On the Establishment of Virtual Lavras (Lauras):

I've spoken of this in the past briefly (in May 2021 and again in 2023), and it is more strongly on my mind these days because of increased communications with other diocesan hermits. One of the ways dioceses have demonstrated a distrust for solitary eremitical vocations, and also a way they demonstrate key knowledge of something that is vital to authentic eremitical vocations is by turning to the concept of the laura or lavra. Lauras are colonies of hermits that do not rise to the level of juridical communities and provide personal support for solitary eremitical vocations. DICLSAL makes it clear that c 603 hermits can indeed join together in lauras for mutual support so long as they do not try to create a juridical community in this way or (it is implied) become a house of formation for diocesan hermits. Even so, some dioceses have formed lauras and made belonging to the laura a requirement for anyone seeking to be consecrated as a diocesan hermit. Unfortunately, this is contrary to the spirit, and in some ways (bearing what DICLSAL has written to clarify matters), the letter of c 603.

For a while now I have been thinking about how dioceses could foster the idea of lauras without creating physical hermitages where all c 603 hermits would be expected to go. In some ways this has not been difficult since most dioceses have no c 603 hermits anyway, and those who do tend to have only one or two at the most. Those with more tend to be real exceptions and often have made significant errors in at least one or two of the vocations they have professed! Hermits tend to live a unique kind of loneliness because we are rarely understood in our own neighborhood (yes, something we share with Jesus and the prophets!), and at the same time, for this and other reasons, we really do require the support of persons who truly understand what we have been called to and the nature of both the public and ecclesial demands it makes upon us. A laura would help solve this problem, but it would need to be a laura that required each hermit to write and live her own Rule, take care of her own expenses, find her own employment, become a vital (life-giving) part of a parish faith community -- in whatever way the individual hermit determines is appropriate --- and things like this. There would be no common purse, no common Rule, no superior, or common horarium, no common habit, no restrictions on employment or ministry contravening what is included in the individual hermit's approved Rule, and so forth. The laura is there to support solitary c 603 hermits, not to transform them into semi-eremites or to relieve the diocese from the task of discerning and assisting in the formation of such hermits' vocations.

even a virtual hug!!!

So, what could possibly allow a laura like that to come to be, particularly when, in the United States, for instance, there are only @ 100 or so canonical hermits within 196 dioceses?  What could allow deep bonds and friendships to form, and the discussion of mutual concerns and commitments -- including a commitment to "going deeper" into this vocation with other diocesan hermits who have determined to learn and share together (and possibly even to come together sometimes to worship and/or share a meal) --- all while avoiding the problems and pitfalls of a single laura with a physical campus located in a single diocese? The answer was given to us by the pandemic! It is the way many of us sometimes see our doctors these days, the way some must attend Mass or prayer services. It is the way I meet with clients and do spiritual direction. It is even the way some c 603 hermits now meet with diocesan formation teams and candidates for consecration, to assist in a solid discernment and formation process without requiring the creation of a hermit house of formation! Simply stated, it is VIRTUAL!!! (Yes, I know, obvious, isn't it?)

Recently, I mentioned coming together with other diocesan hermits to talk about a book we are reading together (right now that title is, The Eremitic Life by Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam). It is not a high-powered book discussion group (though the book mentioned is very significant and powerful regarding eremitical life!!). The way we proceed is that we each read the same text ahead of time and come together to share what it has meant to us. Maybe we'll share how it challenges us, causes concerns, or how it consoles and inspires us specifically as diocesan hermits. In this case, we have all read the entire book (maybe more than once!), so the chosen text is a jumping-off point and the conversations can be far-ranging. For me personally, it has been truly wonderful and incredibly enriching!! To have several (or even just 1 or 2) other hermits "out there," who pray for and with you, who know precisely what you are experiencing and what makes you tick because the same things make them tick, is an incredible gift of God! While a couple of us c 603 hermits began the Network for Diocesan Hermits @16 years ago, this idea of a virtual laura is different with very different dynamics despite perhaps meeting some of the same needs. 

Our little discussion group is very small and though we may get a bit larger (perhaps with 1 or 2 more hermits), we will keep it small. Right now, we are hermits from different ends of the US and from England so the hours we meet are early morning for some, mid-afternoon for others, and 2nd half of the morning for the rest -- so far! We have chosen to meet approximately monthly for @1.5 to 2.0 hours per meeting (depending on individual needs and energy levels); for now, that seems about right -- though we might also see each other at other points during the month for other reasons. At this point, of course, we do not consider ourselves a laura --- though in a few months, I suspect the term "intentional community" might fit who we have become for and with one another; we'll see how this grows, but it gives me a glimpse of what might be possible for us and for other diocesan hermits as well; it also suggests a return c 603 hermits might be able to make to the church that has entrusted this vocation to us. 

If this idea is intriguing to you, or if you are interested in finding ways to make it real for yourself, please let me know! Mainly I would like to hear how it goes for you, and if there is a way I could assist, then I offer that. Non-canonical hermits might want to consider this as a solution to their own relative lack of ecclesiastical support and their own form of "eremitical loneliness", for instance. (Non-canonical and canonical hermits could choose to join together in their own intimate intentional communities; authentic hermits really are that rare!) I have only begun to consider the possibilities and potential ways of nurturing this idea even if it grows entirely separately from the small group we have already begun (I have no desire to somehow wreck that nascent and providential community and its growth!), so having others chime in would be terrific! Thanks!

Continuing Questions re: Misconceptions and Misconstruals

[[Sister Laurel, apologies, but it has taken me a while to decide what I really wanted to ask after locating your blog. (I came to it through Joyful Hermit Speaks videos and references to you and OSV.) [cf. Hermit's Rant of Temporal Upsets, see 28:40 passim] How long has c 603 existed, and how long have you been perpetually professed or consecrated and writing a blog? Joyful speaks of you creating all kinds of precedents for c 603 hermits and lists a number of things that now happen "since you began your blog" or maybe were professed in the last 17 years, I guess because of your great influence with bishops! But it all seemed a little bit off because I thought c 603 was a lot older than that. Do you really have the kind of influence she claims you have? The one other question I have is about hiddenness and why you can have a public presence when c 603 requires hiddenness and anonymity of c 603 hermits.]]

I've responded to some of this before in, Clarifying Misconceptions and Untruths, so you might want to check that out. The simple answer is no, of course not, my influence is relatively minuscule if it even reaches that level!! The accusation that I have almost single-handedly influenced the implementation of c 603 by every bishop in the world makes me laugh. My sense is that often even English-speaking bishops and their staff from the dioceses I have worked with in assisting with their implementation of the canon, have not read my blog! As I noted in the linked piece, this is a small, niche-type blog and it gets an average of only @ 150 visits per day presently (usually fewer). Yes, folks interested in c 603, or who are seeking to become c 603 hermits, some canonists and other diocesan staff do read this blog and tender questions, and yes, as mentioned, I do work with some candidates for c 603 profession; I assist them with discernment and formation using the elements of c 603 focusing on the lengthy and really creative process of preparing to write and writing a liveable Rule of Life. This process is a key for the candidate's formation as well as in the education of dioceses and their own formation teams with regard to c 603.

In the past 19 years (and more), I have certainly learned a lot about c 603 and been led by God through c 603 to understand eremitical life more profoundly than I did when I wrote my second Rule for perpetual profession in 2007. I have achieved some authority, yes, and I am trying to share what I have learned with the Church, but the picture drawn by JHS of my single-handed destruction of the traditional hermit vocation and my supposed extensive influence on bishops and dioceses worldwide is, I think, simply delusional. Here your question is a really good one for reality-testing. Canon 603 was promulgated in 1983 and I applied to be professed within the next couple of years. However, that process took some time (after using the canon once, my first bishop had decided not to profess anyone under c 603 for the foreseeable future); thus, I did not begin a blog or make perpetual profession and consecration until 2007 (May and September respectively) under a new bishop! That means for 24 years c 603 was being implemented all over the world, and customs were being developed, especially by groups of bishops from various countries, without any influence from me (except for my prayer, I suppose)! 

All of this included the wearing of habits and taking of religious names, the celebration of perpetual professions (and sometimes temporary professions) at Mass and other things JHS lays at my door. The Handbook on Canons 573-746 made it very clear that canon 603 now meant that those so professed were considered religious despite not having a connection with a religious congregation or institute. This was an important shift in thought and practice (and, of course, it had nothing to do with me!). (cf On the Meaning of Institutes and More.) Even before that CICLSAL opined that the wearing of a habit and adoption of a religious name were appropriate for a c 603 hermit if the bishop decided to allow it.

Regarding the hiddenness of the hermit, several recent posts might help you with that, but one thing I will point out is the place JHS is completely mistaken, namely, c 603 which is normative of how the hermit lives this life, does not mention hiddenness. It especially does not mention anonymity, much less does it require this.  In general, consecrated eremitical life is hidden, and at the same time it is public and ecclesial which means there is a tension between these two elements. The hiddenness of the life is referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but anonymity is never mentioned there either. To make anonymity normative is a significant error, not least because it draws attention primarily to externals. Hiddenness, however, is something c 603 hermits should and do embrace as they undertake that inner journey characteristic of eremitical life. I find that one of the most illustrative texts on this kind of hiddenness includes the following:

[[. . .let us reflect on the fact that Nazareth is the deep, mysterious hiddenness of our identity and vocation. It is the life we live with God alone and which, no matter how public our lives, God alone knows and shares with us. . . It is the call to sink into the depths of the mystery of the hidden life of Jesus, the life he shared with God to which John's gospel so movingly alludes. . . .The spiritual path of Charles de Foucauld was modeled on the hidden life of Jesus of Nazareth, a way of constant abandonment to the love of God, whether in the silence of desert spaces or in the midst of others. . . . Nazareth is the place of our hidden, secret life, the veiled life known to God alone. It is a life so deep that there are aspects of it that, if not hidden from, are at least mysterious even to ourselves.]] Hidden in God, Bonnie Thurston 

Note how the focus of this hiddenness has to do with the depths of oneself and one's relationship with God.  Charles de Foucauld identified three spaces we might live in: 1) Nazareth, 2) the Desert, and 3) in the midst of others (sometimes referred to as the City). As noted above, hiddenness is about a formative dynamic or relationship deep within us, a profound and mysterious dimension defined in terms of our relationship with God alone. Externals are not unimportant for the hermit, of course; they contribute to our ability to truly attend to this dimension of Mystery, but what is critical, especially to a hermit is this "inner Nazareth." As I have written before, hermits are generally not called to absolutize elements of the canon like the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, or the (external) hiddenness that derives from them. Most hermits are not called to reclusion, and more importantly, charity and the demands of personal growth will affect the way we can and must live these elements. Still, they are meant to serve this more intimate hiddenness, our inner Nazareth where we are alone with the Alone. Together they constitute a relative hiddenness characteristic of the eremitical life.

Thanks again for your questions. I am still fielding occasional queries because of the video JHS put up about a month ago (cf link above re Hermit's Rant) --- though she makes the same groundless and speculative accusations against me and others in other places. I won't post unimportant clarifications and I will continue to try not to repeat those I have already provided, but I especially thought your question on hiddenness was important given what I have written recently about the public, ecclesial nature of the c 603 vocation.

In Him all Things Will Cohere!

[[Dear Sister, when you told the brief version of how you discovered a vocation to eremitical life and became a hermit, you said that you saw that perhaps this way of living would "make sense of" your entire life. I wondered if you could say more about the phrase "make sense of" because in part, it sounds like maybe you were looking for a way to validate a life you felt was meaningless. I wonder if that's a very good reason to try to live as a hermit. Is that really what a divine call looks like? Every other vocation story I have heard or read speaks about coming from a place of strength and knowing clearly that God was calling one to this. One hermit I know even talks about God saying to her directly that she was called to be a hermit. Yet, you are giving a very different picture of the way God called you to eremitical life. I just hoped you would say a little more about this, particularly if I am misunderstanding you. Thank you!]]

Thanks for your questions and observations. They are excellent and incredibly timely. Some people use the term "synchronicity" to describe this kind of timeliness. My Director and I often speak of the same thing and use the word "sacrednicity". I think that your questions are an example of that and maybe you'll see a little of why as I respond.

What I wrote in that recent piece with a brief version of the way I came to eremitical life and then to canonical eremitical life was true. And yet, in some ways, I have always felt a bit defensive about the very phrase you have asked about, "make sense of". But recently I was listening to Francis Kline OCSO speaking about Trappist life specifically and monastic life more generally. He was discussing the monastic value and vow of stability and how essential it is to living a monastic life. The reason he gave was that monastic life (and here you can substitute eremitical life) is about an inner journey and a stable structure was necessary to support this inner journey. Then, strikingly, he said, without that stable structure a person would either give up their attempt to make this inner journey, or their lives would become completely compartmentalized --- which, of course, would enervate, or vitiate and destroy the dynamism supporting the journey. In fact, compartmentalization would be antithetical to the inner journey itself, because it is one of healing, integration, and Communion growing to Union. I came to look at my own story in terms of compartmentalization and saw that my life had been fragmented, partly out of richness (a variety of talents and gifts including what I sensed as a call to religious life and a call to do theology) and partly because of chronic illness and disability; I needed a way to pull and hold all of these various dimensions together so that the inner journey that was compelling to me was truly possible.

Chronic illness and other factors already separated me, to some extent, from the world around me, and additionally, they threatened to dominate in such a way as to make living a coherent and intelligible life impossible. These parts or dimensions of my life called for a way to heal and achieve integration as much as the gifts and talents that were mine also called for this. In  Father Francis Kline's terminology I was looking for a stable structure, way, or vocational pathway that might heal the fragmentation I knew, and maybe even be beyond the power to fragment possessed by chronic illness, and the other factors present in my life. The way I ordinarily have said this to myself or to others has been that I was looking for a context within which I could be myself, and truly and wholly myself. I came upon canon 603 at a point of crisis, that is, an opportune point where decisions were necessary and urgent. I was vulnerable and open to hearing the will of God at this point. And when I read canon 603, I began to think that, indeed, this was possibly a way forward that allowed both strength and weakness to contribute to the inner and outer journeys I felt called to make with my life. There was never a reason to feel defensive because of my own needs. What c 603 seemed to promise was not the validation of isolation but its redemption!! And so it has done!

The Scripture behind all of this and that echoed in the background was Paul's statement in Colossians 1:17, [[[Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together (cohere)!]] For me then, c 603 provided a glimpse of a way to follow Christ that was profoundly healing and empowering. It provided a potentially stable structure and vision focused on the grace of God, and where that grace and the support of those God sends into my life allow me to live my life fully and for the sake of others. To answer your question about this, yes, I believe that for most of us, this is exactly what a divine call or vocation looks and sounds like. Few people I know hear some direct voice of God saying, "become a hermit"! Most of us have to listen for the opportunity embedded in a situation -- whatever the nature of that situation. We have to trust that God's love will find a way and that way will be offered to us in recognizable tones and keys, even if they are also very subtle ways. But that is what real discernment is like and about!! It means learning to hear the opportunity embedded in the complicated and sometimes chaotic as, in time, we discover that that opportunity is proffered to us by the very hand and heart of God. 

The insight I had when first reading c 603 was profound; that is, it both came from and spoke to the very deepest places within me and yet, it still called for a significant discernment process. It required study and prayer and discussion with my director and then too, with the Church's own representatives, and only over time did it resolve into a clarity that allowed me (and the Church as well) to say, yes, this is the will of God for me and yes, what it seemed to promise is real!! Canon 603 called me to the silence of solitude and therefore, to the redemption of an isolation occasioned by chronic illness and disability, as part of an inner journey in which all things cohere in Christ. Thanks be to God!

Should Hermits or their Vocations be Respected?

 [[ Hi Sister, Joyful Hermit is putting up videos (cf  Joyful Hermit Speaks) saying that if a hermit needs to have their vocation esteemed and celebrated at a public liturgy, maybe they should wait to become a diocesan hermit until they understand the vocation better. She suggested it is up to the hermit to tell the Bishop that saint hermits would never agree with a public Mass and lots of people [attending], etc. I heard her saying that it is up to the hermit to take responsibility about where and how her consecration would occur, so, the whole piece is about telling the bishop what is appropriate!! I also heard her challenging diocesan hermits who had public Masses with numbers attending of lacking not only understanding of the hermit vocation but also humility as well.]]

Thanks for writing, and for the link. I watched the video and I essentially heard what you did. It seems to me that this video was apparently in partial response to my post on the appropriateness of celebrating hermit professions at Mass. The idea that a hermit who has been admitted to profession and (in time) even to consecration by this local Church would tell her diocese (Canonists, liturgists, Vicars, and Bishop), that despite what the Rubrics for the Rite of Perpetual Profession say, the hermit knows better and that having a Mass (when appropriate) is up to her, is completely ludicrous to me. This is an ecclesial event, not merely a personal one!! In any case, JH's position proves the case, I think, that she does not understand what it means to have an ecclesial and public vocation with responsibilities to the Church (the People of God) and rights they have granted to her.  

Your referent makes this all about c 603 hermits demonstrating a lack of humility, both by agreeing to a public Mass and in petitioning for and accepting canonical standing in the first place. She rails against anyone respecting a hermit or esteeming a God-given ecclesial vocation and claims that no self-respecting hermit (pun intended) would ever desire this. She claims that if a hermit needs esteem, then perhaps they are not ready to become a c 603 hermit. 

But to whom is she speaking? No one is talking about hermits needing to be esteemed in some unhealthy way! No one is talking about a hermit demanding a public Mass, seeking canonical standing, or anything else because they need esteem or the respect of others in a disproportionate and egoistically-driven way!! On the contrary, we are speaking about the fact that every person both deserves and needs respect as a human being. This is a fundamental need that is vital to our being able to love ourselves or others as well as allowing ourselves to be loved by others. In the work I do, respect is recognized as an essential need, as necessary to health and life as air and water and food and sunshine. If a hermit cannot admit that they need and are due respect -- just as every other person in, or dimension of God's good creation needs and deserves respect --- then they are apparently so completely out of touch with their own God-given and divinely-valued humanity, that they should give up even the pretense of being a hermit!! They will only ever be a parody or caricature of such a thing --- and God knows, we have had enough of those through the centuries!

I am thinking of the words of the Magnificat. [[My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my savior, for he has looked with favor on (or, he has esteemed or regarded) his lowly servant, and from this day all generations will call me blessed! The almighty has done great things for me and Holy is his Name.]] When I write about the Church coming to esteem the eremitical vocation as a gift of God, I am writing about regard for the favor, esteem, or regard of God's grace. Never were a woman and her vocation given more respect or held in higher esteem. At the same time, never was there such a humble woman!! The two things are not contradictory, they do not cancel each other out somehow; they belong together. To know (in that deep Biblical sense of the term,) that one's vocation means to be aware that one is favored by God, does not mean one lacks humility. It is a simple recognition of truth which is the very root of humility. To accept that from God, including through the mediation of the Church, and doing so in joy and love is the act of a humble person!!!

Yes, there have been unhealthy forms of spirituality throughout the centuries and so-called "hermits" have been among their most notorious representatives. Some were guilty of self-loathing and, I would argue, some forms of penance or asceticism were the outworking of such self-hatred. All this is part of the reason the Church took such a long time to recognize eremitical life as a potential state of perfection or consecrated life. However, the notion that c 603 was only created to prevent abuses and not to demonstrate esteem for a divine gift to the Church is blatant ignorance. To suggest as well that no real hermit needs God's favor or regard -- much less that of the Church!-- or that they should not need to be able to respect themselves, in turn, is to deform the vocation into something destructive and incapable of serving either God or others. Instead, it betrays the eremitical vocation and the God who is its author.

One of the witnesses hermits give is to the singular favor God holds for and reveals (or at least seeks to reveal) to every individual no matter how ill, weak, poor, inadequate, etc they might be otherwise. God esteems each of us, calls us to be his beloved,  loves and cherishes us with an everlasting love, and completes us so we might witness to all of this for the sake of others. God respects or values our humanity sufficiently to become one of us and to welcome us into God's own life in the Ascension. I wrote recently about the glorified bodily existence we will one day know in God's eternal presence. God esteems us in this way; he loves us dearly and calls us to be his adopted daughters and sons. He sends us out as disciples of Christ to minister (and hermits he sends into solitude to become ministers --- embodiments of the very ministry they are called to.). Can we really suggest that none of that demonstrates respect, esteem, or regard? Can we really affirm that we do not need respect, esteem, or regard from God (or from others, including our colleagues and superiors) simply to stand on two feet and face the day?? 

To repeat the position that kicked off your referent's comments on this, the Church chose to make the solitary eremitical vocation a canonical one. She did so because she believed it to be a gift of God to the Church and showed that she esteemed this vocation precisely as a gift of God, not because hermits were giving her problems (in fact, solitary hermits had almost totally ceased to exist in the Western Church; all the Church had to do was to ignore any that remained to ensure that death spiral was completed). Even if this was untrue, one does not give someone canonical standing simply to correct abuses. Besides, without officially recognizing (and thus, esteeming) hermit life in law, what abuses would there be?? A standard or norm must be established in law before there can be abuses. In any case, esteem for this relatively rare gift of God to the Church was why c 603 came into existence; it was the reason Bishop Remi de Roo made an intervention at the Second Vatican Council to ask the Church to recognize eremitical life as a call to a state of perfection or consecrated state. De Roo had come to know this vocation through the dozen or so hermits he served as Bishop Protector for in British Columbia; as a result, he recognized the prophetic gift to the Church this vocation is. 

In the celebrations the Church holds, the one being celebrated is never primarily the hermit herself (though she is also being assisted to embrace, and thanked for saying yes to God's call as she returns self-gift for self-gift); it is God who is being celebrated and what God's gift of Self means for people in our world. The hermit who is being consecrated by God celebrates this by receiving God's gift of self, a gift that consecrates specially, within an assembly of the People of God. That is why it is appropriate to do this at Mass! Mass is the place where we are quintessentially recipients and God is the Giver par excellence; it is the place where we are each made a unique part of the People of God and God is made real in space and time in, with, and for us! What an appropriate context for the consecration of a canonical hermit!! In terms of this more limited discussion, however, let me simply repeat, a canon 603 vocation, like any other gift of God, is worthy of respect, especially when we contrast this contemporary vocation with the centuries-long background of eccentric and misanthropic stereotypes that populated the world through the centuries --- and evidently in some ways, into this one as well.

"This Sacred Scene": Marking the Occasion and the Audacity of Hope!

This Sacred Scene

We face a race that tests if this country we cherish shall perish from the earth

and if our earth shall perish from this country.

It falls to us to ensure that we do not fall, for a people that cannot stand together,

cannot stand at all.

We are one family regardless of religion, class, or color

for what defines a patriot is not just our love of liberty, but our love for one another.

This is loud in our country’s call because while we all love freedom, it is love that frees us all.

Empathy emancipates, making us greater than hate or vanity. That is the American promise, powerful and pure.

Divided we cannot endure but united we can endeavor to humanize our democracy and endear democracy to humanity.

And make no mistake, cohering is the hardest task history ever wrote,

but tomorrow is not written by our odds of hardship, but by the audacity of our hope, by the vitality of our vote.

Only now, approaching this rare air are we aware that perhaps the American dream is no dream at all, but instead, a dare to dream together.

Like a million roots tethered, branching up humbly, making one tree.

This is our country from many, one, from battles won,

our freedoms sung, our kingdom come has just begun.

We redeem this sacred scene ready for our journey from it.

Together we must birth this early republic and achieve an unearthly summit.

Let us not just believe in the American dream. Let us be worthy of it.

Amanda Gorman

2017 National Youth Poet Laureate

On Anonymity and Accountability in c 603 Vocations (Reprise from 2015)

v

While this reprises some aspects of a recent discussion on anonymity, hiddenness, and public, ecclesial vocations, it also does a better job of looking at anonymity as potentially irresponsible.

[[Dear Sister. What are your views on anonymity for hermits? I read an article today by a Catholic Hermit who has decided to remain anonymous since that helps her prevent pride. You choose not to remain anonymous so I am wondering about your thinking on this.]]

It's a timely question and an important one not least because it points to the responsible nature of ecclesial vocations. The first thing to remember is that if one claims to be a Catholic hermit, that is, one who lives an eremitical life in the name of the Church via profession (always a public act) and consecration, then one has been commissioned to live a public ecclesial vocation. If one claims the title "Catholic Hermit" or "consecrated hermit", etc., in creating a blog or other website, for instance, then one really doesn't have the right to remain entirely anonymous any longer. This is because people who read the blog have commensurate rights to know who you are, who supervises your vocation, who professed and consecrated you and commissioned you to live this life in the name of the Church. If they have concerns with what you write, they must then be able to contact you and, if really necessary, your legitimate superiors.

Ways of Maintaining Appropriate Accountability:

One thing that is possible, of course, is to say that this blog (etc) is the blog of a "Diocesan Hermit of the Diocese of Oakland," for instance, without providing one's given name. In doing so I would still be maintaining accountability to the Church for this vocation and what comes from it.  If there is ever a serious concern, then the Diocese of Oakland (for instance) will know whose blog is being referenced. (In this case, they may not ordinarily concern themselves with my everyday writing because they do not micromanage my activities --- my delegate would tend to know more about my blogging, I think --- but they will know whose blog this is and deal appropriately with serious complaints or concerns that might arise.) However, it seems to me one still needs to provide a way for folks to contact one so the chancery isn't turned into the recipient of relatively trivial communications which are an actual imposition. (I, for instance, do not usually provide my hermitage address, but people who prefer not to email may write me at my parish. This would work even if I did not give my name but used "Diocesan Hermit" instead because the parish knows precisely who I am and provides a mailbox for me.)

A second solution is to blog or whatever the activity without claiming in any way to be a Catholic hermit, Diocesan hermit, consecrated person, professed religious, etc. As soon as one says I am a Catholic Hermit (or any version of this) one has claimed to be living a vocation in the name of the Church and the public writing one does, especially if it is about eremitical life, spirituality, etc, is something one is publicly accountable for as a piece of that living. So, the choice is clear, either write as a private person and remain anonymous (if that is your choice) or write as a representative of a public vocation and reveal who you are --- or at least to whom you are legitimately accountable. Nothing else is really charitable or genuinely responsible.

Some may point to books published by an anonymous nun or monk, books published with the author "a Carthusian"  (for instance), as justification for anonymity without clear accountability, but it is important to remember that the Carthusian Order, for instance, has its own censors (theologians and editors) and other authorities who approve the publication of texts which represent the Order. The Carthusians are very sensitive about the use of the name Carthusian or the related post-nomial initials, O Cart., and they use these as a sign of authenticity and an act of ecclesial responsibility. (The same is true of the Carthusian habit because these represent a long history which every member shares and is responsible for.) The Order is in turn answerable to the larger Church and hierarchy who approve their constitutions, etc. Thus, while the average reader may never know the name of the individual monk or nun who wrote the book of "Novices Conferences" for instance, nor even know the specific Charterhouse from whence they wrote, concerns with the contents can be brought to the Church and the Carthusian Order through appropriate channels. This ensures a good blend of accountability and privacy. It also allows one to write without worrying about what readers think or say while still doing so responsibly and in charity. Once again this is an example of the importance of stable canonical relationships which are established with public profession and consecration --- something the next section will underscore.

The Question of Pride:

It is true that one has to take care not to become too taken with the project, whatever it is, or with oneself as the author or creator. With blogs people read, ask questions, comment, praise, criticize, etc, and like anything else, all of this can tempt one to forget what a truly tiny project the blog or website is in the grand scheme of things. But, anonymity online has some significant drawbacks and a lack of honesty and genuine accountability --- which are essential to real humility I think --- are two of these. How many of us have run into blogs or message boards that lack charity and prudence precisely because the persons writing there are (or believe they are) anonymous? Some of the cruelest and most destructive pieces of writing I have ever seen were written by those who used screen names to hide behind.

Unfortunately, this can be true of those writing as "Catholic Hermits" too. I have read such persons denigrating their pastors (for supposedly having no vocations, caring little for the spiritual growth of their parishioners, doing literally "hellish" things during Mass, etc), or denigrating their bishops and former bishops (for whining, lying, and betraying the hermit to the new bishop) --- all while remaining relatively anonymous except for the designation "Catholic Hermit" and the name of her cathedral. How is this responsible or charitable? How does it not reflect negatively on the vocation of legitimate Catholic hermits or the eremitical vocation more generally? Meanwhile, these same bloggers criticize Diocesan hermits who post under their own names accusing them of "pride" because they are supposedly not sufficiently "hidden from the eyes of" others.

Likewise, over the past several years I have been asked about another hermit's posts which have left readers seriously concerned regarding her welfare. This person writes (blogs) about the interminable suffering (chronic pain) she experiences, the lack of heat, and the serious cold she lives in in the Winter months which causes her to spend entire days in bed and under blankets and that left her with pneumonia last Winter; she writes of the terrible living conditions involving the ever-present excrement of vermin --- now dried and aerosolized, holes in walls (or complete lack of drywall and insulation), continuing lack of plumbing (no toilet) or hot water despite her marked physical incapacities, the fact that she cannot afford doctors or medicines or appropriate tests and may need eventually to live in a shelter when her dwindling money runs out. Unfortunately, because all of this is written anonymously by a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" presumably living eremitical life in the name of the Church, it raises unaddressable questions not only about her welfare but about the accountability of her diocese and the soundness and witness of the contemporary eremitical vocation itself.

This poster's anonymity means that those who are concerned can neither assist her nor contact her diocese to raise concerns with them. Here anonymity conflicts with accountability. While it is true diocesan hermits are self-supporting and have vows of poverty readers have, quite legitimately I think, asked if this is really the way the Church's own professed and consecrated hermits live. Does the Church profess and consecrate its solitary hermits (or facilely allow them to transfer to another diocese) and then leave them to struggle in such circumstances without oversight or assistance? Is this the kind of resource-less candidate the Church commissions to represent consecrated eremitical life? Would this be prudent? Charitable? Is it typical of the way consecrated life in the church works? Does a hermit's diocese and bishop truly have or exercise no responsibility in such cases? How are such hermits to be helped?? Unfortunately, the combination of this poster's relative anonymity and her lack of accountability, prudence, and discretion can be a serious matter on a number of levels.

In other words, while pride may be a problem (or at least a temptation!) for those of us who blog openly, it may well be that anonymity itself may lead to an even greater arrogance whose symptoms include writing irresponsibly and without prudence, discretion, or real accountability. Thus, anonymity can be helpful so long as one still exercises real accountability. Importantly, one needs to determine the real motives behind either posting publicly or choosing anonymity. Simply choosing anonymity does not mean one is exercising the charity required of a hermit. It may even be a piece of a fabric of deception --- including self-deception.  For instance, if one chooses anonymity to prevent others from learning they are not publicly professed, especially while criticizing the "pride" of diocesan hermits who choose to post openly, then this is seriously problematical on a number of levels.

At the same time, some authentic Catholic hermits choose to let go of their public vocational identities for a particular limited project (like participation in an online discussion group or the authoring of a blog) and write as private persons. This is a valid solution --- though not one I have felt justified in choosing myself --- because one does not claim to be a Catholic hermit in these limited instances. And of course, some of us decide simply to be upfront with our names, not because we are prideful, but because for us it is an act of honesty, responsibility, and charity for those reading our work or who might be interested in the eremitical vocation. The bottom line in all of this is that anonymity may or may not be a necessary piece of the life of the hermit. For that matter, it may be either edifying or disedifying depending on how it protects an absolutely non-negotiable solitude or privacy and allows for true accountability or is instead used to excuse irresponsibility, disingenuousness,  or even outright deception.

Summary:

The hiddenness of the eremitical life is only partly that of externals. More importantly, and much more centrally, it has to do with the inner life of submission to the powerful presence of God within one's heart. Sometimes that inner life calls for actual anonymity, and sometimes it will not allow it. Since the vocation of the Catholic hermit is a public and ecclesial one, any person posting or otherwise acting publicly as a Catholic hermit has surrendered any right to absolute anonymity; they are accountable for what they say and do because they are supposedly acting in the name of the Church.  The need for and value of anonymity must be measured against the requirements of accountability and charity.

Should Eremitical Profession Take Place at Mass? (Reprise from 2013)

Reprised because of similar questions received recently. [[Dear Sister O'Neal, I have heard that professions of diocesan hermits need not take place during Mass and that those insisting on making their profession during Mass are opting for something that canon law does not require; I also heard it is something which goes against the hiddenness and simplicity of the hermit vocation. Is that correct? The person who said this asserted that the Catechism and Canon law say that there needs to be no big service and there can even be just a sign of commitment. A public celebration is not necessary or even appropriate. The idea of having lots of people attending seems to be something some hermits need for ego, or as a sign of being "approved of" etc. You made vows at a public Mass. Why did you choose that option?]]

It has been a while since I heard these arguments about ego and canonical "approval". I am disappointed they are being made once again. I have tried to be tactful in responding to the attitude and errors involved, not always successfully; I admit that that is a bit taxing sometimes. Still, there is an essential tension between the public character of this vocation and the call to essential hiddenness or stricter separation of the diocesan hermit. Exploring this tension is something I enjoy and believe is important even apart from statements like those you have asked about; for that reason let me approach your questions from that perspective.

While it is true that initiation into religious life (what is called reception into the community for instance) is not allowed to take place during Mass, and while first, simple, or temporary vows which will be liturgically a relatively simple matter may or may not take place during Mass, perpetual or solemn vows are a different matter and the Church herself says clearly that it is appropriate that these occur within the context of a public Mass where attendance can be high (par 43 Rite of Religious Profession for Women, "It is fitting that the rite of profession by which a religious binds herself to God forever should take place on a Sunday or a solemnity of the Lord, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of a saint distinguished in the living of the religious life."  and again, no 45, "Notice of the day and hour should be given to the faithful in good time so they may attend in greater numbers." )

Other prescriptions delineated in this Rite involve the use of the cathedral or parish church, making the profession at the chair and in the sanctuary, use of fitting solemnity but also eschewing lavishness unbecoming religious poverty, sufficient bread and wine for all, what is necessary for the giving of insignias, etc. Could a hermit choose to do something else? I suspect they could; whether it would be theologically and liturgically appropriate is something the hermit and her Bishop would need to determine. Certainly, the hermit could choose a Mass with a more intimate setting, especially for temporary profession, but again, it is the Church herself that specifies the appropriateness of wide attendance and publicity in her own Rite of Religious Profession.

 You see, none of this has to do with ego or the hermit's desire for public recognition; it has to do with the Church's esteem for this vocation (this gift of God!) and the appropriateness of a liturgical celebration for life commitments like this. This is about the value of the vocation to those witnessing or later learning about this vocation. One does not do it for oneself but for God and those who are precious to God.(Thus we do the same with Baptisms, marriages, consecrations, and ordinations --- whenever public commitments are made which establish the person in a new public and ecclesial identity or state in the Church .) As for the claims that the CCC and Code of Canon Law say a hermit need not have a service and may use only a sign of commitment, I don't know anywhere that either book says anything about this with regard to canon 603 hermits. Canon Law (cc 654-658, the section spelling out the law re profession of religious says nothing about this; C 603 itself is merely clear that the hermit may make vows or other sacred bonds. It says nothing about the context in which these are to be made. The CCC does not address either issue of course. In other words, these claims seem to me to be specious and simply plucked out of the ether.

It is true that in dealing with private vows the Church tends to expect these to take place outside Mass so people do not confuse them with public vows or vows made and received in the name of the Church. Perhaps the person you are quoting was speaking of private vows rather than public ones and something other than either the CCC or Canon Law per se. Alternately, perhaps s/he got the references wrong. The issue of sources aside, it remains possible s/he was speaking of temporary canonical vows or professions, but perpetual or solemn vows and actual consecration are a different matter and there is no way one makes a solemn commitment like this without a liturgical celebration (Mass).

Your question about my own profession taking place at a Sunday Mass seems to be tied to the notion that it was done out of ego. Let me correct that idea. First , I did not choose to have a Mass; my diocese naturally set up a date and time when the Bishop would preside at my profession and the appropriateness of this occurring at a Mass was understood by everyone. This is not simply custom but at heart a reflection of our sacramental theology, the theology of consecrated life, and our theology of the church. So my pastor and I worked with the diocese and used the official texts for the Rites of Religious Profession;  I also worked with a canonist and Vicar for Religious to ensure all was done in a way that was legitimate and appropriate.

Details that were worked out in advance included the texts of the vows or vow formula (I used a vow formula I had used before but with some slight changes for the occasion), the insignias (ring, cowl) and other things (candle, vows to be signed during Mass), readings, and all the persons who would be participating in the liturgy apart from the assembly (servers, lectors, cantors, delegate, concelebrants, etc). The diocese provided a worksheet for all of these things and, immediately prior to the Mass, provided several legal documents that needed to be signed apart from the vow formula itself. (That is signed on the altar during the liturgy --- in this case by the bishop, myself, my delegate and the pastor of the parish.) In other words, this was a diocesan matter undertaken on behalf of the local and universal Church, not something I desired out of ego; it was undertaken because the Church clearly saw it as completely appropriate and significant.

But let me be equally clear: there is no doubt I would always choose to make perpetual profession during a Mass. Theologically and liturgically this would have been completely fitting for the solemnity and significance of the event. It should be clear that life commitments of this sort which also mediate God's consecration and the commissioning of the Church are appropriately done during Mass where the effective (real-making) symbolism of self-gift, consecration, and commissioning are clearest and paradigmatic. This is also important since the person making the commitment is assuming public/legal rights and obligations which affect the entire Church, and that most intimately affect her local Church --- both diocesan and parish communities. While the hermit may live a life of essential hiddenness, the act of perpetual profession is both a public and an ecclesial one. It is an act of love and worship celebrating the God who calls us to life in union with him, espousal to Christ, and communion with one another. It marks and implicitly celebrates all the forms of love and worship that have brought the person to this moment: Divine, familial, community, friends, et. al. It is only appropriate that all of these people should be able to participate in such a celebration of love and grace --- and of course that it be done at Mass where Christ is uniquely present, proclaimed, and received.

Further, the Rite of Profession marks a commissioning to make this love and worship even more fruitful in the future and says we do this together. No authentic hermit is ever truly alone and that is certainly true of a diocesan hermit. Not only does she live with and from God, but she lives at the heart of the Church and is publicly commissioned (at the very liturgy we are discussing, in fact) to do so in an essential hiddenness. Such life is always nourished by the Church (especially in Word and Sacrament) even as this same life nourishes the Church as a whole. Finally, I should note that if it is appropriate for strictly cloistered nuns to celebrate their own solemn professions in the sanctuary of a church open to visitors (and in the mind and position of the Church it certainly is!), then it is appropriate for the diocesan hermit to do similarly because in either case we are celebrating the Holy Spirit's gift to the Church, a gift which is part of her call to prayer and holiness, a gift which is meant to inspire and nourish her in this goal.

Questions on Increasing Standardization of C 603 Vocations in the Future

[[Good morning Sr. Laurel, I have a couple of questions that I hope you can answer. First, how serious do you think local bishops actually take the eremitical vocation? In light of the recent temporary consecration of a transgender person, who by his own account doesn’t live the vocation, by a bishop I’ve begun to question just how knowledgeable some bishops are in regard to consecration as a hermit in the Church or how serious they take said consecration. It’s almost like the hermit vocation is seen as a dumping ground for people who desire a religious life but don’t “fit” in more typical expression.

Secondly, do you anticipate a time when diocesan/canonical hermits will become more standardized in regard to elements of the Rule of Life each individual writes? I understand each hermit is a solitary who lives their approved Rule in solitude but am curious as to the possibility of some aspects of the vocation be more standardized or at least perhaps clearer guidelines installed. I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for all you do and for your blog. ]]

Thanks for these questions. Let me say at this point that they are important (as events during the Spring indicated emphatically); I completely agree that we sometimes see bishops implementing c 603 in ways that are both disedifying and irresponsible given the source and value of the vocation. Even so, I don't believe the answer lies in the direction of standardization precisely, but in the direction of educating bishops and their chanceries regarding the nature, charism, and significance of the vocation as a gift of God to the Church. Standardization, especially in terms of the hermit's Rule of Life, penalizes both solitary hermits living the vocation as the Holy Spirit calls them to, and those who take appropriate time and care for discernment and formation of such vocations. Where standardization will not work, however, appropriate guidelines and some critical expectations (which may be what you are envisioning) will. For instance, I recently wrote about the things a liveable Rule of Life should contain and the way that should be contextualized. You may have read this:

[[Each diocesan hermit's Rule of Life will capture 1) something of the hermit's experience of God as God has been at work in her life over the years, 2) her understanding of and commitment to the foundational elements of c 603, and 3) especially her experience of and faithfulness to redemption in Christ known and celebrated in the Gospel. These three are then contextualized within a public and ecclesial vocation lived for the sake of God, his Church, and all that is precious to God. [The hermit must show an understanding and commitment to these two foundational elements as well as to numbers 1-3!!] Together these constitute a personally integrated program of solitary eremitical living as a disciple, and too, as a spouse of Christ who truly is the hermit's Beloved. In other words, every facet of the c 603 hermit's Rule is transparent to and reflects the Gospel of God in Christ and is lived in the name of the Church.]]

People working to assist a hermit candidate for c 603 profession and consecration will expect a Rule of Life to meet these guidelines, and they will give the hermit candidate time to write such a Rule -- a very weighty project indeed! In the process I am currently working on and proposing to the Church, the writing of a truly liveable Rule combines these five elements and provides the framework for a substantial formation period and process. The diocesan team, along with a consulting c 603 hermit, learns as the hermit does what constitutes such a vocation and a liveable Rule under c 603, and they will discern whether this specific candidate is truly called to such a public and ecclesial vocation through the way they work on and complete this critical project. In other words, the writing of one's Rule, given the guidelines mentioned above, serves as the framework for both discernment and formation of a c 603 vocation. It will take time to do well,  and it will also provide for the basis of conversations between the candidate and diocesan team and consultants, as well as help assure that the candidate and the diocese understand and have embraced the c 603 vocation as a God-given gift before any profession of vows.

My main complaint about standardization is that one can get a person desiring to be professed to jump through any hoops provided in canon law (or in a diocese's particular approach), but this does not mean the person has a vocation. This is especially true when we are speaking of the addition of canonical stages and time frames. In community life, these kinds of requirements are helpful and appropriate, but in solitary eremitical life, there is no community to help assess the way the hermit is proceeding or maturing in their eremitical life. Moving through stages and time frames can be done so long as one is sufficiently motivated (or desperate enough) to do that. This does not ensure one has a vocation. As one of my Directors reminded me about her time as Vicar for Religious and Assistant Vocation Director of the Diocese of Oakland, "discernment is an art;" formation is very much the same. So, while standardization can assure good hoop jumpers, your suggestion of guidelines along with clear expectations allowing for flexibility are very much more workable for solitary hermits. These begin with the single concrete requirement of the canon, namely the writing of a (liveable) Rule of life because the Rule must include every element of the canon and demonstrate an experiential understanding of and commitment to these. 

I don't know that we will ever get every bishop to understand the nature of solitary eremitical vocations, much less to regard them as a gift of God to the Church we must adequately esteem and protect, but I am convinced that is the direction we must take to prevent more situations like the one you mentioned. While in general, I tend to believe most bishops take c 603 seriously, particularly when they are clued in regarding the importance of the vocation -- hence my surprise with Bp Stowe's actions in Cole Matson's regard -- I think we really must take the time to educate them and their staff regarding the charism of the vocation. We must especially do this in a way that helps them understand why the vocation is critical to the life of the Church, and why we expect the Church to admit to profession only those who are prepared for that, are truly called by God, and who believe whole-heartedly in the vocation they propose to become publicly and ecclesially responsible for.

A Simple Change in Language, A Profound Spiritual Lesson.

One of my clients is actively dying. We met today for only a half hour, and during that half hour, we focused on a lesson that is fundamental to spirituality and maintaining one's focus on God, even in the presence of terrible pain and weakness. I learned it from my own Director and try to pass it on to those I work with. It's a "simple" lesson with far reaching consequences, and yet, it is not one that is easy to do! I am hoping I can share here, what it is and something of why it is so important. The lesson is this. When you are speaking of what you feel -- especially if the feelings are multiple or antithetical, or when you are speaking of what is true and what you feel, please do NOT use the word BUT to link the clauses. Use AND instead! Let me give you an example.

It begins with a relatively positive statement: "I had a great idea today!" and then, all-too-often, the person says something like, "BUT I am afraid I don't have the expertise to carry it out!" Suddenly the excitement of the first statement is quenched with the second more negative or critical statement. If BUT were replaced with AND, this would not happen. Today Marsha said, [[ I feel so sick and weak! I am not capable of being myself.]] I asked her then to tell me who she is.  I suggested she imagine doing a school assignment and write 4 or 5 sentences affirming who she is. We tried it together and her first sentence was, "I live within the presence of God." She then followed this immediately with, "BUT I don't find any comfort in this!" We talked about what she was experiencing, of course, and then I brought her back to her first sentence and how she had followed it up; I pointed out the BUT in the middle of the construction. I asked her to replace it with AND. 

She then repeated, [[I live in the presence of God AND I find no comfort in it.]] At first, she thought there was not much difference between using but vs and, but pretty quickly she said both sentences over again out loud, now finishing with, [[ I live in the presence of God, BUT I find no comfort in it.]] What she saw was the but in the sentence negates the whole first part, and caused her to focus only on the second part, "I find no comfort (in living in God's presence)". Then she said again, [[I live in the presence of God AND I find no comfort in it.]] And she began to see that replacing but with AND, manages to hold both truths together simultaneously. Both parts remained alive for her, both things remained true, and she could feel those truths even though it was uncomfortable to live them in tension with one another. 

In fact, holding both truths together with AND, does a lot more than this. It allows one to focus on the truth that one lives in the presence of God even when one is finding no apparent comfort in that --- a very positive affirmation that diminishes the scariness of the second clause. As one continues to pay attention to the fact that one dwells in the presence of God even though there are negative feelings at the same time, it allows one to find comfort precisely where there was none present before! One will gradually feel stronger when one substitutes AND for BUT in such constructions. 

Marsha then moved on to make several other statements of identity. [[[I am beloved of God.]] [[ I am a disciple of Christ,]] [[I am a loving mother and grandmother,]] and finally, [[I am an IHM Associate.]] She looked at each of these and, more and more securely, began to hold everything together with AND: "I am a disciple of Christ and I feel incredibly weak!" "I am a loving mother and grandmother AND it is so hard to die [and leave them without me]!" "I am an IHM associate AND . . ."]] (at this point Marsha found there was no BUT waiting to detract from the first half of the sentence, no critical voice telling her she was incapable or doing it wrong, etc.). She felt only gratitude, not least because she was coming to see she didn't need to lose a sense of identity in dying into the presence of God. Being completely honest about what one feels is not a betrayal of one's faith. It helps demonstrate how strong that faith is. Marsha knew this, but as she approached death, it was harder to hang onto! Expressing such complete honesty results in the kind of statement Jesus made from the cross when he cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Faith is held together with the sense of abject aloneness and abandonment; Jesus still calls upon his God in faith.

Yes, Marsha is a woman of deep faith, a woman who has worked hard in spiritual direction over the years, a woman who loves deeply and generously, AND she is a woman who is finding dying demanding and difficult as she also finds ways to rest in God while letting go of any need to control things or make God measure up to her expectations. In these moments she finds God always surpasses those expectations in surprising ways!! I reminded her of Paul's quote from 2 Cor 12:9, [[My grace is sufficient for you, my power is made perfect in weakness,]] for that is what she practiced today, holding two seemingly antithetical facts together: 1) the graced presence and power of God AND 2) the incredible weakness she is experiencing as she feels diminishment overtaking her strength. Holding these two experiences together in a single act of faith and love is often the essence of being human. Practicing using AND instead of BUT can help us learn and internalize this lesson.

Used with Permission. 

Marsha died this morning 08. November. 2024 at the IHM Motherhouse Complex in Monroe, MI. I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with her for many years and particularly during these last weeks. Marsha was under hospice care, met with me weekly or oftener (recently), and was accompanied in close friendship and sisterhood by many IHM Sisters and Associates. They surrounded her when she died as is the IHM custom and as Marsha had always wanted.

Canticle of the Turning (Reprise)

 Occasionally Sunday liturgies seem especially tailored for me. It is as though God has sneaked into the places of preparation and hearts of the ministers and whispered in peoples' ears, minds, and hearts what songs to choose, what homilies to give, what prayers of intention to offer. Today there were several things that made me feel that way but this song was one of them. My thanks to Sister Michelle Sherliza, OP for her arrangement in this video. Enjoy.

Followup Questions: On Public Ecclesial Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for your response to my earlier questions. I had the feeling as I read it that I had stumbled on a much bigger and more important thing than I had realized when I first wrote you. It occurs to me that identifying a vocation as public and ecclesial almost leads to a different vocation than when one identifies it as private or non-canonical.  Is being a hermit different when one is a c 603 hermit instead of a non-canonical or private hermit? I mean I know they are both about being a hermit, but it seems that the public and ecclesial dimensions add a lot and maybe make the whole way of life more difficult. I'm sorry I can't say this better, it is a completely new thought to me. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here.]]

Hi there and thanks for writing again. I believe what you have begun to glimpse is really foundational of c 603 vocations (or of consecrated vocations more generally), and therefore, as you say, more important than [most realize] when the question of being called to such a vocation is raised. While neither the words public nor ecclesial exist within canon 603, they provide the most foundational dimensions of the vocation described therein. As you also are beginning to see, I think, these two realities contextualize the solitary hermit vocation in a way which helps protect it from lapsing into selfishness, navel-gazing, and the kind of individualism that is rampant in our world at this time. When we consider that most fundamentally the vocation is one lived not for oneself but for God's own sake and the whole of God's creation -- as the canon makes clear -- we can begin to appreciate why such a protective context is important.

As I think about this further myself, I think about the centuries of hermits that preceded me, and all the stereotypes history generated of the hermit and eremitical life. I wonder now (more than I have in the past) if we must look at the history of eremitical life as being filled with examples that we must truly distance ourselves from because of their selfishness, individualism, and unhealthy isolation. I am not saying anything goes instead, of course. When I look at the Desert Abbas and Ammas, for instance, I am struck by how they chose to live desert life for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, for the sake of the Church that was in danger of losing herself to mediocrity. They did not abandon Christianity or the Gospel, and they especially did not despise the larger world around them (they mentored one another, were open to others at every moment and offered hospitality, traded with them, taught them methods of agriculture, and shared what wisdom they had gleaned in their years of solitude). But in later years, other solitaries often validated their own misanthropy, mental illness, and eccentricity with the name "hermit". Too often we believe we understand the elements of canon 603 in light of these essentially unhealthy or disedifying solitaries and that can be really disastrous.

When eremitical life is contextualized in terms of church and world (God's good creation!), when, that is, we understand a vocation as public and ecclesial, then yes, it introduces greater tension into the hermit's life. One must negotiate the demands of elements like "the silence of solitude", "stricter separation from the world," and "assiduous prayer and penance," and live them with integrity without absolutizing them or losing sight of the demands imposed by the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation.  One must be living this life for others, first God and then all that is precious to God. Yes, one must be moving towards union with God in one's aloneness with God; at the very same time, however, this does not mean a life of isolation, without friendships and significant dialogue with others. As I say this I am reminded of a passage from a book several of us diocesan hermits are beginning to read together. It is from Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam's, The Eremitic Life and says,

Everybody  belongs to himself and nobody can take possession of him without destroying the essential element of his personality, which is his freedom. The most distinctive feature of human nature consists in the natural desire to overcome oneself and to enter into a spiritual relationship with another person. Human freedom is founded on two indispensable pillars: the ability to possess oneself and the ability to overcome oneself. That is why every person is, by his very nature, a person of dialogue and relationships. Both dialogue and relationshhip express the great potential for love of the human heart, a heart that is free.

The seclusion and solitude that constitute eremitic life do not aim at negating the fundamental dynamism of human existence, with its entering into dialogue and relationships. On the contrary, eremitic isolation and solitude form the basis of that dynamism. As was said, one of the most important motives for undertaking the life of the desert is the burning desire to find one's own identity. In the course of time, however, we discover that we are unable to realize that task unaided. The only way of learning anything important about oneself is to look at another person's face with love and attention.

As mentioned before, the hermit's solitude can never be a sign of withdrawal and isolation from the world and its affairs. The hermit, since he wants to serve other people, must arrive at a profound understanding of his own nature and his relation to God and the world. That is why solitude is not at all a barrier, but it is rather an element that encourages openness towards others. The hermit, changed by the gift of meeting God, knows how to address the lonely hearts of those who come to seek his help and support. His solitude is not therefore a lifeless emptiness, but it is related to the most vital aspects of the human spirit. It is related to those spheres of the human personality that can only exist if they are open to meet God and the world. (pp200-201)

Given the variegated picture of eremitical life through the centuries, it is not surprising it took the Church such a long time to truly recognize the importance of this vocation as a gift of God. Today, however, we have c 603 as well as semi-eremitical institutes of consecrated life, and that means we have the possibility for solitary hermits living authentic and edifying eremitical life that are both public and ecclesial vocations embraced for the sake of God and all God holds as precious. What we cannot forget then are these two foundational elements; they are what prevent the hermit from absolutizing the various elements of the canon and living a perversion of eremitic life marked by isolation, misanthropy, and an exaggerated individualism capable of destroying any capacity for love and authentic self-gift.

It is true then, that the public, ecclesial nature of c 603 vocations can create some difficulties in penetrating the meaning of the other canonical elements. For instance, we think we understand what solitude means, but in light of the public and ecclesial dimensions of the vocation, perhaps eremitical solitude in the phrase "the silence of solitude" is radically different from an absolutized isolation and aloneness -- even when one recognizes God is also present in some way. At the same time then, I would agree with you that a c 603 vocation is meant to be different from someone just going off and becoming a hermit as happened during some centuries and is sometimes touted as the "tried and true" way of becoming a hermit. It underscores the hermit's profound relatedness to both the Church and the world, and the fact that the hermit is called by God to this vocation on their behalf. One who is consecrated under this canon can't ever forget this because it relativizes and focuses one's solitude (or one's stricter separation, for instance,) as a means to a greater end!! Of course, it needn't be the case that today's non-canonical hermits differ much from canonical hermits in motivation, openness, and generosity; that is especially true if c 603 is understood as normative for all solitary hermits today, even when c 603.2 does not apply to the individual hermit's life.