Followup on Why God Wills Many Forms of Hermit Life in the Catholic Church

 [[Sister Laurel, you wrote that there will always be non-canonical hermits and that they would likely always outnumber canonical hermits. What makes you say that, especially about the numbers of them?]]

Thanks for following up. I say what I do in part because I know in my own diocese the number of people they get (or have gotten in the past) petitioning for admission consecrated eremitical life under c 603 is many times the number of c 603 hermits we have (a ratio of about 120 to 1). I also belong to a couple of groups of hermits online, the majority of members of which are lay or non-canonical. The membership of one of these groups is more than 300 -- though I would guess about half are just curious about hermits or maybe "wannabes". Even so, that leaves @150 lay or non-canonical hermits in the group. The second one is drawn from Catholics and I am not sure of the number of members, but several hundred -- only a handful of which are canonical. The first group mentioned above then, are from a single diocese in this country, and the second group is drawn from many dioceses from more than one country. That alone suggests to me that there are far more lay hermits out there throughout the world than there are consecrated hermits and that the numbers will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Partly my guess in this comes from the rarity of consecrated diocesan hermit vocations. Dioceses, rightly I think, don't profess everyone who comes in the door seeking to be professed. There are many reasons for this. Most are valid while some few are not. Many of those refused admission to profession will continue to live as hermits in the non-canonical state; it is what God calls the person to be. Some of these will re-petition in several more years, after living the life and gaining the experience needed to live this vocation in the name of the Church; they may be granted admission to profession at that time; others will remain lay or non-canonical hermits for the rest of their lives --- that is, they will be hermits living this life by virtue of their baptism and standing in the baptized (lay) state, without admission to a second consecration (or to standing in the consecrated state) as the language goes today.

I also know because I hear from non-canonical hermits mainly in the US and Great Britain or, because I see the numbers of non-canonical hermits from all over contributing to publications like Raven's Bread. Some dioceses don't profess c 603 hermits, but they do allow non-canonical hermits to commit or dedicate themselves at Mass (Archdiocese of Seattle is one of these and may be a pioneer in this arrangement). Regina Kreger, whom I've written about in the past is a non-canonical hermit who writes some beautiful reflections. Joyful Hermit, with whom I have mainly disagreed over the years, is also a known dedicated lay hermit with private vows and a significant online presence. For every canonical hermit I meet or hear of, I meet or hear about several, even many, others who are non-canonical. Thus, I believe there are more lay or non-canonical hermits out there than canonical ones --- and after all, that is how it has always been, particularly since the days of the Desert Abbas and Ammas!!

Finally, because I know eremitical life to be a significant and prophetic vocation that militates against the individualism epidemic in our time and speaks in a particularly vivid way to the chronically ill, disabled, or those who are otherwise marginalized, I believe that God calls people to it in real numbers and in every state of life (except marriage). A tiny minority of these are c 603 hermits, and that is as it should be. There "must" be a greater number of lay hermits, not least because the lay state is so critical for the healthy and vibrant life of the church, but also because rare as hermits are, the vocation is radically Christian and every state needs the modeling hermits provide! It is a rare and focused vocation, but it is not meant to be an esoteric or an elitist one!! This is one reason I was very pleased to hear what the Archdiocese of Seattle is doing with lay hermits there! When I answered your original question, I remarked on the appropriateness of God calling people to be hermits in lay, consecrated, and clerical states. I definitely find that fact both inspiring and humbling! Those c 603 hermits I know personally, feel similarly.

Postscript (04 October): please note that non-canonical does not mean illegal or that one is an illegal hermit!!! No one baptized as a member of the Church is illegal!! Non-canonical is a shorthand way of saying that one is not bound by additional canon laws beyond those that come with baptism. This is especially the case when there is the possibility of canonical solitary hermits. When a person becomes a c 603 hermit, new canons (norms) apply to them that did not apply simply because they were baptized. When a person becomes a religious or priest, new canons apply to their life that did not apply to them in their baptismal state alone.  The same is true of hermits now under c 603. These persons have been granted and embraced rights and obligations a person does not have by virtue of baptism and the other Sacraments of initiation alone.

Also, please note well, being non-canonical as in a "non-canonical hermit" especially does not mean that one is not a hermit and cannot call oneself (or be!!) a Catholic. It does mean that one cannot call oneself a Catholic Hermit (i.e., a hermit living this life in the name of the Church) because the Church has not called and professed her to do this. Instead, one remains a Catholic AND (is also) a hermit. For those looking for language to describe this identity, we say one is a non-canonical or a lay hermit. This causes no difficulties in being understood by other Catholics and makes no unwarranted claims! cf Illegal or Illicit? Canon 603 is normative of solitary consecrated eremitical life in the Church, but (as the above post demonstrates) one can be a hermit in the baptized or lay state as well. Just ask the Archdiocese of Seattle!!!

Meaning of Living Hermit Life (or any good life) for God's Sake

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio
Diocese of Oakland

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I read the article in OSV on you on 20. September.2024. It's a great article!!** [links found at the bottom of this post] One of your responses made me want to hear more. You were talking about the life you live, and you said that eremitical life is lived for God's sake, for the sake of the hermit's wholeness, and for the sake of others in a way that gives hope and promises a full and meaningful life. The phrase that surprised me was "for God's sake". I think the other two phrases of that sentence are expected, but living a vocation for God's sake? This sounds like God needs something from us just to be God. I definitely have never heard that idea before and wonder how God can be God and need anything from us. Could you explain what you were saying here?]]

I was hoping someone would ask about that. Thanks for doing that and for the compliments! This is the first question I have received about the article, so good place to start.  What does it mean to live life for God's sake? In thinking about this I begin with what God wills always and everywhere, namely to be God and even more, to be God for and with us, that is, to be Emmanuel. That is the will of God. In every moment and mood of creation to be Emmanuel is the will of God. What people who pray are about is letting God be God, and that is certainly what hermits are about! We pray to love God, for to love God really is to let God be God.

Sisters Angela and Fiachra OSCO, Glencairn Abbey

It does sound a bit strange to say that God needs our prayer if God is to be God, but there it is! In the beginning, God determined not to remain alone. God decided to create the cosmos outside of himself and, in fact, was in search of a counterpart, one who would respond fully and exhaustively to God's love and in doing so, truly let God be God. After all, as I have written recently here, the way we each truly love someone is to find ways to let them be all that they are called to be. And who God wills to be is not simply Creator or redeemer --- though absolutely these are part of who God ultimately desires and wills to be --- but Emmanuel, the One who is with and in us, the one who makes our world his own and takes us and the whole of creation into himself so that heaven and earth may eventually become one reality, what the Scriptures call a new heaven and a new earth.

Prayer is always about lifting our minds and hearts to God so that God may be God and that he may be God within and through us. We recognize that prayer is always God's own work within us and that even the act of raising our minds and hearts to God implies God is already at work in this way. It is a small but still rather startling step to acknowledge that prayer is something we do for God's own sake. After all, we have been taught that God is entirely self-sufficient, that God possesses "aseity", and that God is all-powerful. What could God possibly need from us? But one piece of theology not everyone has been taught or heard before is that to create a world outside himself, and especially a world that will evolve so that at some time there will come a being who could respond in a conscious and whole-hearted way to this creative impulse of the God who is love-in-act, for God to find a counterpart, God must limit Godself and become vulnerable to his own creation. Anyone, including God, who turns to another in love must become vulnerable to that other and to the possibility they will not return that love, not let them become or be themselves with and through God. This is the decision God made on our behalf and on behalf of the whole of creation. I suppose you could say it is the decision God made and the risk he took in deciding to be Emmanuel.

Sister M Beverly Greger, Diocese of Boise

So, a hermit gives her life to let God be God. That is what he became in and through Jesus. It is what Jesus reveals as the very meaning and vocation of being human. In the power of the Spirit, we persevere in prayer and penance, in stricter withdrawal and hiddenness, in poverty, chastity, and obedience for God's own sake and thus too, for the sake of all that God loves and wills to love into wholeness. This is our way of living a life of faith, our way of glorifying God!!

**Original Article (here on this blog)  OSV: What is the Vocation of a Diocesan Hermit? (Sept 20, article, Our Sunday Visitor) Note, the OSV Article is taken from the print version of the Fall Vocations Guide which comes out in late October or November.

Why does God Will More than One Form of Eremitical Life?

[[Sister Laurel, if c 603 is willed by God, then is it the only way to be a hermit? I know you have written that the majority of hermits will be non-canonical or not consecrated hermits, but if c 603 is willed by God, then why wouldn't it be willed for everyone who wants to be a hermit? Is c 603 the only way of being a hermit today?]]

Thanks for your questions. You know, you have managed to reprise the position I held when I made final profession, but it is a position I came to reject pretty quickly. It seemed to me then that non-canonical hermit life would be a temporary context for living one's hermit life until one was admitted to profession and consecration. Fairly quickly I came to understand 1) that not all hermits would (nor should they) seek to be consecrated, and 2) not all hermits would (nor should they) be accepted for admission to profession and consecration. I looked at the examples of non-canonical hermits beginning with the Desert Abbas and Ammas and came to appreciate the vocation more adequately than I had previously. That involved coming to appreciate more than I had that lay hermit vocations were significant in and of themselves (not as a mere stepping stone to something else), that they were truly eremitical, and, at the same time, that they were somewhat different than consecrated hermits (whether communal or solitary). What this meant was I came to see that God called people to more than one kind of hermit life within the Catholic Church, and God called others outside the Church as well.

As I consider why God might will three different forms of eremitical life (not counting lauras composed of those from each of these groups, or religious whose proper law allows hermits as well as cenobites)

• solitary canonical  (consecrated under c 603),
•  communal canonical or semi-eremitic life (consecrated under various canons but not c 603), and
• non-canonical or lay hermit life (lived in the baptismal state* under the canons that apply to all the baptized), 

what strikes me now is that the values and praxis of hermit life are particularly universal in truth, scope, and applicability. We need hermits from all states of life so the unique witness of this life's share in the Gospel is seen from every perspective. At the same time, we needed a canon that established solitary consecrated eremitical life in universal law for the first time ever**, and simultaneously we need one that provides a normative vision for all eremitical life in the Church. Canon 603 serves in this way. I believe that the diversity of eremitical life in the Church is incredibly edifying and inspiring. I have written many times now on whether c 603 is the only pathway to being a hermit today and the simple answer to that is no, it is not. There will always be lay or non-canonical hermits, and I believe they will always outnumber consecrated hermits, both solitary and communal. I think there will also always be communal consecrated hermits. To speak of the diversity and universality of eremitical life or the beauty of that diversity and universality is to affirm indirectly that even as it provides a normative vision, c 603 is not the only way to live eremitical life! We are a many-membered body and the heart of that body is revealed or made manifest by hermits from every state of life.

Because this is true, it is important to stress that the Church esteems every form of eremitical life and no one should feel constrained to become c 603 hermits if they truly feel called to non-canonical (lay or clerical) eremitical life, or to become a member of a congregation of religious hermits if they feel called to solitary consecrated eremitical life (which can also include lauras), for example. By the way, the image at the top of this page is of a Carthusian at prayer. I tend to love this picture not only because of what it captures with the starkness of the prayer desk, etc (we exist as complete human beings only in communion with God and live this in the silence of solitude), but also because it is iconic of every form of eremitical life. Every hermit, canonical and non-canonical, can find themselves in this iconic image and see that God has provided diverse forms of eremitical life that correspond to and reveal the unity, diversity, and freedom of eremitical life under the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church embraces them all. Thanks be to God!!

You can check out this link for the most recent prior article on this topic at The Only Way to be a Hermit? 

** While a diocese will implement c 603 in somewhat differing ways from a neighboring diocese, for instance, c 603 is a universal Church norm, not a diocesan one. In fact, it replaced diocesan norms and statutes used for governing eremitical life in some places in previous centuries. The vocation is a universal one, but the discernment and supervision of the vocation occur at the diocesan level. Thus, the guidelines for understanding and implementing c 603 come from DICLSAL and the Vatican. Each diocese will do as they can to prudently implement such guidelines and the canon itself, but they are implementing a universal norm or canon in doing so.

* sometimes clerics will live as non-canonical hermits as well.

Reexamining Motives

[[Sister, did you ever attack someone and say you disliked them so much you simply wanted to shake them? Why would you do such a thing? I would think a canonical hermit could control her anger better than that. In fact, I would think you wouldn't need to feel such anger at all much less write about it publicly. . .]]

Thanks for the question. The only time I have ever used the phrase about wanting to shake someone was in the following post from ten years ago. I was not angry but frustrated with and for the person and wanted something better for her than the pattern of complaints and broken and harmful relationships she was dealing with in an ongoing manner.  Eremitical life is not for everyone. Physical solitude can be destructive, while God truly wants us to thrive ("I have come that you might have life and have it abundantly!!"). I believe all that is especially true for hermits. The paragraph where I speak about wanting to shake this person is highlighted below.

[[Sister Laurel, how do what you have called the central or non-negotiable elements of canon 603 rule out people from living an eremitical life? Everyone is supposed to pray assiduously, live more or less penitential lives and I think everyone needs silence and solitude as a regular part of their spiritual lives. Wouldn't you agree? So what is it about c 603 that helps a diocese determine someone is NOT called to be a hermit? Am I making sense? Also sometimes people say that solitude is dangerous for people. Have you ever seen a case where a person is harmed by living in physical solitude? What happened?]]

Yes, I think this is a sensible and very good question. While all the elements of the canon would suffer in one who was not really called to the life, the one that comes to mind first and foremost for me is "the silence of solitude." I have treated it here as the environment, the goal, and the charism or gift of the eremitical life to the Church and world.  I have also noted that it is the unique element of canon 603 which is not the same as silence AND solitude and also distinguishes this life from that of most Christians and most other religious as well.  Just as I believe the silence of solitude is the environment, goal, and gift of eremitical life, I believe it is a key piece of discerning whether or not one is called to eremitical solitude. Perhaps you have watched the downward spiral of someone who is living a form of relative reclusion and who has become isolated from his/her family, friends, and his/her local parish. Often such persons become depressed, angry, bitter, self-centered, and anguish over the meaning of their lives; they may try to compensate in ways that are clearly self-destructive and/or lash out at others. Some turn to constant (or very significant) distraction (TV, shopping, etc) while others use religion to justify their isolation and wrap their efforts at self-justification as well as the self-destruction, bitterness, and pain in pious language. One expression of this is to consider themselves (or actually attempt to become!) hermits.

Whatever else is true about their situation it seems undeniable that such a person is NOT called to be a hermit, does not thrive in physical solitude and gives no evidence of living what canon 603 calls "the silence of solitude." In its own way it is terrifying and very sad to watch what isolation does to an individual who is not really called to eremitical solitude or actual reclusion. There is plenty of documentation on this including from prisons where such isolation is enforced and leads to serious mental and emotional consequences. At the very least we see it is ordinarily destructive of personhood and can be deeply damaging psychologically.

Regarding your questions about whether I have ever seen such a situation and what this looked like, the initial answer is yes. Over the past several years (about 7), but especially over the past 3 years, I have watched such a downward spiral occur in someone who wished and attempted to live as a hermit. Besides the signs and symptoms mentioned above, this person's image of God is appalling and has become more so in response to the difficulties of his/her now-even-stricter isolation; in trying to make sense of his/her experiences s/he has come to believe that God directly tests him/her with tragedies and persecution, causes him/her to suffer chronic, even unremitting pain, supposedly demands s/he cut him/herself off from friends, family, clergy, et al (which, at least as s/he reports it, always seems to happen in a way which is traumatic for all involved) and seems to encourage him/her to cultivate a judgmental attitude toward others whose souls s/he contends s/he can read. Tendencies to an unhealthy spirituality and self-centeredness in which this person considers him/herself to be directly inspired by God while everyone else is moved by the devil, where s/he is right and everyone else is wrong, where s/he is unhappy and feels persecuted when concern is expressed, etc, have hardened as s/he holds onto these "certainties" as the only things remaining to him/her to make any kind of sense of his/her life.

It is, for me at least, both saddening and incredibly frustrating. I want somehow to shake this person and say, "Wake up! When everyone else disagrees with you, when every parish finds certain regular occurrences disruptive and divisive while you contend these are of God, consider you may have gotten it wrong!! You would not be the first nor will you be the last! When the fruits of these occurrences are negative for everyone else and seem to lead to increased isolation and unhappiness for you, please at least consider they are NOT of God!! When physical solitude is a source of misery and desperation rather than joy and profound hope, when it leads to a "me vs the world" perspective (and I am not referring to 'world' in the sense canon 603 or monastic life uses it in the phrase 'fuga Mundi'!!) rather than to finding oneself belonging profoundly (e.g., in Christ or in one's shared humanity which is grounded in God)--- even when apart from others, consider that what you are living is perhaps not right for you. God wants you to be complete and fulfilled in him; more, he wills it! He sent his Son so that you might have abundant life, that you might know his profound love and experience true peace and communion -- even and perhaps especially in your daily struggles! Eremitical solitude can be destructive; it is apparently not the way for you! The personal "noisiness" (physical, emotional, and spiritual) of your isolation is NOT what c 603 is talking about when it refers to the silence of solitude. Please, at least consider these points!" But of course, this person will never hear any of that!

One of the things this ongoing situation has under-scored for me is the wisdom of canon 603's choice of "the silence of solitude" rather than "silence and solitude" as a defining element of the life. It also underscores for me the fact that eremitical solitude is a relational or dialogical reality that has nothing to do with personal isolation or self-centeredness. (Obviously, there is a significant degree of physical solitude but this is other-centered, first God and then other people and the whole of creation.) It also says that "the silence of solitude" is about an inner wholeness and peace (shalom) that comes from resting in God so that one may be and give oneself in concrete ways for the love of others. One lives in this way because it is edifying both to oneself as authentically human, and to others who catch the scent of God that is linked to this gift of the Holy Spirit.

A hermit, as I have said many times here, is NOT simply a lone person living an isolated life; neither is eremitical solitude one long vacation nor an escape from personal problems or the demands of life in relationship. In Christianity, a hermit lives alone with God in the heart of the Church for the sake of others and she tailors her physical solitude so that her needs (and obligations) for community and all that implies are met. Moreover, not everyone CAN or SHOULD become a hermit any more than anyone can or should become a Mother or a psychiatrist, parish priest, or spiritual director. Most people do not come to human wholeness or holiness in extended solitude; further, since extended solitude always breaks down but builds up only in rare cases, embracing it as a vocation can be harmful for one not truly called to it. As I have also written before, the Church recognizes the truth of this by professing very few hermits under canon 603 and by canonically establishing only a handful of communities that allow for either eremitical life or actual reclusion. (Only the Camaldolese and the Carthusians may allow reclusion.) In all of these cases the hermits or recluses are closely supervised and made accountable to legitimate superiors. Medical and psychological evaluations are generally required for candidates and are certainly sought in the presence of unusual or questionable and concerning characteristics.

Please note that the situation I described is unusual in some ways and generally extreme. In every case however, whether extreme or not, a diocese will use the characteristics of canon 603, but particularly "the silence of solitude" understood as Carthusians and other hermits do to measure or discern the nature and quality of the vocation in front of them. They will not use the canon to baptize mere eccentricity or illness and they will look for deep peace, joy, and convincing senses of meaning and belonging which have grown in eremitical solitude over at least several years. Similarly, they will look for personal maturity, spiritual authenticity and the ability to commit oneself, persevere in that commitment, and love deeply and concretely. Perhaps I can say something in another post about the other central characteristics of Canon 603 and the way they are used to discern when someone does NOT have a vocation to diocesan eremitical life. Assiduous prayer and penance and a life lived for the salvation of others, for instance, can certainly assist the diocese in this way.

What About Psychological Testing?

[[ Hi Sister O'Neal, is it necessary to have psychological testing to become a c 603 hermit? If my diocese asks me to undergo such testing can I have my own doctor do it? Who pays for this? Do you work with candidates with or without testing?]]

Thanks for your questions. I think this is also the first time I have been asked these questions here though they do come up occasionally with candidates for c 603 profession. Generally, this requirement is left to the discretion of the diocese and they will consider a lot of things in making this a requirement if they have not already done so. Some dioceses may require such testing of every candidate either before or as a condition for accepting the candidate into a process of mutual discernment and formation. (Please note, acceptance for a period of discernment and formation is not the same as approval for admittance to profession and consecration.) Others require such testing depending on questions or concerns that arise in the beginning stages of getting to know a candidate and determining whether or not this person will be allowed to continue a mutual discernment and formation process. In all cases of which I am aware, the particular diocese has a psychologist or team who does this kind of testing and evaluation for them, and who tests all candidates for ordination, consecrated virginity, and c 603 eremitical life. (Religious communities may use the same psychologist or not, but they are independently responsible for how they approach the matter.)

If you are or have been under psychiatric or psychological care in the past, your diocese may want a report of that as part of your clinician's recommendation; ordinarily, this will not replace the need for testing in dioceses that require testing. If your diocese requires testing on a case-by-case basis, the practitioner's report will be appreciated, but it will not necessarily prevent the diocese from requiring testing if they have concerns. A report could reassure any qualms the diocese may have, but it may also raise them. Dioceses work with professionals they know and who, they believe, understand the vocations to which individuals are petitioning for admittance. Ordinarily, these professionals have a general history of successful evaluations and recommendations of candidates over the years and a relationship of trust has been built up.

You can always ask the diocese if your own caregiver can do the testing (if they are competent in this field), but my understanding is that most practitioners who treat clients or patients do not also do psychometry. Remember that what a diocese is usually asking for is not simply a report on therapy or a general evaluation of the person's mental health (though, again, these may be helpful), but a battery of psychological testing to give the diocese a full picture of the person's psychological make-up. The issue of payment is also up to the diocese; I have heard of dioceses that absorb the cost because they are the one's requiring the testing, but others require the candidate to take care of the cost. 

This Dog May Be a Good Candidate!

If your last question is whether I personally recommend testing in every case, I do not. Testing may preclude individuals who might well have succeeded with solitary eremitical life were they given the chance and sufficient assistance during discernment and (initial) formation. However, I do recommend it to the diocese/diocesan team if concerns or questions come up as to whether the person is capable of living the life and working with diocesan staff in patient, open, relatively flexible, and transparent ways in the initial stages of working with a candidate. Some psychological problems militate against the vows; others are exacerbated in the silence of solitude. And some psychological conditions will not be a problem for any of these concerns so long as the person is adequately followed medically and directed prudently. For these reasons, I personally prefer to work with the person and, if it seems prudent, consult with their own physician or psychologist first; I can also turn to this resource should questions or concerns suggest themselves. Since the work*** I and others do with a candidate tends to occur over a period of years, not months, and since it focuses on the person's growth and how they may negotiate the challenges of that in eremitical solitude, this approach to testing has been effective in most cases and eventuated in strong professions and consecrations.

** candidate is an informal term. Canon 603 does not have formal stages like candidacy/postulancy, novitiate, juniorate, etc. It does tend to require temporary profession at least two to three years before perpetual profession and consecration and a period of discernment where the person writes her own Rule. Because writing a liveable Rule requires experience of living the life, this process lends itself to both discernment and formation.

*** the work involves assisting a candidate to come to a place where they can write a liveable Rule. This involves the person gaining experience of all of the elements making up the canon (c 603), reflection on how God is working in terms of these elements in her life,  and then too, the process of writing a text that is fully liveable. Generally, this process takes anywhere from two to four years.    

Evaluating a Little of What I have Learned from the Past Couple of Months

The past couple of months have been particularly challenging both here at Stillsong and in this Notes From Stillsong blog. I have written at least once every day or two and responded to some difficult questions I would rather not have had to deal with. At the heart of it all is a subject who contends she would like to be made a c 603 hermit despite having reviled the vocation for at least fifteen years on various blogs and in a series of YouTube vlogs. As you might imagine, the situation has generated a lot of questions (only a few of which I have posted) which, personalities aside, can serve to help sharpen the process of discernment and formation for c 603 hermits presently being developed for dioceses that might make use of it. So, these couple of months (and a lot of the past 17 years) have provided lots to think about, surprises with problems I never could have foreseen or perhaps even imagined, and opportunities to explore the ins and outs of c 603 for the sake of the Church --- which makes this all a joy.

The most important things that have been underscored for me during these weeks have been the foundational aspects of c 603 vocations: these solitary hermit vocations are public and ecclesial. I have said this again and again through the past almost two decades, and the importance of these two elements in forming the candidate's sensibilities concerning eremitical life generally and consecrated c 603 life particularly cannot be overstated. Related to this is the candidate's understanding that public or canonical means public rights and obligations the Church extends to the candidate which s/he embraces. S/he must approach profession, consecration, and life after these performatory "moments" and within the reality they create in a way that is both uniquely responsive to the Church's mission in the contemporary world and sensitive to and reflective of the ancient eremitical tradition s/he now represents. There are some questions and concerns that have been raised particularly during this time, and my sense is dioceses must definitely raise these with every candidate they consider for profession and/or consecration during the first couple of sessions they hold with the candidate.

For instance, it is important to ask directly what the person knows about Canon 603. How has its existence and its essential elements shaped his/her eremitical journey? (We need to ask about each of these elements individually in this regard.) What is its history (both remote and immediate) and why was it established? Does s/he understand, for instance, that it was not primarily established to deal with abuses in eremitical life, but rather because the Universal Church had finally come to esteem this vocational gift of God? Does s/he understand why and how this vocation is prophetic and a gift to the Church, and to every person making up this body --- particularly to the marginalized, the chronically ill and disabled, the poor and elderly?  Is s/he ready to take on that role and to grow in it even if s/he must (perhaps) change some ingrained ideas about the eremitical life itself?  Does s/he understand that ironically, the canon's constraints provide a realm of freedom the Church extends to him/her so that s/he may grow in communion with God for the sake of others, or does s/he see the canon as some kind of straightjacket used to hem in the hermit or a penal code mainly meant to correct errors? If the hermit sees the canon in the first light it can be a joy to him/her and his/her eremitical life; if it is seen in the second light, s/he may never be empowered to discover its depths and beauty with his/her own eremitical life. These questions are important for those discerning such vocations as well.

Similarly, does the candidate have at least a glimpse of the canon's charism? Does s/he perceive and appreciate the way the vocation-as-canonical is a gift to the Church and serves in the proclamation of the Gospel? How does s/he relate to this gift quality? Does s/he understand the defining elements of the canon as doorways to worlds s/he is called to explore with and in God, or are they instead perceived as narrow gates to a single rigid meaning with little relevance to most people's lives? Does s/he approach the life under c 603 with the heart and mind of a beginner or as someone who believes it has nothing to teach him/her, nothing to surprise him/her with, and nothing to delight him/her day by day? These questions themselves lead to questions regarding the candidate's theological sophistication or lack thereof. It is important that there be real competence, not that the hermit needs to be a theologian, but that s/he is able to negotiate traditional sources of spirituality and eremitical life in light of contemporary voices and scholarship and the light of his/her own prayer as well.

A penultimate question (at least for tonight!) that must be asked as well is about the hermit candidate's use of media, social and otherwise. For instance, if the hermit candidate has a public-facing presence (blogs or vlogs), then these need to be checked out and discussed with the candidate. It is especially important to do this when there are several blogs that correspond to different periods of the candidate's life and relationship with the Church. Patterns of behavior and personal difficulty that might not be entirely evident otherwise can be perceived when these avenues are explored. A particularly crucial question that may sometimes go unasked is, "Why are you seeking to be professed under c 603?" In recent weeks, that particular question became particularly urgent and problematical for some who wrote me in light of so much blog and vlog material denouncing and reviling c 603, the motives, character, and fidelity to c 603 itself of c 603 hermits, or of the bishops who approve such vocations. After at least 15 years of this kind of material, as well as an obstinate insistence that one is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, it becomes a compelling question those discerning the vocation standing before them, must know to ask!! In fact, it is this question that calls for all of the other ones I have mentioned here.

My thanks to those who have written this month and last with questions and concerns. You have helped me in my own vocation (especially my vocation within a vocation) and contributed to the ongoing project I am working on regarding the discernment and formation of c 603 vocations. Individual situations with c 603 candidates come and go, but the ability to help the Church learn from them is important and you have been especially helpful in that. It truly has been a fruitful if challenging number of weeks! Again, thank you.

Questions on Hermits and Sunday Obligation (Reprise)

[[Sister, are you allowed to skip your Sunday obligation? A Catholic Hermit [link to this blog provided and omitted here] wrote that she is able to do this because it is God's will and (according to How Did Hermits Keep Their Sunday Obligation?) apparently an historical right of hermits. I don't understand how this works. Have hermits always been able to skip the Sunday obligation?]]

In general I do not skip my Sunday obligation, no,  though yes, in some circumstances I am allowed to.  If I am required to miss Mass on Sunday for some good reason (usually illness but occasionally the requirements of the silence of solitude and stricter separation) I ordinarily participate some other time during the week if that is possible. It is possible for a hermit who is publicly professed and who has assumed the additional canonical obligations of the eremitical life in the consecrated state to miss Sunday Mass because extended solitude and the call to eremitical solitude itself necessitates this; but remember that in such a case the hermit will ordinarily participate in a Liturgy of the Word with Communion in her own hermitage. This does not equate to participating in Mass but it does have a distinctly communal sense to it in the same way Communion brought by EEMs has the sense of continuing a Eucharistic celebration.

Moreover, because this is a matter of legitimate rights and obligations, she will only do so if she is allowed according to her Rule and with the general permission of her Bishop (given mainly in his official declaration of approval of her Rule).  It will, in such a case, not be enough to simply list "solitude" as a value in one's Rule without specifying how this is worked out or at least indicating it will be effectively and sensitively combined with other important values (like a hermit's necessary Sacramental life!). Further, in specific instances, especially of  very prolonged solitude, she will discuss the matter with her director occasionally to be sure her praxis here is prudent and that her solitary ecclesial vocation is not suffering from isolation from the faith community (this also happens at the involvement end of things when she will meet with her director or delegate to be sure her involvement is not detracting from her vocation to the silence of solitude).

In general, however, I have to say that even when I am living a more extended and intense physical solitude which involves seeing no one and not attending daily Mass at all, I will generally get to Sunday Mass at least once or twice a month --- not least because of the Eucharistic theology which sustains my life in the hermitage. While the obligations I assumed in profession and consecration may allow or even oblige me to live my physical solitude with an intensity and integrity which sometimes means missing Mass it does not EVER allow me to completely turn my back on my baptismal obligation or pretend the last 10 centuries never occurred.

The idea that missing Sunday Mass is an historical right of hermits is not really accurate. While regular attendance at the Sunday liturgy has been required or expected since the early days of the Church, this does not translate directly into what we know today as a Sunday obligation. Further, the blog article which is referred to (How Did Hermits Keep Their Sunday Obligation? ) makes the following erroneous point: [[This is why no ecclesiastical writer or hagiographer ever seems to think it is an issue that the saints and hermits are not able to attend Mass; they understand that their choice of life makes it impossible to fulfill the Sunday obligation and that in these circumstances, that decision is justified in the eyes of God and the Church.]] In point of fact St Peter Damian (11-12C) and Paul Giustiniani (16C) both wrote about the importance of attending Mass and receiving Communion regularly (though they were not addressing the idea of Sunday obligation in their day). Giustiniani in particular addressed the issue: [[The second kind of hermits are those who, after probation in the cenobitic life, after pronouncing the three principal vows and being professed under an approved Rule [note well the structure and formation required here], leave the monastery and withdraw to live all alone in solitude. . .Such a life. . . is more perfect than the cenobitic but also much more perilous. It permits no companionship but requires that each be self-sufficient. Therefore it is no longer permitted in our day. The Church now orders us to hear Mass often, to make our confession, and to receive Communion. None of those can be done alone.]] Dom Jean LeClercq, Alone With God, "Forms of Hermit Life" (an alternative translation is provided below***)

*** [[ Indeed this solitary way of life was considered more perfect (even if less safe) than that of the cenobites at the time when no law of  Holy Church forbade living a life in complete solitude. But at the present time ecclesiastical laws oblige all the Christian faithful . . .  to confess their sins often, to receive Holy Communion, and to celebrate or attend Mass frequently. . .Now since all these things are hardly possible in this [entirely solitary] kind of life, it would seem to be wholly prohibited. So it is held to be less safe (or rather completely illicit) for a Christian to attempt it, or more exactly, to persist in it.]] Paul Giustiniani, Rule of the Hermit Life.  "Three Types of Hermits"

In today's Church the Sunday obligation obliges every person unless there is a truly good reason or some exception made by a legitimate superior. The obligation is a priority in an authentic faith life and requires Catholics make it a priority unless they have a really good reason or the aforementioned exception is made. One cannot argue (as it seems to me the USC blogger argued) that missing Mass is fine so long as it was not the primarily intended end. (It might not be a sin in such a case but it is not really okay.) Neither then does this mean a lay hermit (meaning a hermit without PUBLIC vows or canonical initiation into the consecrated state with its commensurate rights and obligations) can simply decide on her own, "Oh, traditionally hermits never went to Mass because they were called to solitude, so neither do I need to attend Mass! or "I have chosen solitude first so missing Mass (the secondary consequence) is no problem," or even "I just don't "fit in" so God is calling me to something else and I am dispensed." A lay hermit (e.g., the person whose blog you first referred to) is bound by her baptismal obligations. These are legitimate obligations (binding in law) and without public profession no other canonical obligations have been assumed nor do they potentially modify these fundamental obligations. Once again the importance of standing in law becomes very clear here.

Every eremitical writer who has considered the relation of the hermit to the Church and the danger of the independent solitary hermit is clear that too often this way results in illusion and delusion. It results in isolation more often than it does in genuine solitude and it can lead a person away from active and integral participation in the Church. When Paul Giustiniani writes about the three kinds of hermits he says: [[To the first type of hermit belongs those who take no vow of poverty, chastity, or obedience, [here he means public vows under a legitimate superior] do not have an approved rule, and are not subject to any teaching or discipline. . . They do not follow any regular discipline [referring again to a rule and superior], but only their own feelings, and they are not directed by the teaching officer of any superior, but by their own opinion. And so, by these very things, they make it clearly understood they still keep faith with the world. . . .For Saint Benedict, who calls these [hermits] sarabaites if they reside in a definite place, or gyrovagues if instead they move often from one place to another, plainly defines them as having the most disgraceful and miserable style of life. These . . . are called acephalous, that is, headless. The sacred canons of the Church do not sanction this kind of life. Rather, they censure it.]]  In any case if a lay hermit (even one with private vows!) wishes to remain a good Catholic she will keep those laws of the Church she embraced in accepting Baptism.


In many of the posts I have put up here I have written about the ecclesial nature of the diocesan eremitical vocation, the covenantal nature of genuine solitude, the distinction between isolation and solitude, the importance of canonical standing in order to create stable ecclesial relationships which allow one to live this vocation with integrity and not delude oneself, and finally, the importance of friendships and regular participation in a parish community. In somewhat different ways, the same is true of the lay eremitical life. The facile conclusion that God wills a solitary hermit who claims on their own the title "Catholic Hermit" to simply forego reception of the Sacraments, isolate herself entirely from a local faith community, live without adequate spiritual direction nor under the authority of any legitimate superior simply underscores the importance of all these points; it also underscores the danger Saints like Peter Damian and eremitical reformers like Paul Giustiniani (who profoundly loved and understood the call to eremitical solitude) wrote about. In Paul Giustiniani's time we have seen he concluded that solitary hermit life was no longer licit or viable; the significant solution and model he proposed was a laura of hermits. 

Today we also have canon 603 which, while governing solitary eremitical life, does so with mainly the same safeguards Paul Giustiniani outlined. The hermit's relationships with her diocese and parish ordinarily serve the place of a laura, at least in the sense of providing an intimate ecclesial context for one's solitude and in reminding us that the hermit's life is never one of isolation from the community of faith. If what this lay hermit wrote does not make sense to you then that is understandable; it is in conflict with the Church's own understanding of the way the solitary eremitical vocation must (and must NOT) be lived today and it is in conflict with classic writers on the eremitical life since at least the 11th century.

While I have cited the Camaldolese Benedictine constitutions on requirements for recluses it is important to cite what Paul Giustiniani says about those living reclusive lives. After commenting on the importance of the laura (a colony of hermits) for providing the advantages and security of community and allowing solitude he says of the recluse, [[but he will never be released from the rule and constitutions of the hermits or from the authority of and obedience of the superior. So too he will never lack fraternal assistance on those occasions when, for the observance of ecclesiastical norms, the ministry of another is required.]] Meanwhile, in his "Instruments of the Eremitic Life" Giustiniani lists celebrating Mass with spiritual joy or hearing it with devotion (#20), receiving Holy Communion with great reverence (#28), maintaining appropriate observance of common life (#33). For C 603 hermits these prudent requirements translate into relationships with a parish community and active participation there --- even if that is largely limited to Mass attendance only. For lay hermits who are in no way relieved of their ordinary Catholic obligations by accepting and being charged with other legitimate ones, this is even more the case.

Solitude (that is, eremitical solitude which describes solitary communion with God lived for the sake of others) is recognized in canon law as a very high value but this is only true when it is understood to truly exist in the heart of the Church. In my own life the "silence of solitude" (which is a goal and gift to the Church as well as an environment) might well require that I miss Sunday Mass for a period of time but there are sufficient structures (Rule, superiors, canons), relationships (superiors, faith community, director, pastor, etc), prayer (including the LOH and liturgy of the Word with Communion), and oversight (delegate, Bishop, director) to assure this does not slip into isolation or become willful, personally eccentric, or simply illusory (or delusional). Maintaining one's balance between physical solitude and participation in the Church's concrete faith life allows some flexibility and creates some tensions but one must be able to say, no matter what, that one is living a genuinely ecclesial faith life. For the solitary (c 603) hermit or for the lay solitary, a regular Sacramental life celebrated with one's brothers and sisters in Christ is undoubtedly part of doing so.

(See also, Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality for a more general discussion of part of the way hermits resolve the issue of competing legitimate obligations in their life. This piece deals with developing a truly Eucharistic spirituality even when one cannot always get to Mass.)

On Drawing Prayer Circles (Reprise)

[[Dear Sister, have you heard of the books referring to drawing a circle around one's biggest dreams or needs and then standing there until the prayer is answered? They are based on the Jewish legend of Honi who drew a circle and prayed for rain. He stayed inside the circle until it rained and it did! God answered Honi's Prayer! I just wondered what you thought of this approach to prayer.]]

Hi there. I have heard of the books and seen them advertised on Amazon, but I have not read them. The legend of Honi, however, is one I am somewhat familiar with. Honi, a first-century BC scholar who is sometimes called the "one who draws circles", was faced with the need for rain during a drought. He eventually drew a circle and announced to God that he was not going to move until God sent rain. It was Winter, the rainy season when he did this. When a smattering of rain came Honi announced to God that that was not enough and reiterated his intention to remain there until there was real rain. There was a downpour and at this point, Honi told God he wanted (or the people of Israel needed) a quieter, less destructive rain; he said he would continue to stay in the circle until God sent that instead. At this point, there came a quieter rain which the ground could drink up and which would not be destructive because of flooding, mudslides, etc.

What is important to remember however are the two responses this action drew from Jews. Some excommunicated Honi because he had indeed blasphemed God by his actions. Others (a Queen) excused him saying he had a special relationship with God. There is ambiguity in the story and both wisdom and very real danger in the lessons we draw from it about prayer. Sometimes the line between the two is exceedingly fine; I personally believe Honi crossed the line despite also showing us some of the things necessary in a life of prayer and despite his special relationship with God. So let me say something about that and what I believe the author of these books on "drawing a circle of prayer" as well as what his readers must be cautious about.

The positive lessons on Prayer Honi gives us:

All prayer is meant to allow God the space to work in our lives. Under the impulse of the Holy Spirit we open our hearts to God so that God may enter those spaces, know us more profoundly (in the intimate Biblical sense), and accompany us in every moment and mood of our lives. That means opening ourselves in ways that reveal our deepest needs and dreams and doing so in a way that lets those dreams and needs be shaped, qualified, transformed, and answered by the presence of God and his own will or purposes. In other words, we hold our dreams and needs open to God's transforming and fulfilling presence. We take them seriously; we claim and honor them, but we also hold them somewhat lightly because God's presence can cause us to reevaluate and even redefine these in light of his love and purposes. For instance, my own dream to become a teacher or to transform the world is rooted in gifts coming from a really profound place within me which I must hold onto and express, but I must also be open to the possibility that I am not going to be teaching in the ways I thought I might nor transforming the world in the way I dreamt I might. The Kingdom of God comes through our attentiveness to our deepest needs, gifts, and dreams; we must not ignore these, but at the same time, that Reign rarely looks like what we thought it might.

Drawing a circle around my desire to teach, etc, allows me to get and stay in touch with the profound gifts within me, while praying about this allows me to open these spaces to God and to collaborate with God in becoming the teacher (or whatever else) he may desire me to become. Standing in this circle allows me to remain trusting in God's love and determined that the best use of my gifts be made, but I am neither defining (drawing) nor standing in this circle in order that God might be "informed" about who I am, what I feel, dream, or need, nor that his will be shaped accordingly. I stand in such a circle so that I may consciously and faithfully bring these things to God and allow their potential and promise to be realized in ways I may not have even imagined myself. Drawing a circle of prayer makes sense to me because it requires 1) a conscious claiming of gifts, needs, dreams, etc, 2) a faithfulness and deep trust in their potential and in the power of God to bring all things to fullness or completion despite ostensible signs otherwise, and 3) a commitment to watch for the ways in which God brings things to fulfillment even when these are contrary to my own plans and conceptions. Drawing a circle of prayer makes sense to the degree it demands and facilitates attentiveness and perseverance in prayer.

The Negative or Dangerous Elements in Honi's Approach to Prayer:

However, as I say, it is my opinion that Honi crossed the line that the leadership of the Jewish People considered blasphemous and worthy of excommunication. He moved from persevering prayer to blackmail or extortion, and he did so by treating prayer and the drawing of a circle as a way of leveraging God. When I think of what Honi did with the circle it sounds a lot like a child saying to their Mother, "I want cake for dinner and I am going to lie here in the middle of the floor until you let me have that! Not only that (once mom pulls out the vanilla cake mix!), it had BETTER be a chocolate cake!" Despite the vast difference between this and what I described in the last section, the line between these two is often a very fine one indeed and we need to be very careful never to cross it!

Prayer is always about intimacy with God but it is not the intimacy of peers, much less of persons who can dictate to God what their needs are and the ways in which they expect these needs to be met. Honi crossed this line as well. He forgot that in prayer he was dealing with the Master of the Universe, the One whom he was called to serve in persevering prayer, not one we can call on to serve us in a demanding and willful pseudo-piety. Perseverance is necessary in prayer, but stubbornness is a different matter. In prayer, we do indeed open our hearts to God, but we do so in a way that allows our dreams and needs to accept the limitations of reality and be shaped by that. We continue to hope, but the certainty of our hope allows flexibility and demands docility as well; God's purposes and will always ultimately eventuate in a fulfillment of what we dream of and desire or need most deeply. We need to trust that that is the case even as we allow ourselves to be instructed in the fact that we cannot always see or imagine the how or the shape of this fulfillment. We do not EVER dictate terms to God. It seems to me that Honi forgot most of these things in his own prayer.

Similarly, it is important not to think that God is outside the circle. We must understand that drawing the circle of prayer circumscribes a space where God is intimately present with us in the very circumstances we ourselves are suffering. We draw the circle and say effectively that we will stand here WITH God and trust in his life-giving presence despite all the difficulties and ridicule that may entail. Honi's actions seem very different to me than this. He seemed to be drawing a line in the sand (dust!) which separated himself from God and turned the situation into a "me vs God" struggle rather than allowing it to define Honi as an I-Thou covenantal reality. It is important in prayer to recognize that our truest needs and dreams are God's as well and that we stand together as covenant partners committed to the unfolding and fulfillment of creation. Even so, this is never the same as allowing prayer to become a kind of martyrdom (witness) against a God who finally capitulates to our demands.

Further, we must take care that the drawing of prayer circles not be allowed to deteriorate into a kind of magical thinking where if we do x (e.g., draw a prayer circle around my child), then y (e.g., his safety) will be the result. One of the real dangers of the idea of drawing prayer circles is that we begin to think that we have done what we need and therefore the result is assured. While this is similar to the extorting-God mindset (in some ways it seems like a "kinder, gentler, version") it is as contrary to the true dynamics of authentic prayer as is the demanding, self-centered, blackmail version of things. Since the author of these books has a version for children it seems to me that parents need to be particularly cautious in being sure they do not contribute to notions of prayer that have more to do with magical thinking than with prayer. Children outgrow magical thinking but if it becomes codified in their approaches to prayer this becomes a huge obstacle to developing a mature spirituality later in life and it contributes to unnecessary disillusion with religion and the practice of prayer.

Risk and tension are always there in our Prayer:

Finally, it seems to me that the Legend of Honi the circle drawer reminds us that there is always risk and tension in our prayer. Prayer requires boldness and steadfastness which can easily deteriorate into presumption and stubbornness. It requires an intimacy that runs the risk of devolving or being distorted into actual blasphemy.  After all, it is one thing to say, "Here I stand, I can do no other" WITH and for God; it is quite another to do so as though God was simply another person on the parish council who needed to be convinced and prodded into action. And of course, negotiating this risky business and coming to trust that God brings good out of even the worst circumstances even when we cannot perceive this, is part of what it means to learn to pray and to live a prayer life.  

As we mature in this we become better at a kind of "holy boldness" and an intimacy that is never presumptuous but which instead reminds us of Mary's part at the Wedding Feast of Cana. There she spoke directly, even boldly, to her Son about the needs of the host and she clearly knew her Son could do something about the situation. But Jesus drew limits as well and while Mary stood back a bit in light of these, she continued to trust in her Son and counseled others to do as he said. It seems to me that Mary's interactions with Jesus in that story are a more accurate image of the dynamics of prayer --- especially the "holy boldness"  required --- than Honi's legend itself manages to give us.

I hope this is helpful to you. You might also check out, On Persistence in prayer and other posts linked to the labels found below.

A Few Thoughts on Custody of the Eyes (reprise)

[[Hello Sister Laurel, Thank you for putting up the piece about the new movie. Custody of the eyes is not a phrase we hear much about today. When I looked it up I found a reference to "10 reasons men should always practice custody of the eyes" and some forum posts talking about avoiding lust, but why would cloistered nuns be practicing custody of the eyes so much to name a film about it? I mean is it really that central to life in a cloister? What am I missing?]]

Hi there and thanks for the questions. I agree that custody of the eyes is kind of an old-fashioned term and not one we use or, for that matter, practice much today, but in a congregation such as the Poor Clares or the Trappistines, for instance, it is a significant value which has a good deal less to do with avoiding lustful feelings and more with protecting the privacy, and more, the silence of solitude of one's Sisters and of the house more generally. Interestingly, custody of the eyes is meant to be combined with a genuine sensitivity to the needs of one's Sisters (or others more generally); for instance, one is expected to be aware if someone needs something at table and offer it, or to do something similar in work situations with tools and materials being used, so custody of the eyes does not mean closing oneself off to others, cultivating general unawareness, isolation, or anything similar. I think custody understood in this more balanced way is one of those values we ought all to cultivate as appropriate to our own states of life. It seems to me in some ways it is a vital practice our own technological and media-driven world really needs.

In last Friday's Gospel lection we heard the Matthean observation that the eye is the lamp of the body. In Matthew a good eye is a generous one; a bad or evil eye is the opposite. Additionally, one of the meanings of Matt's observation is that what we look on changes us and can be a source of light or (increasing) darkness. This can occur in many ways. We read classic works of literature or contemporary books that enlighten and shape us. We do the same with art and media of all sorts. Unfortunately, this may involve "literature" which demeans the human person, or it may involve visual input that does not even pretend to be art --- and rightly so. More commonly for most of us, it involves commercials or TV programs which objectify us, make a parody of and trivialize our lives even as they presume to tell us who we are, what we desire, and need, what we ought to value, buy, otherwise spend resources on, and so forth. Custody of the eyes in this kind of thing means allowing God to shape us and show us who we are and what we really need. It means refusing to allow others to define us or our own hearts especially. Custody of the eyes is a necessary element in being our (and God's!) own persons.

On the other hand, what we look on, that is, what we choose to look on and the way in which we do so speaks about our hearts; that is, it reflects either the light or the darknesses of our own hearts. Here is where generosity or its opposite become critical. We see this when we look on another person and judge them on the basis of appearances, or otherwise jump to conclusions on the basis of past hurts; but we also see it when we allow our compassion to perceive a person as God's own precious one who is really very like us, when we look with awe at the beauty which surrounds us or find beauty in the simplest thing rather than with the vision of someone who is bored and jaded and incapable of being truly surprised, and so forth. Custody of the eyes has as much to do with truly allowing the eyes to be the lamp of the whole person as with simply avoiding lust or lasciviousness.

Custody of the eyes allows a person to attend to their own hearts without constantly being distracted by the activity and sights around them. Especially, as it does this, it assists us in becoming people who see things truly, that is, who see things as God sees them. Moreover, it provides space and the gift of privacy for others with whom one lives; especially it provides for the communion we call "the silence of solitude" in which they too are seeking to dwell so that they too may be persons who see as God sees. Custody of the eyes intends our living with focus; it fosters the containment and denial of the incessant voice of curiosity and even prurience that has been intensified with the computer and social media environment and assists in following through on a project without getting distracted. (N.B., even the monastic cowl or cuculla ("hood") helps us maintain custody of the eyes and appropriate focus.) Thus, I think, the practice of custody of the eyes is rooted in a true reverence for others and for ourselves even as it helps create an environment where others may experience the same.

In a cloister or a lavra, for instance, silence does not cut us off from others or the demands of love. It is not a neutral reality but one that is carefully cultivated and allowed to flourish in love for the others who are also seeking God just as we are. It enfolds us each and joins us together in a supremely respectful embrace which is deeper than any word. It is a gift we offer one another. Custody of the eyes serves similarly and seems to me to be a piece of the monastic and eremitical values of stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude especially. It too is ordered toward loving others and providing the gifts of space and privacy in which they may seek and commune with God while at the same time making sure they are profoundly supported in this.

Hermits and Experiences of Satan?

[[Dear Sister, I wondered if you have any experience of the Devil?  I have never known what to do with the part of the faith that includes the Devil but I recently heard someone who claims the Devil messes with her all the time. She made it seem like the Devil picks on hermits and even uses them to "mess with" others. It sounded to me a lot like that old joke about "the devil made me do it" -- it's kind of an excuse for anything that goes wrong when the person doesn't want to own up to their role in it. I don't think you write about the Devil though I saw where recently you referred to Satan being called "the accuser". Do you believe in Satan or the Devil? Does he "mess with" hermits? Is that because they are more spiritual than most people?]]

Another first! Thanks for your questions, although I have to say they leave me kind of at a loss. You see, yes, I have experienced evil, but Satan? No, I have no experience with that at all. My own experience of evil was something I came (eventually) to regard as the person's illness, and I found that explaining what I had experienced made sense in terms of mental illness. What also helped me make sense of it around the same time was Paul Tillich's theology of the demonic. What Tillich does is to look at something sacred. When that is distorted, twisted, and diminished, it becomes what he calls the demonic. On the other hand, when it is raised to higher forms and even its highest form of perfection, there we have the holy. For something or someone to be raised in this way implies participation in God's life, love, goodness, and truth, that is, in the holiness of God. For them to be distorted and diminished in the way I have described means for them to move further from participation in God's life, love, truth, goodness, beauty, etc. 

Another way to think of this is how we are when we allow ourselves to be loved as opposed to who we become when we refuse to be loved and become self-centered and incapable of the truth. As human beings made in the image of God, we are capable of great good and, if that image is distorted, great evil. Tillich knew this very well and so he understood human beings as sacred and capable of great holiness in and through God. At the same time, he had watched human beings who had become seriously distorted and diminished; they were profoundly inhuman and inhumane, and Tillich identified this state as demonic. But this had nothing to do with a literal Devil or Satan. It occurred in complex ways through the influences upon and choices made by each person, just as sanctification occurs. 

Personally, I neither affirm nor deny the existence of Satan (though I do note that it is not part of the Church's creeds). I simply say Satan has little to do with my own faith which is centered on Christ and the One he called Abba in the power of the Spirit.At the same time, I don't see where human beings need a lot of help in becoming inhuman and setting genuine evil loose in our world. We are the source of systemic and institutionalized evil, and I don't think we need an external source beyond the harmful ways other human beings have treated us or encouraged and conditioned us to treat others (whether all these things occur directly or indirectly). I feel the same way you do about folks who carry on about how the Devil is messing with them, or how persecuted they are, etc. However, (though I too enjoyed the Flip Wilson sketch way back) it is not funny or entertaining to me; it is a tragedy because it involves a person who, it seems to me, has no real self-knowledge, no motivation to metanoia or change, and a limited capacity for honesty or love, including self-love and love of God.

Ironically, there is a side to this, that is even more tragic in a person who tends to blame the devil, and that is the tendency to attribute to God everything that can't be attributed to Satan. While it is true that everything good in our life ultimately comes from God and reveals God to us, it is not typical of God to speak directly to us as a rule of thumb, to come to us similarly in visions, or to will our suffering, much less to cause actual suffering. God does NOT cause suffering, nor does God will our pain. This approach to reality not only refuses to take appropriate responsibility for the things that happen to us and cause difficulties for us (which includes taking responsibility for getting appropriate help with the wounds caused by others), but it also tends to be a form of self-aggrandizement.

I know some psychologically healthy hermits whose lives are edifying, focused on, and filled with God. They are wonderfully happy. Some can occasionally reference the Devil as the power behind real suffering, but these hermits don't have a strong sense of the Devil's presence in their lives. Certainly, they don't see him lurking and ready to pounce at the slightest opportunity. Others rarely, if ever, think of Satan except as he perhaps comes up in lectio or discussions, though they are apt to be acutely aware of the reality of evil in our world. What I am saying is that it is not "normal" for hermits to be "taken" with the place of the Devil in their lives. It is not normal for hermits to deal with Satan, to want to understand Satan, (to desire to) spend time writing or speaking about Satan, etc. Hermits may certainly have experiences of real evil. They may have experienced occasions or periods of serious suffering, but blaming Satan (or God!) for these is simply not typical of these hermits. Their lives are full of the grace of God and a sense of wonder or awe at the way God has called them to Himself.

They recognize all the ways God has been at work in (and for!) them and are full of praise and love for this God. They also are well aware of their own failures and shortcomings in this and other relationships; Satan has nothing to do with these problems, though personal woundedness may well be at their heart. They work on these with their spiritual directors and others who are competent in doing this kind of work with them. They suffer, yes, as we all suffer, and they accept this suffering as a share in Christ's own suffering embraced for the sake of a new heaven and new earth where God will be all in all. What they do NOT do is blame Satan nor play Satan off against God with themselves as some sort of victim or pawn of either or both!! (Note, those who are also "victims" of God will frame their victimhood in pious categories of grace, or "mysticism", or they may even identify themselves as a "Victim Soul".) 

In either case, just as you recognize, such a person, for whom victimhood (whether Divine or demonic) is a defining category of their life, tends to disavow appropriate responsibility for their suffering and difficulties. This can include resisting or rejecting therapy or other forms of assistance for original or core woundedness, and sometimes rejecting getting help for an ongoing paranoia about being persecuted or harassed by everyone around them. From my perspective, such a person's relationship with God is distorted and becomes seriously disedifying. Whenever God is made the direct cause of suffering or the one who directly wills and brings pain, serious theological errors have occurred in the name of a significantly flawed "spirituality".  In any case, the hermits I know, though profoundly spiritual and usually experienced with an authentic sense of what the desert tradition calls struggling or doing battle with demons**, tend to see themselves as simply way too inconsequential for Satan (or, The Devil) to have any interest in. 

** Please see articles on battling or struggling with demons for the way I use these terms