On Public Ecclesial Vocations: Rights, Obligations and the Responsibility for Transparency in Consecrated Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was wondering what it means for you to have a "public vocation". You claim that having such a vocation implies that it comes with certain public rights and responsibilities so let me see if I understand some of what that means. Let's say that I disagreed with the theology you provided, or that I thought you were not representing eremitical life well and thought it important enough to speak to you directly about it. It would be important that I have a way of reaching you, true? If I was not satisfied with your response to me, then I would be able to contact your diocese, wouldn't I? It might even be morally necessary for me to do that, true? Are these examples of what you mean when you say you have a public vocation? And what if you claimed to be a diocesan hermit but refused to provide your name or diocese? That seems like it would be a problem if you are responsible to the People of God for what you do or say in public. And yet, how about the Carthusian monks who write books and sign them anonymous? They have public vocations but remain hidden in this specific way; why doesn't this work for c 603 hermits? Is my analysis on point? I have more but I want to hear your response first if that's okay.]]

Wow, such great questions!! And yes, your analysis is pretty much on point -- with some nuances and expansions to be added. Also, of course you can come back with more. I'll email you this first answer and then you can reply with more. How does that sound?

So, ordinarily the rights and obligations identified as part of an ecclesial public vocation have to do with representing the vocation one has been commissioned to live in the Church's name and to do so well. The obligations refer to living the vows well, understanding, valuing, and conveying the nature of c 603 similarly, living one's Rule and the values that comprise its central elements well, and I would say particularly, giving evidence that one lives the Gospel of God in Christ in a way that convinces people that God really is of primary importance to oneself and also to any really compelling spirituality one holds. 

One should be a person of prayer, live from the Scriptures, reflect a vibrant sacramental life, be faithful to spiritual direction, mentoring, and any other disciplines necessary to live this life attentively and obediently, and do all of this for the sake of God and all God holds as precious (essentially, the entirety of God's creation)! At my perpetual profession and consecration, I assumed all of these obligations (and likely a few I haven't called to mind here); in doing so I gave the whole Church the right to expect that I would do all I could to meet these obligations faithfully --- including asking for assistance of those who might help me --- particularly in regard to my responsibility to grow in this vocation over the years.  

What I was given in exchange was the right to identify myself as a diocesan hermit, a member of the consecrated state in an ecclesial vocation bound publicly by the Evangelical Councils and a Rule of Life I had written and that was vetted by canonists and approved by the Bishop professing me. I was also given the right to style myself as a religious Sister, to wear a habit with my bishop's approval and a monastic cowl (after perpetual profession only). In other words, I was given the right to call myself a consecrated Catholic hermit who lives this vocation in the name of the Church. A year after perpetual profession, I was also given permission to use the post-nominal initials Er Dio as part of my signature indicating my identity as a consecrated c 603 hermit. And, although I have not used this right (and likely can't do so the way some might be able to), I was given the right in civil law to set my hermitage up as a 501(c)3 religious house. So, with that out of the way, let's get to your questions.

The Questions:

Yes, I would agree that if you found me posting bad theology you might eventually be required to contact my diocese, particularly if I had not been sufficiently responsive to your attempts to speak with me directly. Let me point out, however, that I should be culpable for something serious here and not a matter of a simple theological disagreement. And yes, you are right about the importance of my providing a way to reach me or my diocese so long as I claim to be a diocesan hermit. Part of the obligations I accept in claiming a public ecclesial vocation is a certain relinquishment of the right to absolute privacy. If I am going to express myself publicly and represent myself as a diocesan hermit, people should be able to verify my bona fides. That ordinarily means folks have a right to know my name, as well as the date and diocese of my consecration. If I should want or need to withhold my name for safety's sake, but still choose to express myself publicly, then I must identify the diocese to and through which I am responsibly professed. This would not be optional because my vocation is a public and ecclesial one. (Please also see, OnAnonymity and Accountability in c 603 Vocations )

As noted above, the right to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit comes with correlative obligations. This vocation, as ecclesial, is about more than just me and God alone. People in the Church and larger world have correlative rights and legitimate (valid) expectations re a consecrated person in the Church. This is one of the things new candidates for profession have to be helped to understand. It is not just that one can now be identified as a diocesan hermit. That right comes with correlative obligations to all whom one's life as a hermit touches! I am responsible not just for what I say or do; I have obligations to others to be who I say I am and that includes being transparent about my identity and canonical bonds within the Church. If I claimed to be a diocesan hermit and yet refused to provide my name or at least my diocese, then it would be a betrayal of the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation. The only way to remain anonymous would be to also refuse to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit; in such a case, however, one would be emptying a God-given public and ecclesial identity of any real meaning.

How About Carthusian Monks signing "A Carthusian?"

So what about the Carthusian monks whose books are signed "A Carthusian"? (I'm pretty sure they use this more than they use "anonymous.") Strictly speaking, they are neither remaining anonymous nor refusing to be transparent. They are providing the name of the Order they belong to and that Order is the responsible party here. That Order is publishing in a way that makes the entire congregation responsible to the Church and larger world for what is being published in their name. And that is the key to the situation, being responsible for what one says or does and who one is in the Church and larger world. But c 603 hermits do not belong to an Order. They are diocesan hermits, hermits admitted to public standing by a diocesan bishop and responsible to the People of that local Church as well as the larger Church for this public vocation. Can they remain anonymous? Yes, once professed, they could choose to make this part of their eremitical hiddenness (though it need not be). But let's be clear, they could not do that AND violate their chosen hiddenness by public expressions (blogs, videos, articles, publications) as a diocesan hermit! One simply cannot claim anonymity AND a public ecclesial identity at the same time. That is inconsistent, dishonest, and disrespectful of those to whom one is writing or speaking, as well as to the diocese that has entrusted one with this vocation.

On the internet, I sometimes find folks who insist on remaining anonymous and often tend to be dishonest, exploitative, and selfish. It is striking to me that they are free to publish almost anything they want, truth be damned, if that is what they desire, and they do it in the name of freedom. (It is really about license, not authentic freedom!) Were a c 603 hermit to claim anonymity while at the same time claiming to say or do what they say or do as a diocesan hermit, they would especially not be able to justify this claim in terms of eremitical hiddenness. Again, it would instead be an act of irresponsibility, perhaps even cowardice, and it would certainly fail to respect the persons who listen to or read their works. The only place this might be acceptable might be a situation where a journal (for instance) had taken responsibility for the quality of the hermit's published piece and the author's bona fides. But again, in this situation, as in the example from the Carthusians, someone is taking appropriate responsibility for readers, listeners, et al who have their own rights. 

Fortunately, diocesan hermits I know who had to deal with the question of not revealing their names or dioceses because of privacy and safety concerns chose to cease being active on the internet, while those who maintain a presence here do so openly and accept any reasonable risk. Both groups of individuals maintain an appropriate eremitical hiddenness (not an element of canon 603 in any case), a sufficiently protective privacy, and also a clear sense of respect for the public and ecclesial character of their vocations. I think you can see the striking difference between a public ecclesial vocation and a private non-canonical vocation, and also why I have insisted for more than 18 years that "public" in these matters is not about notoriety, etc., but correlative public and ecclesial rights and obligations.

Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary: Heaven is not only a Spiritual Reality!!

During this Summer, the Scripture class I do for St P's has been reading NT Wright's Surprised by Hope. Today we began chapter 7 which begins with a discussion of the Ascension and especially, the importance of believing the ascension of Jesus is a separate event from his resurrection. One of the things Wright wants to get across is that with Jesus' ascension, humanity (embodied, glorified humanity) assumes a place in the Divine "space" or life. If there was no ascension or if ascension and resurrection are collapsed into a single event, among other problems, we might be able to think of heaven as a purely spiritual reality for disembodied human beings, but in light of Jesus' ascension, we must affirm that heaven looks a lot different than most of us were taught and that is a pretty big surprise for many! It is a place where God takes embodied and glorified humanity into his own life or "space", another step towards the day when God will dwell with us in a new heaven and a new earth where God is all in all.

Wright says: [[The idea of the human Jesus now being in heaven, in his thoroughly embodied risen state, comes as a shock to many people, including many Christians. Sometimes this is because many people think Jesus, having been divine, stopped being divine and became human for a while, stopped being human and went back to being divine. . . More often it's because our culture is so used to the Platonic idea that heaven is by definition a place of "spiritual," nonmaterial reality so that the idea of a solid body being not only present but also thoroughly at home there seems like a category mistake. The ascension invites us to rethink all this; after all, why did we suppose we knew what heaven was? . . Part of Christian belief is to find out what's true about Jesus and let that challenge our culture. This applies in particular to the idea of Jesus being in charge not only in heaven but also on earth, not only in some ultimate future but also in the present.]]

I had prepared this chapter earlier in the week and that included rereading Chapter 6 in preparation, which refers to a number of Scriptural references and images dealing with what God wills for the world, namely, that one day heaven and earth would become one realm where God is all in all. We humans will have glorified bodies, just as Jesus does now, and the whole Cosmos will be recreated with Jesus as the first fruits of this new life. I was not, however thinking of today's Feast or the importance of a theology of Mary's bodily assumption. However, when I prepared for today's Feast it became clear that this dogma supports and underscores the early Church's conviction that heaven is not about disembodied beings and an entirely spiritual reality. It is about embodied glorified persons who have assumed a place in the very life or "space" of God and are both absent from us and our world as it is and also present to and for us in a new way!

This is a new way of thinking about Mary's assumption for me --- though it certainly seems pretty obvious now. I love that it underscores this "new" (and very early Christian) way of conceiving heaven and the future of the cosmos. I also appreciate how getting the ascension right rules out any misguided attempts to make of Mary a mediatrix even as it allows her to be honored appropriately. This is also a point Wright makes as he discusses the consequences of getting the ascension right.** It was also an incredibly timely Feast for me because of recent encounters I have had with Gnosticism and those who are seemingly allergic to the goodness and sanctity of the material and spatio-temporal world. I am posting this not only because I am spending time on this theology presently, but also because I wanted to celebrate this aspect of today's solemnity as a gift of God I had simply not expected.

** Wright's work here is dependent on Douglas Farrow's,  Ascension and Ecclesia, On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology. (Cf, especially pp152ff)

Motivations in Petitioning for Canonical Standing under c 603

[[ Hi Sister, In your post on second consecration you listed some of the things that are necessary if one wants to become a diocesan hermit. I was surprised that you did not mention anything about motivation. In particular, you didn't say the first thing necessary was a heartfelt sense that God was calling one to this! Neither did you refer to love of God. I am assuming you really believe these are essential, so I wondered if you could speak about your own motivations in petitioning your diocese for admittance to profession and consecration under c 603. What happens if someone doesn't really feel called to this vocation but does feel called to eremitical life as such?? I am thinking of someone who seems to detest c 603 and believes it is a betrayal and distortion of eremitical life. Should they petition for admittance?]]

Important questions. Thank you very much!  Yes, you are completely correct that both of these are essential elements in someone desiring to petition a diocese for admission to profession, and eventual consecration. They are present and support every other thing we might say about such a vocation.  At the same time, there is more involved than loving God or believing God is calling one to this vocation. Discerning such a vocation requires care and time because it requires mutual discernment. For instance, generally speaking, one must already be living as a hermit before contacting one's diocese for admission to profession and consecration under c 603. There are several reasons for this: 1) in this way one gains a better sense of being called to eremitical life at all, 2) one's diocese is unlikely to be able or willing to spend the years necessary in forming a hermit right from the get-go, 3) one should be bringing something more to one's petition beside a desire to be initiated into the consecrated state -- including an understanding of canon 603, its history and value as a canon marking a public ecclesial vocation.

Granted, one not only can, but will inevitably move more deeply into these realities, but one already needs to be convinced one is called to live eremitical life in the name of the Church or as an ecclesial vocation (even if one does not use these words in explaining the matter!) if they want a diocese to take them seriously enough to agree to a mutual discernment process with a small team of diocesan personnel and a c 603 mentor. Of course, one needs to be able to claim clearly and without reservation that they believe God is calling them to this vocation, and the candidate needs to be able to say why that is so.  As I wrote recently, one may have both worthy and unworthy motives for seeking to enter this vocation; determining one's truest motives, among other things that argue for one's suitability, requires the time and energy of others who represent the Church discerning this vocation with the candidate. If the worthy motives predominate, then one's petition may well go forward, but if one's motives are predominantly unworthy of such a vocation, then the diocese is likely to politely refuse to discern with one, much less admit one even to temporary profession.

My Own Story in Brief:

I began living as a non-canonical hermit after having read c 603 in about 1984, and long before my diocese agreed to profess me under c 603. I petitioned for admittance to c 603 profession and consecration because I had a clear insight that this way of living would "make sense" of my entire life, particularly as it was marked and marred by chronic illness and disability. In fact, one of the articles I published at this time was on chronic illness or disability as vocation, and specifically, as a potential vocation to eremitical life. Over time, that sense deepened and I discovered that I truly was called by God to live my life as a hermit. During these early years, my experience of chastity in celibacy changed and deepened, my relationship with God in Christ matured into a nuptial relationship, and I came to understand more and more deeply the nature of the call that c 603 described as well. Above all, in these years, though still a non-canonical hermit looking toward life under c 603 (Bp Cummins had decided not to profess anyone under this canon for the foreseeable future), I came to see the value and something of the beauty of c 603, and also that I had something to offer the Church in terms of solitary eremitic life lived under this canon. Thus, I came to renew my petition before Bishop John Cummins retired. Some years later (2007), and several years after Bishop Vigneron had replaced Bp Cummins, I was admitted to perpetual vows and consecration as a diocesan hermit.

From the time of perpetual profession and consecration, the sense that I was called by God to this vocation deepened and came to involve not simply the idea of chronic illness as vocation and potential eremitic vocation, but also an intrigue with canon 603 itself, and the sense that the church fathers who wrote this canon and the intervening drafts, may have written better than they knew. I watched myself and my relationship with God and others change as I came to live the elements of the canon more and more profoundly. Canon 603 was literally beautiful to me in the way it combined non-negotiable elements and incredible flexibility, as well as a focus on traditional elements of eremitical life and the contemporary situation; it honored these by requiring the hermit to write her own liveable Rule rooted in her experience of the way God worked in her life and called her to the silence of solitude in both silence, solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world --- all within a clearly ecclesial vocation.

A Bit More Focus on C 603:

Given the history of eremitical life and the variability in the meaning of various elements, c 603 did not define its central characteristics in a univocal way. Yes, there was a core meaning to each one that had to be observed, but at the same time, each could represent a spectrum of meaning that might be incarnated or embodied in varying ways depending on the hermit's relationship with God. Perhaps more importantly, I began to see that each element represents a doorway to Mystery (God) and a means to encounter Mystery -- just as desert vocations were always known to do. This variability did not mean anything goes, of course, but it recognized that the defining elements of the canon served a larger purpose and were not ends in themselves. Thus, silence was not absolute nor was being alone. Instead, the two together (the canon's "silence of solitude") referred to being alone with God and indicated the quies or stillness that occurs when one rests in God. The silence of solitude thus refers not merely to the quiet of living by oneself -- though that can be a beginning and necessary sense of the term, but to the wholeness and peace that occurs when God is allowed to love one as God alone can do. During these years I came to see that the whole is very much greater than the sum of the parts!!

This meant that the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the Evangelical counsels, and one's Rule serve to facilitate one's encounter with God, which in turn serves a life given over to the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Through the years since perpetual profession and consecration, my love for the canon and what it makes possible has grown. In the inner work I have undertaken with the accompaniment and assistance of my Director (and also in light of the grace of this calling!), this vocation has been reaffirmed many times and grown as my relationship with God has grown. That means too that I recognize the redemptive experience that is mine in God as I live life according to this canon; similarly, I trust that every person truly called to this vocation will experience a similar redemptive dynamism in time. If they suffer from disability and chronic illness, I hope they find that this vocation allows them to suffer effectively with and in Christ and the Holy Spirit as we work towards a new heaven and a new earth where God is all in all. Suffering in this way does away with bitterness, resentment, and self-pity and allows one to see even suffering as a significant source of grace for themselves, others, and the whole of God's creation. If they are not chronically ill or disabled, then the redemption offered in c 603 life will take a different shape. It will still be there in ways other life paths may not have provided.

What if One Believes c 603 is a betrayal and distortion of traditional eremitical life?

By way of preparing to answer this question, let me point out that one of the most important aspects of c 603 is its ecclesial dimension. A person lives this vocation in the heart of the Church because, as I have said many times now, the vocation belongs first of all to the Church. She extends this vocation to the individual hermit, admitting them to profession and consecration. This mediation does not get in the way of experiencing God directly. Instead, it empowers this, just as the Eucharist makes possible a direct experience of Jesus taken, broken, and given to us, present in bread and wine. It is a mistake to think mediated reality is somehow less accessible to us; paradoxically, just the opposite is true. Living this canon in the heart of the Church gives every sacrifice and difficulty meaning. Living this canon as the heart of the Church does transfigures one's entire life. 

At the same time, the ecclesial dimension of the vocation requires acceptance of certain things, not least that the Church has every right to define the terms of this vocation and to accept varying expressions of fidelity to it depending on one's experience of God and Rule of Life. Moreover, accepting that the solitary eremitical vocation lived under c 603 means embracing and being entrusted with an ecclesial vocation that helps prevent individualism --- the great temptation and betrayal of eremitical life throughout the centuries. In other words, one is entrusted with and embraces a vocation within and on behalf of the People of God and the life of the Church. 

It is not surprising then, that throughout the history of eremitical life, whenever individualism predominated, one's place in the Church and participation in the sacramental life of the Church weakened or disappeared. (N.B., this is absolutely not what happened to the Desert Fathers and Mothers!) I think it is possible to point to hermits today who do tend to despise c 603 as some sort of betrayal of the so-called "tried and true" historical way of living eremitical life (there never was a single way of living this life that was "tried and true"), and who also have little to do with the historical Church or write about it as though it needs to be left behind for some idealized "spiritual realm". If one of these persons were to try and petition for admission to c 603 standing in law, I believe it would be a tremendous act of hypocrisy. How could one live well what one believes is a distortion of traditional eremitical life? How could one seek to be bound by a canon that makes normative the very life one perceives as a betrayal and distortion of eremitical life? 

Right now, there is one non-canonical hermit I personally know of writing and videoing in the vein you have spoken of; while I don't much agree with a lot of what she writes or the three videos of hers I have seen, at least she has been honest about her motivations re c 603. She claims the Church has "temporalized eremitical life with c 603." Thus, the very existence of such a canon makes her angry and (for her) represents a distortion of eremitical life. Recently she opined that some c 603 hermits who have been finally professed and consecrated are not really consecrated, apparently because of the state of the bishop's soul at the time of the (attempted?) consecration. 

Of course, this is heresy --- not a word I throw around lightly; it is a position that was rejected in the fourth-century contest with the Donatists in terms of the consecration of a bishop; what the church concluded was that even were a priest or other minister in the state of mortal sin, that minister's actions would be valid because Jesus Christ is the real minister. (This is the origin of Church teaching on the Sacraments working  ex opere operato.) Since this issue was originally raised in a dispute over the valid consecration of a bishop, I believe the Church's position on the consecration of a diocesan hermit (or anyone in the consecrated state) would also be ensured similarly. 

In approaching your last questions, then, I think of this hermit and need to ask what would accepting profession and consecration under a canon that (she explicitly claims) "God has saved her from" at least three times, and distorts eremitical life by "temporalizing it," mean for such a person? If she truly believes even a fraction of what she has said about canon 603 and related vocations, then it seems to me that pursuing profession under this canon would be an act of bad faith; it would be a transgression of her own conscience and integrity. Of course, it is unnecessary for her (or anyone!) to seek public profession and consecration under c 603. She can continue living an eremitical life non-canonically as she does now and (in my opinion) probably should do so.

If she (or someone like her) believes she has something important to share with her bishop regarding c 603 or eremitical life more generally, she is in a perfect place to do that. The fact that she claims not to have sought public profession in the past and has written consistently and publicly about c 603 in a negative vein should be of interest to her Bishop --- especially since he has experience of eremitical life with a c 603 hermit and well-respected hermitage in his diocese. I am sure he would listen to her concerns. (Remember, we know that the Archdiocese of Seattle, a neighboring diocese, truly appreciates hermits in the non-canonical state so there is real precedence here for other dioceses listening to non-canonical hermits regarding their vocation.) I don't think, however, this particular lay hermit would have the same credibility if she were to capitulate ("If you can't beat them, join them!") and seek profession under c 603 when she so vehemently believes the canon itself is a perversion of authentic eremitical life. 

Evaluating this Blog and Other Questions re Discernment

[[Sister Laurel, does c 603 say, "Besides private profession"? I looked and couldn't find that so I wondered if I had a bad translation. Can bishops remove canonical approval from someone when they speak out publicly? Also, does a person's bishop read their public media, their blogs, etc. One hermit I know says bishops should be doing this, and I wondered if you agree.. . .If you find another hermit disagreeing with you about something important, like the way you live solitude, or wear a habit, or things like that, what do you do?]]

Thanks for your questions. No, canon 603 does not say, "besides private profession . . ." Not only are those words not present in the canon (I am sure your translation was just fine), but what eremitical life is being contrasted with are institutes of consecrated life. This means canonical Religious Congregations and Communities. The canon reads, [[Besides institutes of consecrated life. . .]] and then goes on to state that the Church now recognizes eremitical or anchoritic life. Institutes of consecrated life do not use private vows. They are public vocations with public vows and now, with canon 603, so too is solitary eremitical life lived under the canon. Similarly, the word "profession" is not used for private vows because the act of profession is a public one that always initiates the person making such a profession into a new state of life. Using private and profession together is an oxymoron. The bottom line is that c 603 establishes c 603 hermits or anchorites in the consecrated state just as religious in communities are established that way.

Regarding speaking out publicly and what you call "removing canonical approval", as I have written before, the use of the term "canonical approval" ceases to be helpful after one is admitted to canonical standing. What is at stake once one is professed is not approval, canonical or otherwise, but standing in law. If one's bishop determines that some action one has taken is seriously contrary to one's profession and consecration, then he can take actions to dispense the hermit's vows and remove her from the consecrated state of life. But let me be clear, depending on what we are talking about, the action would have to be very serious indeed. Ordinarily, a serious transgression would require a correction and warning that one is jeopardizing one's eremitical life in this way and then too, a second transgression in spite of the correction and warning. (Usually, we are dealing with patterns of behavior that the hermit refuses to change despite significant chances for rehabilitation.) Even then, the hermit can appeal the finding that deprives her of her vows and state of life. Simply speaking out on some issue or another is unlikely to rise to this level.

 I would assume that bishops and/or delegates will know about a hermit's blog, and certainly, they will know about it if the hermit posts frequently as I do. (This will indicate it is important in her life in some way, and most superiors will know what is important to someone they are working with.) Moreover, if the blog is useful in exploring dimensions of c 603, dealing with problems in implementing it, etc., they might encourage this activity. In other words, I don't see any reason bishops should not be reading a person's blog; they might truly benefit from it.

Excursus: Most diocesan hermits begin blogs, but few continue with the exercise. I have begun to invite other diocesan hermits to contribute here occasionally if they have something regarding eremitical life, spirituality, or c 603 life and spirituality particularly --- if they would like to share. I know that this blog has been helpful to some canonists and bishops, and of course, it has been helpful to those seeking to become c 603 hermits, so it would be really excellent if we could broaden the voices available here and deal with things I may not ordinarily focus on or be strong in. (So, notice to c 603 hermits, especially if I have not met you yet, if you feel like you would like to write a piece for this blog, please let me know. There are a couple of kinds of posts here that might already prepare the way for such contributions, we can pretty much do what it takes to make it work for you.)  A couple of persons are already thinking about what they might contribute, and one canonist has already written something on lauras; please give it some thought and prayer. (If you are a non-canonical hermit and would like to contribute to this blog, please let me know what you have in mind and we'll see what we can do!!)

That apparent tangent indicates that bishops do find this blog helpful in some ways and my sense is that a number of bishops may have read this blog during the kerfuffle with Cole Matson after Pentecost and found it helpful. I don't know whether Bp Michael Barber knows about or reads this blog, but I know my delegates are aware of it because I share about my writing with them, and at least sometimes, specific pieces and issues. In the beginning, I had some decisions to make about the place of this exercise in my life, particularly things like whether to allow comments or not. (My decision on that was that it made the boundary between my hermitage and the public too porous; I disallowed comments.) And over time it has assumed a shape and importance I never really expected. That means that I am not concerned with what any given bishop actually thinks of pieces within the blog itself. It does not matter if a single bishop here or there disagrees with my keeping a blog; it has been significant for my growth and contributed to an understanding of c 603 which is beneficial to the Church and to this specifically ecclesial vocation.

But of course, this blog is not the last word on c 603!! It is a contribution to ongoing discussions, nothing more nor less. If I find someone disagreeing with me on something important, the first thing I will do is listen and pray about it. The next thing I will do alongside these other things (if I think there could be merit in the disagreement or know the knowledgeability and trustworthiness of the person commenting) is to reread my Rule and the way I spoke there about solitude (your question's example), for instance. If there are footnotes in the Rule, or newer references I should also check, I will do that. Finally, especially if I am troubled by something or otherwise uncertain, I will bring the topic to my Director and discuss it and the way I am living it with her. The person who disagreed might represent a valid challenge with God asking me for something more or something different through their observations. At the same time, staying with your example of solitude, some versions of solitude are less about eremitical solitude than they are about isolation. While I believe in reclusion (which is always profoundly rooted in and dependent upon community), I regard isolation as unhealthy and unworthy of being chosen. 

Remember that, these kinds of questions can come up again in various ways over the years and will have been discussed and discerned as they do. If changes in my Rule were needed, then they were made. Still, the bottom line in all of this, I think, is that my Rule is something I live and tend to trust. It reflects a particular vision of canon 603 that the Church has approved as representing God's will for me. I don't live someone else's vision of c 603, but the one I have come to in dialogue with God in all the ways God speaks to me. If that means rejecting someone else's way of living the terms of the canon, for instance, then I will do that. If that means changes in praxis or understanding (and the rewriting of portions of my Rule), then I will discern and accomplish those necessary shifts.

A Contemplative Moment: The Solitude of Death

 

The Solitude of Death

 excerpt from The Eremitic Life

by Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam

The solitude of the desert teaches a person to be at home in the face of death. The hermit sees everything through a child's eyes and heart. Since he is not attached to any popular views or widespread opinions, his solitude becomes a foretaste of eternity. The holy time of liturgy, the time of embracing past, present, and future things, is his time. The hermit does not meet eternity in the way gnostics are tempted to meet it. He does not reject what is temporal. He has his share of eternity by raising all earthly things up to their ultimate fullness by virtue of Christ's redemptive love. This gives him an inner peace which helps to overcome the fear of death.

. . .A special dimension of joy, springing from what we can call for short "the wisdom of life", permeates the hermit's solitude. Of course, the harmony and simplicity that accompany the hermit in everyday life do not shield him from experiencing pain and suffering. The very decision for the solitary life in service to God and specific people involves the danger of being deeply hurt and the possibility of experiencing various torments. To remain bravely and persistently within the limits of one's cell means to accept defeats, personal crises, and temptations of losing the chosen way of life. It means to give one's consent to all those difficult moments that can crush even the strong. But such an acceptance has nothing to do with resignation or passive approval for whatever blind fate may bring. The hermit's faith and prayer enable him to gradually transform his pains into a creative form of love. . . . 

For the hermit, these difficult periods of suffering are not only the path toward his own sanctity. But also, by touching the dark side of existence, the hermit strives for a blessing for all humanity. We have to remember that the calling to solitude is a special charism in service to the Church and the whole world. And this is another reason why the hermit's solitude does not mean loneliness, but just the opposite: the hermit knows that he is close to the whole world in joy, suffering, death, and resurrection.

Followup Questions on the DICLSAL Resources Text: Questions re One's Relationship with Bishop, Church, and World

[[Hi Sister, thanks for your last answer to my questions. When the DICLSAL resources text asks about one's relationship with the Bishop, Church and world, what are they talking about?]]

Thanks for your followup. I can only guess here based on my own experience and what I look for in myself and other c 603 hermits or candidates. Since the vocation is one lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world, one's motivations must be those of love, both for God and for the world God created. Yes, one is seeking union with God in one's own life, but one does this so that God might be glorified (revealed) and the world might meet, embrace, and be embraced by a God whose love is truly unconditional. This element of c 603 introduces some tension into the life of the c 603 hermit, as does the public nature of the c 603 vocation. That tension exists between one's attention on the self and one's attention to the needs of others because both apparently contradictory focuses are present in the canon. 

The tension is resolved over time, however, precisely as one's motivations shift from a selfish quest for union with God to a concern with seeking this for God's own sake and for the sake of the world to whom one's life in solitude will actually witness. In other words, the resolution of this tension of eremitical life occurs within one's own heart as one grows in compassion. This growth involves a dying to self (including a blind or selfish focus on union with God!) so that one's entire life is lived for the sake of the other, first God, and then all that God holds precious. What I would guess formators look for is the presence of this tension --- and therefore, a certain amount of suffering by the candidate as, to some extent, they are pulled in one way and another until their hearts are enlarged sufficiently to experience the resolution of the tension causing the struggle; this resolution occurs in an encompassing compassion rooted in one's trust of God and the effectiveness of God's will in all of this.

There are certain attitudes, however, which will militate against the growth needed. For instance, a sense that the world is not precious to God, that it is not essentially sacramental, that it is "merely temporal" and is to be absolutely contrasted with a spiritual realm and spiritual approach to reality as well as that it will one day be entirely left behind for heaven, will not allow the hermit to progress toward the resolution already mentioned. Dualism will not work and is not called for by c 603. Instead, the hermit must trust that one day God will be all in all, and that the world, even in its distortion from truth, is to be loved into fullness or wholeness, not despised as simply antithetical to God. 

In approaching the requirements of c 603, the term "world" is used in two senses: 1) the world God has created, loves dearly, and wills to be an intimate and pervasive part of, and 2) the world as that which is resistant to Christ or that some choose to trust in for fulfillment apart from God. The hermit must be able to "balance" stricter separation from the world (sense #2) with love for the world as God's good creation (sense #1). Beginning hermits will experience and demonstrate greater tension and even some struggle in their lives in this regard while those who are more experienced will have come to a more or less paradoxical resolution of this tension embracing both senses of the term in what hermits know to be a solitude of deep relatedness and relationship. I believe DICLSAL is recognizing this fact as well as calling attention to the attitudes toward "the world" which will never lead to an appropriate resolution --or to what c 603 calls the silence of solitude. 

Regarding one's attitude toward the local bishop, again I can only guess. Certainly, one must be ready and able to make a vow of obedience to the bishop as one's legitimate superior. At the same time, one needs to be able to accept the delegated authority of those who assist the bishop to truly supervise the hermit's life and growth. These may be other bishops, priests, or religious women and men, including mentors drawn from c 603, with expertise in formation and contemplative or monastic and eremitical life. If, after profession/consecration one finds one has a (new) bishop who does not honor the c 603 vocation in the diocese, one must be able to patiently and humbly engage in living the life in ways that educate the new bishop. One may or may not succeed in this, but that is of less moment than simply and faithfully living solitary eremitical life with the grace of God and the help of Directors one has accompanying one. On the other hand, one may find that a (new or old) bishop understands contemplative life better than one does oneself. When this happens, it is a complete joy because at these times the degree of sharing is correlatively deeper and more enriching, and because the contact may spill over in a more direct benefit to the local church itself.

I suppose, then, that I am thinking the question about one's view of one's relationship with one's bishop, is meant to uncover attitudes of the heart once again. Does one accept authority well, can one balance that with the personal initiative and dependence on God alone necessary to live solitary eremitical life healthily? Is one open to contributing to the life of the Church through this relationship? If so, does one demonstrate openness to growing in one's understanding of and commitment to religious obedience in all the ways the diocese may need this to be embraced? Is one open to learning about ecclesial vocations and becoming more and more representative of such a calling or is one relatively closed to this learning? Does one have the humility necessary to embrace religious obedience healthily while rejecting a servile or obsequious devotion and dependence, or not? Can one teach effectively and humbly as well as learn from the bishop? Is one open to true discernment throughout one's ongoing formation as a hermit, particularly as one's legitimate superior (and his delegates) calls for and empowers this, and even when he does not?

Finally, regarding the Church, does the hermit or hermit candidate understand herself as embracing a vocation not just at the heart of the church, but a commitment to become a living incarnation of that heart? Is she deeply committed to the Church and her life in this world, and does she understand c 603 eremitical life as the way the Church normatively recognizes the hermit life truly lived in the heart of the Church? (By this I mean all three forms of eremitical life, non-canonical, consecrated solitary, and consecrated semi-eremitical forms of the life.) Is she deeply engaged in the Church's sacramental life and is she committed to representing the Church's perception of the eremitical life, not her own conceptions? Does she recognize the place of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying the Church here and now and does she recognize her own role in this? Does she accept the paradoxical public and hidden nature of the consecrated (canonical) eremitical vocation she is called to live in the Name of the Church while trusting in the Spirit that enlarges the heart sufficiently to comfortably embrace both sides of the paradox? In other words, does the hermit understand herself as Peter Damian did, that is, as an ecclesiola, who, in Christ, lives deeply and intimately in the very heart of the Church and as the very heart of the Church, or does she see eremitical life differently than this?

On "Second Consecration" and the Requirements for Admission to canon 603 Profession

[[Hi Sister, could you say something more about what you called "second consecration"? That's completely new to me! Also, you recently wrote a list of things someone desiring to become a canon 603 hermit [needed to have or do]. Did you [think of these] .  . . or did they come from the Church herself?. . .]]

Yes, I'd be happy to say something more about what is sometimes called the "second consecration". Baptism is a sacrament of initiation where we are consecrated by God to be disciples of his Christ and members of his Body. The graces of this being "set apart" for holiness are not inconsiderable! Think of all the ministries and projects the Catholic laity carries out in the name of the Church by virtue of baptism and then too by virtue of the other sacraments of initiation: Eucharist and Confirmation as well as the Sacrament of Reconciliation!! Sometimes the Church adds a specific commissioning for various ministries. At the same time, some vocations require additional grace of God including preparation for these vocations. I am thinking here of marriage and also ordained ministry; these require additional Sacraments as those called to these are "configured" to love (i.e., sacrifice and give oneself) in the wholehearted ways these vocations require! With ordination there are also levels of the Sacrament of orders that are received at different points in a person's priesthood, so deacon, priest, bishop.

Consecrated life is similar to marriage and priesthood. It requires specific graces of God and also calls for the configuration of the one dedicating her/himself in ways which allow taking on obligations that are not part of the consecration associated with baptism. (Think here of religious poverty, consecrated celibacy or chastity in celibacy, and religious obedience. Think too of the ability to give one's entire self to others as a representative of the Church in our world. None of these are accomplished with the grace of baptism alone. Hence, Consecrated Life requires a second consecration beyond that of baptism which helps configure one so they may assume the rights and obligations of the consecrated state of life in a specifically ecclesial vocation. Here the person is made capable of being entrusted and IS entrusted with a vocation that belongs first of all to the Church. With this second consecration, associated with perpetual profession, the person literally enters the consecrated state of life. (There is a regular blessing during the rite of temporary profession, but this is replaced by the prayer of solemn consecration during the Rite of perpetual profession.)

Thus, there is a difference between the consecration of baptism and what the Church identifies as the Consecrated State of Life. One only enters the consecrated state of life if and when the Church entrusts such a call to the person. It is a mediated state because it is an ecclesial vocation. God has entrusted these vocations to the Church and the Church is responsible for mediating these to persons she discerns are called to and prepared for the rights and obligations associated with them. For this reason, it is never enough for an individual to say, "I know God is calling me to this vocation" or to assume the descriptor "Catholic" as in Catholic nun, Catholic hermit, Catholic consecrated Virgin, etc. There needs to be a process of mutual discernment including personal vetting, supervised formation, etc. before one is entrusted with an ecclesial vocation. (cf., Centered on Christ, A Guide to Monastic Profession, Augustine Roberts, OCSO, Cistercian Publications, 2005)

This leads us to the list of things I wrote about that are required of a candidate for profession as a diocesan or c 603 hermit. No, I didn't make these up. I listed the things dioceses routinely require. Most of these are also found in a resources document for the "Discernment of Hermit Vocations According to canon 603" put out by DICLSAL (formerly CICLSAL), the Dicastery of Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. In fact, this list of considerations for the discernment of these vocations includes several items I did not mention in that recent piece. These include the reasonableness of making temporary profession for several years prior to making a perpetual profession, a consideration of the candidate's motivations in seeking profession and consecration under c 603, the levels of psychological and spiritual maturity possessed by the candidate (this can be linked to psychological testing which I did mention, of course), availability of sacramental life (including daily Eucharist) and spiritual direction, and an examination of the hermit's view of his/her relationship with the Bishop, Church, and world.

Assorted Questions on Eremitical Life and Vocation more Generally

Hello Sr. Laurel, I hope this finds you doing well. My questions are: 1) How would you understand the difference between a person stubbornly refusing to accept a vocation the Lord is calling them to vs. long-term perseverance in a vocation viewed by one’s family as too counter-cultural to be viable?

To truly answer this question, I would need to know more about the persons involved in each situation, particularly the one resisting, but to understand what is going on it would be important to understand the motives involved in the persons, their choices and actions. So, let's suppose that the one "stubbornly refusing to accept a vocation" is doing so while knowing it is a call from God. And let's also suppose that the second person loves her family and respects their perspective on things and also loves God and his Church; in answering this call she is being faithful to herself and her love of God.

When set up this way, the difference between the two situations looks to me like that between someone who accepts a call to authentic humanity in obedience to God and someone who does not.  They do this despite the pain linked to the insecurity of the calling it apparently causes their family because, while loving their family, they trust God's wisdom in calling them to this vocation. Moreover, they might be said to believe the judgment that this vocation is "not viable" is the word of a world that values things differently than a Christian does. What is important in Christianity, you already understand, is the countercultural, but it must be chosen for the sake of the Kingdom of God, even if that means a lack of viability in the way this world might deem such matters. (Jesus' choice of integrity in the face of Roman power was countercultural, and it was countercultural for the sake of his Abba's sovereignty in this world. The picture could change completely if the motives of the individuals given, were different from the ones I have supposed. For instance, if the person insisting on responding to a call to a non-viable situation was motivated by rebellion or by a need to  stick it to her family, and wanted to do that come what may, the situation would be radically different, wouldn't it?) I hope this is at least close to what you were asking for.

2) In your experience do the most recent Church directives for contemplative nuns (9 - 12 years of formation and becoming part of federations and associations) have any implications for hermits - especially as regards writing their rule of life?]]

While these directives don't have direct application, yes, I believe they do have implications for hermits, particularly in the writing of a Rule, just as you suggest. Part of formation is becoming capable or being made capable of engaging in formation for the rest of one's life. Discernment is a huge part of this so one has to learn how to discern the will of God in a mature way as a solitary consecrated hermit so that one may continue doing so and thus, being formed in this life, over the rest of one's life. That requires significant swaths of time. Cor Orans has good sections on various stages of formation and the section on initial formation is where the 9-12 years comes from. I would say that all of the general comments on the nature of formation here (that it is integral, that growth is organic, that there is a need for consistency and coherence, and that it involves significant initiative from the individual nun) all apply to eremitical life, yes.

As regards the writing of a Rule, one must have acquired the experience and correlative expertise that allows one to write such a document. This is one of the reasons it is necessary to live religious life and/or as a non-canonical hermit for some time before petitioning to be admitted to profession under c 603. Further, ongoing spiritual direction contributes to the kind of habits of self-reflection necessary if one is to write a Rule that combines, 1) the way God has worked in one's life, 2) the central elements of canon 603 itself, and 3) the redemptive experience that is at the heart of any authentic call to solitary eremitical life. While a chancery might not want to commit a small team to work with an individual re discernment and formation as a c 603 hermit for upwards of 9-12 years, such a period associated with pre-profession formation and the formation associated with temporary profession is not inappropriate. That is especially true given the emphasis texts like Cor Orans and Vultum Dei Quarrere place on the importance of the contemplative nun taking responsibility for her own growth/formation, as well as the possibility of mentoring by other c 603 hermits assisting the diocesan team and the individual hermit.

3) What are your thoughts about some more recent spiritual families such as the Monastic Family of Jerusalem, the spiritual communities inspired by the life of Charles de Foucauld, and the Carmelite Secular Institute of Notre Dame de Vie (Our Lady of Life)? Are there viable eremitic or semi-eremitic elements in their lifestyle?

I am sorry, but I am not especially familiar with these groups. I know there are almost two dozen individual groups now associated with the Charles de Foucauld "Family", but apart from several of the names I just don't know enough about them to answer your questions regarding viable eremitic or semi-eremitic elements. Regarding the Carmelite Secular Institute of Notre Dame de Vie, what I do know of it is that its members work full-time and devote 2 hours a day to private prayer. While that is certainly commendable it doesn't rise to the level of eremitical life, not only in terms of prayer, but also given the degree of work built into a day and week. For that reason, my answer to this portion of your question would need to be no, I don't see viable eremitic elements. By the way, when I use the term semi-eremitic, I do not mean half-hermit, but rather eremitical life lived within a communal context that is meant to foster the life of the hermit. The Carthusians are semi-eremitical in this sense.

4) What happens when a laura or association of hermits dies out, or at least the founder/foundresses die and/or the laura/association disbands? Is continuity a valid concern for hermits?

If the laura is formed of hermits who were professed and consecrated under c 603, the dissolution or suppression of the laura would not affect the canonical standing of the remaining hermits. With regard to c 603 hermits, lauras are allowed for the sake of the solitary hermits' spiritual and physical (or perhaps material) support. They are not to rise to the level of a juridical community (common purse, common superior, common Rule, etc.), however, and are not houses of formation. The individual hermits who come together in this way are already professed as solitary hermits with their own Rule and all of the obligations and rights associated with c 603 standing in law; for this reason, the dissolution of the laura does not constitute a material change in the context or content of the vows themselves. (Vows are made as solitary hermits, not as members of a laura.) Yes, continuity is very important for a hermit. I would argue that c 603 itself, especially in its requirement that one write a liveable Rule of Life and the vocation's diocesan focus as well as the basic fact of its public nature**,  provides the continuity necessary for a solitary hermit whether they live this life in a laura or outside of it; it provides an ecclesial identity and a stable state of life within which one may seek and achieve genuine sanctity and/or fullness of humanity.

5) Is there still a place in the Church for extremely small groups of 3-5 people living eremitic or semi-eremitic life? 

I should think so! Most of the time c 603 hermits live alone and come together via ZOOM, for instance, in what might come to constitute virtual lauras. However, I know of one 3-member group of hermits in the mid-west and another (unfortunately now down to just one Sister) in Idaho which seems to indicate they are still open to receiving new members. I recently worked with a priest who was temporary professed under c 603 and who was from another laura of perhaps 5 or six members (though he eventually moved on to the Monte Corona Camaldolese to try his vocation there). So yes, it is possible and still happening. One mistake I have seen bishops make with such arrangements, however, is to require one join the laura if one wants to be professed under c 603. This, it seems to me, has the cart before the horse -- as I described briefly above. But yes, there is no reason 3-5 individuals could not come together to live eremitical life so long as the property and living arrangements allowed for and supported significant silence and solitude for all involved.

** Remember that "public nature" here means "a vocation with a commitment involving public rights and obligations." It does not mean public in the sense of notoriety or being seen by or accessible to everyone. Even complete recluses may have public vocations and provide public witness simply by being known as a recluse.

Feast of the Transfiguration (Partial reprise)

Have you ever been walking along a well-known road and suddenly had a bed of flowers take on a vividness which takes your breath away? Similarly, have you ever been walking along or sitting quietly outside when a breeze rustles some leaves above your head and you were struck by an image of the Spirit moving through the world? How about suddenly being struck by the tremendous compassion of someone you know well, or seeing their smile in a new way and coming to see them in a whole new light because of this? I have had all of these happen, and, in the face of God's constant presence, what is in some ways more striking is how infrequent such peak or revelatory moments are.

Scientists tell us we see only a fraction of what goes on all around us. It depends upon our expectations.  In an experiment with six volunteers divided into two teams in either white or black shirts, observers were asked to concentrate on the number of passes of a basketball that occurred as players wove in and out around one another. In the midst of this activity a woman in a gorilla suit strolls through, stands there for a moment, thumps her chest, and moves on. At the end of the experiment observers were asked two questions: 1) how many passes were there, and 2) did  you see the gorilla? Fewer than 50% saw the gorilla.  Expectations drive perception and can produce blindness. Even more shocking, these scientists tell us that even when we are confronted with the truth we are more likely to insist on our own "knowledge" and justify decisions we have made on the basis of blindness and ignorance. We routinely overestimate our own knowledge and fail to see how much we really do NOT know.

For the past two weeks we have been reading the central chapter of Matthew's Gospel --- the chapter that stands right smack in the middle of his version of the Good News. It is Matt's collection of Jesus' parables --- the stories Jesus tells to help break us open and free us from the common expectations, perspectives, and wisdom we hang onto so securely so that we might commit to the Kingdom of God and the vision of reality it involves. Throughout this collection of parables, Jesus takes the common, too-well-known, often underestimated and unappreciated bits of reality which are right at the heart of his hearers' lives. He uses them to reveal the extraordinary God who is also right there in front of his hearers. Stories of tiny seeds, apparently completely invisible once they have been tossed about by a prodigal sower, clay made into works of great artistry and function, weeds and wheat which reveal a discerning love and judgment which involves the careful and sensitive harvesting of the true and genuine --- all of these and more have given us the space and time to suspend our usual ways of seeing and empower us to adopt the new eyes and hearts of those who dwell within the Kingdom of God.

It was the recognition of the unique authority with which Jesus taught, the power of his parables in particular, which shifted the focus from the stories to the storyteller in the Gospel passage we heard last Friday. Jesus' family and neighbors did not miss the unique nature of Jesus' parables; these parables differ in kind from anything in Jewish literature and had a singular power which went beyond the usual significant power of narrative. They saw this clearly. But they also refused to believe the God who revealed himself in the commonplace reality they saw right in front of them. Despite the authority they could not deny they chose to see only the one they expected to see; they decided they saw only  the son of Mary, the son of Joseph and "took offense at him." Their minds and hearts were closed to who Jesus really was and the God he revealed.  Similarly, Jesus' disciples too could not really accept an anointed one who would have to suffer and die. Peter especially refuses to accept this.

Looking at Today's Gospel:

It is in the face of these situations that we hear today's Gospel of the Transfiguration. Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up on a mountain apart. He takes them away from the world they know (or believe they know) so well, away from peers, away from their ordinary perspective,  and he invites them to see who he really is. In the Gospel of Luke Jesus' is at prayer --- attending to the most fundamental relationship of his life --- when the Transfiguration occurs. Matthew does not structure his account in the same way. Instead he shows Jesus as the one whose life is a profound dialogue with God's law and prophets, who is in fact the culmination and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, the culmination of the Divine-Human dialogue we call covenant. He is God-with-us in the unexpected and even unacceptable place. This is what the disciples see --- not so much a foretelling of Jesus' future glory as the reality which stands right in front of them --- if only they had the eyes to see.

For most of us, such an event would freeze us in our tracks with awe. But not Peter! He outlines a project to reprise the Feast of Tabernacles right here and now. In this story Peter reminds me some of those folks (myself included!) who want so desperately to hang onto amazing prayer experiences --- but in doing so, fail to appreciate them fully or live from them! He is, in some ways, a kind of lovable but misguided buffoon ready to build booths for Moses, Elijah and Jesus, consistent with his tradition while neglecting the newness and personal challenge of what has been revealed. In some way Matt does not spell out explicitly, Peter has still missed the point. And in the midst of Peter's well-meaning activism comes God's voice, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!" In my reflection on this reading this last weekend, I heard something more: "Peter! Sit down! Shut up! This is my beloved Son! Look closely!! Listen to him!!!"

The Lesson for Us Today:

The lesson could not be clearer, I think, and yet, how hard it is for us to see what is right in front of us! Recently I wrote about a view that sees the Church as "too temporal." This perspective is not merely concerned with the Church buying into models of power more appropriate to princes and potentates. It sees the entire Church, insofar as it is committed to this world, as having given itself over to something that is "not spiritual." But this perspective forgets it is speaking of a Church that lives in this world and mediates the Spirit to that world, a Church who mediates Christ's presence for those with eyes to see. It is not an either/or way of seeing, but a both/and way: both ordinary and extraordinary, both material and spiritual, both temporal and eternal. Central to this Church is the notion of Sacraments; in fact, the Church herself is a primordial sacrament, a sign where ordinary reality is allowed to shine forth the power and presence of God. They take the ordinary matter of our world and in them, see this transformed into the very power and presence of God. And yet, it requires the eyes of faith to perceive and appreciate this transformation. The either/or perspective I referenced above tends to see reality in a particularly Gnostic or neo-Platonic way. What it cannot see, and what remains scandalous to it is an incarnational God who is fully present in the ordinary matter of our world, divinizing it with God's presence. How very different is the Sacramental way of seeing reality!!

Here I am reminded of a story I once told of a video of a man who was given Enchroma glasses --- a form of sunglasses that allows colorblind persons to see color, often for the first time in their lives. By screening out certain wavelengths of light, someone who has seen the world in shades of brown their whole lives are finally able to see things they have never seen before; browns are transformed into yellows and reds and purples and suddenly trees look truly green and three-dimensional or the colorful fruit of these trees no longer simply blend into the same-color background. The man was overwhelmed and overcome by what he had been missing; he could not speak, did not really know what to do with his hands, was "reduced" to tears and eventually expressed it all as he hugged his wife in love and gratitude. Meanwhile, family members were struck with just how much they themselves may have taken for granted as everyday they moved through their own world of "ordinary" color and texture. The entire situation involved a Transfiguration almost as momentous as the one the disciples experienced in today's Gospel.

Like Peter, like the Gnostic or neo-Platonist who divvies reality up into the temporal and the spiritual. and like the colorblind man who needed wear the glasses consistently enough to allow his brain to really begin to process colors in a new way, we must take the time to see what is right in front of us. We must learn to see the sacred which is present and incarnated in ordinary reality. We must listen to the One who comes to us in the Scriptures and Sacraments, the One who speaks to us through every believer and the whole of creation. We must really be the People of God, the "hearers of the Word" who know how to listen and are obedient in the way God summons us to be. This is true whether we are God's lowliest hermit or one of the Vicars of Christ who govern our dioceses and college of Bishops. Genuine authority coupled with true obedience empowers new life, new vision, new perspectives and reverence for the ordinary reality God makes sacramental. 

There is a humility involved in all of this. It is the humility of the truly wise, the truly knowing person. We must be able to recognize how very little we see, how unwilling or unable we often are to be converted to the perspective of the Kingdom, how easily we justify our blindness and deafness with our supposed knowledge, and how even our well-intentioned activism can prevent us from seeing and hearing the unexpected, sometimes scandalous God standing there right in the middle of our reality.

Canon 603 as Normative of All Solitary Eremitical Vocations in the Church

[[Sister Laurel, if canon 603 is normative of all eremitical vocations, then does this mean all hermits HAVE to be canon 603. How can it be normative and at the same time allow for a non-canonical eremitical life.]]

Remember that the Canon has two sections, the first defining the main characteristics of the vocation (and, I argue, of any solitary eremitical vocation), and then a second part regarding what is required for one to live this life in the name of the Church, that is, canonically or "in law". The Canon reads: 

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

§2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his direction.

If one lives the first section of the canon, this makes them a hermit --- as the Church understand this term. One can do this as a clerical, lay, or consecrated person, that is, whether one is a lay person, a priest, or a consecrated person in the eyes of the Church, one will live these elements if one is truly a hermit even though the canon does not "deal with" non-canonical vocations per se**. It is the second section that defines the requirements for being canonical and, so too, for being a consecrated hermit as the Church defines this state of life. While a consecrated solitary hermit will live both parts of the canon, any genuine hermit will find him/herself treating Canon 603.1 as normative if they wish to live the life as the church understands it. Most importantly, one's life will need to be lived for the sake of others and the glorification of God; all the elements of the vocation will serve these goals; they are not ends in themselves.

Throughout the long history of the Church, all kinds of solitary ways of living passed for "eremitical," (mainly as the term hermit was commonly or self-applied) but not all of these were edifying. You can imagine ways of living alone that were simply selfish, sometimes motivated by woundedness, failure, fear, or even bitterness and hatred. Misanthropy, what Charlie Brown once identified as "loving humanity but hating people," was an issue, and so was radical individualism, which today has become something of an epidemic. Neither of these would qualify as eremitism today and the way the Church defines such a vocation in c 603 is part of the reason. Openness, self-sacrifice, and generosity are central to canon 603, where they are not typical of many of the lives in the Western Church that tried through the centuries to validate themselves as eremitical. Canon 603 served to correct the common misunderstanding of a hermit as one who is escaping society, despising the rest of God's good creation, or who simply cannot live with others or meet the demands of sociability and community. In doing so it drew on a radically incarnational theology where, paradoxically, God's deepest, eternal will is to be with us, and through us in Christ (Emmanuel), to bring about a new creation where heaven and earth thoroughly interpenetrate one another and God is all in all.

In other words, canon 603 serves as a norm for what is and what is not solitary eremitical life. Yes, the second part says [[If you want to live this life in the name of the Church, then take on these additional requirements and petition to be allowed to live this vocation as a living embodiment of the canon!]] Anyone seriously desiring this, can live the first part of the canon with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the right intentions; they can do this with or without private vows, nor do they need anyone's permission for any of this precisely because their vocations are private ones. 

However, to accept the public rights and obligations of the entire canon, especially c 603.2, requires that one be canonically free to do so. If married and divorced, an annulment i.e., declaration of nullity) will generally be required. Also necessary is a mutual discernment process, additional formation (particularly in the area of the vows if one has no background in religious life, but also in terms of what it means to live an ecclesial vocation), time lived under relatively close supervision by chancery personnel, and a history of regular and ongoing spiritual direction along with regular participation in the Church's sacramental life. (Remember that the candidate for profession (i.e., public commitment to or embrace of the public rights and obligations of c 603) will need letters of recommendation from those who know her well, and this will include her spiritual director, her pastor, and others who have worked with her through the years. The diocese may also require psychological and medical evaluations, depending on what the chancery personnel suggest is appropriate, usually after meeting and interviewing the person.) 

Once approval for admission to profession looks likely, most dioceses will ask a candidate for canon 603 profession and consecration, to select a delegate who will help supervise ("Direct") the vocation on the bishop's behalf. None of these additional requirements in 603.2 need be met by non-canonical hermits desiring to remain such -- though such a hermit could benefit from and might well try their hand at writing a Rule of Life to assist them to grow in this life. They will definitely benefit from regular spiritual direction and might turn to others for mentoring as well. Still, these things are not required. I think you see the difference between those who meet the qualifications of 603.1 and are not "under the canon," and those who live those qualifications while also accepting the requirements associated with c 603.2. At the same time, despite the implicit distinction built into the canon, I hope you can see how it remains normative of (i.e., the standard by which the Church or individual hermits measure) the authenticity of solitary eremitical life, both canonical and non-canonical.

** From the Resource Material for the Discernment of Hermit Vocations According to canon 603 (Congregation of Institutes on Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, now DICLSAL): [[Likewise, the canon does not deal with individuals who privately undertake a solitary way of life, but who do not seek this recognition by the Church.]]