Feast Day of St Peter Damian (reprise with tweaks)

Today is the feast of the Camaldolese Saint, Cardinal, and Doctor of the Church, St Peter Damian. Peter Damian is generally best known for his role in the Gregorian Reform. He fought Simony and worked tirelessly for the welfare of the church as a whole. Hermits know him best for a few of his letters, but especially #28, "Dominus Vobiscum". Written to Leo of Sitria, letter #28 explores the relation of the hermit to the whole church and speaks of a solitary as an ecclesiola, or little church. Damian had been asked if it was proper to recite lines like "The Lord Be With you" when the hermit was the only one present at liturgy. The result was this letter which explains how the church is wholly present in all of her members, both together and individually. He writes:

[[The Church of Christ is united in all her parts by the bond of love, so that she is both one in many members and mystically whole in each member. And so we see that the entire universal Church is correctly called the one and only bride of Christ, while each chosen soul, by virtue of the sacramental mysteries, is considered fully the Church. . .. From all the aforementioned it is clear that, because the whole Church can be found in one individual person and the Church itself is called a virgin, Holy Church is both one in all its members and complete in each of them. It is truly simple among many through the unity of faith and multiple in each individual through the bond of love and various charismatic gifts, because all are from one and all are one.]]

Because of this unity Damian notes that he sees no harm in a hermit alone in cell saying things which are said by the gathered Church. In this reflection Damian establishes the communal nature of the solitary vocation and forever condemns the notion that hermits are isolated or "lone" persons. His comments thus have much broader implications for the nature of eremitical life than the licitness of saying certain prayers or using communal phrases in liturgy per se. In the latter part of the letter Damian not only praises the eremitical life but writes an extended encomium on the nature of the eremitical cell. The images he uses are numerous and diverse; they clearly reflect extended time spent in solitude and his own awareness of all the ways the hermitage or cell have functioned in his own life and those of other hermits. Furnace, kiln, battlefield, storehouse, workshop, arena of spiritual combat, fort and defensive edifice, [place assisting the] death of vices and kindling of virtues, Jacob's ladder, golden road, etc --- all are touched on here. 

Today I especially appreciate all the ways Peter imaged the hermitage or cell. The richness of life in cell is incredible and vast in its dimensions when one dwells with God. When I was perpetually professed (Arch)bishop Vigneron spoke about my having given my home over to God; his observation was exactly right. In the 15 plus years since, my hermitage has become the place where so much personal work has been done --- writing, inner work, spiritual direction and personal formation, prayer and lectio, struggle and suffering, growth in my ability to love and be loved, teaching, study, work and celebration --- and in all of this God has been present sharing (him)self, sustaining and inspiring me, drawing me more deeply into his own heart. There is nothing cramped or narrow about life within a hermitage because there is nothing cramped or narrow about the life with God it allows space and time for --- and which God continually opens up to us. Peter Damian's images resonate with my own experience here. They serve to underscore the classic observation of the Desert Fathers and Mothers: "Dwell (or remain) within your cell and your cell will teach you everything."

Another Look at the Affirmation that God Alone is Enough

[[Dear Sister, you know what makes no sense to me? The idea that "God Alone is enough for us"!! Think about it! No one can truly be human all alone. We need each other. Genesis itself says, "It is not good for mankind to be alone." But you write about being a hermit and that God alone is sufficient for us. I think that's not only counter-intuitive, it's just plain nonsense!! What have you got to say about that??]]

LOL!! Well, thanks for the righteous indignation; it gave me a good laugh (because I agree with you and thought "Right on!!"). Your objections are well-taken and I have already answered similar questions and objections. For that reason, I am going to put up two of these I wrote about 5 and 6 years ago (one of these was first posted 10 years ago). You may have seen them, but I think they answer your questions, at least enough to be getting on with for the present. If you have further questions or if you find this inadequate, please get back to me and I will give it another shot.

[[Because of recent posts and the phrase "God alone is enough" which I have used therein, I have been asked if this isn't misanthropic, anti-Christian, or downright isolationist --- all things I often and consistently write against. In Lent 2012 I posted the following piece which describes the meaning of this difficult affirmation. An added section (italicized) is included on the place of friendship and other significant relationships which, I hope, clarifies some of the brief comments in the original piece.

[[Hi Sister! What does it mean to say that God alone is enough? I need my family and friends and I wouldn't be the person I am without them. Does saying God Alone is Enough mean that we don't need others? Does it mean something different for you as a hermit than for me as a single teacher?]]

Wonderful questions! The phrase God Alone is Enough is an ambiguous one, meaning it has different and overlapping meanings which can also be misunderstood. So, for instance, the word "enough" can either basically mean we don't need anyone or anything else in our lives, or it can mean that God is the one reality which answers every fundamental or foundational need and completes us as persons. For most persons, the truth is that in adulthood we do not come to human wholeness apart from our relationships with other people and so it is ordinarily the case that the affirmation God alone is enough refers to the second sense: only God is sufficient to truly complete us, to empower us to the transcendence of genuine humanity, to serve as the source and ground of being and meaning in our lives.

This is especially true when one asks what the word "alone" means. Does it mean the person needs no one and nothing else besides God? Does it mean one can go one's own way motivated merely by individualism (what monastic life critically refers to as singularitas) and even a form of narcissism? Does it mean that one can dismiss the world around them as unworthy of their spirituality and live a kind of falsely "spiritualized" isolation? Or, again, does it mean that only God can answer every human need and complete us as persons? In every case, that is, for every person [whether hermit or not] it means the latter. For most people their reliance on God as the foundation of their lives will actually lead to more -- and more healthy -- personal relationships, not to fewer much less to less healthy ones. Only in the case of hermits or anchorites does it mean that the hermit relies on God alone to the significant and lifelong limitation or relative exclusion of human relationships. We do this not only because we are called to do it for ourselves and for God who desires and wills our love, but again because it witnesses in a rather vivid way to that foundational relationship which stands at the core of every person.

So yes, my sense of the meaning of this phrase may be different than yours in some ways. The two senses I have spoken of also overlap to a significant degree though. By the way, as we approach Holy Week it is important to note that the church will be looking at a related way in which "God alone is enough." What we will hear proclaimed is the fact that only God can overcome sin and death: only God is that love which is stronger than death, only God is generous enough to empty himself completely and become subject to the powers and principalities of our world so that they might also be defeated. I will write about that a bit more though in the next weeks.
 
[Please note, when I spoke above of the relative exclusion of human relationships I really mean the accent to be on [the word] relative. Hermits are not misanthropes but at the same time they limit contact with others for the sake of the witness they are called to regarding the foundational place of God in every human life. Hermits, at least in my experience,  because again they are not usually recluses or ordinarily called to reclusion, must cultivate some few but quality relationships --- friends, directors, and those who accompany them in more "professional" or formal ways --- not only because there are real limits on the number of relationships in which the hermit can actually participate if their solitude is to be real, but because at the same time one's physical solitude requires such significant, even "sacramental," relationships if it is to be the rich and nourishing environment of the heart hermits require and commit to in the name of the Church.

It is hard to describe this paradox, but it is linked to the distinction between being merely alone and living the silence of solitude. Consider that the ecclesial nature of this vocation provides a communal context for all authentic eremitical solitude; within this ecclesial context there will be the sustaining warmth, love, challenge, discipline, and consolation of the kinds of relationships I mentioned above --- limited though these will necessarily be. Each will mediate the presence and will of God in ways which supplement the way God comes to us in physical solitude and solitary prayer. Each will help shape the human heart in ways which allow it to embrace God fully -- and be more fully embraced by him -- in the rigors of solitude. They will thus also help the hermit maintain her commitment to all dimensions of the truth that "God alone is enough" for us --- but (and this is the sharpest form of the paradox) especially the solitary dimension she has freely embraced and is publicly responsible for.]

Witnessing to the Truth that God is Enough

[[Dear Sister Laurel, am I right when I say you are writing that it is not only about living alone or even the other things hermits do, but WHY they do these things that is most important? Also, I see why you say that being a solitary is not always the same as being a hermit but isn't that just a matter of externals? Don't solitaries and hermits witness to the same thing?]]

Thanks for the questions. It is always good to hear from someone grappling with what I write. It is also terrific to get a chance to clarify when I haven't been clear enough. So, let me give that a shot.

First, it is true that it is WHY hermits do what they do that is most important, but it is also the case that what they do and why they do it are inextricably wed. What I mean is that they are called to witness to Christ's redemption precisely by living as they do. If they live in some other way, the witness they give is a different one. Let's say that the witness one is meant to give is that redemption in Christ empowers one to give one's life in service to others, that it allows one to let go of other ways of validating one's life and simply give one's life for those Christ loves. If this is the case, then one must live a life geared to ministering to others. All kinds of active ministries are possible and many different living arrangements will support and contribute to this witness.  At the same time, if one wishes to witness effectively or credibly to the redemptive power of the Christ Event one cannot live in a way which contradicts that witness.

So, let's say that because of the message of the Cross one believes that God redeems and makes infinitely meaningful the life of one who is responsive to God's grace even when they are otherwise incapable of anything else, even when the discrete gifts they have been given have been lost or made unusable, even when their weakness or sinfulness or failure is their main or only other contribution to the situation. How would this person live in order to proclaim this message? Again, there are many ways, but it seems to me that one of these is more radical than all the others, namely, eremitical life.

Traditionally it has been said that the essential proclamation of the hermit's life is that "God alone is enough." When we unpack this statement it is a restatement of the message of the cross: God can and DOES complete us as human beings, only the God of Jesus Christ can and does  redeem us, only that same God can and does make infinitely meaningful and fruitful those lives which have been marked and marred by death and senselessness in all its forms; only God can make freely and sacrificially loving those lives that have been isolated, reviled, rejected, and betrayed at every turn. Only God can make a gift of our lives when the circumstances of life and our denial of or collusion with those circumstances have made of them all that I described above.  Only such a God can and will still the scream of anguish one becomes or transforms the muteness and emptiness of a failed and relatively loveless life without God into a jubilant canticle empowered by an inexhaustible Love-in-Act. Only the God of Jesus Christ raises the demeaned, absurd, and alienated inhumanity of a sinful and godless autonomy to New Life which is essentially "theonomous".

Moreover, the statement "God alone is enough" implies the corollary that such a God is worth entrusting our entire lives to. It says the Gospel of this God is worth giving our entire lives for. This God and his Gospel are worth letting go of all worldly possibilities, relinquishing every discrete gift and talent, every potentiality we may possess EXCEPT for hearts and lives which are open to being completed and transfigured by him in his Christ. Entrusting our lives in this way is the essence of faith. In Christ when we are empty we are full, when weak powerful, when we seem most alone we exist in communion with God and all that is grounded in God, when silenced and mute our lives can and will sing with the grace and justice of heaven. When every prop is kicked out or otherwise relinquished, God alone is enough.

This paradox is the radical form of the gospel truth which animated and flowed from Christ's own profound obedience unto death --- especially death on a cross. Similarly, it is the paradox which stands at the heart of the hermit's vocation that she must (and can really only) witness to as radically as she is called to do in the silence of solitude. For this reason, canon 603 defines a desert spirituality which seeks not only to define a contemplative life given over to God in prayer, but in which the externals of one's life reprise the loneliness, muteness, weakness, and incapacity, of the cross of Christ. Again, the obedience, that is, the openness and responsiveness to God we cultivate in the personal poverty, asceticism, silence, and solitude of the desert is transfigured into the silence of solitude, the joy-filled quies of rest, stillness, and eternal life in God. THAT is the witness of the hermit's life and it is important that the externals correspond and contribute to this witness.

A Final Note on the Noun Solitary:

A solitary in the sense Anglicans use the term with regard to canon 14.3 may not live a desert spirituality. I am sure they each do witness to the redemption achieved in Christ but most apparently do not feel called to live as hermits or need to witness to the paradox of the cross with the same radicalness.** Nor, of course, is there anything wrong with that so long as the two terms are not used interchangeably. The Anglican Church recognizes solitary or "single religious" who do not need to be hermits. The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand, does not; thus, in her tradition solitaries tend to be hermits who are part of a coenobitical community but who live in cells apart from the others. Grimlaicus' Rule for Solitaries was written for just such hermit monks. Thus too, when Roman Catholicism speaks of solitary hermits, she may now also mean diocesan hermits professed and consecrated under canon 603, hermits who are not part of a monastic or eremitical community. These might be considered solitaries, but most use the terms hermit or anchorite as reflected in canon 603.

 **N.B., especially in this context radical does not mean better; instead, it implies a kind of fundamental truth and simplicity. It is important to remember that throughout the earliest history of the Church the fact that hermits did not engage in active ministry nor live in community led to the inevitable question of how loving and how Christian such a solitary vocation could be considered. Within the Body of Christ there are many members and, as a recent Sunday lection reminded us, they are all important to the functioning of the whole.

Hermits are spoken of as existing at the heart of the Church. Sometimes this is meant to refer to their prayer and there is certainly profound truth in this --- especially so long as we understand prayer to be the work God does within each of us in our poverty. ([[In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.]] Rom 8:26) And of course prayer would also be the language of the silence of solitude, the unique charism of eremitical life but that eschatological quies to which we are all called and from which all legitimate ministry itself flows. To witness to this basic and universal foundation and call is an act of love hermits commit to on behalf of the entire body of Christ --- another reason to insist on the ecclesial nature of such a vocation. What sense would it make otherwise?

Called to Contemplative Life and Mystical Prayer? What next?

Dear Sister Laurel, I believe I might be called to contemplative life and mystical prayer. Is that possible? I mean in today's day and age I don't hear about either of these much, especially the latter. I wonder how I should go about responding to this call (these calls?). Is it even possible today? Do I need to become a hermit to do this? Can I marry? (I am not sure if I even want to marry, but I don't think I want to be a hermit.) I hope you can point me in the right direction here. Thanks!!

Thanks for these questions. First, yes, though I don't know anything more about you than your questions indicate, it is entirely possible that you are called to contemplative life and mystical prayer. While we don't hear a lot about mystical prayer today, it does exist and (if you know the right people!!) is a vital stream in the contemplative tradition today. Our church stresses apostolic ministry today more than contemplative life and most folks will find themselves involved in active ministry with prayer lives that support them in this. Some of these, especially religious women and men, however (the group I know best perhaps), develop strong contemplative prayer lives to anchor their active ministries and more, to fulfill their vows and vocation as religious. Many of these I think, especially as they age and "retire", allow themselves to focus on developing their contemplative prayer and some of these (perhaps a significant number even) will move through the various stages of prayer Teresa of Avila, for instance, outlined. Their prayer becomes profoundly mystical as God draws them ever deeper into His own life and heart. And then, of course, some of us are hermits!!

Since you asked, however, no, you don't need to be a hermit for this (though I personally find it a natural context for growth in contemplative life and mystical prayer), and while I think you could well be married, I personally believe it might be difficult to manage both loves at once. Again, this is a personal opinion; I am not sure about this since I know women religious who manage their community and ministerial commitments just fine, along with some significant friendships, even as they pursue the deepening of contemplative and mystical prayer lives. My one suggestion to you is that you find a good spiritual director with whom you can work regularly. S/he should be essentially contemplative and knowledgeable about working with contemplatives at various stages of prayer, especially if mystical experiences are a part of the directee's prayer life. At the very least, s/he should be open to accompanying someone in and through such stages and expressions of deepening contemplative prayer; this requires a specialized kind of experience and learning both in prayer and in spiritual direction. Remember that mystical prayer is, first and last, about one's relationship with the Mystery we know as God (in Christ); a director should be profoundly rooted in such a relationship herself (or himself).

If there is a Carmelite Monastery near you (or relatively near), you might check with them and see if any of their Sisters or Friars do spiritual direction. Of course, other congregations will be able to assist you in this matter as well; apostolic congregations tend to nurture contemplative prayer these days as well. What is true, however, is that not every person doing spiritual direction today will have either the experience or the education and training to accompany you if you are truly called to mystical prayer. (Note that each one of us is called to union with God which implies we are each made for mystical prayer; it is not, however, easily cultivated and/or a gift easily received.) You are looking for someone who can accompany you in direction for some period of time, and who can assist you in discerning the movements of the Spirit, but especially as these are evident in invitations to greater depth and intimacy with God. Such persons would be able to accompany you even if you discover you are not called to contemplative life or mystical prayer.

To Be What One is Called to Be --- and to Become That Ever More Deeply

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, you wrote, [[It is this core identity that makes one a hermit, not the canonical designation per se. In other words, Canon 603 alone does not make one a hermit; it makes the hermit that one already is a canonical (consecrated solitary) hermit.]] You were writing about a situation in which someone described themselves as "sort of a monk/missionary" but not as a hermit. Is it possible to be professed under canon 603 and never genuinely become the hermit one is supposed to be? Does this happen very often? Do dioceses take care to be sure the persons they profess are hermits before profession? Is it important that they not make this mistake?]]

Good questions, but not ones I can mainly answer! It is possible to be professed under c 603 without ever truly becoming a hermit, yes (though of course this ought not be possible). Sometimes individuals seek to be professed under c 603 and known in this way but they have not, and may never, grow into the hermit they are called to become, yes. In the piece you are referring to I was writing about a priest who had had problems with his bishop (and vice versa) who sought to be established under c 603 and thus, freed from some of the constraints of his priesthood and for greater ability to follow his own values and vision of the way things ought to be. He recognized himself as "sort of a monk/missionary" but (rightly I think) could not call himself a hermit. And yet, he had sought to be professed under c 603. 

Canon 603 has sometimes been used by individuals to become religious without the constraints, challenges, or responsibilities of life in community. I think this motivation is usually kept fairly well-hidden, or at least not expressed to diocesan personnel. Dioceses have allowed this (that is, they have failed to uncover this motive in discernment) because 1) they themselves didn't know what a hermit is or, especially, what a solitary hermit is or how they are formed, and 2) they failed to see how it would matter if they professed a non-hermit. Mistakes are made for other reasons as well, even when the individual petitioning for admission to profession is sincere and well-motivated -- which happens when the person has a religious vocation but not an eremitical one. (The Episcopal Church allows for solitary religious who need not be or become hermits; the Roman Catholic Church does not.)

It is important that the church as well as candidates for profession under c 603 not make this mistake even as it becomes easier to make it, I think. Today's culture is highly individualistic, whereas paradoxically, eremitical life is not. Moreover, there is a strong current of what has come to be called "cocooning" which does not rise to the level of eremitical life, or the silence of solitude demanded by canon 603. It is more than possible for a person (and for diocesan personnel) to mistake these phenomena for the external characteristics of an eremitical vocation when they are actually contrary to such a life. There are external similarities between individualism and cocooning with stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude, of course, but at their heart they are vastly different realities. Significantly, the characteristics of c 603 mentioned are at once solitary while being essentially communal and are meant to be rooted in and to support life in communion with God, with/in God's Church, and too, with God's good creation.

It is especially important that dioceses profess actual hermits who have embraced the values of c. 603 and show evidence of being committed to living into these ever more deeply so that c 603 does not become a cuckoo's nest where a different form of life is slipped into the heart of the Church's vocation to consecrated eremitical life. As with the life of a cuckoo's egg raised in another bird's nest amongst other hatchlings, this will be destructive of the solitary eremitical vocation itself and will render it incredible to the faithful seeking to understand and honor such vocations. Canon 603 is almost 40 years old at this time and we have only begun living down the destructive stereotypes associated with eremitical life; we must not, insofar as we are truly able, use it for anything but genuine hermits. 

It becomes particularly critical that c 603 life always be genuinely eremitical for those whose aloneness requires hope that their isolation can be transformed into deep communion lest they fall into despair. As I've said before, for those who must live alone for various reasons, but who are not called to be canonical hermits (or hermits of any sort for that matter), eremitical life can witness to the completion and joy that can come with a uniquely solitary expression of community; this is made less and less possible when dioceses profess non-hermits who may never actually become hermits at all --- and, despite having been professed and consecrated, may never discover (much less witness to) the deep consolation of such a vocation because they are not truly called to it.

In the "Bishop's Decree of Approval" for my Rule of life, the decree reads [[I pray that this Rule of Life proves advantageous in living the eremitical life.]] I appreciate my own diocese's humility in recognizing they had done the best that they could in discerning my vocation with me, and that my Rule might not truly prove advantageous to living eremitical life. Mistakes are possible, but it is important that these be minimized and if possible, that they not be made at all, especially given the importance of eremitical witness to God as the One who completes us in a culture that mistakes individualism for individuality and cocooning for eremitical life in the community the hermit experiences as eremitical solitude.

Bishop Remi de Roo Dies at 97

Bishop Emeritus Remi de Roo

Bishop Remi de Roo, the bishop who made an intervention at Vatican II in order to have eremitical life recognized as a "state of perfection" died on February 1st at the age of 97. I was fortunate enough to meet Bishop de Roo at a presentation he, Bp John Cummins, and Ecclesiologist Massimo Faggioli gave at St Mary's College in March of 2013, and to thank him especially for his work with eremitical life --- work which led to the eventual inclusion of canon 603 in the Revised Code of Canon Law. De Roo became Bishop Protector of the group of about a dozen monk-hermits who had left their solemn vows to live as hermits, a story I have told here a number of times. (cf., Recovering Excitement over Vatican II)

When we met, Bishop de Roo asked if I had come to canon 603 life with a background in religious life --- which he seemed to expect (or at least hoped!) to be the case. I replied yes. My favorite story of that afternoon and evening, however, came when we were preparing for the celebration of Mass. De Roo (Bp Emeritus of Victoria) was concelebrating with Bishop Emeritus of Oakland, John Cummins, and as we were preparing to process in, with two Bishops and other clergy, et al., folks were holding a brief conversation about who followed whom, and who would do what, including where and when folks were stopping to bow. I was carrying the Lectionary in the procession and Bishop de Roo turned to me and said, "You are carrying the Gospel; you bow to no one!!" I will never forget that!

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord! And let perpetual light shine upon him!

The following biography was taken from Le Croix. 

Bishop Remi J. De Roo, Canada's last surviving English-speaking bishop to take part in the Second Vatican Council was a social-justice advocate and an outspoken person for change in the Catholic Church. The former bishop of Victoria died February 1 at the age of 97. Bishop De Roo was known to be outspoken on a variety of subjects -- from celibate priesthood and the ordination of women into the priesthood to unbridled capitalism.

In 1962, when he was 38, he became the world's youngest Catholic bishop and shepherded Victoria for 37 years. Bishop De Roo retired in 1999 at the mandatory retirement age of 75. When he retired, Bishop De Roo was Canada's longest-serving bishop. Archbishop J. Michael Miller of Vancouver said Bishop De Roo "will long be remembered as one of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, an ecclesial event that was a great grace for the Church.

A younger Bishop Remi de Roo

"Bishop Gary Gordon of Victoria said Bishop De Roo "was able to bring the first-hand experience of Vatican II into the lived experience of our diocese, and continued in ministry up until well into his 90s."Bishop De Roo brought to the diocese and the Church in Canada his passion for promoting "the council's desire for the Church to grow into the fullness of the people of God in dialogue with the world, especially in the realm of the social teachings of the Church," Bishop Gordon said. As bishop, De Roo visited as many of the indigenous people of his diocese as possible and maintained a close relationship with them for the rest of his life -- and was even made an honorary chief.

Bishop De Roo attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council in Rome, where he had already been for further studies and for his doctorate in sacred theology from the Angelicum University in 1952. He described attending the Vatican II sessions as "a voyage of discovery that would radically alter my whole outlook on reality" and "it was indeed a time of euphoria". Even after his retirement, Bishop De Roo continued to travel and lecture about the council which he said affected him. He referred to himself as "a pilgrim of the Second Vatican Council".

On returning to Victoria from the Council, Bishop De Roo began greater laity participation in carrying out programs for the diocese. He was a promoter of the permanent diaconate and the role of the laity as being "more than a secondary one of assistance to the clergy. "The late bishop spoke against the laypeople's tendency to look to clergy for answers to all moral and religious questions. He complained that bishops were "far too engrossed in administration" and too little concerned with pastoral problems. He also stressed the spiritual guidance of priests.

Traditional and conservative Catholics were upset with Bishop De Roo for his support for married and female priests. As an advocate for social justice, Bishop De Roo frequently called for economic justice in public policy making. In 1992 Bishop De Roo co-authored a controversial book In the Eye of the Catholic Storm with former nun Mary Jo Leddy. In 2010, The Vancouver Sun named him B.C.'s fourth most influential spiritual leader of the century for provoking a national debate in 1984 "when he accused (former prime minister) Pierre Trudeau of exacerbating the "moral crisis" of unemployment" and for "encouraging his diocese's 70,000 Catholics to experiment in worship styles and enhance the role of women."

Thanking God for Law that Serves Love!

[[ Hi again Sister Laurel! There is someone writing against you though she doesn't use your name; while I don't want to draw you into an argument I wondered what you thought about the following thesis: "The fruit in past hermits gives us guidelines by noticing their lives lived -- not any canon laws for there were none, nor . . .on some created church laws centuries after Jesus instituted his Church, never Himself speaking of laws positively except the Law of God which is the Love. All other church laws Jesus pointed out as hypocrisies and missing the point of God Himself. . ."]]

Thanks for your questions. First, I agree completely that some hermits' lives are instructive in major ways for those of us living the life today. The Desert Fathers and Mothers and many others come to mind here. On the other hand, there are many hermits throughout the centuries that have distorted eremitical witness and lived caricatures of authentic hermit life. Additionally, and to be frank, I think the thesis regarding law and Jesus' attitudes toward law represents either a very naive reading of texts or an anachronistic twisting of the Scriptures in order to take a swipe at those who support or write about c 603, or canon law more generally. I doubt I am the only one writing about c 603. 

It sounds to me like the author you cited is used to reading Scripture in a somewhat fundamentalist way, but whether that is true or not, there are some things that must be corrected. First, Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and to loose. In part that could (and over the centuries has implied) the authority to make laws to govern both the Church as a whole and individual segments of the Church. Second, Jesus never treated law per se as hypocritical. He was harsh with the Scribes and Pharisees who opposed him (not all did), but he esteemed the Law itself as a gift of God; moreover, he kept it himself, though not in a slavish way which was careless of the way it tended toward and required greater fulfillment and transcendence. 

Just a few weeks ago we heard a Gospel in which Jesus cured a leper and told him to show himself to the priests so the Law might be fulfilled. The laws that isolated the leper were meant for the good of society in a world with no answer to contagions of all sorts. The law Jesus referenced in this reading served love because it allowed the leper to be reintegrated into the society his disease had isolated him from.  Even so, while Jesus recognized Law as a good, he also recognized that people could be hypocritical and also, that laws could be interpreted or formulated and implemented in ways which were oppressive and unjust --- the precise opposite of what the Law of God actually does. So, Jesus treated law as good, a Divine Gift, but he also demanded that law serve Love -- as it was meant to do.

While I am not a canonist and tend not to be much interested in canon law except for canon 603 and the other canons which pertain directly to my vocation (I am very interested in these and what people write about them!), my sense is that these specific canons and canon law more generally were codified to function as law serving love. I think the Church generally (though not unfailingly) does the same and requires law in order to serve love effectively. I write about canon 603 precisely so it can be better understood and implemented by dioceses in a way which serves love both for and in those persons called to solitary consecrated eremitical life and for those to whom they minister in the silence of solitude.

We cannot deny that the Church is, in part, an historical reality made up of historical elements including sinful people. Our God loved historical existence enough to create it, to call it good, and to become incarnate to dwell with his People. One day the Kingdom of God will be fulfilled "on earth as it is in heaven" and law will not be necessary, but until then, until we are all perfect rather than struggling to grow in perfection, church or canon law is a gift of God meant to and capable of serving Love. For some hermits it provides a needed "space" in which authentic eremitism as an ecclesial vocation may be lived in and for the benefit of a world that itself has little space for or understanding of hermits. We can thank God for it as well as for the Decalogue and law of all sorts!!!

On Time Frames and Stages: Coenobitical vs Solitary Eremitical Life

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, you wrote that the reason for the time frames and stages in formation in coenobitic life are not the same as in eremitical life or something like that. I have a bunch of questions. What is coenobitical life? Is it the same as life in community? Are you talking about candidacy, novitiate and things like that? I wondered why eremitical life doesn't share these same reasons, they have the same stages don't they?]]

Hi there yourself! Thanks for the questions!! I appreciate your calling attention to words I use that may not be clear to readers, so thanks especially for that. Yes, you have it exactly right; coenobitical or cenobitical life refers to life in community, especially monastic life. It is the complement of the term eremitical which means a solitary desert dweller and refers to hermit life. 

Stages of Religious Life (Coenobitical context):

Now, for the time frames and stages. I'll start with the stages. You have it essentially right. The stages of religious life are candidacy (postulancy: the word is rooted in the idea the person is seeking or asking to be received into the community and comes from the Latin postulare), novitiate, juniorate, and perpetually (or solemnly) professed -- depending upon the community or congregation. These stages refer to the gradual initiation of a person into life in an institute of consecrated life and especially to the various rights and obligations thereof -- including passive and active voice in determining the way the congregation will continue to live its charism and mission. So, for instance, a candidate is not yet a member of the community and has no rights in its regard, neither passive nor active. A novice has been received formally into the community but is a complete beginner or novice in her understanding of the congregation's charism, etc; she, therefore, has quite limited rights and obligations in regard to the life of the community. 

The next stage is the juniorate, the stage of those who are temporary professed (they are identified as Junior Sisters or Juniors); in this stage Sisters (or Brothers, of course) have passive voice in congregational matters and may attend general chapters, but they may not hold office or submit or vote on proposals, etc. The final stage in formation is entered with perpetual profession (and consecration). These religious (the "Perpetually Professed") also have what is referred to as "active voice" and contribute to and vote on the decisions facing the community; these Sisters are allowed to hold office in the Leadership Council. What I have stressed here and want you to see is the fact that these stages gradually initiate a person into the life, charism, and mission of the community and ready them for responsible places in the mission, governance, and continuation (or completion) of the congregation.

The time frames which are usual today are: postulancy (6 mos to 1 year); the postulancy (or candidacy) may be extended but not by more than six mos. Novitiate; 1-2 years. One of these years is considered a "canonical year" and is lived according to canon law's strictures. There will ordinarily be no participation in ministry, but time to learn about the vows, study re the congregation and the church, and introduction to prayer and all the forms of prayer necessary in the life being embraced. The novice may take graduate level classes in theology and church history, and there will be regular spiritual direction --- usually with an outside director. If there is a second novitiate year (i.e., a year besides the canonical year), there is usually some participation in the ministry of the congregation and education continues. Often the canonical year is the second year. It is called canonical because canon law requires one year given over to what I described above. Novitiate may also be extended by (I think) not more than six months. The juniorate (time of temporary profession) can extend to six years, but (at least in contemplative monasteries) cannot be less than five years from first profession to the day when one makes perpetual profession or leaves the community.

Time Frames and Stages in Eremitical Life:

As you can see, a solitary hermit is not being initiated into common life or prepared for governance (leadership) and other active roles in a given congregation. Neither are they going to graduate school or (generally speaking) otherwise preparing for professional roles in ministry. (Some may take part in a program of formation for spiritual directors, for instance.) The stages outlined above simply don't fit as well or make the same kind of sense in the formation of solitary eremitical life. This is especially true of novitiate, I think. One may be finding ways to support oneself as a hermit, but in that case, it could be argued the person may not be a hermit living c 603 life yet and a mutual discernment process should be postponed until that arrangement is established. 

The point is that in terms of canon 603, one is either living and living more deeply into this form of eremitical life or one is not; there is really no other option. Time frames are far less meaningful here and distinct stages like candidacy and novitiate are artificially established, externally imposed and relatively meaningless. Especially unhelpful and even destructive is the arbitrary application of the time frames appropriate for coenobitical life to solitary eremitical life. Remember that c 603 is written and meant to be used for solitary eremitical life, not semi-eremitical life or life in a laura/lavra using a single Rule and forming new members --- situations where externally imposed time frames may make more sense.

With solitary eremitical life there are no easily distinguishable stages, no. When one turns up at the local chancery seeking to discern a canon 603 vocation, one must already be a hermit in some essential sense. If one is not already a hermit in some very real or essential sense and already lives the elements of the canon, approaching the diocese with such a petition is entirely premature. The period of mutual discernment with a diocese is meant to determine if a person is called to live an ecclesial vocation as a hermit, that is, is she called to live eremitical life in the consecrated state and in the name of the Church under c 603? Dioceses do not form hermits; neither do they oversee a hermit's formation although they may accompany her in her ongoing formation during the period of mutual discernment and assist her in meeting the requirements that she be ready for vows of the Evangelical Counsels, as well as that she write her own Rule of Life. 

Time frames in such cases are entirely individual and, in the process I have outlined, are better keyed to the hermit's various attempts at writing as liveable Rule which can and will eventually bind her in law. The diocesan discernment team adopting such a process would be able to use the various versions of Rule the hermit writes to assist her in understanding where her own eremitical formation needs attention and perhaps where or how the diocese can connect her with various resources she can benefit from. Additionally, the team can use the various versions of the Rule the hermit writes along with conversations with the hermit to gauge readiness for temporary and perpetual professions under c 603. Since there are other forms of eremitical life open to the hermit including lay (that is, non-canonical) hermit life as a solitary hermit, eremitical life lived in a lavra or laura, and semi-eremitical life, only a calling to solitary eremitical life under c 603 is the focus of the diocesan discernment team.

(I should point out that early on chancery personnel were sometimes reported to tell a person that they should "just go live in solitude, that this was all they needed". I disagreed with this advice fairly emphatically 15 or 16 years ago. However, my position may have changed somewhat or become more nuanced at this point. It depends on whether these dioceses asked the persons to return after some time lived this way for another conversation if the person felt the need. If the dioceses meant, "Please go live in solitude until you are made a hermit in that way with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and return to us if you believe you have an eremitical vocation as a solitary consecrated hermit under c 603; at that point we will discuss undertaking a mutual discernment process together", I believe those dioceses were on the right track. 

Remember that the Episcopal Church has c.14 which establishes individuals as solitary religious. I was once told that fewer than 10% of those professed under this canon were actually hermits. It is important that c 603 professions be used for solitary hermits with ecclesial vocations, not lone individuals, who are not and may never become hermits. The latter situation would empty c 603 of meaning and render the solitary consecrated eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church incredible or void.) This last parenthetical section underscores the rest of the discussion regarding time frames and stages in c 603 vocations. To summarize: Only once one is a solitary hermit formed by the Holy Spirit in the silence of solitude, a process that may take years, is one really ready to petition for canonical standing under c 603, and at that point the mutual discernment and formation process one enters into with a small team representing the diocese is individualized without discrete stages like candidacy, and novitiate becomes meaningful. I hope this is helpful.

**Please note, the laura/lavra referred to above envisions something like the Hermits of Bethlehem which has become more community than a colony of solitary hermits, each with their own self-written Rule. C 603 is meant for solitary hermits who must be able to support themselves and live their professions should a laura/lavra dissolve.

Why Saint Paul? What Does Conversion Mean to You?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, Happy Feast Day!! [January 25, Conversion of St Paul] I wondered why you chose St Paul as your patron and why this particular feast day. I can understand what conversion expects of us all, but I guess I don't much see a hermit needing to convert or come to conversion. Does conversion mean the same thing to you now that it did when you chose this particular feast?]]

Thanks for the good wishes! I have chosen Paul as my patron and reaffirmed that choice several times since I was in high school and preparing to be baptized as a Catholic. I had read a book called The Great Lion of God and became inspired by Paul when I was about 13 years old. It may well have been part of what led me to an interest in the Catholic Church at the age of 15-16. Despite the book's inaccuracies and naive and harmonizing approach to Scripture, it introduced me to Paul in a way which would stay with me. (After all, I was just becoming a teenager; this was exciting stuff and it never occurred to me that Caldwell read Scripture naively! What would that matter to me then??!!) 

Paul was dynamic, faithful, thought through Judaism in a way which allowed one to see Christ as the fulfillment of the promise of the Hebrew Scriptures, travelled all over the place proclaiming the Gospel, and was incredibly courageous and independent. He captured my imagination and perhaps he began to capture my heart in some way even as he pointed beyond himself to Christ.) I chose him as a patron in a formal way for confirmation (though I had to disguise the name and spell it Paule because I was supposed to choose a female saint/name! It helped that the catechist who refused to allow me to have "Paul" on the card I showed her first (the card was to be handed to the bishop doing the confirming), never questioned me on who "Paule" actually was when I eventually showed her the second card!!!); I chose him again when I was a young Franciscan --- and the Feast Day itself as well in part because I was a convert to Catholicism. I confirmed that choice later on even though I used my given name instead of Paul Maureen in those years as a religious. 

Throughout my education in Theology, I came more and more to truly know and love Paul and his theology, but especially his theology of the cross. I am not sure who or where I would be had it not been for that theology and those who introduced me to it. It has been my companion during many dark days, and the ground of many joyous ones as well. (I have dealt with serious chronic illness from the age of 18 and struggled with it --- especially in finding ways to live my life in spite of it, and later as it became a grace in some ways.) When I made perpetual (eremitical) profession, while I retained my given name (I considered readopting Paul Maureen and the designation "of the Cross") I retained at the same time, the Feast Day, the Conversion of Paul. I expect Paul will continue to accompany, inspire, and instruct me through the rest of my life, especially in allowing it to be shaped in terms of the cross not only in weakness but in terms of God's power. (Thus, as the motto of my religious and eremitical life I chose 2 Cor 12:9, "(God's) power is made perfect in weakness." It is engraved on my ring.)

The question you ask about the meaning of conversion is an important one. Yes, my understanding of the process of conversion and what it requires and points to has changed. In the beginning it was a matter of becoming a Catholic --- and that, of course, meant more than simply being baptized into the Church. It meant becoming a Catholic in terms of theology, doctrine, and spirituality. It meant coming to read Scripture in the way the Church reads it --- not so much in the sense of accepting texts mean one thing and no other (the Church has only done this a handful; of times by the way), but reading it historically-critically, and -- as I studied, learning also to pray with the Scriptures. During these first years I was also introduced to a focused formation as a religious and, more generally, as a human being. Gradually these various streams melded together as I became a theologian and a religious. 

Over time I discovered a vocation to eremitical life in light of c 603. Some years into all of this, I came to know my relationship with Christ as nuptial and over time I grew as a contemplative. That occasioned a new chapter in my own formation as I entered the "gateways" represented by the canon's central elements and discovered the various ways they mediate the Mystery underlying all life in Christ. One piece of this growth was my membership in my parish as I discovered how I might be called to serve it, especially in regard to the Word of God. Even so, at this point conversion was about allowing myself to be made into an instance of c 603 life, a representative of one small but significant strand in the living stream of the Church's tradition of eremitical life. Later (about 10 years after perpetual profession), I began (and continue today), a very intense and focused process of personal formation accompanied by my Director (diocesan delegate). In this process conversion takes on a specifically intense sense of healing and in such healing, allowing the realization of the true self in Christ. Here my Heart and Mind are given over more completely to God.

At every pivotal point in these last 5 and a half years, I have affirmed more and more completely my call to eremitical life and the fact that I live it in the name and on behalf of the Church and her wellbeing. I learned how profoundly I am called to life in "the silence of solitude" (meaning life in communion and even union with God in Christ). Conversion means becoming the person God calls me to be. It means becoming God's own prayer in this world. (Which implies becoming ever more compassionate to and capable of hearing and holding the anguish of the world in conjunction with the unconditional love of God.) I think I am still far from that but on my way. The framework for this is c 603 (which I find beautiful!) and the work I will continue to do with my Director. The driving impulse behind it is the call to abundant life in and with Christ. It seems to me now that conversion is about coming to genuine and ever-deepening freedom with all that requires of letting go, forgiving, healing, and embracing my truest self in conformity with Christ. When I began this journey all those years ago, I thought I was myself. I was mistaken. Again, to truly be myself in the power of the Holy Spirit is my most fundamental vocation. Conversion serves that call. I think Thomas Merton said that holiness was being himself; Merton and I are on the same page with that comment. 

Feast of the Conversion of St Paul (Reprised)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Contemplative Moment: The Way of Paradox

The Way of Paradox

from The Eremic Life

by Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam

The hermit's life is full of different paradoxes and apparent contradictions. Some of them may surprise the hermit himself and even cause a certain uneasiness in him not to mention others who look at his life from "outside", To many people who look at this way of life and want to be impartial observers of it, the eremitic experience of the desert seems to be an absurdity.

We have already mentioned. . . that the basic motive for choosing a solitary and silent life in a hermitage consists in an existential longing to meet and talk to God. The hermit chooses silence in order to enter fully into a dialogue; he chooses solitude in order to meet closely a personal presence. The way of the desert is thus not a stray and arid path, it does not lead to the negation of all the values of the world and of other people. Just the opposite: it is the way of mutual presence, dialogue, and friendship that shines where two freedoms and two hearts, divine and human, meet. The dialogue between hermit and God means that two persons truly entrust themselves to each other in love, because unconditional trust is a necessary condition of every authentic dialogue. 

For the hermit the gift of faith determines not merely the choice of the way of life, but also an elementary personal dynamism that enables him to go on and finish his journey successfully. The gift of faith makes it possible for us to open our hearts so that we are still better and better prepared to accept God, who wants to entrust Himself to us. Where faith is a dialogue, with two personal mysteries calling upon each other, God is the one who initiates the meeting, and the human respondent should only be obedient. 

Canon 603 Discernment and Formation: Process as More Fundamental than Canonical Form

[[ Hi Sister, if my diocese wants to use a book describing time frames and providing documents marking the various stages for c 603 hermits, how would that work with the process you have set out here? Seems to me they would conflict big time, no?]]

That's a great question and I agree it sounds like it would conflict big time. However, it need not if certain things are borne in mind. What I mean is that one must remember what is more fundamental or foundational and what is entirely secondary to a process of discernment and formation. Above all, the kind of book you describe should not attempt to define or drive the necessary process of discernment and formation of a hermit petitioning for c 603 standing, though it may well be used to mark and document points within the process after they have been achieved or negotiated. For instance, some dioceses have chosen to use The Catholic Formulary, vol 7A by Rev. Peter Apkoghiran, JCD, a book whose clearly stated purpose is [[to guide church officials in drawing up ecclesiastical public documents (and) also ensuring that such documents fulfill the solemnities and requirements of canon law.]] This one is on my mind first because when I read it a year or so ago and saw it as a classically flawed attempt to do more than the canonist could or should do in such a book, and more than the stated purpose. It is also on my mind because (apart from your question) I heard more recently about a diocese using it or thinking of using it for c 603 hermits.

What the book is not meant to do, and I submit, would be well beyond its purview, is to define the structure, content, and time frame of a discernment and formation process or program under c 603. Were a diocese to adopt the process I have outlined here which is focused on writing various Rules of Life to guide discernment and formation until one had a liveable Rule which truly indicated the hermit's lived experience AND reflected the contents of c.603 and had the formation team worked with the candidate to achieve this, the Formulary could be used to "formalize" with canonical documents various steps along the way. However, what is especially important is that it must be the process of discernment and formation that drives matters, not the documents, much less some arbitrary time frame -- even if that time frame works well for coenobitical religious!!! Neither would the hermit be shooting towards achieving what the documents measure or mark, but rather simply towards becoming what God calls her to in terms of canon 603 itself.

Some people see c 603 as inadequate to govern solitary eremitical vocations. After all it doesn't list time frames, or ages, or all kinds of things canonists find necessary or desirable. Non-hermits look at the canon and often find it equally inadequate because it is not a "how to" guide to what is necessary to becoming a hermit, much less a canonical hermit! But c 603 does precisely what it was meant to do, namely, it provides the central non-negotiable elements constituting a solitary eremitical vocation and in sec 2, provides the way it is to be lived out as an ecclesial vocation. It shows us what such a vocation looks like and what the hermit commits herself to living in the name of the Church. I would argue that if one finds the canon inadequate in major ways, they have only understood it in a superficial sense.

As a reminder, the process I have outlined here over the years grows organically out of the canon itself. It is more fundamental (foundational) than the canonical documents provided in The Formulary. The Formulary thus can be useful, but the moment it supplants the actual process of coming to write a liveable Rule of Life as c 603 requires, it becomes destructive. Unfortunately, because human beings are tempted to replace Gospel with law (sometimes this is the simple expedient), and too to multiply law to deal with perceived insufficiencies, canonists and other diocesan officials are tempted to add to canon 603, or to shoehorn it into an alien framework, instead of first understanding how the discernment and formation of hermits actually looks on the ground. In such cases they more often end up with lone individuals who can jump through canonical hoops but will never be a hermit formed in the silence of solitude by the Holy Spirit. When that happens c 603 becomes incredible and the work of those who composed the canon will be eviscerated. 

Hermits who really understand and live c 603 will be highly disciplined, on the other hand, and far more likely to be allergic to such hoop jumping! They may seek to be professed under c 603 and be an excellent example of solitary eremitical life lived as an ecclesial vocation --- but if The Formulary type of text with all its artificial stages, etc., is imposed needlessly, these vocations are more apt to be lost to the Church. What I am saying to you is the The Formulary and texts like it create documents which may be appropriate to formalize a truly foundational process of discernment and formation rooted in c 603 itself, but the documentation is not meant (and should not be used) to create or define ahead of time a process of discernment and formation. The two elements (process and canonical documents or form) absolutely need not conflict "big time", as you put it, so long as one does not put the cart before the horse!!! Again, what is most fundamental is the canon and the process which derives directly and indirectly from c 603 itself, namely, the requirement that the would-be canonical hermit write a (liveable!) Rule of Life of c 603 based in her own lived experience of eremitical life. 

In other words, the process deriving organically from c 603 itself should drive matters, not the documents canonists determine to be important for other (and secondary, though important) reasons. And yet, letting the documents drive matters is the danger of using a text like the Formulary if one does not already have a sense of what c 603 itself requires of an individual in terms of personal growth and maturation as a hermit. Adopting something like The Formulary without a clear and appropriate process, which is truly organically derived from the canon itself, being treated as more foundational is deceptive and self-defeating. I should also note that unless it is made clear at every turn that The Formulary is secondary to the canon itself with all that implies in terms of learning to live it ever more-deeply, there is an ever-present danger that dioceses seeking information on how to proceed with candidates for c 603, will take hold of The Formulary and leave the less concrete and far more fundamental discernment and formation process behind.

On Dismissal from the Eremitical State

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I wondered what happens to a consecrated Catholic Hermit who leaves the Catholic Church. Does s/he remain a Catholic Hermit? When I say s/he leaves the Church I mean s/he stops going to Mass, denies the hierarchical nature of the Church, rejects Church law, and refuses to believe in the importance of incarnation in the life of the Church.** I am also wondering about what happens if s/he stops keeping her vow of obedience. Can a diocese just deny they know her?]]

Serious question! If a publicly professed hermit does any of the things you have described, her bishop or diocese will take steps to dismiss her from the eremitical life and in so doing, dispense her of her vows. The process would be analogous to c 694.1. In such a case a perpetually professed hermit can be held ipso facto dismissed from the consecrated eremitical life if he or she has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith. A hermit can be dismissed for other reasons as well. These certainly include habitual neglect of the obligations of her state of life, repeated violations of her vows or other sacred bonds, and stubborn disobedience to the legitimate requirements of her bishop (and/or delegate) in grave matters. Also included are grave scandal which stem from the hermit's culpable behavior, and stubborn adherence to or diffusion of doctrines condemned by the teaching authority of the Church.

There is a procedure involved in such dismissals involving cc1732-1739. To summarize, however, the diocese will gather the facts and evidence regarding the hermit's behavior. If the evidence supports the accusations, the accusations and evidence will then be communicated to the hermit and the hermit will be given an opportunity for self-defense. A first canonical warning is given along with sufficient time for the hermit to repent and amend her life as appropriate. If she fails to do this within the time allotted, a second canonical warning is given. If the hermit remains recalcitrant and is deemed incorrigible the bishop can issue a decree dismissing the hermit from the consecrated eremitical state.

Beyond this specific procedure and, really, implied by it with the two canonical warnings and time for repentance and rehabilitation is all the help a diocese can muster for someone who has made such a serious canonical commitment. Dismissal is a serious process, of course, but it is also meant to be loving, honest, and corrective, and to benefit not only the hermit, but the health of the eremitical vocation more generally, and the Church herself. There is nothing impulsive about such a dismissal any more than the admission to perpetual profession is ever done impulsively or carelessly. Certainly a diocese cannot simply deny knowing such a person. They have a responsibility to her and to her vocation (i.e., solitary eremitical life) more generally, just as her canonical vows obligate her to an ecclesial vocation lived under her bishop's supervision.

** I may be mistaken, but as I understand the question regarding the "Incarnation in the life of the Church" it means denial of the historical church, the Church which exists in time and space as the Body of Christ. Just as Jesus existed as an undeniable spatio-temporal (historical) reality, so does the Church as the Body of Christ. This does not exhaust the reality of the Church any more than it exhausts the reality of the Risen Lord, but it is real and an undeniable part of what we believe when we say in the creed, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church".

On Consecrated Widows in Western and Eastern Churches

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you have articles on hermits and consecrated virgins. I wondered if you have any information on consecrated widows. John Paul II mentioned them once or twice that I know about, but I can't find out anything more about them. Should I contact my diocese the same way someone wanting to become a hermit should do?]]

Hi and thanks for your questions. It is true that in the early Church consecrated widows were a pivotal segment of the Church and central to her ability to carry out ministry, maintain house churches, etc. Over time, however, this particular vocation became less pivotal, in part as the Church opted for male deacons and codified their roles for men (vir) only. While c 605 instructed bishops on their responsibility to pay attention to new forms of consecrated life, and while St John Paul II wrote about consecrated widows, the contemporary Western (Roman Catholic) Church as such has never implemented this vocation except sporadically. It is not included in the CIC, the Roman Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law, although there is room for it because of c 605. Rome would need to concur, however, and establish the vocation officially in universal law. Under John Paul II, a canon was included in the CCEO (1990), the Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches. While individual Roman Catholic bishops have "consecrated" some widows, it remains the case that the vocation is undefined (what are these persons actually called to in the church?) and the canonical authority to do so is currently doubtful. 

I believe you should contact your diocese, yes, but I cannot honestly encourage you to believe or hope that they will consecrate you; that is unlikely in the extreme unless you live in a diocese where this has already been done. Even then, the nature and content of this vocation is unclear which tends to empty it of meaning in the eyes of the Universal Church. On the other hand, if you have the courage and the will to go this route you could be among those who help to define such a vocation in the Western Church, sort of as the monastics who allowed themselves to be laicized in order to pursue eremitical life. Eventually this led to recognition of solitary eremitical life under c 603. Since c 605 already exists to encourage bishops to be attentive to new forms of consecrated life (approval can only be given by the Apostolic See), you would be a pioneer possibly helping in a humble way to move the Western Church towards canonical approval of Consecrated Widows as a specific public and ecclesial vocation.