFire, the teams flown in from LA, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico, who endured battling the blazes in record breaking heat and saved all our structures, not to mention our lives; and of course to all of you who have kept following us through this ordeal with your thoughts and prayers and generous donations.

All this of course in the midst of us still observing the protocols for the Coronavirus is going to make this a memorable year. But we are prisoners of hope.

Many grateful blessings from us to you, and prayers that all may be safe and sheltered, joyful and free.

In the name of Jesus,

Cyprian, OSB Cam

Questions and Clarifications re the last post

[[Sister Laurel, in outlining your response to the last poster (dealing with the problem of envy, etc) you spoke of rights and obligations and also graces. Does this contribute to envy and so forth? Is the greater problem a failure to understand what canonical standing means or is it a failure to adequately esteem lay vocations?]]

Thanks for your questions and for reading the last post. The greatest problem in that post no matter the way I organized it, especially in dealing with the problem of  hermits calling themselves consecrated or canonical when they are not, is the Church’s failure to adequately esteem the lay state and lay vocations (including lay eremitical life).  This is a more universal and significant problem than is the misunderstanding of what we mean by canonical standing or associate with canonical vocations.

A second and related problem for many with regard to the term "canonical", I think, is not understanding that canonical standing is associated with specific legal rights and obligations, and also associated appropriate expectations. We call canonical what is associated with all of these in law and we admit people carefully to such additional rights and obligations lest they prove incapable of living what requires the specific grace of God. Baptism gives access to all the grace needed to live in the lay state. It does not, of itself, give access to the grace needed to live consecrated or ordained life, for instance. As a Deacon I am sure you are aware of that, just as in the same vein, I am aware I am not called nor graced as needed to live in the married state nor as a priest or deacon. 

By the way, this is not elitist and should not be a cause for envy; it is simply the fact that God graces us in the way we each need to live our vocations in the state of life to which we are called. (I should also note, then, that a problem with treating a non-canonical vocation as canonical (or a lay vocation as one in the consecrated state) is that one is expecting of the person with that non-canonical vocation to respond to graces which accompany a canonical/consecrated vocation instead. Because some live out their eremitical vocations in the consecrated state and have been professed, consecrated, and commissioned to do so, some things bind these persons "in religion" in ways they would not do to one who is not called to the consecrated state. For instance, where some things may be sinful for one in the lay state because they constitute a sin against precepts of Divine law, these same things will be grievously sinful for those in the consecrated state because they constitute things which are also sins against a vow/public commitment. The point is that just as rights and obligations differ, so will the associated graces in order that one may fulfill one's commitments and live one's call faithfully and fully. 

 The third and (in this case) derivative problem or set of problems áre the way envy and resentment along with individualism, substituting license for authentic freedom, etc., take advantage of and are sometimes rooted in these other two problems, both the failure of the Church to esteem lay vocations, and the ignorance of what the term "canonical standing" actually implies. I think if the Church solved the first two problems, the problem of envy would lessen. I also think if she more clearly dropped the notion of "higher vocations" (as Vatican II seems to have done) and spoke and acted with real esteem for all vocations and all states of life, the problems mentioned regarding envy, pretense, fraud, etc would be significantly minimized.

Does Canon 603 Define Two Vocations or One?

Dear Sister Laurel, First of all, thank-you so much for your blog. I have been reading it for close to 8 or 9 years. It has been a great inspiration and help. . . . I could be missing something essential regarding Canon 603, but I have the impression that your general designation of ‘Catholic/Diocesan Hermits’ as ‘Canon 603 Hermits’, and not more exactly as ‘Canon 603,2 Hermits’ or as ‘professed Canon 603 Hermits’, may, inadvertently on your part, be contributing to the misunderstanding some of your unprofessed hermit-readers have regarding their canonical status.  

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understand, the Catholic faithful, whether lay, religious or clergy may all live a life as described in Canon 603,1 (also described in CCC 920-921, which does not cite paragraph 2 of Canon 603). Therefore, all Catholics living the eremitic life are in fact, technically speaking, ‘Canon 603,1 Hermits’, and indeed derive a basic canonical status as hermits from this fact. 

• Some (most) of these hermits do not live this vocation in the name of the Church, but all the same do have a canonically circumscribed and recognized place in the Church through Canon 603,1. Hopefully, this fact should assuage any sense of insecurity some of your hermit-readers may have regarding the recognition of their vocation by the Church
• Some of these hermits are called by God and the Church to indeed live out their vocation in the name of the Church, as in your case, and this is where paragraph 2 of Canon 603 ‘kicks’ in. These hermits can be called ‘Catholic Hermits’ or ‘Diocesan Hermits’ and are, technically speaking, ‘Canon 603,2 Hermits’.

If I am indeed correct regarding this distinction, my suggestion would be to refer to those Catholics who live the eremitic vocation in the name of the Church, and thus answer to their bishop regarding their eremitic life, as ‘Catholic Hermits’, ‘Diocesan Hermits’ or as ‘professed Canon 603 Hermits’, and to refer to all other Catholics who live the eremitic life, as ‘unprofessed Canon 603 Hermits’, whether they be lay, professed as a religious, or ordained.]]

Dear Father, many thanks for your comments, questions, and proposal, and too for laying out your thought so clearly. Your suggestion on dealing with the problem of envy re canonical standing (status) is interesting indeed! Unfortunately, I believe that your distinction and proposal cause (or at least complicate) more problems than they resolve. As you well know, lay hermits live eremitical life in the baptized or lay state. That too is bound to canon laws, but we don’t ordinarily call such vocations “canonical” or refer to such hermits as “canonical” because their eremitical lives are not lived under specific canons dealing with eremitical or religious life. 

With regard to canon 603 itself, while unprofessed (lay, but also clerical) hermits may live some version of the life described in c.603.1, they do not actually live under nor are they juridically bound by the canon. In other words, their lives are not actually or truly circumscribed by the canon because they have not entered the state of life it requires, provides for, and defines. They may live aspects of c 603.1; it may more or less describe the way they model their lives as hermits, however, when you write that these folks live according to canon 603.1 and are technically canon 603.1 hermits, that is simply not true. Even when such persons use canon 603.1 to inspire and guide their eremitical lives because of its clear description of the life's central elements, they are not, either technically or substantively, canon 603 hermits because they are not hermits living under this canon in a juridical sense. (By the way, religious who live as hermits under the proper law of their congregations and who are inspired by c 603.1, are also not canon 603 hermits, not even technically.) Let me lay out the reasons I say this in the next several paragraphs. But first, the text of Canon 603:

Can. 603 §1. In addition to institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance.

 

§2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and lives his or her own plan of life under his direction.

N.B.,  some translations read "and lives a proper Plan of life. . ." This is not a Britishism --- as though one needs a proper Plan or Rule much like one needs to start the day with a "proper breakfast". Instead proper here means one's own legally binding plan of life -- much as Institutes of Consecrated Life have their own Constitutions and Statutes in addition to being bound under the pertinent norms (canons) of Canon (universal Church) Law. Note that living a "proper plan" under the specific direction of the diocesan bishop clearly establishes him as the hermit's legitimate superior, not merely as a spiritual director, for instance.

Canon 603 defines one, not two vocations:

I think it is clear that canon 603 does not define two different eremitical vocations, one lived in the name of the Church and one not. Certainly the Church fathers who authored and promulgated this canon did not intend to do so. Instead they were describing one canonical vocation lived under the specific governance and in the name of the Church who summons and commissions the person to do so; moreover they were doing so in two interrelated sections,  section 603.1, which lays out the central elements which must be found in such a vocation because these elements are eremitical per se, and 603.2, the specific juridical provision for such a life and what is necessary for doing this in law. Thus, the Church fathers were not suggesting a canon 603.1 vocation and a c 603.2 vocation with two separate sets of canonical rights and obligations (or rather with one vocation with additional rights and obligations and the other without these), but one (solitary eremitical) vocation characterized as described and lived under canon law in accordance with canon 603 as a whole.

Note well that in c 603.1 the phrase besides institutes of consecrated life refers directly to consecrated life (that is, life in the consecrated state); it clearly interposes c 603 vocations as a new form of consecrated life alongside institutes of consecrated life. Moreover, it does so in a way which implies the need for c 603.2 as completion and exposition or legal specification. 603.2 thus states explicitly what was implied in 603.1.  Canon 603.1 and 603.2 together refer to a single new form of consecrated life. Moreover, the canon does not merely describe such a vocation (c 603.1),  it makes explicit provision for it in law in a way which make it real and governable in space and time for those admitted to profession under this canon (c 603.2). In other words, in light of canon 603, while there are now (provisions for) canon 603 hermits, and hermits who belong to institutes of consecrated life, there is simply no such thing as a c 603.1 hermit which is distinct from a canon 603.2 hermit.

Getting to the heart of the problem, failing to esteem lay vocations:

Your solution/distinction is incredibly interesting and creative but as noted above, I believe it causes more problems than it might ever solve: Firstly, it does not get to the heart of the problem you have described very well. I believe that in fact, it misses this problem and allows others to actually evade it, namely, the Church has not yet effectively found --- and MUST find --- ways to take the lay vocation, including lay eremitical life, seriously and work to convince every baptized person that their callings are rooted in the consecration of baptism. This rooting means they are profoundly significant for the Church and the world without being "canonical" or associated with a "second consecration" as is religious life, etc. For too long the Church has spoken of "vocations" as though the word only meant vocations to the consecrated, religious, and ordained states of life. Vatican II made serious headway in terms of theological  and ecclesial foundation but translating that into an appreciable shift in attitudes on the ground has not yet sufficiently occurred. 

Regarding the problem of envy and resentment more generally or that of false notions of freedom, the solution is outlined in the essential problem: namely, find ways to have the Church truly esteem lay vocations, including the vocation to lay eremitical life. Find ways to help people make explicit their baptismal promises in terms of eremitical life, for instance, and celebrate this -- not at Mass, perhaps, but in some other way. Help them to understand the significant, responsible, and even prophetic nature of lay eremitical life (as was true with the Desert Abbas and Ammas). If we could do that, and if we could make clear the fact that baptismal consecration is more than the act of joining a religious club, and that it initiates one into a very real and profound vocation in itself, we would do well in our catechesis and pastoral praxis to help everyone in the Church to understand and truly appreciate this.  We do not do it by extending the term "canonical" to something without additional rights and obligations beyond those associated with baptism.

Once again, failing to regard canonical standing as a matter of  legal rights and obligations:

Secondly then, your proposal exacerbates problems because it fails to recognize that canonical standing implies rights, obligations, and appropriate expectations beyond those associated with baptism. Especially important is the fact that those whom you describe as "technically" living under the canon,  would NOT be bound by canon 603 in any juridical way; that is, they would have neither accepted nor been extended any of the legal rights and obligations associated with standing in law under canon 603. To say one is "canonical" means necessarily to be given and have accepted the rights and responsibilities associated with a canonical state beyond those associated with the baptized or lay state. This is the universally understood sense of the term “canonical.” Also, one enters the canonical state in this case via profession and consecration, whether by using vows or other “sacred bonds”; this is necessary because the graces associated with fulfilling such vocations and with the assumption of specific rights, obligations, and expectations beyond baptism also differ. Again, none of this means that these vocations are better or higher than eremitical lives lived in the lay state, but at the same time they are different in their rights, obligations, and appropriate expectations, as well as in the graces which allow their fulfillment.

If one were to allow canon 603 to refer to two separate and canonically disparate vocations, we would begin to see lay hermits without the commensurate rights and obligations calling themselves "canonical"; they would be distinguishing themselves from and (at least subtly) pitting themselves against those who had fully accepted the sanctity and significance of eremitical life in the lay state. It would introduce a new, more dangerous, and insidious way of saying, “I am not just a lay hermit! I am canonical!”  --- though the term remains relatively empty of real distinction. For those I hear from most (or complain about myself), to proceed in this way would be handing them permission to continue and indeed, to intensify the fraud they are perpetrating in the Church today. I know people who claim to be consecrated hermits though they are not. Some do so to beg for support and perks, not to serve God in his Church. Were they to start calling themselves “canonical” (albeit “only” c 603.1) in order to exploit a purported "technical" difference, they would claim canonical standing in their parishes and online and, given the normative meaning of the term canonical given above, this would be untrue and confusing. Most hermits, of course, would not seek an improper advantage; others would merely not understand the issues involved, but motives aside, the usage would still be untrue and confusing.

In any case, again, we do not resolve the issue of envy or a mistaken notion of freedom by calling something canonical that is not so. We cannot dignify a relatively meaningless label in this way, a notion of "canonical standing" which is without the additional rights, obligations, and expectations or the associated necessary graces  inherently associated with canonical standing. That would be akin to emptying the term "canonical" of meaning at the same time we exacerbate the problem of trivializing vocations in the lay state. Moreover, it would be profoundly uncharitable, and it would make the problem of mistaking license for "authentic freedom" much worse as it would do with the problem of individualism hiding under the guise of eremitism --- only now this would be occurring under the guise of a completely ungoverned  and putative "canonical" eremitism.

The bottom line in all of this is that canon 603 provides for a single eremitical vocation, not two where one of which is lived in the name of the Church with all the graces associated with this right and obligation and one is not. If one is admitted to profession under canon 603 one can be said and expected (!) to live eremitical life in the name of the Church and her life will be governed appropriately under law. Instead, solitary canonical eremitical life calls for and is governed by both parts of this canon, a description of the life provided for in law which requires Rule, supervision, legitimate superiors, etc. Yes, the Church hopes that all hermits will take the description of eremitical life in c 603.1 seriously as the Church's own wisdom in this matter, no matter the state of life in which this is done, but she will admit only a small fraction of these to profession and consecration under canon law, whether in institutes of consecrated life or as a solitary hermit under this canon specifically. The remainder she will quite rightly expect to live as significant examples of life lived in the baptized state alone just as did the Desert Abbas and Ammas.

Feast of the Exaltation (Triumph) of the Cross (Reprise)

[[Dear Sister Laurel, Could you write something about [today's] feast of the Exaltation of the Cross? What is a truly healthy and yet deeply spiritual way to exalt the Cross in our personal lives, and in the world at large (that is, supporting those bearing their crosses while not supporting the evil that often causes the destruction and pain that our brothers and sisters are called to endure due to sinful social structures?]]

First of all, I think it is helpful to remember the alternative name of this feast, namely, the Triumph of the Cross. For me personally this is a "better" name, and yet, it is a deeply paradoxical one, just like its alternative. We are dealing with the profoundly scandalous way God triumphs over human sin and the powers of evil in our world. It is a feast in which the torture and death of one man is celebrated as the greatest occasion of blessing in human history.

How many times have we heard it suggested that Christians ought not wear crosses around their necks as jewelry any more than they should wear tiny images of electric chairs, medieval racks or other symbols of torture and death? Similarly, how many times has it been said that making jewelry of the cross trivializes what happened there? There is a great deal of truth in these objections, and in similar ones! On the one hand the cross points to the slaughter by torture of hundreds of thousands of people by an oppressive state. More individually it points to the slaughter by torture of an innocent man in order to appease a rowdy religious crowd by an individual of troubled but dishonest conscience, one who put "the supposed greater good" before the innocence of this single victim.

And of course there were collaborators in this slaughter: the religious establishment, disciples who were either too cowardly to stand up for their beliefs, or those who actively betrayed this man who had loved them and called them to a life of greater abundance (and personal risk) than they had ever known before. If we are going to appreciate the triumph of the cross, if we are going to exalt it as Christians do and should, then we cannot forget this aspect of it. Especially we cannot forget that much that happened here was not the will of God, nor that generally the perpetrators were not cooperating with that will! The cross was the triumph of God over sin and sinful godless death, but it was also a sinful and godless human (and societal!) act of murder by torture. (In fact one could argue it was a true divine triumph only because it was also these all-too-human things.) Both aspects exist in tension with each other, as they do in all of God's victories in our world. It is this tension our jewelry and other crucifixes embody: they are miniature instruments of torture, yes, but also symbols of God's ultimate triumph over the powers of sin and death with which humans are so intimately entangled and complicit.

In our own lives there are crosses, burdens which are the result of societal and personal sin which we must bear responsibly and creatively. That means not only that we cannot shirk them, but also that we bear them with all the assistance that God puts into our hands. Especially it means allowing God to assist us in the carrying of this cross. To really exalt the cross of Christ is to honor all that God did with and made of the very worst that human beings could do to another human being. To exult in our own personal crosses means, at the very least, to allow God to transform them with his presence. That is the way we truly exalt the Cross: we allow it to become the way in which God enters our lives, the passion that breaks us open, makes us completely vulnerable, and urges us to embrace or let God embrace us in a way which comforts, sustains, and even transfigures the whole face of our lives.

If we are able to do this, then the Cross does indeed triumph. Suffering does not. Pain does not. Neither will our lives be defined in terms of these things despite their very real presence. What I think needs to be especially clear is that the exaltation of the cross has to do with what was made possible in light of the combination of awful and humanly engineered torment, and the grace of God. Sin abounded but grace abounded all the more. Does this mean we invite suffering so that "grace may abound all the more?" Well, Paul's clear answer to that question was, "By no means!" How about tolerating suffering when we can do something about it? What about remaining in an abusive relationship, or refusing medical treatment which would ease mental and physical pain, for instance? Do we treat these as crosses we must bear? Do we allow ourselves to become complicit in the abuse or the destructive effects of pain and physical or mental illness? I think the general answer is no, of course not.

That means we must look for ways to allow God's grace to triumph, while the triumph of grace always results in greater human freedom and authentic functioning. Discerning what is necessary and what will really be an exaltation of the cross in our own lives means determining and acting on the ways freedom from bondage and more authentic humanity can be achieved. Ordinarily this will mean medical treatment; or it will mean moving out of the abusive situation. In all cases it means remaining open to and dependent upon God and to what he desires for our lives in spite of the limitations and suffering inherent in them. This is what Jesus did, and what made his cross salvific. This openness and responsiveness to God and what he will do with our lives is, as I have said many times before, what the Scriptures called obedience. Let me be clear: the will of God in any situation is that we remain open to him and that authentic humanity be achieved. We must do whatever it is that allows us to not close ourselves off to God, and to remain open to growth as human. If our pain dehumanizes, then we must act as we can to change that. If our lives cease to reflect the grace of God (and this means, "it fails to be a joyfilled, free, fruitful, loving, genuinely human life") then we must do what it takes to allow grace to triumph.

The same is true in society more generally. We must act in ways which open others to the grace of God. Yes, suffering does this, but this hardly means we simply tell people to pray, grin, and bear it ---- much less allow the oppressive structures to stay in place! As the gospels tell us, "the poor you will always have with you" but this hardly means doing nothing to relieve poverty! Similarly we will always have suffering with us on this side of death, and especially the suffering that comes when human beings institutionalize their own sinful drives and actions. What is essential is that the Cross of Christ is exalted, that the Cross of Christ triumphs in our lives and society, not simply that individual crosses remain or that we exalt them (especially when they are the result of human engineering and sin)! And, as I have written before, to allow Christ's Cross to triumph is to allow the grace of God to transform all the dark and meaningless places with his presence, light and love. It is ONLY in this way that we truly "make up for what is lacking in the passion of Christ."

The paradox in today's feast is that the exaltation of the Cross implies suffering, and stresses that the Cross of Christ empowers the ability to suffer well, but at the same time points to a freedom the world cannot grant --- a freedom in which we both transcend and transform suffering because of a victory Christ has won over the powers of sin and death which are built right into our lives and in the structures of this world. Thus, we cannot ever collude with the powers of this world; we must always be sure we are acting in complicity with the grace of God instead. Sometimes this means accepting the suffering that comes our way (or encouraging and supporting others in doing so of course), but never for its own sake. If our (or their) suffering does not result in greater human authenticity, greater freedom from bondage, greater joy and true peace, then it is not suffering which exalts the Cross of Christ. If it does not in some way transform and subvert the structures of this world which oppress and destroy, then it does not express the triumph of Jesus' Cross, nor are we really participating in that Cross in embracing our own.

When Diocesan Personnel Don't Understand What A Rule is or How it Functions

[[Sister Laurel, if a diocese is going to use the process of writing a Rule as a key to discernment and formation of a solitary hermit it will make a difference in the way they understand what a Rule is, right? You wrote that there are two ways of approaching a Rule, that of law and that of Gospel. You also say that a Rule has to embody one's vision of eremitical life and its significance in the 21st century. But what happens when a diocese does not appreciate or maybe understand things in the same way you do? Does every diocesan official who works with hermits know what it means to write a Rule? Do they even know what a Rule should be and do? You see what I am getting at I bet: what if a diocese doesn't understand the Rule or the way a Rule should function as you do? What happens then?]]

Really terrific questions, thank you! Yes, your point is well-taken. Because many dioceses have never had the experience of discerning a vocation with a diocesan hermit (one who has lived the life for some years and actually makes it to perpetual profession), they may not know what a Rule actually is or how it works. The problem is exacerbated when the persons working with the candidate are priests or others who have never lived according to a Rule --- much less ever having written one for themselves --- and who think it can simply be a list of do's and don'ts. Similarly, such persons may not appreciate the degree of introspection, reflection, and experience required to write such a Rule. Again, when this is the case there is a much greater tendency to allow the Rule to devolve into a mere list of things one may or may not do. The problem, of course, is that such a Rule does not encourage growth or motivate adherence. Dioceses that allow the hermits they profess to write such Rules and are satisfied with them really set up both themselves and those they profess for failure.

So yes, I have to agree that this is a real problem. Canon 603 legislates a Rule written by the hermit herself, but like many terms or elements in this canon, it presumes a degree of knowledge that many diocesan officials may have no acquaintance with. When dioceses tell a candidate whom they have not worked with for any real length of time to go and write a Rule and offer no assistance, resources, contact people, or concrete suggestions or guidelines, I think there is a problem which will only become more complicated as the diocese and candidate move forward toward and with (temporary) profession. But writing a Rule is an incredibly intense and challenging piece of work (though this is accompanied by a sense of joy and freedom at many points), especially if one expects that same Rule to serve as the basis for a vocation that is canonical (ecclesial) and marked by appropriate rights, obligations, and expectations.

It is one thing to believe one is called to be a hermit, another to try living as a hermit for a few months or a couple of years and to do so successfully. But it is entirely another thing to try and synthesize what one has learned about God, oneself, silence, solitude, and eremitical life lived according to the evangelical counsels during this brief time and to create a Rule which will govern one's life for the foreseeable future for years and years!! This is especially true when that Rule needs to say essentially (and in some ways, explicitly): here is my vision of this life; here is what I am called to live and why; here is how I will embody the central elements of Canon 603, and here is why this vocation and my own living out of it is a gift to the People of God and the whole world in the 21st Century!

A diocese that fails to understand what a Rule is and how it is to function in the hermit's life does neither the would-be hermit, the eremitical vocation, nor the Church any favors in turning a candidate loose to "write a Rule" as the easiest requirement of Canon 603. Not only will good candidates often not be able to create a Rule at all, but the Rules created will not be liveable; they will not be able to inspire and support the hermit in living out her vocation throughout the coming years in ways that support greater growth, wholeness, and holiness in response to the Holy Spirit. The results will mean the diocese has failed the individual, the c 603 vocation more generally,  and in concrete terms may lead to the rejection of a candidate with a real vocation or profess someone who simply does not because they can compose a "Rule" consisting of a series of do's and don'ts divorced from reality and the hermit's lived-experience.

Let me add that dioceses and others are in the midst of a rather steep learning curve with regard to canon 603, and that some dioceses with religious in the offices overseeing the profession of c 603 hermits will do very much better in this process because they know what living according to a Rule means and requires. They may not have written one but they do have a sense of what they look like and how they function. This dimension of the diocese's own education on the implementation of c 603 is critically important for the well-being of c 603 vocations now and into the future. Meanwhile, hermits will do their best to find resources supporting their growth in this vocation. Additionally, it is likely that those who are faithful in this way will continue to redact their Rules as needed with the assistance and approval of those supervising them.

Questions on Spiritual Direction

[[Sister, if a spiritual director offers "companioning", does this mean they are simply offering companionship for the lonely? Would they be offering "in depth" spiritual direction? How about accompaniment? I have heard that term used also. Why is there such a difference in names? Since you do spiritual direction how would you feel about someone writing you to ask for prayer and for advice on or help in discerning what they should write about if they are planning a book? I read some of this recently on another blog but have no way to ask the author these same questions.]]

Thanks for your questions. The discipline and art of spiritual direction goes by a number of names including" direction, companioning, and accompaniment. A less-often used but very valuable term is spiritual midwife. Spiritual direction is often misunderstood because of the word direction: folks believe the director is going to be telling the directee what to do. Really, the term means assistance in discerning the presence and directions the Holy Spirit is taking in one's life. In conversations with a director one learns and is helped to attend and respond to the presence of the Holy Spirit in one's life. There is no such thing as superficial Spiritual Direction and that is true no matter the term used to describe the work. Still, because the term direction can be so misleading many directors today prefer other descriptions of the nature of the work.

The one I prefer is "accompaniment" because one accompanies another on their journey through life with God. If you have ever played in an orchestra or piano where you are asked to accompany a soloist you know a lot of what this word means in spiritual direction as well. In a piece I wrote here a while back I described the relationship between director and directee in terms of accompaniment. Here is a part of that post. One question which raised the notion of accompaniment was the inequality of the relationship and I address that here. Still, it is the idea of accompanying which is most fundamental.

[[While I understand your difficulty with terms here (it is indeed hard to characterize the inequality along with the equality of the relationship without thinking in terms of superior and inferior polarities); but I think we must find ways to do this. The direction relationship is one between persons relating to one another in two different roles. The director and directee are equals in Christ and the director serves Christ and the directee with her time, her commitment, her prayer and her expertise. At the same time, she necessarily sets her own story, desires, and needs aside (including the desire or need for friendship in the usual sense if it exists) for the benefit of the directee and her relationship with Christ. Everything that occurs in SD must serve Christ and his desire to love and be loved by the directee and it must do so in a focused  and self-deferential way. 

While some directees may want the relationship to be more like two violins playing the Bach double together, the work of direction makes the relationship more like that of a solo violin being accompanied in the attempt to play Bach's A minor concerto with passion and integrity. [For those who don't know the Bach Double, in this piece the two violins are incredibly equal voices and are sometimes almost indistinguishable regarding who is first violin and who is second; is is wonderful in this way among many others!] In this situation (the A minor concerto) the accompanist serves both the soloist and composer and/or the composition by stepping back. Her work requires a strong sense of what Bach wrote and what the soloist desires the music to be to reveal that fully. As accompanist she also needs technical virtuosity (and a psychological capacity) of a different kind than required in solo work; she may be a soloist in her own right, but in this situation she is there to facilitate the expression of a kind of union between artist and composer and/or composition. Her role is indispensable but unless she is able to work skillfully as an accompanist rather than someone playing a principal part of a duet, the entire theological dramaturgy will be damaged and the revelation that was meant to occur will be prevented or at least significantly impeded. Most directees come to understand such limitations on the director's part are part and parcel of a significant form of reverence and love. ]] (cf., Spiritual Direction and Mutuality

Companioning, however, has much the same meaning, perhaps with some slightly different connotations or overtones. A spiritual director is a companion to us in our Journey with God in Christ, She listens as we describe what is occurring for and within us, she finds ways to help us bring that to expression, she assists us to discern what God is calling us to and how we should live that out, and she celebrates with us when we are faithful to the God we both serve with our lives. Spiritual direction, though often therapeutic, is not therapy and it does not work like therapy does.

For instance, while transference and counter-transference may occur, they are not used in the way therapy uses and even depends upon them. Instead, they will be pointed out and the directee will work through the problems that led to the transference in the presence of God, just as the director will work through her own --- but in the privacy of her own space and time, and perhaps with a supervisor or her own director. Transference is a central tool in therapy. The therapist is a kind of blank slate to the patient or client upon whom transference can be worked out. The relationship is quite different in spiritual direction, for in direction transference gets in the way of one's relationship with God as well as with direction itself because direction always keeps that specific relationship at the center. Neither is the director to be seen in the way a therapist might by a person in therapy.

In such a relationship and process, companioning is a good description for what happens; one does not tell a directee how to live their life; one accompanies them in their living of it, and especially in their relationship with God. Spiritual direction is a long-term relationship which, while problems will be solved, does not generally focus on problems. Instead it focuses on living and living ever more fully the abundant life which God desires for and offers us at every instant. Both director and directee are focused in the same way on this single all-important reality and relationship. Both will gain from the spiritual direction relationship --- though not in the same way, for it is still not a relationship of absolute equality. Companioning is a good description and, contrary to what you read recently, it certainly is not a kind of glorified "baby-sitting" for the lost or lonely.

My own availability for the kinds of things you describe in your questions is quite limited. Neither of these is spiritual direction. If someone wants advice or is writing a book on eremitical life or some aspect of theology I am fairly expert in, I will find time to discuss the matter with them if I can, or I will refer them to someone who might be able to do this. Anyone is free to ask me for prayer anytime, however. Of course I have the time and will make the time for that. If they have a problem they want to talk with me about, I will make an appointment to meet in whatever way seems helpful in the short term. I simply won't call this spiritual direction nor, despite the intense listening which will be at its heart, will the appointment look like spiritual direction.

Followup Question: Sister, isn't transference inevitable in this kind of work? You don't simply "disallow it" so what does a spiritual director do when faced by transference?

Good question. Transference does occasionally occur, yes. When it does, I don't dismiss it, no. Neither do I dismiss my own counter-transference when it occurs. I am aware of these and when a client reacts in this way I will help them explore it and what triggered it. We will explore when else they have felt this way and in this way they will begin to understand (if they didn't already know this --- often they do) that they are projecting onto me/our relationship something with roots elsewhere. Then I will do whatever is necessary to help affirm the direction relationship in the present.

My job here is to do what I can to keep the client rooted in the present moment and especially in her relationship with God in the present moment; we can and do explore the past but, generally speaking, we do it from a strong rooting in the present. Transference and counter-transference militate against this. (My own countertransference is something I note, hold for later, and then work through as soon as I have the time and space to do that.) My point about transference and direction is not that directors don't work with it at all, but rather, that it is an obstacle to the direction relationship per se and so, generally speaking, we do not use it in the way therapy does.

Sister Laurel, Whom Does it Hurt?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why does it bother you so much if someone who is Catholic wants to live like a hermit and is not consecrated by the Church wants to call themselves a Catholic Hermit? I'm sure some people don't know that the term is a technical one or that canon law applies to the use of the term Catholic in this sort of thing. And so what? Why not let people just do as they wish? Who does it hurt anyway? I think you are hung up on this and need to let it go --- after all, really what does it matter in the grand scheme of things except for those who, like you, seem to be hung up on minutiae? (I'm betting you won't post this question but thanks for answering it if you do!)]]

Thanks for your questions. Almost everything I write about on this blog, whether it has to do with the commitments made by the hermit, the canon(s) governing her life, approaches to writing a Rule of Life, the rights, obligations, and expectations associated with her vocation, the nature and significance of ecclesial vocations like this one, the nature of authentic humanity and the witness value of the hermit's life, the hope she is called to mediate to those who live lives marginalized by chronic illness and disability, the discernment and formation associated with the vocation, or the importance of elders and mentors in her life (and other topics) --- all of this speaks either explicitly or implicitly to the meaning and importance of the much more than technical term Catholic Hermit. That said, some posts will deal with your questions as central to understanding this specific eremitical vocation. These will most often be found under the labels:  ecclesial vocation(s),  silence of solitude as charism,  and rights and obligations of canon 603 vocations (and variations thereof). Since I cannot reprise everything written in the past 14 years of blogging on these topics, I would suggest you read or reread some of those posts.

Let me point out that it may well be that in our country and even in our world today the truth doesn't much matter and individualism is the way of life most value. Similarly, it may well be that liberty has edged out genuine freedom in such a world and generosity been supplanted by a "me first", "win at any cost" philosophy and corresponding set of values. Similarly, our world seems to have forgotten that what some decry as "socialism" today was identified in the New Testament's Acts of the Apostles as the only true shape of  community in the new Family (or Kingdom) of God in Christ.  (cf Acts 2:44-45) Christianity has never truly been the most popular or pervasive way of living in our world --- even when most folks went by the name "Christian"; still, Christianity is built on truth and this truth leads to a responsible freedom marked by generosity and humble (lovingly truthful) service to others. Countercultural as that may be, the place which stands right at the point of sharpest conflict with the values of the contemporary world is the life of the canonical (consecrated) hermit.

The hermit's life is both most easily misunderstood and most easily distorted in living. The freedom of the hermit can slide into a selfish libertinism, its individuality can devolve into a "me first" individualism, and its lack of an active apostolic ministry can be mistaken quite easily for selfishness and a refusal to serve others. Those who neither understand the nature of the life, nor the Church's role in ensuring that these distortions do not occur, will ask the kinds of questions you pose in your query. They are not the folks I generally write about -- though their ignorance of this calling can be problematical.  Others who are equally ignorant of the distinctions which stand between world and Kingdom of God will valorize their own selfish individualism with the name "hermit" and some of these will, even when initial ignorance has been corrected, insist on calling themselves "Catholic Hermits" despite never having been called by the Church to live this life in her name, and despite being unprepared and sometimes unwilling to accept the rights and obligations incumbent upon someone petitioning the Church for admission to public profession and consecration. It is these I call counterfeit or even fraudulent for they have taken ignorance and raised it to the level of lie.

Whom Does it Hurt?

Whom does it hurt? First of all it hurts the vocation itself. There is no more stark example of the truth of the way God relates to human beings than when a hermit stands face to face with God in the solitude of her cell and praises God for her life, her call to holiness, the challenge to love ever more deeply, and consents to be a witness to a God who desires to be everything for us because (he) values us beyond all imagining. It is even more striking because she says this is true no matter how poor, how broken or wounded, how sinful or shamed, and how seemingly unproductive her life is in a world marked by consumerism and an exaggerated focus on productivity --- a world which very much values the opposite of all of these and considers the hermit to be "nothing" and "a waste of skin". In Christ, the hermit stands before God consenting to be the imago dei she was made to be, entirely transparent to God's truth, beauty, and love, and says with her life that this is the common call of every person. Quite a precious witness!

For someone to call themselves a Catholic Hermit when the Church herself has not discerned or admitted her to a public eremitical commitment is to strip away the humble commitment to the truth which is meant to be part of the vocation's foundation and to insert self-definition and self-centeredness in its place. Those who look to this person as an example of the Church's vision of eremitical life may find  that rather than a "Catholic Hermit" they are faced instead with the validation of  many of the same distortions and stereotypes plaguing eremitical life throughout the centuries. 

What they will not find is a person who humbly accepts her poverty before God insofar as this means accepting the vocation to which one is truly called. Lay (non-canonical) eremitical life is profoundly meaningful and important in the life of the church; it should be honestly embraced in that way. A secondary result can be that the Church herself (in individual dioceses) will refuse to consider professing diocesan hermits at all; the vocation is a rare one with, relatively speaking, very few authentic examples; fraudulent "hermits" who represent distortions, stereotypes, and caricatures (as well as sometimes being nutcases and liars) unfortunately can serve to cast doubt on the entire vocation leading to dioceses refusing to give those seeking profession any real hearing at all.

Secondly, it hurts those who most need the witness of this specific vocation, namely those who for whatever reason find themselves unable to compete with the world on its own terms: the chronically ill, disabled, and otherwise marginalized who may believe the world's hype that wealth is measured in terms of goods and social status, able-bodiedness, youth, productivity, and so forth.  Hermits say to these people that they are valued beyond all reckoning by a God who knows them inside out. Hermits say to these people that real wealth is measured in terms of love and that one of the most precious symbols of Christianity is that of treasure contained in clay pots, while real strength is perfected and most fully revealed in weakness. To attempt to witness to the truth of the Gospel by living a lie and building it into the foundation of one's eremitical life destroys the capacity of the hermit to witness effectively to these truths. To proclaim the fundamental truth that in Christianity real treasure is contained in clay pots is made impossible if one refuses to be the pot one has been made by the potter to be (a lay hermit, for instance) but claims instead to be something else (e.g., a consecrated Catholic Hermit).

Thirdly, it hurts the one doing the lying or misrepresentation, especially if she actually comes to believe her own lies. In this way her capacity for truth, humility, generosity, and gratitude are all equally injured --- and thus too, her own authenticity as a human being. We cannot image God as we are called if we cannot accept ourselves or the vocation to which he calls us. And finally, it hurts the Church herself who is responsible for all that goes on "in her name" and for commissioning those who live eremitical life in this way.

As part of this injury to the Church, it may hurt anyone who is influenced by the fraudulent "Catholic Hermit" in her lies and misrepresentations. Sometimes this happens because the person follows the directions the counterfeit gives to "become a Catholic Hermit" and then, after spending time following this advice and building hopes on a false dream or pathway to realize their dream, is confronted by one's parish or diocese with the truth of the matter. Terrible damage can be done in this way just as it is done to those who are scandalized by the disedifying example of "hermits" who embody all the worst stereotypes associated with eremitical life, whether canonical or non-canonical. Unfortunately, the individual fraudulent "Catholic Hermit" is ordinarily not held nearly as responsible as the Church is in such cases so the damage or injury can be far-reaching and relatively ungovernable.

Summary:

I am bothered by all of this because I see the value in eremitical life, most particularly as it stands as a witness against the distorted notions of humanity and community so prevalent in today's world. I am bothered by this because I am committed to live this vocation well for the sake of others,  but especially for the sake of God and God's Church who is the steward of this vocation. I care so much because I have come to know how important this vocation is --- especially as a countercultural witness to the nature of authentic human existence and all the things the world puts up as values today. Finally, I care because God has called me to care, and to embody this caring in my own living, witnessing, teaching, mentoring, direction, and prayer. I care because the truth matters and because God and God's Church care even as they commissioned me to do so as well. 

You may consider this a personal "hang up" of mine. That's not a problem and you are free to your opinion, but if you wish me to "let it go," I would note that I am responding to your questions here, and your questions prompt me to think about and even research it further --- not the best way to get me to let go of something! You also used the term minutia, and I would ask you to consider what portions of my response deal with minutia; I don't see anything in all of this that is not significant in many ways for many, many, people and the witness of the Church as a whole. My answer to the question, [[Whom does it hurt?]] would have to be anyone such dishonesty or fraud touches, even if they are not aware of it at the time. The Church is to minister truly and to assist others to live the truth of their deepest selves in Christ. That is made much more difficult when fraud and dishonesty are enacted or purported to be enacted in the name of that same Church. In a world hungry for truth, no one, I would argue, is untouched by this.

If You Need People Perhaps You are not Called to Eremitical Life. Really??

[[Dear Sister Laurel, While I appreciated your article on the role of the bishop in supervising the c 603 hermit, and while I think I can see how it is a delegate or delegates can be of aid to the bishop and the hermit both, I was struck by a sense that this kind of institutionalization is very far from traditional hermit life. Whatever happened to "God alone is enough"? I know you have written about charges of an inappropriate institutionalization in the past, once just recently, but I hope you will renew the discussion. If you need the Sisters you mentioned, or if a bishop is not able to supervise hermits in his diocese, mightn't this indicate either 1) you are not called to the kind of solitude eremitical life requires, and/or 2) canon 603's insistence on the supervision of the hermit's life by a bishop is contrary to the life of a hermit? I have posed my questions in a deliberately provocative way, but I hope you will take them as a challenge to answer questions which might trouble some readers. Thanks!]]

I very much appreciate your clarity in the way you posed your questions. I also agree that you have asked things which others are likely troubled by. For instance, I have been reminded freshly recently that there is a strong thread of anti-institutionalization among some lay hermits and I think that comes from several places: 1) a failure to understand the eremitical vocation as specifically ecclesial, 2) an ignorance of history and the way eremitical lives were discerned and lived through the majority of church history in the Western as well as the Eastern Church, and, 3) the emergence and near epidemic instance of an individualism which neglects or rejects the essential need for human intimacy and relatedness. Yes, I have written about all of these over the past decade and a half; I can try to summarize that here and I will try to draw from the article you mentioned specifically to explain both the way I live solitude, and the way the persons I mentioned (Sisters Susan and Marietta, and (by extension) my bishop and others) contribute to that rather than detract from it. Hopefully that will answer the specific questions you posed.

The Ecclesial Nature of the Eremitical Vocation I Live:

I think it goes without saying that there are many "flavors" or "stripes" of solitude, but let me say it anyway. Some go off to physical solitude to test themselves and their own capacities. One example of this might be Richard Proenecke who, initially at least, went off to Alaska for a year, and who then found he thrived in the solitude while creatively meeting the various challenges he encountered every single day. His story is inspiring as he explores the limits and capacities of the human person alone (or nearly so since he received assistance from a friend who flew in supplies, and allowed access to a shelter which made initial survival a good deal easier). Even so, there is no doubt that Proenecke lived a clear and very significant solitude that would reduce most people to terror or functional catatonia in short order -- unless it killed them outright!

Another example I have referred to here a number of times is the misanthropy and failure to live one's life fruitfully with others represented by Tom Leppard (cf labels to right) and called eremitism by some. Tom Leppard identified others as the heart of his problems in life and hied himself off to the Isle of Skye where he could live without dealing with others often, if at all. Or, consider the solitude of the individual professed according to canon 14 in the Anglican/Episcopal Church who writes that his profession as a solitary religious was specifically meant to say he was not called to community of any sort at all; he was, he claimed, constituted by his anti-communal call and profession. Then again, recall the solitude of someone living in the wilderness of solitary confinement during a 30 year sentence in a US "Super Max" prison or the physical solitude of a child growing up with an impaired immune system who must live in a bubble, or of an elderly person who has lost all of  her family, has few remaining friends and has grown apart from the rhythms and activities of ordinary society. These forms of solitude are vastly different from one another in their shapes and motivations and they all contrast significantly with my own vocation to canon 603 eremitical life.

Finally, consider the person who embraces eremitical life because they feel God is calling them to this; they have a sense of wholeness as a human being in solitude and witness to the love of God by embracing such a call. They feel called to the desert as Jesus was called to the desert, 1) to do battle with the demonic dwelling in their own hearts and in the world around them, and 2) to consolidate their identities as Daughters and Sons of God for their own sake and, in some cases, for the the sake of others. These persons are hermits as the Church defines them generally, and this is what  I am called to as well. You can see how vastly different such vocations are from those described above. Even so, beyond this difference and further specifying it, is the single characteristic that further defines and modifies the distinctive shape and motivation of my own solitude; the very thing that makes it eremitical in a way which contrasts with all of these other forms is its ecclesiality.

Like other Catholic Hermits, I am called by God to live this vocation to the silence of solitude in the heart of the Church, both through her mediation and in her name. With her I have discerned this vocation and been professed, consecrated, and missioned (commissioned, in fact) to live eremitical life in a publicly committed way for the sake of God and all who and that are precious to God.  Unlike those who live eremitical life in the lay state, the Church directly supervises Catholic Hermits' living out of their vocations; she has allowed us to make a life commitment to this call and will help ensure it is truly a call to human wholeness which witnesses to the power of the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ. Because of this ecclesial dimension, we are empowered to live authentically human and eremitical life in a responsive and responsible way for the sake of others, and to do so in season and out, in times of darkness and of light.  It is the public and ecclesial dimension of these lives which transform  and stabilize them into vocations.

"God Alone is Enough"

 So what happened to the famous (and in some senses infamous) saying, "God alone is enough?" Have canonical hermits dropped that for the sake of an institutionalization that curtails eremitical freedom and feeds the hermit's tendency to pride, for instance? I don't think so. The affirmation "God alone is enough" can be read several different ways. Two are critical for the hermit, 1) We need no one and nothing but God, 2) only God is able to complete us as human beings and we will be incomplete without God. Eremitical life has generally taken both of these affirmations to be true but recognized that the first cannot be taken literally; it is simply not true when understood literally. The second affirmation is always seen as true and most often is understood to be primary.  We take it literally. Sometimes the first affirmation has been made primary. This has happened with those who live reclusion, but it has also happened with those who criticize hermits who are active in their parishes or dioceses even when this is significantly limited in comparison to other religious or ministers.

Hermits have reached a place in their lives where they feel called to witness to the truth that only God can complete us as human beings. In fact, only God (including all the ways God is mediated to us through the lives and love of others) can call us to authentic human existence. We don't say "I don't need anything or anyone other than God" for that would be untrue and, in fact, result in a narrowed and cramped humanity, a shadow of the fullness of life one is called to in Christ. We need other human beings, friends who speak God's truth to us and call us to be our best selves, family who know us more deeply than maybe any others and who love us for who we are, superiors who allow us to be accountable for the gifts God has graced us with and who inspire us to fulfill the commitments we have made for the sake of ourselves and all those others we touch, priests and pastors, physicians, teachers, mentors, and all those who touch our lives and enrich them with their presence and the presence of God in all of the ways God seeks to come to us.

However, while we do not reject the important place of others in our lives,  we have come to a place there where we limit contact with others so we can witness in a more vivid way to the truth that without God we are less than whole, less than human, and that only God is the source of these; only God is sufficient to complete us as human beings. In that sense, "God alone is enough (or sufficient)"! (As Thomas Aquinas said, "Only God is sufficient" --- with all the rich and varied senses of "sufficient" that includes.) The solitude of the hermit says that "God alone is enough" and more, that some of the things our world counts as essential to life are simply not. It is not essential to be wealthy or powerful or to live without constraints. Freedom and well-being are defined differently for a Christian (or an authentically human being). The meaningfulness of our lives is measured in terms of love and generous service, not in terms of productivity or capitalism and consumerism. We are called to be attentive and responsive to the God who gives us life, not to the values of a world which too often defines humanity antithetically to the way the Kingdom (Family) of God defines this.

My need for others:

Your question in this assumes that eremitical requires a certain kind or degree of solitude and that my need for the mentoring, accompaniment, and supervision by others, indicates I am not called to eremitical life. in fact eremitical life has ALWAYS had such things, and required them. Ordinarily some needs have always been obviated by considering eremitical life as a "second-half-of life" vocation which builds on significant formation and assistance by others in religious life. Even so, the need for mentors was built into the Desert Abbas and Ammas lives when they moved to the desert (i.e.,  any wilderness outside the cities). Because I have written about this fairly recently I will refer you to a couple of posts which discuss this rather then repeating this material. Please see: Never Alone in This, The Place of Elders in Eremitical Life, and Religious Obedience and the Ministry of Authority See also other posts under the label, Ministry of Authority, Delegates, Spiritual Directors (or Spiritual Direction) or legitimate Superior.