Detachment as the Matrix for Christian (and Eremitical!) Love (Reprised from 2008)

We have all heard the Christian term, "detachment," or at least, that is, we know the word and its common meaning. What does it actually mean in the context of monastic or eremitical life? What relation does it have to other values, to other demands of this or any Xtn life? Does it limit our ability to love others, for instance, or does it serve as the means to love more generously, more purely, more whole-heartedly? Does it demand an end to treasured relationships, or does it clarify and transform the way we participate in these? Does it somehow cause a lack of desire to participate in or nurture these relationships, or does it sharpen the delight we take in them and serve to allow the deepening of our commitment to the other? Is it marked by apathy (which is not the same as monastic apatheia!!) and a lack of feeling or energy for life, or does it help cultivate and condition a deeper sense of being alive and in love with life? And finally, does detachment entail a loss of self so complete that one can be said to be "nothing" or have no self (a la Bernadette Roberts, for instance), or is it a new way of possessing a self, a truer and fuller self which is more abundantly alive, and more profoundly related to reality? 

As is probably obvious from the way I have phrased the questions, I believe genuine detachment does the latter in each case. It is possible to believe, using the common definition of the term, that detachment means an end to involvement, an end to relationships and to love, and even the loss of selfhood. It is possible, using this sense of the word, to set it in opposition to love and the involvement with others love demands, but in reality --- at least as I understand the term, and as the tradition of the desert Fathers and Mothers and other monastics and hermits I know understand it --- detachment is the means by which we are freed for authentic love; it is the matrix of Christian --- and so, eremitical --- love, not their antithesis. It is a mark and (partially) the means by which we claim TRUE selfhood, not the end or renunciation of it. 

At the center of our understanding of the nature of detachment are a couple of truths: 1) we are called above all to love --- to love God and to love ourselves and others in, through and with God; this is the very nature of authentic selfhood, whether Divine or human selfhood, and 2) we cannot love God or others unless we have a self which is capable of this. Detachment, if it is a real value we pursue and cultivate must, like any other Christian value, contribute to these goals or it is worthless. More than worthless, it is destructive and even demonic --- that is, capable of distorting the persons we are and blocking the process of becoming God summons forth and grounds in us. But of course genuine detachment in the eremitical life, and in the Christian life more generally, is actually the basis for the freedom to be the selves we are called to be. 

Detachment is the liberation experienced by one who truly loves and is truly human. It is, like so many other things in Christian life and spirituality, a paradoxical reality. If it is not marked by a rich and full loving, an abundant life of love and liberated selfhood, then it is not Christian detachment. And yet, how easily it is to fail to understand this! How common the misunderstanding of the term, even in those who are focused on spirituality in some way! 

Detachment and the Creation of the Self capable of Love: 

I wrote recently that real love requires distance as well as closeness, and that enmeshment was destructive of authentic human love. It is that insight that is at the root of understanding the nature of Christian detachment. There is a second and related insight which is also at the root of things here, namely, that real love requires freedom from counterfeits and a liberation from the concerns of an ego self which measures selfhood in terms of what we do, what we have, or what others think of us. This latter liberation is important not only to see and accept (i.e., love!) ourselves for who we really are, but to see and accept or affirm others (i.e., love them!) similarly. The choice before us is really to see and accept ourselves as God sees us, or to see and accept ourselves as the world (and our ego-self) sees us. There is no other option really. Detachment describes the state (and process) of moving from the latter to the former. It is a matter of freeing ourselves (or rather, allowing ourselves to be freed) from the claims and enmeshments (i.e., attachments) of the false self and embracing the true self and all that constitutes that. 

But this goal is not an end in itself. Detachment is not something to be pursued for its own sake. Detachment is at the service of something greater in the Christian life. It is at the service of the true self, yes, but above all that means it is at the service of the call to that self to love as Christ loves. Our own truest selves are hampered from becoming or being embodied in many ways, but one of the most destructive is by the attachments we make and have to all those values, structures, and realities which support the "ego-self, " that is, the self which is constantly judging and composing a portrait of "Me" which, again, is defined in terms of what I do, what I have, and what others think of me. Not only is the ego-self noisy and constantly rehearsing this portrait of self in order to maintain it so that it blocks our ability to hear the call of our own hearts, but, because it is constituted by attachments to these things, it detracts and distracts from the complete dependence upon God and God's summons (vocation) which is the necessary response to it and the One who grounds and authors it. 

Detachment is therefore the loosening and breaking of these bonds of attachment which are neither from nor of God, these definitions and images of self and others that hold us in their grip along with all that sustains and empowers them. It is a process and goal which again is at the service of a larger one, namely the making of authentic, obedient selves capable of loving others IN CHRIST. Communion is the fruit of detachment, and any supposedly "spiritual" process which does not lead to genuine communion should not be mistaken for detachment. The paradox involved here should be underscored: when we are truly detached we are capable of loving concrete human beings AS THEY ARE in our day-to-day dealings with them. Detachment does not issue in a merely abstract and superficial love of "the poor," "the homeless," "the unloved," or the like (Bondi, To Pray and to Love). It results instead in the capacity to see others --- real flesh-and-blood people with warts, body odor, lousy dispositions, contrary opinions, and the like --- and love them for who they REALLY are, namely, the images of God (as imperfectly as they -- or we -- realize this foundational identity!) who confront us with his presence everyday and who need to love and be loved in all the ways that we ourselves do and are called to do. 

On Detachment and Apathy: 

And this has implications for those who see detachment as a kind of apathy. As I noted in the beginning of this post, apathy is not the same thing the desert Fathers and Mothers called apatheia. Apatheia was understood to mean a kind of imperturbability or holy stillness which resulted when one was rooted in and lived from and for the love and mercy of God and was no longer enmeshed in the world. It was not only not incompatible with profound love for others, it called and prepared for it. Neither then is true detachment marked by apathy. Detachment and apatheia were intimately linked because both involved the freeing of the self from passions, that is from those distorting lenses formed by woundedness, neediness, insecurity, ambition, greed, etc, which caused one to relate to reality in ways which were less than authentically human. But detachment and apathy on the other hand are actually antithetical to one another because apathy is a form of self-centeredness and bondage resulting in psychological death, whereas detachment is a form of freedom from self which opens to life and love. 

[By the way, please note well: the passions, in the sense this term is used by the desert Fathers and Mothers and those who have followed them, are not simply strong feelings; they may involve strong feelings but they are really distorting lenses through which we come to relate inappropriately or inadequately to God, ourselves, and others. For a very good treatment of the reality of the passions as understood by the early Church fathers and Mothers see Roberta Bondi's, To Pray and to Love. There she defines them as, "habits of seeing, feeling, thinking, and acting that characteristically blind us to who we ourselves, our neighbors, and God really are so that we are not able to respond appropriately, rationally, and lovingly." A longer treatment is found in her book, To Love as God Loves, also highly recommended.] Given this view of things what sometimes passes for detachment and is rightly described as apathy is actually what the desert Fathers and Mothers called a passion. 

All of this leads back to the questions with which I opened the post. Detachment is a freeing process and state which allows us to love others more honestly and generously. It does not close us off from others --- even if we are hermits --- but instead allows us to see and cherish them with the eyes and heart of God. It allows us to delight in reality in a way which our ego-selves would censure and shut down, because the detached self, the true self, is unconcerned with what this reality can do for us, how it can be owned or possessed by us, or how it affirms us. Detachment makes us capable of delight in the thing itself simply because it is what it is. And, it allows us to hear and respond to the vocational call which sounds instant by instant deep in the core of our being. In other words, it serves authentic humanity; it serves the growth of the true self which loves God and claims as its own to cherish all that is cherished by Him. Further, while the eremitical life poses unique challenges in embodying this love, the FACT of it is no less real for the hermit than it is for any other Christian. For every Christian, including the hermit, detachment is the matrix out of which authentic love is birthed.

Feast of St Joseph the Worker, Iconic Seeker of Justice (reprise)

Today's feast is the Feast of St Joseph the Worker. One of the lessons we take from Joseph's story is the importance of faithfulness to our daily work, to our commitments no matter how small or apparently insignificant because such faithfulness can allow momentous things to happen and it is through such faithfulness in small, everyday things, that the will of the eternal God to set all things to rights (that is, the will to do justice) is ultimately done. We don't know lots of stories about Joseph but we do know that he struggled to discern and do the will of God, that he committed himself to what God was doing through Mary, and that he supported and expressed this by his daily faithfulness and work, both as an artisan and as husband and Father.

Especially poignant is the Matthean story of Joseph as the icon of one who struggles to allow God's own justice to be brought to birth as fully as possible. It is, in its own way, a companion story to Luke's account of Mary's annunciation and fiat. Both Mary (we are told explicitly) and Joseph (we are told implicitly) ponder things in their hearts, both are mystified and shaken by the great mystery which has taken hold of them and in which they have become pivotal characters. Both allow God's own power and presence to overshadow them so that God might do something absolutely new in their world. But  it is Joseph's more extended, profound, and profoundly faithful struggle to truly do justice in mercy, and to be a righteous man who reveals God's own justice in love, God's salvation, that is at the heart of those few stories we have about Joseph. In light of this I want to reprise what we hear about Joseph during Advent.

The Struggle to Do Justice, the Situation:

I am a little ashamed to say I have never spent much time considering Joseph's predicament or the context of that predicament until this week. Instead I have always thought of him as a good man who chose the merciful legal solution rather than opting for the stricter one. I never saw him making any other choice nor did I understand the various ways he was pushed and pulled by his own faith and love. But Joseph's situation was far more demanding and frustrating than I had ever appreciated! Consider the background which weighed heavy on Joseph's heart. First, he is identified as a just or righteous man, a man faithful to God, to the Covenant, a keeper of the Law or Torah, an observant Jew who was well aware of Isaiah's promise and the sometimes bitter history of his own Davidic line. All of this and more is implied here by the term "righteous man". In any case, this represents his most foundational and essential identity. Secondly, he was betrothed to Mary, wed (not just engaged!) to her though he had not yet taken her to his family home and would not for about a year. That marriage was a symbol of the covenant between God and his People Israel. Together he and Mary symbolized the Covenant; to betray or dishonor this relationship was to betray and profane the Covenant itself. This too was uppermost in Joseph's mind precisely because he was a righteous man.

Thirdly, he loved Mary and was entirely mystified by her pregnancy. Nothing in his tradition prepared him for a virgin birth. Mary could only have gotten pregnant through intercourse with another man so far as Joseph could have known --- and this despite Mary's protestations of innocence. (The OT passage referring to a virgin is more originally translated as "young woman". Only later as "almah" was translated into the Greek "parthenos" and even later was seen by Christians in light of Mary and Jesus' nativity did "young woman" firmly become "a virgin".) The history of Israel was fraught with all-too-human failures which betrayed the covenant and profaned Israel's high calling. While Joseph was open to God doing something new in history it is more than a little likely that he was torn between which of these possibilities was actually occurring here, just as he was torn between believing Mary and continuing the marriage and divorcing her and casting her and the child aside.

What Were Joseph's Options?

Under the Law Joseph had two options. The first involved a very public divorce. Joseph would bring the situation to the attention of the authorities, involve witnesses, repudiate the marriage and patrimony for the child and cast Mary aside. This would establish Joseph as a wronged man and allow him to continue to be seen as righteous or just. But Mary could have been stoned and the baby would also have died as a result. The second option was more private but also meant bringing his case to the authorities. In this solution Joseph would again have repudiated the marriage and patrimony but the whole matter would not have become public and Mary's life or that of the child would not have been put in immediate jeopardy. Still, in either instance Mary's shame and apparent transgressions would have become known and in either case the result would have been ostracization and eventual death. Under the law Joseph would have been called a righteous man but how would he have felt about himself in his heart of hearts? Would he have wondered if he was just under the Law but at the same time had refused to hear the message of an angel of God, refused to allow God to do something new and even greater than the Law?

Of course, Joseph might have simply done nothing at all and continued with the plans for the marriage's future. But in such a case many problems would have arisen. According to the Law he would have been falsely claiming paternity of the child --- a transgression of the Law and thus, the covenant. Had the real father shown up in the future and claimed paternity Joseph would then have been guilty of "conniving with Mary's own sin" (as Harold Buetow describes the matter). Again Law and covenant would have been transgressed and profaned. In his heart of hearts he might have believed this was the just thing to do but in terms of his People and their Covenant and Law he would have acted unjustly and offended the all-just God. Had he brought Mary to his family home he would have rendered them and their abode unclean as well. If Mary was guilty of adultery she would have been unclean --- hence the need for ostracizing her or even killing her!

Entering the Liminal Place Where God May Speak to Us:

All of this and so much more was roiling around in Joseph's heart and mind! In one of the most difficult situations we might imagine, Joseph struggled to discern what was just and what it would mean for him to do justice in our world! Every option was torturous; each was inadequate for a genuinely righteous man. Eventually he came to a conclusion which may have seemed the least problematical even if it was not wholly satisfactory, namely to put Mary away "quietly", to divorce her in a more private way and walk away from her. And at this moment, when Joseph's struggle to discern and do justice has reached it's most neuralgic point, at a place of terrible liminality symbolized in so much Scriptural literature by dreaming, God reveals to Joseph the same truth Mary has herself accepted: God is doing something unimaginably new here. He is giving the greatest gift yet. The Holy Spirit has overshadowed Mary and resulted in the conception of One who will be the very embodiment of God's justice in our world. Not only has a young woman come to be pregnant but a virgin will bear a child! The Law will be fulfilled in Him and true justice will have a human face as God comes to be Emmanuel in this new and definitive way.

Joseph's faith response to God's revelation has several parts or dimensions. He decides to consummate the marriage with Mary by bringing her to his family home but not as an act of doing nothing at all and certainly not as some kind of sentimental or cowardly evasion of real justice. Instead it is a way of embracing the whole truth and truly doing justice. He affirms the marriage and adopts the child as his own. He establishes him in the line of David even as he proclaims the child's true paternity. He does this by announcing this new Son's name to be Jesus, God saves.  Thus Joseph proclaims to the world that God has acted in this Son's birth in a new and way which transcends and relativizes the Law even as it completely respects it. He honors the Covenant with a faithfulness that leads to that covenant's perfection in the Christ Event. In all of this Joseph continues to show himself to be a just or righteous  man, a man whose humanity and honor we ourselves should regard profoundly.

Justice is the way to Genuine Future:

Besides being moved by Joseph's genuine righteousness, I am struck by a couple of things in light of all of this. First, discerning and doing justice is not easy. There are all kinds of solutions which are partial and somewhat satisfactory, but real justice takes work and, in the end, must be inspired by the love and wisdom of God. Secondly, Law per se can never really mediate justice. Instead, the doing of justice takes a human being who honors the Law, feels compassion, knows mercy, struggles in fear and trepidation with discerning what is right, and ultimately is open to allowing God to do something new and creative in the situation. Justice is never a system of laws, though it will include these. It is always a personal act of courage and even of worship, the act of one who struggles to mediate God's own plan and will for all those and that involved. Finally, I am struck by the fact that justice opens reality to a true future. Injustice closes off the future. In all of the partial and unsatisfactory solutions Joseph entertained and wrestled with, each brought some justice and some injustice. Future of some sort was assured for some and foreclosed to others; often both came together in what was merely a sad and tragic approximation of a "real future". Only God's own will and plan assures a genuine future for the whole of his creation. That too is something yesterday's Gospel witnessed to.

Another Look at Joseph:

Joseph is a real star in Matt's account of protecting Jesus' nativity; he points to God and the justice only God can do. It is important, I think, to see all that he represents as Mary's counterpart in the nativity of Jesus (Son of David) who is Emmanuel (Son of the One who, especially in Jesus, is God With Us). Mary's fiat seems easy, graceful in more than one sense of that term. Joseph's fiat is hard-won but also graced or graceful. For Joseph, as for Mary, there is real labor involved as the categories of divinity and justice, law and covenant are burst asunder to bring the life and future of heaven to birth in our world. But Joseph with Mary also both lived essentially hidden lives which were faith in all the little and big moments of being spouses and parents --- the vocations which allowed God's will to justice too be accomplished in their Son, Jesus.

May we each be committed to the work of mediating God's own justice and bringing God's future into being especially in this Easter season. This is the time when we especially look ahead to the coming of the Kingdom of God and to the time when God will be all in all. May we never take refuge in partial and inadequate solutions to our world's problems and need for justice, especially out of shortsightedness, sentimentality, cowardice, evasion, or fear for our own reputations. And may we allow Joseph to be the model of discernment, humility, faithfulness, and courage in mediating the powerful presence and future of God we recognize as justice and which we so yearn for in this 21st Century.

Isn't it hard being a Solitary Hermit under C 603?

[[Dear Sister, I appreciate what you have written about lauras vs communities, but surely it must be hard to be a solitary hermit. Don't you miss community, or the security of being part of a group with hermits that are as or more experienced than you? I would think that because you deal with chronic illness it would be prudent and consoling to have others who could look in on you occasionally or help with a meal here or there! Wouldn't it be important to have others with whom you can pray -- especially liturgical prayer like the LOH, but also contemplative prayer. 

Also, don't communities have more resources, financial, material, and so forth and the security which would allow you to pray in silence and solitude without concern? I would think there would be more c 603 hermits if these things were provided by the diocese, for example, or if the diocese supplied the land and hermitages for a laura. I guess I don't have a single question here. I can understand why some hermits have chosen lauras that really are communities. It just seems to me that a solitary hermit's vocation is less secure and harder to sustain than a hermit living in a community.]]

Wow! Have you been reading my journals or talking to my director? In fact, I miss many of the things you have mentioned and would like some of the others! I also struggle with some of the insecurities of this vocation, of course, and am open to finding better and better ways to deal with these on an ongoing basis. But, if you had really been reading my journal or talking to my director, what you would also know is that deeper than these things I miss or desire is the sense that canon 603 eremitical life is an incredible gift to the Church and even further, that is is almost miraculous that it exists today. In a Church which, on some levels anyway, distrusts individuality (again, not the same thing as individualism!!), seeks to structure and legislate institutions, and tends to be uncomfortable with the prophetic nature of vocations to the consecrated state of life generally and with hermits more particularly, we have a canon which not only nurtures and governs the solitary consecrated eremitical vocation, but which specifically requires the hermit write and live her own Rule of life and then approves this Rule with a bishop's decree affirming his hope that it will be fruitful for the hermit and the church.

I completely understand why there are so few canon 603 hermits --- and so few bishops who are open to solitary consecrated hermits. We are not supported by the church, we live Rules we must write ourselves after significant (and often long) experiences of lives of prayer and commitment in solitude, and we do not have other hermits around us to support us in our commitment to God under c 603. We provide for ourselves in whatever ways we can do that, take steps to secure our own medical care and futures when old age and illness make living alone dangerous or impossible, and at the same time, represent a profoundly ecclesial vocation committed to ongoing formation (personal growth in holiness), countercultural witness, and the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We live our contemplative lives for the sake of others and recognize that there are many today who live alone in much the same way we do --- but without the overarching commitment or the sense of meaningfulness, focus, and foundation the c 603 hermit's' lives have. And we do all of this with the relatively casual supervision of our bishops (usually exercised through the oversight and support of delegates who serve as "quasi-superiors"), and the blessing of the Church,  but also without her material support. The potential for missteps and distortion (often in the name of structure, order, and security, but also in the name of individualism) is really huge.

And yet, I continue to believe that c 603 is a great gift, both to solitary hermits and to the Church as a whole. In fact, as I reflect on the tendency to  make c 603 over into something it was never meant to be (namely, a short cut to profess members of eremitical communities), I become more and more convinced that the way it assures a costly but fragile and vital freedom is a grace of God that looks ever more miraculous to me as the years go by. To be able to live it as I do is a privilege. Yes, there are things I miss and am working to accommodate in some way within this vocation. For instance, my own need for community is real, and that is especially true with regard to other religious who live the same values I do, though they do so as cenobites. My life in a parish does speak to this need for community in significant ways, but not sufficiently, and that means I am working to find ways to associate with other Sisters and Brothers but in a way which enhances or at least certainly does not infringe on my vocation to solitary eremitical life.

Needs associated with chronic illness shift over time and I am finding ways to deal with these so that I am supported in my solitude. But, generally speaking, dealing with seizures and chronic pain alone for the most part, is and will likely remain a part of my own unique solitary vocation. These sharpen the loneliness I sometimes feel, and they absolutely call me to greater rootedness in prayer but also represent an intrinsically penitential dimension of my life. Fortunately, again, I have friends in my parish community and two Sisters who act as both spiritual director and co-delegates for me; in the latter case, even during the COVID lockdown, we have never been out of touch for long and have been able either to correspond or meet regularly via ZOOM. It is a major help and has allowed for an intense focus on ongoing personal formation. Meanwhile, my material needs are taken care of pretty well because I am disabled. In fact, as I said to one of the Sisters I mentioned above just a week and a half ago or so, I have a better library than most Sisters I know (unless they have access to a convent or university library), and other physical needs are also met pretty well. Still, I grant you, my life is not as secure as it might be were I part of a community. 

Even so, and most importantly, I have plenty of time for prayer and I live in and towards the silence of solitude. This is truly not a problem for me. While I found the initial months of the lockdown due to COVID a bit disorienting, as a whole the last year has been a very rich one in terms of prayer, lectio, writing, scripture study, personal formation, and limited contacts with others. I would personally like to be able to live alone in the woods, for instance, with its deeper silence and natural sounds, but I couldn't do that anyway due to disability  --- not least because I cannot drive myself places. But even so, no, my life does not suffer from a lack of silence, solitude or adequate time and place for prayer and productive work. I do understand and appreciate your concern however. Thanks for that.

Additional Questions on Canon 603 and Lauras vs Communities

[[Dear Sister, is it necessary to limit a laura to just three or four people under c 603? Are there benefits to this besides not tending to morph into a community? We had a community of hermits in our region but I think they have mostly left or died. I always wonder what happens to them when there is only one or two left. Do they look for more vocations? And what if the remaining hermits don't want to be involved in the formation of new members? Do they move to a different (smaller) place? I hadn't thought much about this but if the vocation is as rare as you say it is, having three solitary hermits might be the most any diocese could do.]]

Thanks for your questions. This topic has actually sparked a lot of interest and I am hoping that perhaps I can get a canonist or two (since I am not one) to weigh in here on the idea of lauras of canon 603 hermits especially as regards the origin of the canon and commentaries written on it. Your own first question is about the benefits of not having more than three hermits. When I wrote about that number I was thinking of a limit placed on groups of hermits by the Bishops in Spain (if my memory is correct in this). At that point I wrote about not allowing a colony of canon 603 hermits to morph into a community because that is a different vocation and contrary to the notion built into canon 603 by its authors. 

But you can think about the problems that can occur with groups that get larger than three. With three people arrangements for chores or charges, hours of activity and silence, finances, the way visitors are handled, assuring silence and solitude for others and maintaining a prayerful atmosphere, times for communal liturgy (if there are any), shared lectio divina (if chosen), and meals, all of this and more can be handled with a simple meeting of the hermits. It is an optimal number for dealing with differences and coming together in a way which does not infringe on authentic freedom. Not so with larger groups.

Remember that all canon 603 hermits write her/his own Rule and this is approved with a bishop's decree of approval on the day of profession. While I don't recommend a hermit itemizing every do and don't when she writes a Rule, I do recommend a hermit writes her Rule in light of the vision she has of canon 603 life in the Church. Each hermit knows how God works in her life and what she needs for this; she will know the central elements of canon 603 and what they require of her in her daily living, and she will know all of this on the basis of lived experience before she writes her Rule and is professed.  In each Rule written by each hermit there will be a wisdom the others won't necessarily accent. All of this experience and wisdom glorifies God and a laura has to be flexible enough to accommodate differences in emphasis and praxis which stem from the unique ways God works with each soul. This just naturally becomes harder as a group gets larger and the differences in one embodiment of c 603 begin to look like departures from what some others call "eremitical life." 

For instance, I define stricter separation from the world in a particular (and theologically sound) way which embraces silence and solitude and continual personal formation in Christ (growth in holiness towards what canon 603 calls "the silence of solitude"), but also allows me to use a computer, access the internet, and be active in a parish community (though in a limited way). Others without my specific experience and sensibilities (not to mention a wise and experienced director) could be unduly tempted by these things, fail to use them prudently, or, because they don't have the experience of handling these wisely, actually harm their vocations (and those of others in a laura) with them. As the laura grows in numbers it becomes harder to allow the very freedom eremitical life is meant to nurture and protect --- the very freedom which is a hallmark of both eremitical life and the Holy Spirit. (Please note, again, freedom is not the power to do anything we want whenever we want; it is the power to be the persons God calls us to be. To force solitary hermits to submit to a common Rule instead of, or as a replacement for a personally discerned and authored Rule is contrary to true freedom in regard to c 603 vocations.)

In such circumstances, prohibitions applicable to everyone become necessary (these are no longer the mutually agreed upon house rules which serve both freedom and charity) and in such cases people will also begin to look for a single person to act as the authority and "lay down the law." (While all the hermits I know personally would certainly be able to take on a leadership role if necessary, none of them/us feels we are actually called to this. It would require significant discernment within a proven environment to make such a choice.) The group will also require larger facilities and grounds --- which most hermits cannot afford and most dioceses, quite rightly, are neither able nor willing to provide for c 603 hermits. 

This is merely the tip of a very large and difficult iceberg; it is simply much easier to accommodate one or two other hermits and the vision they each have of canon 603 life. As alluded to above, one signal piece of wisdom of canon 603 is its legislating that a hermit write her own Rule rooted in her own long-experience of God at work in her life. This individual Rule and the ability to write one is key not only to the vocation itself, but also to dioceses discerning the reality of the vocation and assessing the formation of canon 603 hermits. In a laura, solitary hermits' individual Rules not only do not need to be superseded by a single Rule and superior,  they should not be superseded in this way since it can destroy the very calling they have lived for years in discernment and personal formation to embrace and embody. Again, it is a different eremitical vocation.

I'm not taking your questions in order, and in some ways my responses make a direct response impossible. The area of formation is one of these so let me turn to that. As envisioned in light of canon 603 --- which regards the solitary eremitical vocation as preeminent and is entirely geared to it -- a laura of c 603 hermits would not be responsible for the formation of other hermits. A laura is composed of already-professed hermits who have been formed on their own (and often in other forms of consecrated life first) and who have demonstrated the capacity to live as solitary hermits in the same way. It seems to me that a c 603 laura would not accept candidates -- though members with genuine expertise might certainly be able to serve as resources, spiritual directors, or delegates for hermits approaching (and subsequent to) profession. Candidates (the term is used in an informal sense only since c 603 does not provide for "candidature" per se) might occasionally make a desert day with the c 603 hermits, join them for communal prayer once in a while, or meet for regular direction, but they would live elsewhere and would be responsible for securing their own formation, both initial and ongoing. This is important because it is an ongoing need for the whole of the hermit's life, and because it is intrinsic to canon 603 life in particular.

It should but, (because of the way the notion of a laura has been misused from time to time) cannot go without saying that should a diocese have more than three c 603 hermits or those who would like to pursue such a vocation, there must be absolutely no requirement whatsoever that such persons join an already-existing laura or constitute themselves in such a way in order to be professed. Such a requirement is entirely foreign to the spirit and letter of canon 603. A laura is established for the benefit of the solitary eremitical life, not to co-opt it or transform it into something else. And yes, as you say, three diocesan hermits might well be all a diocese ever sees given the relative rarity of the vocation. (In fact, given the requirements I have stated here regarding freedom and formation, for instance, it is far more than most dioceses will ever see.)

On the Need for Caregivers and Assisting other Hermits: C. 603 Lauras vs Communities

[[Dear Sister, I read what you wrote about hermits not caring for other hermits in an ongoing way and yes, it does sound selfish. Wouldn't hermits assist one another as needed in cases of illness? Isn't this the Christian thing to do? How could it interfere with one's vocation if one was called to live in a laura of hermits? Clearly I am not hearing what you are saying here.]]

Thanks for your questions. I wondered when someone would write about this. You are the first! Remember that I described two distinct and sometimes-confused (with one another by dioceses) ways of living eremitical life: 1) as a solitary hermit who may, but need not join with other already-professed solitary hermits in a laura or colony, and 2) in a semi-eremitical community of such hermits under a single Rule where one is professed as part of the community. In the first situation, under c 603, each hermit must take care of her own finances, insurance, medical care, securing of spiritual direction, housing, formation, ministry, etc. Such hermits can come together (c 603 does not prohibit this) in a laura (colony) for mutual support in the solitary eremitical life. What must remain true, however, at all times, is that the individual hermit be able to live her own vocation according to her own Rule of Life, her own horarium, and so forth. S/he is not part of a juridical community per se and is not (and cannot be) required to be a caregiver in an ongoing way to another hermit in the laura.

This does not mean such a hermit will not assist other hermits in the laura at all!! But her vocation is a fulltime reality and she was professed to live that with fidelity. If she has a relationship with a parish community, has a ministry (spiritual direction, writing, retreat work, and so forth) she must be able to carry this out as she discerns she is called to do. If she can accommodate the needs of another hermit (especially if a more fulltime or ongoing caregiver is also secured by the one in need), then she should certainly do that and to whatever extent is reasonable, but she simply cannot be required to be a fulltime caregiver to a c 603 hermit who must provide or have provided for this as part of her own profession under canon 603. In a laura, there should not be a problem with a caregiver coming in to provide what is needed for a single member. If this is not possible then it may be necessary for the hermit in need to spend some time in a care facility until she can return to the laura and care for herself or receive in-hermitage care from someone coming in to do this.

Let me be clear. I am not speaking of someone who has the flu, needs assistance once or twice a week for something, or who breaks her arm and needs someone to come in to prepare or help her prepare a meal each day, get a shower, or do her laundry for her, for instance. Neither am I speaking of a hermit needing a ride to the doctor's occasionally, as we all do, which another hermit can easily provide with enough planning time, etc. Nor am I speaking of an emergency when all kinds of plans go out the window. I am not even speaking of a situation in which a  c 603 hermit discerns she can give a month or two to the ongoing care of another without a significant threat to either person's vocation. I can easily envision all of these being possible and necessary. I am speaking of ongoing long term significant caregiving which would disrupt not only the ill person's own horarium and perhaps her ministry, but that of others in the laura as well. For everyday illnesses and accidents, and also some temporary rehab situations, for instance, I definitely would expect c 603 hermits to be flexible and generous enough to assist one another with these! But this needs to be discerned by each member of the laura. For the rest, if a hermit needs a caregiver, she should secure one or several who can trade off (this could work well in terms of the local parish if members know the hermit's needs, for instance).

The situation in a semi-eremitical community of hermits under a single Rule, etc. differs significantly because the community itself is a central, not an incidental part of the hermits' vocation (in fact, it is significant here that I write hermits' vocation, not hermits' vocations). A hermit in such a community will have vows which include and are made in terms of the communal dimensions of her commitment. Religious poverty is geared to living poverty in community, as, in such a situation, is religious obedience. Meanwhile, chastity is a form of loving defined not merely in terms of loving others chastely generally, but of loving one's brothers or sisters who are similarly committed in this institute. There will be a common mission statement, a common charism, and a common spirituality in which each member will have been formed. The community is family -- it is a single juridical reality -- and is canonically constituted as such; it is not merely formed for mutual support by those already and otherwise committed to a c 603 vocation who are thus canonically obligated to continue living it should the laura fail, dissolve, or be suppressed.

In all of these cases discernment and true generosity is needed, but the two situations are vastly different from one another because the hermits' canonical (public and legal) commitments are different. This may point not only to the reasons true lauras fail so often, but also another reason some dioceses allow or even encourage lauras to morph into true juridical communities. It is sometimes seen as onerous for a bishop to be responsible for several hermits in his diocese (I know of one diocese, for instance, whose relatively new bishop refuses to meet with individual c 603 hermits  but instead requires they come together as a group if they require his input; this is not what canon 603 envisioned or requires). Others may refuse to profess c 603 hermits unless they belong to the laura and are formed in this context. But canon 603 was designed for solitary hermits and was meant to preserve, nurture, and govern a rare and meaningful vocation which a given diocese might, in fact, only see a single instance of over a period of decades. While each c 603 hermit might well enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to live with others similarly constituted -- or to come together in such a way for some time each year or month -- and while each c 603 hermit lives a strong ecclesial dimension in our vocations, we remain solitary hermits who must live as such every day of our lives unless and until we discern a different vocation.

Announcement of Perpetual Profession under Canon 603 by Sister Ellen Jones Carney, Archdiocese of Indianapolis

My congratulations to Sister Ellen Jones Carney!! While I anticipate editing this bio to provide a bit more personal information and additional pictures next week, I am including below the parish announcement and invitation for her Perpetual Profession as a diocesan hermit under canon 603.

Sister's journey has seen her move from life as a professed hermit (professed 9 years) in the Episcopal Church, to confirmation in 2016 as a Roman Catholic when she necessarily relinquished her vows, to private eremitical vows in 2017 followed by approval for public profession under c 603 and then, the need to postpone these due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Her perpetual profession will be held Monday evening and will be live-streamed -- though the video will be available thereafter as well (I don't know how long it will be available for, however). The link is included in the text of the invitation.

All are cordially invited to the Solemn Profession of Final Vows as a Diocesan Hermit by Holy Rosary parishioner Ellen Jones Carney, who will take the name of Sister Elizabeth Mary of the Visitation.

A Solemn Mass in the Extraordinary Form will be offered at Holy Rosary Church, Indianapolis on Monday, April 26, at 7 p.m.[Sister Ellen noted this is Eastern time] by the Very Rev. Joseph Newton. The vows will be in English.

A reception will follow in Priori Hall. The Mass will be live-streamed on the parish Facebook page Profession Holy Rosary Church We offer our congratulations and prayerful support to parishioner Ellen Jones Carney as she prepares for her Solemn Profession as a Diocesan Hermit.

On the Need for Ongoing Spiritual Direction in Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, is it the case that over time hermits can need less and less to work with a spiritual director? I read that on another blog by a Catholic hermit under private vows. I wondered if you agreed with this? Would it be more true if the hermit was doing spiritual direction himself?]]

I think I have answered this question in the past (cf., Spiritual direction as accompaniment 2014 different title in original) but perhaps I can say something new about it here. My basic answer is that in my own estimation, no, it is not the case that we need spiritual direction less and less over time as we grow in our vocations. I believe this is a kind of temptation specific to those who are more or less "arrogant," ignorant of, or perhaps just complacent about their degree of spiritual maturity, or their "possession" of a given vocation. It also betrays a mistaken notion of living a vocation as ceasing to need ongoing formation which, while it differs in kind from initial formation it is still absolutely essential -- itself requiring good spiritual direction -- even if this direction is less frequent than formerly.

We cannot see where we have not grown, or rather perhaps, we cannot necessarily see where or how we are called to grow in a given situation. We may know in a general sense that we are called to holiness or union with God, or a better or deeper relationship with Jesus, but also not know how specifically such holiness, union, or relationship actually looks or how we take the next steps toward this, especially when we are speaking about a deepening of one's relationship with God in Christ and the personal work needed to be entirely open to this. In such a case, it is my experience that far from becoming less important and necessary for living one's vocation, it actually becomes more and more important that we are able to talk about it with someone skilled in spiritual direction who has a vital relationship with God and knows us well. 

In some ways it reminds me a bit of the kind of coaching or masterclasses required by a musician who truly takes her vocation as a musician -- an artist -- seriously.  We can always play the way we have played for many years, improving gradually simply by learning the music in front of us. In orchestra, for instance, that always stretches a musician to some extent, but when you watch a master musician working with someone, the experience is inspirational. One watches the master teacher bring out in that person places where they specifically can transcend their own levels of achievement and realize an almost unimagined potential within themselves (and within the music they have been playing almost routinely for many years). 

I have spoken before about a spiritual director as an accompanist and the special gifts and skills required in such a relationship. I noted that it was important that the director be a person of prayer and be under spiritual direction themselves. In other words, it is important that a spiritual director know herself well, know God in Christ well, and know the person she directs well. When all of these elements come together in spiritual direction the director can accompany her client in a way which allows for steps the directee would never have taken on her own. It will be because the director knows (in at least a general sense) and trusts the potential within her directee, and because she knows what God offers in terms of an ever-deepening relationship, and also because she knows the kinds of steps one needs to negotiate to grow in this way, because really, in good directors, all three of these will be true. But, as in work with a master musician, the spiritual director sees all of these elements in a way the directee well may not and assists her directee to take the steps needed to come to the abundant life God offers and wills for her.

Again, we truly cannot see ourselves well enough to achieve the growth and conversion God wills for us, nor, perhaps, do we know God (or allow God to know us) well-enough. We need people who have travelled the same road before us who also know us and our unique capacities, potentialities, and also the various obstacles to growth/conversion which are part of our personal "obstacles" to seeing and growing. Over time we may become complacent with the degree of growth or conversion that obtains without spiritual direction. This can happen because our directors are not particularly skilled or committed to their own growth-with-direction, because we cannot find a good director, because we fail to trust our directors (or to entrust ourselves to their wisdom and expertise when that is real), and it can certainly happen when we become comfortable in our own life, career, or vocation and treat that comfortableness as though we have "arrived" in some sense. With hermits it sometimes occurs because one mistakenly believes a director must also be a hermit or a mystic, or that they must experience the same kinds of exceptional things in prayer that we do (if, in fact, these do) --- which allows the hermit to dismiss the ways in which the director actually challenges and blesses or could challenge and bless them. In such cases the hermit will say they have no access to a good director and go it alone. 

You ask if it might be more likely that a hermit who is also a spiritual director would eventually not need to work with a spiritual director. In this too I would say no, it is actually less likely true precisely because such a hermit would know well the importance of accompaniment (and the danger of relative complacency, false humility, or "arrogance") in genuine ongoing conversion. One final note, there is a now-abandoned blog by someone calling themselves a consecrated Catholic hermit under private vows you might have read posts re the position you describe. Please know no one becomes a consecrated Catholic Hermit with private vows. They are a dedicated lay hermit, but neither consecrated nor a Catholic Hermit.

N.B., for a particular vivid illustration of the way a master teacher/coach can work with a skilled musician check out Zander Interpretations Class. (Benjamin Zander, Interpretations class, Gabriel Faure's Elegy for cello. Alan Todas Ambaras, cello) The initial presentation of the piece is wonderful and any cellist would be really pleased with it, but the work Zander does with the "student" (and too, the accompanist!) is truly inspiring, and startlingly transformational in several significant ways. 

Spiritual direction requires the same kind of depth of seeing or vision, confidence (especially in God and the person being directed), and capacity to accompany another in a way which draws the very best -- indeed, the most true and real -- from the musician (hermit), instrument (prayer or relationship with God), and the music itself (the life of God offered to and dwelling deep within the hermit coming to fulness of life in God). Zander notes that his power as a conductor is about empowering his musicians to play "well" (and here he means helping his players tap into the power, life, and truth within themselves); otherwise he is powerless to make music or bring the music to life -- for as a conductor he does not make a sound. So too the job of the spiritual director to help their client get in touch with the life of God within and around themselves. No one outgrows this need to be helped (accompanied) in this very special form of hearing, understanding, embracing, and expressing what one hears and understands with regard to oneself and the very Life of God.

[Benjamin Zander is a noted conductor and inspirational speaker, the founder and conductor of the Boston Philharmonic and the Boston Philharmonic Youth Orchestra. Zander began his career as a very gifted composer and cellist who studied with Gaspar Cassado.]

More questions on Lauras or Colonies of Hermits and Canon 603

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I had never thought about the idea that colonies of diocesan hermits are not the same as canonical communities of hermits. Why is it you don't want colonies of c 603 hermits growing into communities in the canonical sense? Why would anyone limit a laura to three hermits at most? You indicated you had a couple of questions about what happens to solitary c 603 hermits in a particular diocese where a laura had become a community. Why did you wonder about this --- you didn't spell that out so your wondering made me wonder!]]

Thanks for your questions. Canon 603 was meant for solitary hermits, that is hermits who are professed in the hands of the local ordinary and live on their own according to a Rule they write themselves and which is approved by the local ordinary. There are provisions in canon law for semi-eremitical communities but what was missing was a way for solitary hermits to be recognized in universal law and consecrated as a unique form of religious life. Canon 603 filled that bill. Because it was meant for individuals and not as a short cut to creating a semi-eremitical community, care has been taken by some Bishops' conferences and commentators on the canon, as well as by individual dioceses like my own to make sure the canon is used appropriately and wisely to protect a really rare and significant vocation.

The reason the situation I outlined in the earlier posts made me wonder was because a particular diocese had established what began as a laura of hermits as a canonical community. This makes it appear that if one wants to become a hermit in this diocese one needs to do so through this community, via its formation program, according to its Rule, under the supervision of its superior, with all of the limitations and specifications required for life in this community. I wonder, therefore, what happens to someone who wishes to be professed and consecrated according to canon 603 without doing so under the aegis of this community. Canon 603 allows for this, in fact, once again, it is the very reason the canon was created. I don't know if the diocese in question has solitary c 603 hermits, however.

Similarly, I wonder what happens to a hermit professed as part of this community who desires to go apart and live as a solitary hermit as so many of us are doing now; if the community is still using canon 603 to profess members then it should be possible, but in that case a lot of particulars need to be established. The hermit will need to find housing, establish herself as part of a parish, make sure she is  capable of supporting herself, take care of insurance needs, establish a relationship with a spiritual director, and anything else a solitary hermit needs for living this life on her own. If such a hermit was not part of the original laura, they might not have discerned a solitary eremitical vocation at all and may be entirely unprepared to live such a vocation.

Like questions arise when a diocesan hermit wishes to relocate to the diocese in question and does not wish to become a member of this community. Would she be allowed to live her vocation in this diocese? Would the bishop accept her vows without forcing her to become part of this community? And then too, there are the questions raised should the community fail. These are the same questions raised above but instead of there being just one hermit needing to find housing, etc, you might have several. Finally, what happens when a perpetually professed hermit (or several of them) begin to understand this is not a laura (as it began or was billed as) but a community. Can they demand changes? Can they leave and form their own laura with the diocese's assistance and support or will the diocese insist on dispensing their vows? The answers depend on several factors but especially whether the diocese is still using c 603 to profess members.

Limiting a laura to three hermits does away with the group's tendency to grow (or morph) into a community with greater centralization and more structured governance, finances, single Rule, uniform dress, more need for building projects and maintenance (chapel, refectory, library etc). Three or fewer hermits are more apt to remain financially independent (some expenses will need to be shared but this will be far more limited without a common purse), be able to live according to their own Rule and horarium, and undertake the work they need to do to support themselves with a minimum of bother to the others in the colony. (And while this may sound selfish, in a laura each hermit is responsible for providing for her own medical needs and caregivers; the others in the laura are not responsible in any ongoing way for providing such. To be required to do this in a laura could well mean being required to live contrary to one's own Rule of life.) Finally, the temptation to seek out new members or shore up numbers to allow for the community's continuation over time does not occur when the laura can only consist of a very small  number of solitary hermits who know they may need to live their vocations without the support of other solitary hermits at any time.

Let me just add that while I live as a solitary hermit I definitely appreciate the need for mutual support in this vocation; a laura could serve those needs and still leave one free to respond to the Holy Spirit in the ways one's own call requires. When a laura becomes a canonical community of diocesan right, then members are no longer solitary hermits and should not use canon 603 for professions. Instead, they should be using the same canons every other religious institute uses for governance,  formation, admission to profession, the content of the vows (especially of religious poverty), etc. Once a laura is transformed from a colony of c 603 hermits into a canonical semi-eremitical community we are talking about a shift to a different vocation. Both vocations are eremitical of course, and the central elements of eremitical life will be found in both, but their differences are also significant. Dioceses must be cognizant of this and honor the solitary eremitical vocation canon 603 sought and was promulgated to provide for. 

Follow-up Questions on Lauras vs Communities

[[Dear Sister, you said "The situation changes if the laura ceases to truly be a "mere" colony or hermits..... and becomes structured as a single community..." Are you referring to a laura who becomes an official institute or do you also mean including any other form even a private association of the faithful? If the former It would make sense to take vows under that rule, within that structure, officially recognized as such by the Church for the purpose of official religious life with all the rights and obligations. However if the latter, it would seem perhaps odd to become a member of a private association, seek dispensation of your public vows and then take private vows until and if your group becomes an institute, but maybe you are saying : it may be odd(or whatever else you think) but it would be within the law and proper order of operation because c 603 is not meant to be used as seed bed for a community at least not explicitly although organic things can develop.

I guess perhaps more explicitly: why would hermits in a laura who are discerning in becoming a community (including living like such) not wait for the approval of at least an institute which as an entity have the capacity to accept public vows and exercise other rights proper to it instead of seeking dispensation of vows and enter into private vows until such time. One reason I can think why they should not seek dissolution of c 603 status, and you cited this although not exactly in response to this question, is that the private association or "community" might fail. So why would a group of hermits give up their vows with their rights and obligations as c 603's for a possible community?? Maybe your response is BECAUSE THEY ARE NO LONGER HERMITS!!]]

I'm not sure I have understood your questions so let me give them a shot. You can also get back to me again. In the sentence you are quoting I am not necessarily referring to either a private or public association of the faithful (it could be either or neither of these), but to a colony (laura) that is not (or is no longer) really a colony of solitary hermits, but instead becomes structured and governed as a community. The hermits continue to live as hermits but they do so within the context of a community with all the elements of a community. Canon 603 was meant to be used to foster and govern the life of the solitary hermit. It was not meant to be used as an end run around the already-established process of becoming an institute of consecrated life -- which process some find onerous --- and yet some have actually done that. Meanwhile, some people have been or have sought to be professed under canon 603 while desiring to start a community of hermits. In such instances, these persons have not really discerned nor intended to live a c 603 vocation; for this reason I believe this constitutes a misuse or abuse of the canon and might invalidate any vows made.

My own diocese required that my vow formula's statement of intention included the phrase "solitary hermit". By this I mean that I was asked to specify that I intended to make profession and be consecrated as a solitary hermit, and so too, that I intended to live the rest of my life as one. Though I thought at the time the phrase "solitary hermit" was a weird linguistic redundancy, I now understand this was very wise and see it underscoring an understanding of the c 603 vocation which comports with the original intention of the canon's authors as well as similar work done on c 603 by the Spanish bishops, and others.

And yes, you are absolutely correct that sometimes things grow more or less organically from solitary hermit to colony of solitary hermits to association of the faithful, to (this next step is not organic since a conscious decision to move in this direction has to be made by both hermits and diocesan bishop) a semi-eremitical community of hermits. When this last step takes place a lot of things must change and change in a conscious and intentional way: the colony must accept more than the prudent limit of members, individual hermits must surrender their own Rules, relinquish responsibility for their own finances and self-provision (for education, spiritual direction, ongoing education and formation, insurance, retirement, choice of delegate, etc., etc.). Thus, I do not consider the move from laura of solitary hermits (even as an association of the faithful), to a group structured as a community to be a strictly organic development. It is not so much that these people are no longer hermits; they would be hermits in the same sense the Carthusians, and Camaldolese are hermits. Rather it is the case that they have chosen to become and are no longer solitary hermits which is precisely the eremitical life c 603 was meant to protect and nurture. 

Because of the choices necessary in moving from one form of canonical eremitical life to another, once the discernment process is completed, such hermits (those no longer wishing to be a solitary hermit under c 603) should have their vows under canon 603 dispensed (or declared to be no longer be valid) and their group should be required move through all the steps outlined by the Church for any other putative or nascent institute of consecrated life. At the same time any member of the laura who does not wish to be part of such an experiment or community should re-establish themselves as a solitary hermit in the diocese. Presuming they are already perpetually professed and consecrated, they will still need to write a Rule of life which is approved by the bishop if they have not already done so, and provide for their own independent life as does every other c 603 hermit. If there are two or three such hermits, they could continue (somewhere else in the diocese) as a laura but the same requirements would need to be met (Rule written by the hermit herself, independent status, provision for oneself, etc.).

You asked about the sense it makes to move from perpetually professed to temporary vows were one to move from life under c 603 to becoming a member of an institute of consecrated life (or laura on the way to becoming an institute of consecrated life) so let me try to address that -- though I don't believe I referred to such a situation directly in my last post. Temporary vows indicate a standing in law of someone who is not perpetually professed which is part of an ongoing process of mutual discernment where one has a chance to live vows in a way which deepens one's commitment and also to continue to discern whether or not this is really one's vocation. 

In the situation I outlined earlier I was not speaking of anyone seeking a voluntary dispensation of perpetual canonical vows; rather I had in mind the need for dispensation from a canon 603 profession if one means or feels called to live in a community (not a laura) of hermits. When one becomes certain that one is called to live as a member of an institute of consecrated life, or that they are no longer called to life as a solitary hermit, a dispensation will be granted or the hermit's c 603 vows declared invalid depending on the circumstances. I don't think the vows need be dispensed or invalidated unless or until the hermit becomes clear that she is called to communal life. (Some reasonable time limit on the discernment process is prudent here, however. The hermit cannot be discerning -- and thus fail to live her own Rule -- indefinitely.) There would be no need for private vows in such a situation.

Questions on C.603 and Lauras vs Communities of Hermits

[[Dear Sister, I have read a few articles [here] and they have such good content and are very informative. I was reading the article "are canon 603 hermits religious" and the last paragraph prompted this question. I attached a screenshot for reference. My questions are: 1) If a group/laura of Hermits exceeded (three) or if they decided to live a more communal structure and sought to become an Association of the Faithful or even higher forms, what would happen to their vows? Would they have to take vows under the new juridical entity or would they continue to be members of this new entity while retaining their vows as 603's? 2) If so would this be indefinitely? Separate but related 3) are public vows necessarily tied to the canonical structure they were made in? e.g. institute, 603? Separate question: 4) I read of "final vows" for a member of an association of the faithful. Is there such a thing as "final vows" if they are private?]]

Thanks for reading and for your comments and questions! They are excellent!! If a laura of canon 603 hermits sought to become an association of the faithful and in every way necessary remained a laura and NOT a community of hermits (i.e., not an institute of consecrated life), each and all would retain their vows under c 603. Because lauras often fail, and because an individual professed under canon 603 might also simply choose to leave such a laura while remaining a diocesan hermit, the vows remain binding. The situation changes if the laura ceases to truly be a "mere" colony of hermits each with her own Rule, ministry, delegate, horarium, and bank account, integral relationship with a parish, etc., and becomes structured as a single community with single Rule, horarium, superior, bank account, ministry, formation program, and so forth. 

While lauras are helpful for mutual support of hermits, and while they require some degree of common finances, and even someone who takes a leadership role to some extent on a temporary basis (which could be rotated each month or so, for instance), the individual hermits need to maintain their own independence both because of the nature of the c 603 vocation itself, and in case they desire to leave or the laura fails. As I recall, the limit of 3 hermits in such a laura was decided by the Spanish Bishops conference in order to minimize the needs and dangers of greater numbers of hermits which naturally calls for more centralized governance and institutional structure. Greater numbers than 3 hermits militate against the solitary eremitical vocation envisioned and provided for canonically by canon 603.

That said, I know of one group that began as a laura and then became not only an association of the faithful, but beyond that, a community of hermits (of diocesan right) with a single Rule and all of the other elements I noted above. I don't believe they ceased to call themselves c 603 hermits or made vows as members of a community, but that is what they should have done. Ordinarily in such a case, the group's c 603 vows would be dispensed (or rendered invalid) the same day (or at the same moment) they became a community and made vows as part of the community under a given Rule, superior, etc. Because c 603 was written for solitary hermits, not members of a religious community it may well be that when a colony becomes a religious institute the vows are automatically invalidated because of a significant material change in the context of the life being lived and so too, in one's vows. New members could not and should not make vows under c 603, but under the usual canons which are binding on coenobitical religious. They have discerned a different vocation.

If they did not do this (dispense or understand c 603 vows as rendered invalid), one wonders what the diocese does with individuals who wish to be professed under canon 603 and may want to be part of a laura without joining this community or agreeing to all of its own laws and statutes. An individual may also desire to be professed under c 603 without a laura in said diocese; certainly c 603 itself does not require membership in a laura or community, so again, I wonder what the diocese does with such people. I also wonder what happens to c 603 hermits who need to provide for themselves but are unprepared to do so when other members of the community die and the community cannot be sustained. In such cases, c 603 vows (if never superseded by coenobitical vows and not rendered invalid due to a material change) remain valid until and unless they are dispensed.

Yes, public vows are canonically tied to the entity in which the vows are made. In some instances, after a three year trial, religious can canonically (legally) transfer their vows from one community to another community, but c 603 hermits are a different matter and cannot transfer their vows. Similarly, a religious wishing to become a c 603 hermit must leave her institute and vows in order to do so (this can be, and sometimes is, arranged so one's dispensation is signed the same day profession under c 603 is made). A diocesan hermit makes public vows within a given diocese and becomes a diocesan hermit in and of the Diocese of N_______. If the hermit desires or needs to move to another diocese and wishes to remain a diocesan hermit, she must obtain the agreement of the bishop of the new diocese as well as an affirmation from her professing diocese that she is a hermit in good standing. If hermits have been specifically professed as members of a community of hermits (not as solitary hermits who come together in a c 603 laura!!) and wish instead to become solitary diocesan hermits under c 603, their existing vows (if perpetual) will need to be dispensed and new vows made under c 603. This would also require a separate discernment process because the context is so very different. Again, though still eremitical it is a different vocation than solitary eremitical life, even when that is lived in a colony or laura. If a perpetually professed c 603 hermit participates in a laura of c 603 hermits and decides to leave the laura, her vows under c 603 remain binding until and unless she seeks a dispensation or decides to relocate to another diocese.

The indication "final vows" could, in my opinion, be used for private avowal (not profession!), because they indicate the intention of the person making the vows. However, such vows do not involve the same rights and obligations that public vows do; they are easily dispensed, and have no real sense of mutual discernment or ecclesial nature. Every vow made by a person, whether public or private (canonical or non-canonical) intends finality. This is true of canonically temporary vows as well. Calling a canonical vow temporary or perpetual therefore, mainly indicates where the person stands in terms of the church's own discernment of such vocations; has the person yet been seen by all involved, to be called by God to live this vocation in the name of the Church for the entirety of their lives?  

Temporary vows indicates a provisional confirmation of a vocation here. Admission to perpetual or definitive profession and consecration indicates an unqualified confirmation by the Church (including the Institute of consecrated life if there is one) that, insofar as this can be determined, the person is thusly called by God. It is important to remember though that one's own discernment does not cease with perpetual or definitive vows --- though the community or church ceases to be engaged in such a process of discernment in any focused way. Through the various canonical professions made, the process of discernment shifts, however, from an accent on "am I called", to an emphasis on "how am I called to live this vocation of mine** more deeply and truly" in this or that situation and context. 

Only in very significant situations does the publicly professed and consecrated person freshly and seriously raise the question as to whether or not she is called; in these situations, the presumption on everyone's part (e.g., authorities, diocese, spiritual director, etc.) is that she is called and what is needed is to help her find a way to negotiate the difficulties being experienced. All of this (mutual discernment, presumption of vocation by others) differs (that is, it is missing) in the case of private vows because these remain at every point a matter of an individual's entirely private discernment and commitment. Even so, because this intention to finality is part of every vow made, and because the term can point to the person's intention, I don't think there is any problem with the term perpetual vows for private avowals --- so long as one understands the entirely private nature of the commitment and that one's own discernment does not cease once such vows are made.

** a vocation may be said to be "mine" only through the grace of God and the mediation and confirmation of the Church. The sense of "mineness" grows in time, not in the sense that the vocation is a person's possession precisely, but in the sense that one becomes more and more clear that one's own selfhood is perfected at the same time one lives one's vocation with fidelity; I know this is the path through which God has called me to perfection and will allow me to touch others with the Gospel of his Christ. In other words, there is a deepening and more extensive sense that God's faithfulness and our own interlock with one another in this vocation, while this mutual faithfulness results in the revelation of God and our own holiness and wholeness.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Died into the Hands of God April 9, 1945 (Reprise)

I first posted this piece several years ago, but it is particularly significant for two reasons:1) this is the First Week of Easter when we spend time reflecting on the events of Jesus' passion and resurrection, among other things, what it means for human beings to do the worst they can do to another human being and for God to do justice in mercy; tomorrow is the anniversary of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's  in credibly inhumane execution by the Nazis at Flossenburg, and 2) we are experiencing a time of learning to be Church in new ways during a pandemic which separates us from those we love, as well as from much of the ministry and other activity which also make our lives meaningful.  Still, the Holy Spirit is with each and all of us and we are joined as the Body of Christ in that Spirit; as we begin to celebrate the Easter season, each in the relative solitude of our own homes, let us hold onto that truth in whatever ways we can.

Similarly, in writing about eremitical life I noted that stricter separation from the world was an essential part of maintaining not only one's love for God, but also for God's creation, because without very real separation we might instead know only enmeshment in that world rather than a real capacity for love which reconciles and brings to wholeness. In everyday terms we know that the deficiencies and losses we experience throughout our lives are things we often try to avoid or seek to fill or blunt in every conceivable way rather than finding creative  approaches to genuinely live (and heal) the pain: addictions, deprivations and excesses, denial and distractions, pathological withdrawal or superficial relationships of all kinds attest to the futile and epidemic character of these approaches to the deep and often unmet needs we each experience.

While we may expect our relationship with God to fill these needs and simply take away the pain of loss and grief, we are more apt to find God with us IN the pain in a way which, out of a profound love for the whole of who we are and who we are called to become, silently accompanies and consoles us without actually diminishing the suffering associated with the loss or unmet needs themselves. In this way God also assures real healing may be sought and achieved in our separation and suffering. It is a difficult paradox and difficult to state theologically. Paul did it in terms of the God of all comfort who comes to us and resides within us in the midst of our suffering. Today, I found a quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer written while he was a political prisoner of the Nazis and separated from everyone and everything he loved --- except God; it captures the insight or principle underlying these observations --- and says it so very well!

Nothing can make up for the absence

of someone whom we love,

and it would be wrong

to try to find a substitute;

we must simply hold out and see it through.

That sounds very hard at first,

but at the same time

it is a great consolation,

for the gap --- as long as it

remains unfilled ---

preserves the bond between us.

It is nonsense to say that God fills the gap;

God does not fill it

but on the contrary keeps it empty

and so helps us to keep alive

our former communion even

at the cost of pain.

from  Letters and Papers From Prison

 "Letter to Renate and Eberhard Bethge: Christmas Eve 1943"

by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

As a hermit embracing "the silence of solitude" I know full well that this charism of eremitical life is characterized by both connection and separation. It is, as I have written here many times a communion with God which may be lonely --- though ordinarily not a malignant form of loneliness! --- and an aloneness with God which does not simply fill or even replace our needs for friendships and other life giving relationships. Sometimes the pain of separation is more acute and sometimes the consolation of connection eases that almost entirely. Sometimes, however, the two stand together in an intense and paradoxical form of suffering that simply says, "I am made for fullness of love and eschatological union and am still only (but very really!) journeying towards that." This too is a consolation.

Today I am grateful for the bonds of love which so enrich my life  --- even when these bonds are experienced as painful absence and emptiness. I think this is a critical witness of eremitical life with its emphasis on "the silence of solitude" --- just as it is in monastic (or some forms of religious) life more generally. I also believe it is the terrible paradox of relatedness-in-separation Jesus' almost-inarticulate cry of abandonment expressed from the Cross.  Thanks be to God.

Alleluia! Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Truly Risen, Alleluia, Alleluia!! (Partial Reprise)

 For the next 50 days we have time to attend to what Jesus' death and resurrection changed, what became real because of these. You see, in light of these events we live in a different world than existed before them, and we ourselves, by virtue of our Baptism into Christ's death, are new creations as well. While all this makes beautiful poetry, and while, as John Ciardi once reminded us, poetry can save us in the dark and threatening alleys of life, we do not base our lives on poetry alone. Objective reality was transformed with Jesus' passion and death; something astounding, universal, even cosmic in scope, happened in these events which had not only to do with our own salvation but with the recreation of all of reality. One of Paul's shorthand phrases for this transformation was "the death of death," something I hope to be able to look at a bit more as these 50 days unfold. We have already begun to see what happens in our Church as Christ's own life begins to shine forth more brightly in a myriad of small but significant ways. Not least is the figure of Francis who has many of us singing a heartfelt alleluia in gratitude to the Holy Spirit.

But, it is probably good to recall that the early Church struggled to make sense of the cross, and that faith in resurrection took some time to take hold. Surprisingly, no single theology of the cross is held as official, and variations --- many quite destructive --- exist throughout the Church. Even today a number of these mistakenly affirm that in various ways God was reconciled to us rather than the other way around. Others affirm that Jesus' death was merely the consequence of his ministry -- his speaking truth to power in all the ways Jesus did this --- and that nothing besides Jesus' horrific death occurred on the cross. An entirely passive Jesus was crushed on the wheel of the world's powers and principalities. His death, they claim, was really unnecessary for God to do what God willed to do. In particular they miss the way Jesus' complete dependence upon and attentive openness (obedience) to God on the cross continued Jesus' ministry to reveal One who would be Emmanuel in even the most godforsaken and shameful places. Only in time did the nascent Church come to terms with the scandalous death of Jesus and embrace him as risen, and so, as the Christ who reveals (both makes known and makes real in space and time) a God whose power is perfected in weakness. Only in time did she come to understand how different God had made the world, especially for those who had been baptized into Jesus' death. Thus, in celebrating what happened on the cross, the Church offers us a period of time to come to understand and embrace its meaning and scope; the time from Easter Sunday through Pentecost is, in part, geared to this.

Today, then, is a day of celebration, and a day to simply allow the shock and sadness of the cross (and certainly of the past year and more!) to be completely relieved for the moment. Lent is over, the Triduum has reached a joyful climax, the season of Easter has begun and we once again sing alleluia at our liturgies. Though it will take time to fully understand and embrace all this means, through the Church's liturgies and the readings we have heard we do sense that we now live in a world where death in all its forms has a different character and meaning than it did before Christ's resurrection --- and therefore so does life. On this day darkness has given way to light, and senselessness to meaning -- even though we may not really be able to explain to ourselves or others exactly why or how. On this day we proclaim that Christ is risen! Not even sinful, godforsaken death could hold him or separate him from the love of God -- and it cannot hold or separate us as a result. Alleluia! Alleluia!!