Who Educates Bishops re C 603?

[[ Sister Laurel, who educates bishops on Canon 603 vocations? (Is educate the right word here?) If the church intervenes in the Cole Matson case will Canon lawyers be the ones to determine further time frames, etc? Can you see any place for increased time frames being made requisite?]]

Important questions! Bishops will continue to be educated (yes, I think that's the correct word!) in this vocation by those living it authentically and having been identified by their dioceses as being called in this way. Similarly, they will continue to be educated by chancery personnel who have direct and significant contact with such vocations (meaning Vicars for Religious or Consecrated Life, etc, who have discerned and helped in the formation of such vocations). It is my fervent belief that the church ought not succumb to the temptation of approaching c 603 as somehow deficient and then trying to resolve that deficiency by adding time frames and stages to the canon itself.

Consider in the Lexington case how truly abysmal the knowledge of c 603 or the vocation it governs was and perhaps still is. That was so, not only on the part of the local ordinary but also (and perhaps more fatefully!) on that of the canonist consulted in the matter. This is not a deficiency adding mandatory years or stages will resolve. In the main, the problem was not that of additional time or canonical stages, but rather of ignorance, and the studied resolution to use c 603 in a way contrary to the living charism it codifies despite having been instructed otherwise. A person came to Bishop Stowe with the proposal to use c 603 as a stopgap means of admitting him/her to public profession. S/he was aware that this could be done and had been done in the past, especially in the early years of the Canon's life; moreover, s/he knew all of this because I had written about it and s/he had read my blog for at least ten years. To complicate things, Bishop John Stowe bought into the proposal with the same question I have answered here several times, viz., whom could it hurt? Whom Does it Hurt? Meanwhile, the canonist consulted offered little substantively in response to this question apparently providing a legal loophole instead. While one hopes for better from those entrusted with the implementation of this canon, this is a rare vocation and a little-understood one.

And of course, that is the point! The solution is education and the only ones who can truly educate chancery personnel in this are hermits living (and living into) authentic vocations. To a lesser extent, chancery personnel with experience in discerning with a diocesan hermit will be helpful in this kind of education as well. Gradually bishops will come to see the character and quality of the vocation in front of them as they and other chancery staff meet with the candidate for profession, and this is as it should be. Of course, diocesan personnel need to read and consult on this matter as well. As I have written before, when I was first working with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF (Vicar for Religious), she and another Sister from the chancery took a trip to New Camaldoli in Big Sur to consult with the Prior there. Susan had one major question, namely, what would it take for a person to live a healthy eremitical life?  Years later, after I had met with Archbishop (then Bishop) Vigneron for the first time regarding my petition to be admitted to profession, he said, "Now I have to go and learn a lot" --- not only about this vocation but about me, my writing (including my Rule and published articles, which he had purposely not read yet), etc. I thought it a wise observation and I was very glad he took that tack! 

It seems to me that both Sister Susan and Bishop Vigneron recognized the Holy Spirit could be doing something new with Canon 603 and were open to taking extraordinary steps to be sure it was well-implemented. (For Sister Susan and her companion to take such a long drive from the Diocese of Oakland to Big Sur to meet with the Prior in person remains strongly suggestive of the kinds of steps dioceses need to take in order to educate themselves re solitary eremitical life. Of course, today, the church's history with the canon is more extensive than it was in the mid to late 80's, and some of us are willing and now able to assist dioceses in working with candidates so that both the candidate and the chancery personnel themselves grow in understanding of solitary eremitical life. Still, education is the key.

You asked if I could see any use for increased requisite time frames and my answer is yes, in one case. I believe that there should be a minimum time frame of five years before a person is admitted to even first vows under the canon. I believe this could apply even if the person has a history of religious life, because the transition to solitary eremitical life is still significant. If one is called to this vocation, five years will not be onerous but will be given over to growth and coming more and more to embody the values central to c 603 in any case. At the same time, diocesan personnel will be able to work with the person regularly and will be able to learn about the candidate, as well as about the depths and breadth of the canon itself. But it seems to me that apart from this minimum time frame, the multiplication of stages, etc., are simply unhelpful and could give a false sense of progress when the person is no closer to becoming a hermit at all. Jumping through such canonical hoops may simply tell us the person is desperate to be professed publicly and is a good "canonical hoop jumper", but not that they have heard or responded with fidelity to a divine call to desert existence!

On the Church's Distinction Between Gender Dysphoria and Gender Ideology and other Questions

[[Sister, in the article published today in OSV News Diocesan Hermit-Theologian Warned Bishop ‘Transgender Hermit’ Proposal Would ‘Misuse’ Church Law, Cole Matson seemed to believe that the church does not distinguish between gender ideology and gender dysphoria. I don't think the church lumps it all together in this way, does she? And about Cole now saying he is feeling more and more called to solitary eremitical life. How does that work? Will Cole be able to claim he has truly discerned this vocation?]]

Personally, I don't think the church does lump things together in the way Cole Matson seems to believe she does, no. Several weeks ago now I was referred by my director to a moral theologian she values very highly by the name of Rev Gerald Coleman, PSS. This was before the Cole Matson stuff blew up on Pentecost when I was trying to decide my own next steps regarding the situation in Lexington. I never made the connection with Father Coleman because of the rapidly changing situation, but both Sister Marietta and I read Coleman's The Many Faces of Transgender to be sure we could continue our conversations on the same page as well as to provide a knowledgeable intro to Coleman when I did reach out (Marietta  knew him well but I had never read nor met him). 

In that book I would say that Father Coleman captured some moral theologians' careful and orthodox positions on the matter, namely, he was very careful to delineate or distinguish between the reality of gender dysphoria that can, in certain given circumstances be so anquishing as to make gender affirmation interventions of various types a moral option, and the whole gender ideology complex itself. The latter involves the sense that gender is a chosen quality, that individuals may do what they like in this matter,  and may even be considered "gender fluid" --- something which is anathema to the church and her anthropology. It becomes especially abhorent when applied to or encouraged to be adopted by minors and those with either significant psycho-sexual immaturity or an agenda in this area. 

My own opinion is that Cole may have done an injustice to the church's own theological conversations in this matter as well. I don't believe moral theologians fail to draw appropriate distinctions. What I believe the Church desires is for the LGBTQ+ community to do the same so that appropriate compassion may be nurtured and expressed. Cole says he disagrees with gender ideology. Good!! Moreover, in some ways, the church continues to learn, as do we all and that takes time and painful honesty. What she recognizes then is that for some, gender dysphoria is a real and oftentimes acutely painful struggle one needs help to negotiate. This can take therapy --- sometimes long and arduous therapy along, in some instances, with gender affirming medical and surgical procedures. In some instances these interventions can be considered moral according to theologians like Coleman. And of course, such gender dysphoria merits compassion from all of us. What the church does not recognize or condone, however, and what Francis considers "ugly", it seems to me is gender ideology, including the notion of gender fluidity, and the like --- particularly in minors.

Meanwhile, I continue to focus on the fact that Cole Matson and the Diocese of Lexington have committed fraud in attempting the professions they have done, not only because there was deception in claiming at least implicitly that Cole was a biological male and vesting him as a Brother given the right to style himself as "Brother," but more, from my perspective at least, because they are calling him a diocesan hermit when he never truly claimed to feel called to this, did not discern such a vocation in necessary years prior to attempted admission to vows, and has been clear they were using canon 603 as a stopgap because nothing else was available. I have to ask Cole if he really believes his vocation is more real than the hundreds of those whose dioceses turned them away when they wanted to use c 603 as the "only available canon" to become publicly professed despite not feeling called to be a solitary hermit? That is simply the height of arrogance.

Regarding your second question, I don't see how Cole can be believed in this. Consider that Cole has made fraudulent vows pretending to a vocation he does not have. He is being allowed to live it any way he actually wants and define it similarly. And he is being given the public standing (for the moment anyway) he so desperately wanted. Maybe this is too cynical of me, but I want to say, of course he is going to say he feels called to it more and more!!! What else would or could he say?? But, you see, most of us live into a vocation for some years before being admitted to profession and we are not admitted to vows simply so we can experiment with the calling to see if perhaps we might have it! Further, for those of us professed under c 603, we live the solitary eremitical vocation through our doubts or uncertainties, learning over time the hard lessons of assiduous prayer and penance, as well as the tedium that can be associated with letting these shape our lives in God's own way until we are clear not only that this is a Divine calling, but that we also bring something authentic and unique to the church herself as we petition her to admit us to canonical standing in an ecclesial vocation! (Some may never reach this step and either decide or are asked to remain non-canonical solitary hermits.)

The point is one lives the life before one is ever professed and before living eremitical life itself, one comes to live contemplative life --- usually for some years! For instance, I have one c 603 candidate I am currently working with and have been working with for at least three years now. She left her congregation prior to perpetual profession to explore eremitical life, both solitary and semi-eremitical. She is diligent, patient, shows great initiative and faithfulness to God, has sacrificed to set up a beautiful (and beautifully functional) hermitage after living in other less satisfactory places due to need, found appropriate ways to support herself, etc.; she struggles with balance between the elements of her life as every authentic hermit will struggle, and gradually, she has come to prefer the silence of solitude of the true eremite. 

I believe she is truly called to be a diocesan hermit and is prepared to live eremitical vows. Yet, her Archdiocese, despite the ongoing support of one bishop skilled in formation work, will require a still-longer discernment/formation period for several good reasons (mainly having nothing to do with the candidate herself, but with transitions within the diocese). She understands this and continues working toward a deeper and deeper personal embodiment of c 603 in the meantime and she does this for the sake of the church and the vocation itself. Unless her discernment shifts, this seems to be who she is; it is the way one lives such a calling! 

My concern is that cases like these may be dismissed now, or waiting periods extended exorbitantly without admission to profession because of the notoriety, flippancy, and even the deceitful quality of the Lexington Diocese's usage of c 603. I am genuinely hopeful this will not happen in this instance, but in other cases where we have candidates whom a specific diocese does not yet know well, true vocations could be jeopardized. You see, one dimension of a genuine canon 603 vocation is the sense that one is responsible for living and furthering the life of this specific vocational thread in the church. It continues to live on throughout the centuries not only because God calls individuals to it but also because the church entrusts one with living out this specific ecclesial vocation in her name. This simply doesn't happen when selfish motives are allowed to drive professions, and in a calling that is so rare and vulnerable (especially in a world rampant with individualism!) the vocation itself is hurt.

A Contemplative Moment: The Crimson Heart, Solemnity of the Sacred Heart

 

"CRIMSON MYSTERY OF ALL THINGS"

 --- the Church speaks in a hymn by Gertrude von le Fort ---

"solitary Heart, all-knowing Heart, world-conquering Heart.". . .

The "heart" is the name we give to the unifying element in the human person's diversity. The heart is the ultimate ground of a person's being. Her diversity of character, thought, and activity springs from this ground. All that she is and does unfolds from this source. Her diversity, originally one in its source, remains one even in its unfolding and it ultimately returns to this unity.

The "heart" is the name we give to the inner ground of an individual's character, wherein a person is really himself, unique and alone. The human being's apartness, his individuality, his interiority, his solitariness --- this is what we call the heart. This characteristic of the heart reveals and at the same time veils itself in everything the person is and does. For the human being's total diversity in being and activity would be nothing if it did not blossom forth from the heart as from a living ground, and at the same time veil his hidden ground.It must be veiled because its water doesn't flow on the surface of what we commonly speak of as the human person's being and activity.

An individual's uniqueness, her individuality, is her heart. That is why one is always alone and solitary --- alone and solitary in the meaning that everyday life gives gives to the words, in the idiom of the marketplace, which no longer suspects the abysses concealed in human words. For there is a realm where the person is entirely himself, where he himself is his solitary destiny. In this realm where he can no longer bring himself and his fragmentary world to the marketplace of everyday life --- in the realm therefore where his heart is --- the person is alone and solitary because of this apartness. . . .

The center of our hearts has to be God; the heart of the world has to be the heart of our hearts. He must send us his heart so that our hearts may be at rest. It has to be his heart. . . .He must let it enter into our narrow confines, so that it can be the center of our life without destroying the narrow house of our finitude, in which alone we can live and breathe. And he has done it. And the name of his heart is Jesus Christ! It is a finite heart, and yet it is the heart of God. When it loves us and thus becomes the center of our hearts. every need, every distress, every misery of our hearts is taken from us. For his heart is God's heart. and yet it does not have the terrifying ambiguity of his infinity. Up from this heart and out from this heart human words have arisen, intimate words, words of the heart, words of God that have only one meaning, a meaning that gladdens and blesses.

Our heart becomes calm and rests in this heart, in his heart. When it loves us then we know that the love of such a heart is only love and nothing else. In him the enigmatic mystery of the world's heart which is God becomes the crimson mystery of all things, the mystery that God has loved the world in its destitution.

Excerpted from

 "The Mystery of the Heart" by Karl Rahner, SJ

The Great Church Year, the Best of Karl Rahner's Homilies

Sermons and Meditations

(Please read the entire essay! I have excerpted a text in which every word is important and none are wasted. Though not my intention it is a betrayal of Rahner's text.)

More Questions on the Dishonesties involved in the Cole Matson Situation

[[Dear Sister, you said something about Brother Christian making profession in a church he was also thumbing his nose at. I wonder if you could say more about that what did you mean? Also though, how is it Brother Christian could live in a monastery for a year and not be known as transgender? Didn't they know about his (her) sex? And if they didn't know about his (her) sex, then how could they not? Why did you want to prescind from the issue of Matson's "transgendered status" in what you wrote to Bishop Stowe? It wasn't as though this was a non-issue, was it?]] 

Thanks for the questions. They are timely because I just read an article on the situation in the National Catholic Register which tended to reignite my anger a bit and exacerbated my sense that there was significant deception involved throughout the process Cole has pursued. It also ties into my comment about making profession in a church in a way that meant he would be living consecrated life in her name while thumbing his nose at her in the same act. You see, profession and especially consecration (which is not a person consecrating themselves to God, but God making a sacred person of the one making perpetual vows), require the candidate be in complete agreement with the Church's theology of consecrated life. 

My Main Concern:

My main concern has been with Cole's dishonest use of canon 603 as a stopgap when he does not have a true vocation as a hermit. But it now seems the dishonesty goes deeper and the impersonation is more extensive. You ask about Cole going to live at a monastery without being known as a transgendered person. He went to the monastery for training so he could learn to begin a community for artists. He calls this his novitiate but since he never intended to stay there and was not preparing to make vows here, it could not have been a novitiate in the way we ordinarily use the term. More importantly, it turns out that Portsmouth Monastery who vetted Cole in all the normal ways including psych testing and physical reports, reported that as far as they were concerned Cole was a biological male!!! Father Brunner wrote: “Per my previous note, every applicant receives a thorough psychological evaluation from a licensed consultant as well as a detailed and extensive background check from a professional firm used by our lawyer. And of course they must present Baptismal and sacramental records, as well as the results of a physical examination attesting to their health. We are confident this would prevent someone entering our Abbey community who was not genuinely male. We’re not going to comment further except to say Dr. Matson went through the full process and was determined to be a biological male.”

How can this be? The only answer can be that Cole tried to deceive the monastery community and succeeded in doing so. Whenever asked his sex (on any form including psych assessments), he must have replied male. Clearly the monastery was acting in good faith and looking for sound healthy male candidates; they asked Cole to go through the same process, not only to protect themselves, but likely because Cole would get a chance to see what is necessary in creating a community. And despite their hospitality and clear needs and intentions in asking Cole to submit to testing and background checks, Cole was dishonest with them about his transgendered status.  One Benedictine monk said that Cole was an honorable man. I agree Cole has been desperate to become a religious, but in light of the way he came into the Portsmouth community and proposed c 603 to Bishop Stowe, I am no longer clear in my own mind about how honest or honorable he is, and that saddens me immeasurably.

What complicates this is that Bishop Stowe said he wanted Cole to get more training and sent him to a monastic house for this. And Bishop Stowe knew Cole was transgendered and genetically female! While I am sure Bishop Stowe allowed Cole to make his own arrangements, I also believe he probably recommended Cole for the stay. Did he do that without mentioning that Coel was a transitioned FtM trans man? I honestly don't know how to feel about all of this.  What about the others that gave Cole such glowing recommendations? Did they also fail to note his transgendered status?

Why did I prescind from the Issue of transsexuality?

But why did I want to prescind from the transgender issue in my letter to Bishop Stowe except for the connection to Cole's using c 603 as a stopgap to achieve justice in the Church? The answer to that is simple, namely, the important issue for me was the appropriate use of canon 603 for vocations that are both authentic and rare!! Bishop Stowe's comments to the media made it sound as though the canon is not used much and needed wider implementation. The fact of the matter is, however, that c 603 is not used often because the vocation it is designed to recognize and govern in the church is a rare one. People rarely come to the fullness of humanity in the silence of solitude. We are social animals and grow to maturity in our relationships with others. Solitary eremitical life (and all eremitical life, really) is an incredibly poorly known or understood vocation and my sense was that what Cole Matson had done in coming out on Pentecost was to ensure that it would never be better understood and also that it would be even less well appreciated than it has come to be in its 41 years of life in the Church. 

When I wrote Bishop Stowe I pretty much assumed he, like many bishops, did not understand solitary eremitical life or its importance for the faithful. I did not want to do much more than to educate him a bit on what the canon established in law and why that was critically important to the Church's efforts to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world. I wanted Bishop Stowe to gain a sense of the charism of the solitary hermit vocation and thus too, to be able to educate others on all of this. Though this was not uppermost in my mind, I also thought it could be that if Cole were led to embrace this (or at least a non-canonical eremitical) vocation honestly, he might come to the degree of inner healing and maturity he really needed to achieve. I said as much to Bishop Stowe in my first letter. 

However, Cole's healing and the impossibility of that occurring if he was allowed to lie his way to profession, were definitely on my mind. Cole was proposing to embrace eremitical life in order to get professed and I knew that eremitical life could lead to immense healing if Cole really did as he proposed to do, that is, really embraced eremitical life itself. Unfortunately, I did not realize he would mainly be praying in the mornings and then spending both the afternoon and evening at the theatre working. Nor did I realize that Bishop Stowe would be allowing this non-eremitical approach to things. My focus here was as it needed to be because even in the USCCB announcements, the Bishops seemed to be focusing on the transgender issue, not on the authentic use of c 603.  

That's about all I have for now. Please get back to me if you have additional questions!                                                                

Will be Absent for a Bit UPDATE

 Hi all, just a brief post to let you know i have been in the hospital having my gallbladder removed. Not fun but the staff and doctors have all been fine, especially the anaethesiologist who put in a central line (IJ) for me and used deep numbing to make the procedure more comfortable and the use of lines thereafter for meds and such a breeze for further access. I am still concerned  with the ongoing story of Cole Matson and Bishop Stowe's attempted professions and will post further when I can. Peace and all best wishes to readers here.

Update! I am home from the hospital (well not home precisely but staying with someone for a few days until I am up to being in my own place). The offer of this place was a complete surprise and wonderful in its generosity. Please pray for my benefactor!!! 

Meanwhile I am catching up with the new article in the National Catholic Register on Cole Matson's stay with the Benedictines of Portsmouth, Rhode Island. The fact that Cole had everyone believing he was a biological male has me gobsmacked. But more about that later tomorrow; I've already gotten pertinent questions so as soon as I am able, I 'll get those responded to!

On Hybrid Hermits and the Relation of Active Ministry to the Rest of One's Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, you do some active ministry so I am wondering what is the difference in Cole Matson's case and your own? Doesn't c 603 allow for any apostolic activity? If Cole Matson is betraying c 603 by her involvement in the theatre ministry she has why aren't you betraying eremitical life in the same way?]]

This is such a great set of questions!! Thank you very much for asking!! I hope I can articulate what is really a vast distinction! In a conversation I had the day before yesterday, someone described Cole as having said he was a "hybrid hermit"; they wondered what I thought about that and my response was that the term is a falsehood, it's like saying something is a "half-truth". I learned in studying theology that there was no such thing as a half-truth; either something was true or the falsehood involved would vitiate the whole. That is true in this case too. While the church does recognize semi-eremitical life, this does not refer to folks who are semi-eremites, but instead to hermits who live eremitical life within communal contexts like the Carthusians, or the Sisters of Bethlehem for instance. They are truly hermits, not half or semi or hybrid hermits, but the real deal who live their lives within a specialized communal context that protects and fosters their eremitism --- rather like my parish has done for me, especially under my former pastor!

When I first became a hermit I remember talking with my spiritual director pretty regularly about the tension between active ministry and my life in the hermitage. For a long time I was convinced I would battle this apparent conflict the whole of my eremitical life. At one point I came to a sense that it was a "tension" I would never get past,  that perhaps it was built into the vocation or something.

Except I did get past it!! Eventually I came to a place where the tension I expected to see and feel was gone. And, I only recognized that as I looked back over where I had been until that time. So what had changed? Well, over the years I worked through a lot of the roots of my own self-questioning and self-doubt. Also, it was during this time that I really became the contemplative I had thought perhaps I was called to be, and more, that I really became a hermit who could, if I discerned this was the right thing to do, rightly seek ecclesial standing under c 603. But this meant that I was also the hermit who, if I discerned that it contributed to my eremitical life or to the witness I was called to in that, could play in an orchestra one evening a week, or write a blog, or teach a Scripture class each term or each year. It was not a matter of balancing the contemplative and active dimensions of my life so that if I lived x amount of contemplative "stuff" in my life, I could or should add y amount of active ministry. It was a matter of BEING a contemplative and BEING a hermit and then being true to that in the various ways God did/does that. What I discovered, of course was that being who one is called to be leads to one being able to do incredible, unimagined things.

Sometimes we compartmentalize things, there's a contemplative eremitical side to one's life and there's an active or apostolic side to it. But this is a false dichotomy and if it is true for a "hermit", that "hermit" is not (yet) really a hermit. What must happen is that one must discover a call to eremitical life and commit to that as fully as one can. This means letting go of active ministry to whatever degree one can until one does whatever active ministry one does because one is a hermit and that active ministry actually contributes to one's eremitism. You see, c 603 and solitary eremitical life is not merely a superficial or canonical means to church approval so that I can do the active ministry I really feel called to do. Instead, the activity I undertake is part of the fruit of my eremitical vocation. I do the things I do in terms of limited active ministry because eremitical life itself calls me to do it. I do it because I AM a hermit and am committed to growing as a hermit, not because standing under c 603 gives me some justification for doing what other religious do and what is truly necessary ministerially. No, my primary ministry is to be a hermit! (cf On the Importance of Charism) It took long years to understand what that actually means, long years before I could see or embrace that as my vocation!!

I was once asked by a candidate for c 603 profession how I made time for the hermit things in my life and the non hermit things. The question confused me so I asked what the non-hermit things were he was thinking about. He explained about washing the dishes, doing the laundry, scrubbing the toilet, grocery shopping and the like as "non-hermit" things, while prayer, lectio, etc were seen as "hermit things". What I tried to explain was that if and insofar as one was a hermit these were all hermit things embued with the grace of eremitical life and one's life with God alone. There was no dichotomy in my life between hermit things and non-hermit things. I think that is the first step in understanding what is so wrong or false with Cole's characterization of himself as a hybrid hermit. The fact that he had to figure out a new term for himself says to me he understands what he is living is inauthentic and not truly eremitical. (That said, I should note that were he, at this very early point in his exploration, to stay in and pray all day, he might still not be ready for profession as a c 603 hermit and certainly not for consecration. But back to the main point...)

Sister Kathleen Littrell SHF

Once one has discerned the vocation one is called to and determined it is eremitic, one may also discover God calling one to do some forms of limited ministry. (So, for me, spiritual direction, writing, teaching, and accompanying candidates.) What should be clear, however, is that these very activities call one back to eremitical solitude and live from that same solitude. In other words, they presuppose the one doing them IS a hermit!! I remember a comment made a number of years ago by Sister Kathy Littrell, SHF, who noted to a reporter that not everyone needed to be a Sister to do the active ministry she did, but she needed to be a Sister to do it. My point is similar. Not everyone needs to be a hermit to write, teach, accompany others, etc., but I need to be a hermit to do these things with the uniqueness and integrity God has called me to in everything! In all that I do, I do it as a hermit, not because the Church identifies me as a hermit under c 603, but because it really IS who I AM as a person and as a Catholic. My ministry serves my vocation, it isn't added onto that, nor does it conflict with or even stand in tension with that.

Excursus: 

 One final question in all of this, though you have not asked it, has to do with self-support. I will add it here because it can be a red herring or otherwise lead people (including bishops and c 603 candidates) astray. It is a challenging and neuralgic question for many who would like to be hermits as well as for many of us who are hermits, namely, how does one support oneself if one is to live as a hermit? Is Cole's involvement in theatre work really incompatible with or is it actually necessary for him to live as a hermit? This is the general answer I gave 14 years ago, Diocesan Hermits and Full-time Work. I still hold this position. I believe, however, that it is becoming more critical that ways to support hermits with ecclesial vocations need to be found by the Church, particularly for those of us who are getting older and may be unable to support ourselves in the ways we have done for the first fifteen to twenty years of our canonical eremitical lives. Still, it has always been true that bishops refused to profess hermits who needed to work full-time and those who needed to work outside the hermitage. This is part and parcel of the history of c 603 and it ought not be overturned easily, if at all.

Back to the Questions: A conclusion re Cole Matson

Because Cole Matson is not a hermit, does not feel called to be a hermit (as of 6 weeks prior to his first vows), but does feel called to work in the theatre and on behalf of artists, it is not surprising he spends all afternoon and evening in the local theatre. I sincerely believe --- and have shared this with Cole in some detail via email in 2022 --- that I believe this is where his truest vocation lies. If he and the Holy Spirit can bring Cole's dream of a community of and for artists to life I would praise God and celebrate with Cole for truly following his heart! When that day comes, IF it comes, God will indeed be glorified. It will be a unique gift to the Church and to artists. 

Unfortunately, as it stands now his "pray-in-the-morning-go-out-in-the-afternoon-and-evenings" picture of his days is not even remotely eremitical. It will never be eremitical because he is trying to use eremitism as an excuse for something else, not as its foundation. To expect that to lead to authentic eremitism would be like expecting a gardener to grow healthy, edible, vegetables while watering them with gasoline. Nor is it valid for him to call himself a hybrid hermit. And all of that is on Bishop Stowe, not on Cole. Again, this characterization sounds to me like a clear indication Cole knows he can't honestly claim to be a hermit. His use of the term hermit monk is the same. Being precedes doing in eremitical life (as it tends to in every authentic field or form of life). Once he really IS a hermit (though not a diocesan hermit!) I would think that even limited work in and on behalf of the theatre or on behalf of artists** could be possible and legitimate! 

** In reflecting on such ministry I am reminded that truth and beauty are central categories for perceiving and appreciating Divine Mystery. What Cole feels called to could well serve the church and the church's proclamation, but not from c 603 profession or a vocation as a diocesan hermit.

On Dealing With Worthy and Unworthy Motives in Discerning a Vocation

[[Sister, I don't know if you have time for this question as well, but seems to me that another problem in all of this are the unacceptable motives held by both "Brother Christian" and her Bishop. Is it common for people to approach their dioceses for admission to vows with such dishonest motives? How does a diocese uncover these if you know?]]

I believe that all of us discover within ourselves both worthy and unworthy motives in approaching and desiring to live our vocations. That may be even more true when we are older and no longer just out of high school or college, for instance. What is really critical during periods of discernment and formation is that we become aware of these motives and too, their roots in our lives. For instance, in considering solitary eremitical life, I approached this potential divine calling with a background in and deep desire to live religious life and an academic background in systematic theology with experience in clinical pastoral roles. At the same time, I struggled with a chronic illness which made life in community difficult or impossible. All of this co-existed in me when c 603 was published in 1983. My immediate sense was that this canon might be a good way of "securing myself" canonically and living the religious life I felt called to. However, as intriguing as this made c 603 to me, it did not mean God was calling me to this vocation.

Over the years in discerning this vocation there were many questions to answer and many things to process, to make sure were healed, strengthened, etc. as well as a lot to learn about the eremitical life itself and what living authentically according to canon 603 might actually mean on an everyday basis. The question of authenticity recurred throughout these years and only gradually could I be sure I was really listening to God in this and indeed, that God was calling me to live as a solitary hermit. Had I truly grieved my inability to live community (which, by the way, does not mean the pain of that loss or inability to fulfill this desire ever goes away completely)? Had I established myself in a parish community in a way which might allow me to live and minister even if I were not a religious or canonical hermit? (This was important so I could freely choose what canon 603 legitimately allowed or not.) Had, for instance, I dealt with the shame and "failure" associated with being disabled by the seizure disorder so that canonical standing or "status" was not something I sought illegitimately? These were a few of the things that had to be processed or dealt with on the way to discerning and embracing an authentic vocation to c 603 life.

The point in all of this is that the prospect of c 603 profession and life was associated with motives that were both worthy and those that were not, those that were generous and those that were more self-centered, those that stemmed from woundedness and those that came from wholeness or health (including spiritual health). In living from the ones that are worthy and working through the reasons for those that are unworthy we achieve a part of our response to the vocation itself! If one does not do this, then whatever external liturgies one goes through, one has not truly responded to God and the gift God gives as vocation. This is another reason significant preparation for a formal profession is required. In some ways the preparation is part of one's actual profession or is carried into one's vow formula and becomes part of the gift one gives God and receives in embracing God's call.

In the work I sometimes do with candidates with c 603 profession, uncovering the motives that are unworthy is, relatively speaking, less important than the candidate's ability to identify and articulate the truly compelling ways God is calling her in this process. I am aware of some of these unworthy motives, of course, and in the main trust that the candidate is working through things with her spiritual director. It is not difficult, however, to see clearly when a person is speaking of what God is really calling them to and why they believe this. This particular truth is so foundational in their lives that they can shape themselves (or rather cooperate with the Spirit's shaping of their very selves) in terms of the vocation being considered and the candidate's whole life comes to make an amazing and often paradoxical sense in terms of it. With Canon 603 vocations, hermits and candidates will let go of other avenues and avocations in which they may also have been truly gifted to become the person and gift God is calling them to become as they grow to be fully, abundantly alive in God in terms of this canon and the eremitical tradition.

Because I (and the diocesan team members with whom I might be working) also watch a Rule that is faithful to and deeply embued with a lived understanding of c 603 gradually come into existence (or not!) as the candidate distills her life with God and experiences of the central elements of the canon into a personal vision of this life which reveals the truest essence of the canon, it becomes clear when the whole person resonates with the truth and life of this vision and no other. It also becomes clear when this does not happen and something is askew, mistaken, or perhaps concealed (whether this is done consciously or unconsciously). In such cases, though this also depends on the severity or centrality of the issue, it is usually the case that more work needs to be done before final determinations regarding admission to profession and/or consecration.

But conscious dishonesty and the kind of disingenuousness and potential canonical incompetence we have been occupied with here for the past week (or which I have been concerned with in this case for several years now)? No, these are not common. In fact, I believe they are unprecedented because here we have lies on top of lies at every level of the situation. Ignorance of c 603, its history, and its nature is not uncommon. But once these have been clarified, my own sense is that a candidate's lack of vocation (which means lack of this vocation, not others!) ordinarily becomes clear right away and generally speaking, chancery staff do not collude in the uncharitable process of misusing the calling involved. Canonists protect the substance of the canons so that law may truly serve love, they don't empty them of content and misuse them as legal loopholes. Bishops entrusted with canons 603-605 learn all they can about these canons and their vocations for the praise of God, the sake of the People of God, and the actual vocations entrusted to them. 

Earlier in the history of c 603, some mistakes were made and some professions that should have never occurred did occur. But my sense is that these were good faith errors associated with legitimate growing pains, which have more or less ceased over time and increased experience with authentic vocations under this canon. None of these, however, were as consciously dishonest or as deliberately provocative and political, not to say ecclesially or theologically careless, as the various actions in the Diocese of Lexington case. However, I should note that since the vows made are temporary, there is still time for the diocese to rectify the situation. At the very least the diocese should refuse to exacerbate the situation by attempting a consecration. Again, c 603 has been misused in the past. Honest or good faith errors can be corrected. For the sake of all involved, and the good of a fragile and essential vocation, I pray Bishop Stowe finds the wisdom and courage to do so.

On Bishop Stowe's Comments to his Diocese and Media: Looking at the Potential Damage done to c 603 Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel,  Bishop Stowe wrote about "Bro Christian's" request to make her a hermit: “My willingness to be open to him is because it’s a sincere person seeking a way to serve the church,” and then too, “Hermits are a rarely used form of religious life … but they can be either male or female. Because there’s no pursuit of priesthood or engagement in sacramental ministry, and because the hermit is a relatively quiet and secluded type of vocation, I didn’t see any harm in letting him live this vocation.” What hit me about this was the way Bishop Stowe focuses on all the things the hermit is not, not what a hermit is. He seems to be saying since "Bro Christian" won't be running into many people and because they won't be depending on her for valid sacraments and such, no one needs to worry. I find this incredibly insulting to hermits like you who write so passionately and inspirationally about eremitical life. May I ask you how you felt or what you thought when you read this comment from the bishop? Surely this can't be typical of the level of understanding you get from bishops!

Sister, I don't know if you have time for this question as well, but seems to me that another problem in all of this are the unacceptable motives held by both "Brother Christian" and her Bishop. Is it common for people to approach their dioceses for admission to vows with such dishonest motives? How does a diocese uncover these if you know?]]

LOL! Well, if you have paid attention to the amount of writing I have done this last week on this and related topics you may have an inkling of how the comment made me feel. I was angry. I still am. I also agree with you that it is insulting to the vocation at hand to give such an obviously feeble reason for professing someone. If Bishop Stowe's own community were to profess someone on the strength of those words, Franciscans around the world would be offended, even outraged. I suppose I am not entirely surprised by Bp Stowe's decision re Cole, but I am disappointed with his deliberate shortsightedness and studiously adopted ignorance regarding the c 603 vocation. 

You see, As I think I noted earlier this week, I wrote him at some length in June, 2022 and spoke not only of the nature of canon 603 and solitary eremitical life (especially its redemptive capacity and potential for healing a person's deep woundedness and emptiness when approached honestly), but also the problems with Cole's motivations (being called to public vows per se, not to a calling that required public vows), his true sense of vocation (community, particularly a community of artists, not eremitical life), and the drawbacks of proceeding with vows and the people who would be harmed by such a "profession." I wrote about who would be harmed by this profession (including Cole!!) and the c 603 vocation more generally. Thus, when I read what he told reporters (and apparently the people of the Diocese of Lexington), I felt affronted not only by the "well he's not asking to become a priest" dimension of the comments, but by what seemed to me to be careful and deliberate disingenuousness.

It is very disappointing to have this done at the expense of the solitary eremitical vocation, the appropriate implementation of c 603 itself, as well as at the expense of all genuine diocesan hermits who seek to have the Catholic world understand our hidden vocation and benefit from its witness -- especially when that costly act occurs at the hands of a bishop and an apparently unschooled (in c 603) canonist he apparently depends on. I was personally struck as well by Bp Stowe's comment that Cole had lived in ways that were "consistent with" this vocation. Here I would merely note that the education, spiritual formation, etc., of many of those I know or direct has "been consistent with" this vocation; of these, I am the only one who would honestly claim to be called by God to be a solitary hermit. Stowe's misleading comment on this is a very careful (not to say weaselly) form of speech and a far cry from an observation that Cole is or clearly seems to be called to such a vocation. Bishop Stowe knows that neither of those statements are true ones and so he equivocates.

When I wrote various versions or applications of Whom Could it Hurt? over the past several years, I didn't really imagine an appropriate degree of potential betrayal or damage a single Bishop could do. After a mere 41 years of careful, patient, persistent, and quiet establishment of this vocation within the church so that the Church might truly see and be edified by its silent but potent witness especially to those who have nothing and no one but God, the diocese of Lexington has come shouting and careening through the scene with a badly conceived agenda of "trans justice"; in so doing they have destroyed the fragile foundation created in a few decades by 100's of solitary hermits glorifying God in their aloneness with Him despite the more common skepticism and lack of understanding of the larger church regarding the hermit vocation. This vocation has a significant and powerful, if also subtle, witness value, and what is so sad is that in many many people's minds (including many bishops), Bishop Stowe and Cole Matson have likely managed to undercut that as well.

What I know now is that because the term "Diocesan Hermit" has become inextricably linked not only to Cole Matson and the hypocritical motives Bishop Stowe accepted, I am afraid every diocese in the country and even the world will now be dealing with folks who would like to be professed on the same vacuous basis Bishop Stowe used to profess (or attempt to profess) Cole Matson. Much more importantly, however, I fear that even those of us whose vocations are genuine and whose discernment and formation has been substantial and appropriate will be looked at skeptically --- as though our motives are as self-centered and deceptive as Cole Matson's. And again, I believe that dioceses that don't want to deal with the challenge of implementing c 603 prudently and honestly who have not yet had the privilege of dealing with a genuine c 603 hermit and their unique charism, or those who once deemed c 603 to be about "fallback" vocations alone, will simply stop professing anyone at all under this canon. "Diocesan hermit" is now a term to which Cole Matson and Bishop Stowe himself may have done almost irreparable damage, so I also feel incredibly sad! On the other hand, I am part of a living tradition in which c 603 is a fragile but hope-filled thread and we authentic diocesan hermits will persevere.

You also ask if this is typical of the knowledge of the c 603 vocation bishops demonstrate? Well, it was partly because I don't expect bishops to understand Canon 603 except in terms of canon law that I wrote him as I did. Even so, I expect bishops to allow themselves to be educated by someone with greater knowledge of something so rare, fragile, and vulnerable as c 603. For instance, I am writing a guidebook for dioceses on Canon 603 which provides a process of discernment and formation based on the c603 requirement that the hermit write her own Rule. It is to be used with a small team of chancery personnel, a c603 hermit consultant, and a candidate for profession under c 603. The candidate gains the experience and knowledge necessary to write a liveable Rule while the diocesan personnel discern and assist in the formation of a genuine eremitical vocation. Dioceses often are unsure how to proceed in discernment and formation of these specific vocations, so yes, generally speaking, there is a need for education here. But typical of bishops' knowledge of c 603? I certainly hope not!

I think at this point I have written about all I can write about this topic. It's been a heck of a week!! Thanks for your questions and comments; I do appreciate them and will return to your question regarding motives in another post! It ties in well with this one so give me another day or so!

[[I earnestly desire to respond to the gift of vocation to the eremitical life . . .]]

Hi Sister Laurel,  I wondered what happens next to Brother Christian? What happens with her vows? What could the Church do since the Bishop has professed her? From the articles I read involving Bishop Stowe's and Cole's responses they seem to be waiting for push back from the Vatican. What does that mean?

Thanks for your questions. In part, I would ask your questions this way: What happens next since Cole Matson has attempted temporary public vows in 2022 and renewed that attempt last year? And my answer is that, in some ways your guess is as good as mine. The situation is unprecedented and some determinations regarding the appropriateness and even the validity of Cole's profession need to occur. For instance, there is a significant question regarding whether, canonically speaking, any profession actually occurred, and thus too, whether the vows made are even valid. (The former CDF published a document in 2000 that concluded transsexuals could not enter religious life, so that must be considered. At the same time the issues I have raised regarding the misuse of c 603 must be considered.) In any case, one thing I think we all must remember, however, is that these vows were temporary and will lapse. That means that this August, if the renewal was for one year, either Cole and Bishop Stowe will attempt to renew them or they will attempt not only to profess Cole perpetually but to (have God) consecrate him in a very public ceremony. I personally believe this is the reason Cole came out now. Next steps may be only three months away (August 25 or thereabouts) and the Church, as we all know, ordinarily moves at a glacial pace. (It turns out that these vows were for three years and for that reason, would not ordinarily lapse until 2026 at which time a new profession and even a consecration might be attempted unless the church prohibits such a thing.)

What can or will the Church do? As a diocesan hermit, I truly don't know. Here are some ideas though. 

• 1) Perhaps the simplest option (in light of the Dicastery's 2000 document on transsexuals) is to forbid Bp Stowe to profess Cole again and require he let the vows lapse (if they were ever truly binding in the first place). Bp Stowe could admit that Cole has not truly (yet?) discerned this vocation, remove him from the Diocesan directory (probably a good idea in any case), and let him continue with his non-canonical community for artists. Bp Stowe could proceed from there. 
• 2) Less simple, but also possible is to declare Cole's vows invalid due to fraud or dishonesty re what Cole felt called to when he made his profession and again forbid a repetition of such an action. 
• 3) Alternately, the church (or Bishop Stowe himself) could do what one Bishop did in Australia about 15 years ago when he was hoodwinked into professing someone on false grounds under c 603, and declare that these eremitical vows are private in nature, not public; let Cole continue to live private vows, keep him in the Diocesan directory whether as a quasi-hermit or not, and change his designation (the Lexington directory allows individuals with private vows to be listed), because Cole would not be and could not be listed as a Diocesan Hermit.

If the Church cannot or is unwilling to take any of these steps or fails to address the transgender issue in regard to admission to vows (again, if and only if we prescind from the 2000 document of the DDF which disallows admission of transsexuals to religious life), and if Bp Stowe continues to insist Cole should be publicly professed and consecrated as a solitary hermit under c 603, then 

• 4) allow that profession to take place, but only after a suitable discernment and formation period has taken place in genuine eremitical silence and solitude. Usually, this period occurs before any vows are made, but it would still need to mean a period of either no or carefully limited involvement in theatre or other work outside the hermitage (at least three to five years as Matson lived this discernment and formative desert experience and a commitment to a clearly eremitical life); limitations would need to be required thereafter as well, just as they are for all c 603 hermits. During the initial 3-5-year period, Cole would need to find ways to work from his hermitage and pay for his own living arrangements. (If he remains at Mt Tabor Monastery, Cole would still need to be responsible for all his own expenses: rent, food (or room and board), insurance, medical expenses, etc.) 

Finally, (again setting aside the transgender issue for now) it would mean that for there to eventually be a legitimate and credible perpetual profession, Cole would need to write his own liveable and genuinely eremitical Rule of Life that includes the affirmation required by the church as part of my own vow formula at perpetual profession, namely:

 [[I earnestly desire to respond to the gift of vocation to the eremitical life and freely follow the inspiration of grace to a hidden apostolic fruitfulness in a life of prayerful contemplation as a solitary hermit.]] 

As things stand now, there are a number of elements in this affirmation that I believe Cole not only cannot affirm but that he has explicitly contradicted or even rejected in statements made to me just weeks before attempting first vows, as well as to media representatives in the years and months preceding those vows. But, assuming Mr. Matson has truly discovered an eremitical vocation in the past year or year and a half, the Church could easily require this same affirmation to be added to whatever vow formula Cole writes. Since Mr. Matson has said publicly in the recent past that he does not feel called to eremitical life but to community and even more narrowly, to public vows per se (meaning he believes he is called to assume a public position or achieve public standing from which he might continue his own agenda) I believe such an affirmation is even more imperative than it might be for any other diocesan hermit.

While I recognize Cole's yearning in all of this, sympathize with his desires and empathize with his profound disappointments over the years, what the Church does moving forward will likely have to have more to do with Bishop Stowe and his actions in all of this than with Cole directly. Continuing to put the transgender issue aside for the moment because my concern is with c 603 and the life it defines, it would have been immensely easier and more honest, I think, had Bishop Stowe required of Cole the same thing the church demands of every candidate for c 603 profession. Had he done this the case for Cole's profession would have been much stronger, even with Cole revealing his transgendered status. No matter who they are, male or female, the one making profession under c 603 must have truly discerned and been formed in an eremitical vocation. (This is not the same as visiting monastic communities here and there, even for extended periods.) 

To give one's life to Christ in a religious or monastic community comes only after significant testing of one's capacity and fit for that and is vastly different than an extended "come and see" visit. To then leave such a community after years of solemn vows because of an overwhelming call to solitude is wrenching. Yet that is the context out of which c 603 was born. In any case, candidates for c 603 profession need to be contemplatives who, over some years of supervision and mentoring if available (not the same as spiritual direction), have discovered a yearning for greater solitude than they were (or would be) able to live in community life. Finally, they must have been prepared to make vows including chastity in celibacy and obedience! All of this takes time and supervised formation in the silence of solitude --- none of which, so far as I can tell, Cole ever received. 

Ultimately, this is Bishop Stowe's responsibility to make right. If he can't do that, I honestly don't know what steps the larger Church will take next.

Reprise of 2014 Post, "Fraudulent Catholic Hermits: Is it a Big Problem?"

Ten years ago tomorrow (25.May.2014) I posted the following article. Because of recent events in the Diocese of Lexington, it is particularly timely. Two points in this post are especially critical; they tie in with other posts I have put up this week. First, eremitical life is about letting go of any impersonation we may be living, and secondly, eremitical life itself, and not the various forms of apostolic ministry that might sometimes flow from it in the very limited ways they legitimately can, is an important gift lived for the salvation of others. In other words, the hermit says that life lived alone with God is itself the gift or charism of eremitical life, and the gift that our world, and especially those who are marginalized in any way, needs desperately. 

[[Hi Sister Laurel, is the problem of fraudulent hermits a big one? Do many people claim to be Catholic hermits when they are not? I am asking because you have written recently about the normative character of c 603 vocations and some who pretend to be Catholic hermits. Was the Church concerned with frauds and people like that when they decided to create this canon?]] 

No, on the whole this is not really a huge problem, or at least it was not a problem when I first started the process of becoming a diocesan hermit. I don't think it is that much of a problem even now though I do hear (or know firsthand) of cases here and there of folks who pull on a habit (or the gaunt visage and behavior of a  supposed "mystic"), don the title "Catholic hermit" and then turn up on the doorstep of a parish expecting to be recognized and known in this way. There was also a website a couple of years ago using the names of legitimate (canonical) diocesan hermits to get money through PayPal without the knowledge of these same diocesan hermits. Part of the problem is that the authentic vocation is so rare and little understood in absolute terms that a handful of counterfeits or frauds can have a greater impact relatively speaking. Those disedifying and fraudulent cases aside, however, the origins of the canon are actually pretty inspiring and had nothing to do with frauds or counterfeits. To reprise that here:

About a dozen monks, long solemnly professed, had grown in their vocations to a call to solitude (traditionally this is considered the summit of monastic life); unfortunately, their monasteries did not have anything in their own proper law that accommodated such a calling. Their constitutions and Rule were geared to community life and though this also meant a significant degree of solitude, it did NOT mean eremitical solitude. Consequently, these monks had to either give up their sense that they were called to eremitical life or they had to leave their monastic vows, be secularized, and try to live as hermits apart from their monastic lives and vows. Eventually, about a dozen of these hermits came together under the leadership of Dom Jacques Winandy and the aegis of Bishop Remi De Roo in British Columbia (he became their "Bishop Protector"); this gave him time to come to know the contemporary eremitical vocation and to esteem it and these hermits rather highly.

When Vatican II was in session Bishop de Roo, one of the youngest Bishops present, gave a written intervention asking that the hermit life be recognized in law as a state of perfection and the possibility of public profession and consecration for contemporary hermits made a reality. The grounds provided in Bishop Remi's intervention were all positive and today reflect part of the informal vision the Church has of this vocation. (You will find them listed in this post, Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation.) Nothing happened directly at the Council (even Perfectae Caritatis did not mention hermits), but VII did require the revision of the Code of Canon Law in order to accommodate the spirit embraced by the Council as well as other substantive changes it made necessary; when this revised code eventually came out in October of 1983 it included c. 603 which defined the Church's vision of eremitical life generally and, for the first time ever in universal law, provided a legal framework for the public profession and consecration of those hermits who desired and felt called to live an ecclesial eremitical vocation.

So you see, the Church was asked at the highest level by a Bishop with significant experience with about a dozen hermits living in a laura in British Columbia to codify this life so that it: 1) was formally recognized as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and 2) so that others seeking to live such a life would not have the significant difficulties that these original dozen hermits did because there was no provision in either Canon Law nor in their congregations' proper laws [for hermit life].

The majority of diocesan hermits (i.e., hermits professed in the hands of a diocesan Bishop) have tended to have a background in religious life; it is only in the past years that more individuals without such formation and background have sought to become diocesan hermits. This has left a bit of a hole in terms of writing about the vocation; it has meant not only that the nuts and bolts issues of writing a Rule of life, intimately understanding the nature of the vows, and learning to pray in all the ways religious routinely pray, have needed to be discussed somewhere publicly; it has also meant that the problems of the meaning and significance of the terms, "ecclesial vocation", "Catholic hermit," etc. as well as basic approaches to discernment, formation, the central elements of the canon, and so forth, have needed to be clarified for lay persons, some diocesan hermits, and even for those chanceries without much experience of this vocation.

My Own Interest in the Ecclesiality of the C 603 vocation:

I have been interested in all of these issues since I decided to pursue admittance to canon 603 profession --- now about 30 [40] years ago ---  and as I grow in this vocation, in my appreciation of it and of the wisdom and beauty of the canon which governs it, my interest remains --- but for rather different reasons. It took me 23 years to work out for myself many of the issues mentioned in the above paragraph; now I am able to give back to the larger Church community in ways that I sincerely hope allow others to more fully understand and esteem this vocation. Most important is what I have said over the past few days (and the past several years!!): this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world. In particular, it can witness to the fact that the isolation and marginality so many people experience today can be redeemed by one's relationship with God, just as it stands as a prophetic witness against the individualism, narcissism, and addictions (especially to media and to remote, packaged, and soundbite-approaches to reality and relationships) which almost completely define the world around us today. However, frauds, counterfeits, and curmudgeons can get in the way of or detract from this witness --- not least because, unless they are simply ignorant, they are generally mired in pretense and self-centeredness that makes the vocation incredible.

One of the least spoken of non-negotiable elements of canon 603 is that this is a life lived for the praise of God and the sake and indeed, the salvation of others. The usual focus in most discussions and in discernment as well tends to be on the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world, as well as on the content of the vows, but I have not heard many talking about or centering attention on the phrase, "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." However, this element very clearly signals that this vocation is not a selfish one and is not meant only for the well-being of the hermit. It also, I believe, is integral to the notion that this is an ecclesial vocation with defined rights and obligations lived in dialogue with the contemporary situation.  

To say this vocation has a normative shape and definition is also to say that not everything called eremitism in human history glorifies God. Further, calling attention to the fact that this is a normative or ecclesial vocation is just the flip side of pointing out that this is a gift of the Holy Spirit meant for the well-being of all who come to know it (as well as those who do not). I am keen that diocesan hermits embrace this element of their lives fully --- and certainly I also desire that chanceries understand that the discernment of vocations cannot occur adequately unless the charism of the vocation is truly understood and esteemed. The ecclesial nature of the vocation is part of this charism as is the prophetic witness I spoke of earlier. By far this is the larger issue driving my writing about the normative and ecclesial nature of this vocation or continuing to point out the significance of canonical standing than the existence of a few counterfeit "Catholic hermits".

 Letting Go of Impersonation: the Real Issue for all of us

As I consider this then, I suppose the problem of frauds (or counterfeits) is certainly more real than when I first sought admission to profession under canon 603 (the canon was brand new then and few knew about it), but for most of us diocesan hermits the real issue is our own integrity in living this life and allowing the Church to discern and celebrate other instances of it rather than dealing with the sorry pretense and insecurity which seems to drive some to claim titles to which they have no right. What serious debate takes place does so on this level, not on more trivial ones. The question of fraud is an important one for the hermit both personally and ecclesially because as Thomas Merton reminds us all: [[The . . .hermit has as his first duty, to live happily without affectation in his solitude. He owes this not only to himself but to his community [by extension diocesan hermits would say parish, diocese, or Church] that has gone so far as to give him a chance to live it out. . . . this is the chief obligation of the . . .hermit because, as I said above, it can restore to others their faith in certain latent possibilities of nature and of grace.]] (Emphasis added,  Contemplation in a World of Action, p. 242)

In any case, as Thomas Merton also knew very well, some of those who are frauds (and I am emphatically NOT speaking here of lay (non-canonical) hermits who identify themselves as non-canonical) might well embrace true solitude in the midst of their pretense; if they do, if they find they have a true eremitical vocation, it will only be by discovering themselves getting rid of any pretense or impersonation as well as finding their craziness or eccentricity dropping away. After all, as Merton also noted, one cannot ultimately remain crazy in the desert (that is, in the absence of others and presence of God in solitude) for it takes other people to make and allow us to be crazy. He writes: [[To be really mad you need other people. When you are by yourself you soon get tired of your craziness. It is too exhausting. It does not fit in with the eminent sanity of trees, birds, water, sky. You have to shut up and go about the business of living. The silence of the woods forces you to make a decision which the tensions and artificialities of society help you to evade forever. Do you want to be yourself or don't you?]] (Idem, 245, emphasis added)

You see, the simple truth which makes the existence of fraudulent hermits not only intriguing but also tremendously sad and ironic -- and which is also the universal truth we all must discover for ourselves -- is that alone with God we find and embrace our true selves. Through, with, and in God we find ourselves made true and fulfilled as persons. If we must continue in our pretense or various forms of impersonation then something is seriously askew with our solitude and therefore too, with our relationship with God (and vice versa).