On the Beauty and Depth of c 603 (Reprise)

[[Sister Laurel, I wondered why you write about canon 603 now, so many years after you have been professed. It sounds to me like you believe it is important to hermits even after they have been consecrated. I realize that the canon describes what is necessary to be admitted to canonical standing, and I get you might want to be writing for those interested in becoming diocesan hermits, but is there something more to it than that? Why concern yourself with the law once you're admitted under a law? I wondered if you could explain that. . . .]]

Good to hear from you; it has been a while!! Interesting observations and questions!  Yes, I continue to write about canon 603 for one particular reason; namely, as I have come to perceive it, it is not merely a canon allowing for admission to profession and consecration (as historically and ecclesially important as this is); instead, the canon prescribes a profound and often unimagined way of life constituted by the central elements named therein. Many mistakenly treat these elements as though their meaning is obvious and easily understood and lived. For instance, poverty, chastity, and obedience seem clear enough. So do "Stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance" and "the silence of solitude". That one is required to write a Rule of life may seem a requirement anyone can easily accomplish, and dioceses routinely send folks off to do this without instructions or assistance -- fully expecting they will be able to succeed at the task, but this is not so easy really. 

Beneath the words of the canon in this element and in all the others, however, there are worlds the hermit is called to (and will need to) explore, embrace, and embody if they are to truly be a canon 603 hermit. The canon supplies, in significant ways, the windows to these worlds. Because I petitioned to be admitted to profession under this canon and because the Church professed, consecrated, and commissioned me to do so, I am living and exploring this particular eremitical life; gradually I have come to know or at least glimpse the depths of the life prescribed by the canon --- even when I have not lived into them as fully as I am yet called to. 

 As a corollary, in some ways, I have come to know the depths of the canon itself. I write about canon 603 now 14 [now 17] years after perpetual profession and consecration because, from within this life, I continue to see new things in the canon --- things Diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious (who often know very little about such a life or canon 603 itself) need to see, things candidates need to have a sense of as they approach mutual discernment and formation in this call, and things those professed under canon 603 are also committed to exploring. Especially, I continue to write about canon 603 because, from within this life, I have always perceived a beauty about it and the way it blends non-negotiable elements with the freedom and flexibility of a solitary life lived for the sake of others in response to the Holy Spirit. It both demands and allows for profound eremitical experience before profession and it both calls for and empowers even greater depth and breadth in living this life thereafter. You see, it is not just the single elements of the canon nor their apparently "obvious" meanings that are important -- though of course, they are crucial. It is what is implicit and profound in them and in the fabric they weave together that is also critical to appreciating canon 603. 

This kind of appreciation is important not just for the hermit herself, but also for dioceses seeking to use the canon appropriately and for canonists whose tendency is to want to add additional requirements and legislative elements to the canon before admitting anyone to profession. Canonists tend also to look at c 603 simply in terms of its legal dimensions, particularly seizing on (or sussing out) legal loopholes rather than reflecting on the vocation itself, [as happened in the Diocese of Lexington this last Pentecost. (2024)] More and more I have come to see that these added elements are unnecessary, not only because eremitical life itself doesn't need them, but because canon 603 itself does not. Of course, in coming to appreciate the beauty I referred to above, and the surprising adequacy or sufficiency of the canon, one must be open to seeing there what is more than superficial or even more than significantly explicit. One must be able to see the implicit depths and Mystery below the surface.

 Let me give you an example. The canon requires the solitary hermit to write her own Rule. However, it doesn't explicitly define the nature of the Rule and whether it will function as law, Gospel, law and Gospel (or Gospel and law); will it be primarily or wholly a list of do's and don'ts, limitations and permissions, or will it provide a vision of the life the hermit is committing to live with whatever that requires? Nor does c 603 explicitly require that it be a liveable Rule which may only come to be after the hermit has written at least several drafts. And yet both of these, rooted in the hermit's lived experience and long reflection, must be understood as called for by canon 603. Another example is the central element, "stricter separation from the world." What does it really mean? What does it call for from the hermit? I have written a lot about this element of the canon over the past decade and more, so I won't repeat all that here, but where in the canon does it speak of freedom from enmeshment with falsity, freedom for truth and honest engagement with and on behalf of God's good creation? These words are never used and yet, these are part, perhaps even the heart of what this element of ''stricter separation'' refers to.

Nor is it just a matter of getting under the superficial or common usage of the terms involved. One needs to begin to see the way they are related to one another and help in the weaving of a single reality. Both of the elements just noted, the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule and stricter separation from the world, demand the hermit engage in a process of growth and maturation in Christ specifically as a canon 603 or diocesan hermit. Moreover, the canon provides a vision of consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Church. Each element contributes to this vision, including those in both 603.1 and 603.2. At the same time, in service to the incarnation of this vision in an individual's life, canon 603 provides the means for a process of discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, even though this process is not explicit in the text of the canon. 

The requirement that a hermit writes a liveable Rule confronts everyone participating in the process with the need for adequate discernment and formation. But how is this achieved? Do we need more canons? Must we borrow from canonical norms established (wisely and appropriately) for other and less individual forms of religious life? Again, I find c 603 beautiful and perhaps surprising in its sufficiency here: what is implicit in the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule is the fact that an adequate process of discernment and formation can be structured according to the hermit's growing abilities and capacities to write a liveable Rule of life that is true to canon 603's vision of solitary eremitical life.  Writing a liveable Rule of Life is not simply one element of the canon among others; it is the culmination of a process of reflection, prayer, study, and personal growth in Christ (and thus, in all the other elements of the canon) it itself guides and crystalizes. 

A hermit engaging in the writing of a liveable Rule will require accompaniment and assistance (a very small formation team, for instance). Still, the process envisioned here can be relatively simple and effective in guiding the diocese working with a candidate for profession. Certainly, it is respectful of the freedom required by both the hermit and the Holy Spirit in shaping and deepening this specific vocation. Best, it grows organically from (or is implicit in) the requirements of canon 603 itself.

To return more directly to your questions. Canon 603 is certainly a norm by which the Church recognizes, governs and thus perpetuates the vocations of solitary consecrated hermits. It is associated with canonical (legal) rights and obligations which bind the hermit. It defines the nature of the diocesan hermit's life and so, provides the central elements that mark this definition. It is here, however, that c 603 becomes something more than most canons because it is associated with a vision of the solitary eremitical life and a vision is not only about what is seen, but about the underlying mystery that grounds, inspires, and is to be manifested in the lives of those living under this canon. 

I believe that the authors of c 603 wrote something rich, perhaps richer than they knew. Canon 603 is a window opening onto Mystery; the mystery of eremitical life, of God and the way human beings are verified (made true) in communion with God, the mystery of the way even the most isolated life can be redeemed in solitude, and the mystery of the way even human and Divine solitude always imply community. Because all of this and more is true --- because canon 603 is not a once-used-now-essentially-irrelevant law (unless of course, one transgresses it!) but something far more that opens onto the Divine, I continue to reflect on, pray with, and write about c 603.

On Reservation of the Eucharist as a Non-Canonical Hermit

[[I want to live out my life in [omitted]. I receive a good tax free income. I only have to taxi to pharmacy and occasional doctors. Groceries are delivered. I want to know if a priest is allowed to give me the Eucharist and allow me on my own to take one per day.]]

Hi there! Thanks for reaching out to me. Just FYI, I tried responding to this by email several times Sunday, but each time I received a message that you were over your quota on icloud. In case you are not receiving emails from others as well, please delete some of the backlog so you have some space for these. Sorry to put this note up here, but I am told it is the only way to reach you given the error message received. 

Meanwhile, it's great you are considering hermit life. Congratulations! It has often been a late stage of life vocation for people. Regarding your question, if you are not considering petitioning for consecration as a c 603 hermit, but making a private commitment, it would be more difficult to be given the privilege of reserving the Eucharist in your own hermitage, but it might not be impossible. Yes, a priest can give you Communion but generally speaking, he cannot give you Eucharist to take away with you; the reservation of Eucharist for a week's worth of Communions, would only be possible if your bishop gave you specific permission to do this. I don't know who your Bishop is, but if you could get your parish priest to assure him of the vitality of your faith and relationship with your parish, to help you out to make sure a space was properly set up to reserve the Eucharist in your hermitage, as well as to vouch for you more generally as well, your bishop might grant permission.

No promises, of course, but it seems to me it might be done with adequate oversight and pastoral assistance. However, what I usually suggest in situations similar to your own (including with candidates who are actually moving toward eventual c 603 profession and consecration) is that you instead enshrine the Sacred Scriptures in your prayer space and come more and more to live in light of the presence of Christ in the Word of God. This is a more traditional path for hermits while living with the reserved Eucharist is very new, especially made more prevalent with c 603 hermits. At the very least, this is something you can do now and continue to grow in as you read the Scriptures daily (something we are already permitted and encouraged to do) and while you seek permission from your bishop for the reservation of the Eucharist.

You see, if you were thinking of becoming a consecrated hermit the path to reserving the Eucharist in your own hermitage would be at least somewhat easier. In canonical consecration, the person's relationship with the Church is determined to be a clear and vibrant one while profession and consecration establish them in an ecclesial vocation. (This is part of what allowed St Peter Damian to speak of a hermit as ecclesiola and also one of the reasons candidates for consecration under c 603 wait until after profession and consecration to be able to reserve Eucharist in their own hermitage). Because eremitical solitude is about living alone with God in the heart of the Church for God's sake and the sake of others and not simply about living alone, this must be established before allowing someone to reserve the Eucharist and self-communicate. Eucharist, our most potent symbol of communion with God and one another, cannot be associated with mere isolation and separation from others. Whether you choose to petition to be professed as a canonical hermit or live as a non-canonical hermit by virtue of your baptism, the permission to reserve Eucharist and self-communicate would lie in the bishop's hands.

What is a Stable State of Life? (Reprise)

I am reprising the following article because of a couple of questions on the distinction between being consecrated and being consecrated in a stable state of life. I hope it is helpful!

[[Hi Sister, I was reading the Catechism and canon 603 because I was trying to understand the idea of a "stable state of life" or a "stable way of living". You have said more on this --- though indirectly ---than I could find elsewhere online. Could you please define what constitutes a "stable state of life" in Roman Catholic theology? How does it apply to your life as opposed to that of a lay hermit? Thanks.]]

Great question. I don't know why I haven't ever thought to write about this; a stable (or permanent) state of life is a core element in understanding the distinction between consecrated eremitical life and lay (or non-canonical) eremitical life. I am very grateful you asked this. I checked it out online and as you said, while it was part of every accurate definition of consecrated life (including consecrated eremitical life) there isn't much written about it that I could find. So let me try to make explicit what has been implicit in my writings on this and related topics.

Stable in this context means lasting, solid, established, and (relatively) secure. The necessary noun "state" means ä fixed and permanent mode of life, established (in and by the Church) to acquire or practice a certain virtue (e.g., perfection in the Christian Life, holiness, the evangelical counsels within religious life, etc). Implicit in these definitions when the two words are combined, is the sense that such a stable state signifies a recognized way God is working in the Church: ecclesial approval and mediation of God's call, canonical standing (standing in law), appropriate oversite, support, freedom, governance (legitimate superiors), and a formal (legitimate or canonical) commitment (say, to God via the evangelical counsels, for instance) by the one assuming the rights and obligations of the given state of life constitute this state as stable. The elements required for something to be considered a stable state of life tend toward structuring and extending to the individual life the elements necessary to truly pursue the given vocation in the name of the Church (and so, as a recognized representative of the vocation) with which the Church is entrusted. The Church recognizes several such states : Baptized or Lay, Married, Consecrated (Religious, Hermits, and Virgins), and Ordained. All require public commitments, whether Sacramental (Marriage and ordination) or via canonical profession and consecration (Religious, consecrated hermits, consecrated virgins).

When we begin to think about what makes a state of life in the Church a stable state we begin to understand why it is private vows per se never constitute the means to initiation into the consecrated state of life. They can be a significant part of the stable state of life we know as the baptized or lay state however, and they serve as significant (meaningful) specifications of one's baptismal consecration in this way. But in this case it is one's baptismal consecration into the lay state which defines one's stable state of life; private vows are expressions of that particular consecration but do not initiate one into it. Hence my references in many places to "lay hermits" --- hermits who live their vows in the baptized or lay state alone. In any case, private commitments, though often witnessed by a priest or spiritual director, are not actually received in the name of the Church or overseen by anyone in a formal or canonical way. There are no additional public rights or obligations, nor approved Rule the living out of which the Church as a whole is responsible for governing and supervising. Neither is there any process of mutual discernment by which one may be evaluated as to their capacity and suitability to assume the public rights and obligations of a given state (here I am thinking of the consecrated state), nor of methodical formation with such commitments.

 Moreover, private vows are easily dispensed precisely because of their private nature. In other words one may make private vow as a hermit (whether with serious thought or on a relative whim) one day and days later (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) decide one has made a mistake or circumstances may change which make the vows inconvenient or an obstacle to a greater or more fundamental call from God re one's lay state. The vows can be dispensed by one's pastor. Because of the lack of oversight, etc.. other problems can creep in. If the person does not decide they have made a mistake an individual living a private dedication to eremitical life, for instance, may decide to substitute their own private notions of eremitical spirituality, or live inconsistently given conditions of health, education, training, economics, etc. Even for the most sincere and well-intentioned individual, in a private commitment there is no authority to whom the individual is canonically answerable, no canonical constraints or ecclesial vision to which one has committed oneself to make sure the hermit in this case can make, has made, is keeping, and continues to (be empowered to) keep through the years an appropriate and maturing commitment which the Church herself could recognize as consistent with the eremitical tradition and as rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Canonical standing provides a context which is stable.

Remember that consecrated persons act (live this vocation) in the name of the Church (and also their founders and spiritual Tradition) and that gives the People of God their own rights and reasonable expectations about the quality of life being lived by the person who has been professed and/or consecrated. The people also have a right to turn to the person's legitimate superior if there are grounds for suggesting the vocation is being lived badly or there are scandalous or concerning circumstances involved. Of course this is true only because canonical vocations are public vocations. But think how important it is that such expectations and accountability add to the stability of genuinely consecrated vocations! Accountability itself is a central element of a stable or permanent state of life. It shapes the vocation, challenges and supports it. In a public (canonical) vocation where the vocation "belongs" first of all to the Church who is entrusted with this calling, and only secondarily to individuals called by God through the mediation of the Church, stability is a function of clear channels of authority and accountability. This does not mean these channels are heavy-handed, of course, but it does require them nonetheless.

One of the things I appreciate most about canonical standing is the way 
it establishes a person (or a community) in a living tradition in a way which means there is a clear and responsible dialogue ongoing between the individual, the Church, and the spiritual tradition involved. (This is true in religious families like the Franciscans, Dominicans, Trappist(ine)s, Benedictines, Camaldolese, etc. and it is true in eremitical life per se.) The continuing give and take as the consecrated person is granted and assumes a defined place in the living stream of eremitical tradition is tremendously edifying. The individual is formed in a given strand of the tradition and at the same time she will shape and extend the tradition with her own life. Edward Schillebeeckx writes about this powerfully in his essay on being a Dominican in God Among Us. A life that assumes this kind of responsibility, accountability, humility, and obedience has been initiated into a stable state of life that extends both behind and after her. She has taken a place within it and lives in a conscious and recognizable dialogue with and for this traditional thread, a thread which may have existed for two thousand years and stretches into whatever future the Church has. Private commitments which of their nature are truly entirely private (as opposed to public in the technical sense I use it throughout) simply do not do this.

The Church is a complex living reality. States of life within the Church have been some of the primary ways the Gospel has and continues to be proclaimed and ministry carried out; they are capable of being flexible and responsive to the needs of the world as a whole because they are also well-founded and rooted in a living tradition. Because of their stability (again, they are mutually discerned, publicly committed, ecclesially consecrated, governed and supervised) they can represent a way of life in away which teaches and inspires. When the congregation or individual requires assistance, when congregations reach the  end of their natural life, for instance, canonical standing allows for various creative ways to be sure their life and/or charism can be handed on and, eventually, their history entrusted to archives so scholars can research them and allow their life, a response to the Holy Spirit in a variety of circumstances, to be of continuing benefit to the Church and world.

With regard to the lives of diocesan hermits or publicly professed vs privately vowed hermits I think you can see where the Church will be able to follow and assess the phenomenon of solitary eremitical life beginning in the late 20C. She will be able to look at the Rules written by c 603 hermits, interview bishops professing and supervising them, speak with their delegates, parishes, and dioceses, and just generally provide the story of professed solitary hermits since 1983 according to c 603. Both as individuals and as a group these hermits will contribute to the eremitical tradition, to assessments of what formation was helpful or inadequate, to considering what time frames were associated with successful discernment and formation of eremitical lives, to considerations re protecting the hermit's requirements for support, modes and effectiveness of supervision, the place and nature of limited ministry in the lives of these hermits, and possibly -- to some extent -- the hermits' affect on their local church communities.

We will also more easily contribute to theologies of eremitical life that allow chronic illness as a witness to the way God's power is perfected in weakness, for instance, because some number of us are chronically ill and sought out eremitical life in part because of this. Because we are professed and consecrated into a stable (and public!) state of life, the witness value of our lives will take on greater import for the Church and world. Sometimes folks decry the canonical paper trail that is attached to the profession of the diocesan hermit; others treat it as merely pro forma and relatively meaningless. But the paper trail is a witness to and even part of the stability of the hermit's life and a key to appreciating and researching eremitical tradition not only in the 20-21C but in comparison with it throughout history.

On Living Lay Life in the Name of the Church

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you wrote that you do not write in the name of the Church and that you live eremitical life in the name of the Church. But isn't writing part of your life and isn't this blog a part of your life and ministry? It seems to me that there's no big jump in saying you write in the name of the Church. No? Too, I wondered if because I am a Catholic and because I am a lay person, is that what people (you!) mean when they talk about canonical standing or standing in law? Does that mean the Church has commissioned me to live lay life in her name?? I think that's incredible, awesome even!! I hadn't realized!]]

Great question, thanks!! When I say I don't write in the name of the Church I am being pretty literal. The Church did not consecrate me as a writer, nor did (she) commission me specifically to write. She consecrated me as a hermit and commissioned me to live a life of prayer and penance in the silence of solitude. Writing is one of the ways this life spills over into ministry, yes. Because writing is a really important part of my life and because I tend to write these days mainly about my exploration of c 603 and eremitical life, I can see where I might slide into thinking of my writing as part of my consecration and commissioning. It's a fine line, though, especially since my Director encourages at least some of my writing. Perhaps if my Bishop were to say I needed to write more, or in some way directly encouraged me to write, my position on this might change, but for now, what this all means for me is that I don't say I write in the name of the Church; instead, I live eremitical life in the name of the Church and writing is a part of that. Think of it this way, recreation and sleeping are also important parts of a healthy eremitical life, but strictly speaking, I don't say I recreate or sleep in the name of the Church!

Yes, you have standing in law as a lay person (or a person in the lay state)! If you married in the Church you also have standing in law as a married person. The Church gives certificates for the various stages or ecclesially significant moments regarding these things. You might not know this but your Church of Baptism keeps track of the various sacraments you have received and other ecclesial events in their own records. If you entered religious life and made vows, a record of that also goes to your Church of Baptism or home parish. If you (just for example) were divorced and received a decree of nullity, that too is kept not only in the chancery where it was given but also sent to your home parish and added to your baptismal record. If you are ordained a deacon or priest, the same thing happens. Thus, when someone writes for your baptismal certificate, they will receive notice of all the Sacraments you have received and any other events (e.g., ordinations, professions, and consecrations) that impact and may modify your standing in law.

And yes! so long as you have not been ordained, the Church has commissioned you to live lay life in her name. That is why you are called and able to call yourself a Catholic!! You live your entire life as part of the People of God (laos Theou) in the name of the Church. Whatever you do as a layperson redounds to the honor or dishonor of the faith and the Church. Simply being a Catholic layperson is indeed an awesome calling. Consider all of the ways lay persons bring the sensibilities, ethics, and Gospel of the Church to the world!! Their lives are far more varied than the lives of priests and religious and they truly are commissioned to be the Church for others in every walk of life.  The depth and import of this vocation have been diminished today. Vatican II wrote significantly of the universal call to holiness to urge us to appropriately honor the call to be laity. Some of the Church's earliest stories help in this. 

Remember St Perpetua (the patron saint of my own parish). Perpetua had not yet been baptized but was training for that when she was arrested for not worshipping the emperor. Imprisoned with other Christians, it became clear that she and they were in danger of death. ("Simply" having been baptized put one in danger of death because Christ became one's Lord and King!) Perpetua's father came to visit and asked her to recant any commitment to Christ. As the story goes, she refused, pointed to a water pitcher that could be nothing but a water pitcher, and told her father that neither could she be anything but what she was, a Christian. In that prison, while waiting for death, Perpetua was baptized into full communion in the Church. Later, after much courageous suffering including watching her father be beaten with rods to convince her to betray her faith, she died in the arena as a baptized Christian and martyr for Christ. She lived and died as a member of the People of God, a member of the laos or laity just as she had been commissioned to do in the Name of God and God's Church. So, is it incredible, awesome even? Absolutely!!

James Talarico on Christian Nationalism

Many know that Christian Nationalism is a plague on our world, and unfortunately,  on and in the United States. The problem is that while many of us understand at the gut level that it seems antithetical to Christianity, we may be unable to spell out why this is so.  James Talarico, Texas State Legislator and ministry student preparing to become a minister gives a great homily on Christian Nationalism as idolatrous, the central sin in both Old and New Testaments. Enjoy this! (The themes will be familiar for folks who have read posts here for any length of time.)

Followup Question on Crash Course Post

[[Dear Sister O'Neal,  were you afraid some people would believe that because they can't be Catholic hermits and want to be hermits anyway, that they believed they couldn't be Catholic anymore either? That is what it sounded like. I wouldn't have believed anyone would interpret things that way, but I am really glad for the lesson in the difference between non-canonical and illegal!! Also, I liked the added examples about the difference between a police officer living in San Mateo and a San Mateo police officer. Those were helpful. Thanks for that!!]]

Hi there! You're welcome! Yes, I had heard a recording of someone concluding that because she could not call herself either a consecrated or a Catholic hermit and wanted to remain a hermit (because she experienced this as a call from God), she thought she couldn't be a Catholic any longer either. She felt she would be an illegal hermit, which was not true. I definitely didn't want her to believe either of these things! She had just apparently come to terms with the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church only canonical hermits are consecrated, or better, are in the consecrated state of life, and may therefore call themselves Catholic hermits, but this other bit seemed to be a bridge too far; I didn't want a misunderstanding causing her to leave the Church she loves. And, apart from her situation, people must get a sense of what it means for a hermit (and others) to live an ecclesial vocation in the name of the Church. 

One can be professed, consecrated, and commissioned by the Church to do this as a c 603 hermit, or a member of an eremitical or semi-eremitical institute of consecrated life, but one can also live as a Catholic AND a hermit in the lay or non-canonical state. That has always been the predominant way of being a hermit, even when bishops were approving some hermits to wear hermit tunics and preach or anchorites to live in the midst of town. The most important examples of hermits in the Church's history, one could argue, are the Desert Abbas and Ammas; I don't think the Church is going to declare them to be outside the Church simply because they were non-canonical or not overseen by a bishop!! Canon 603 provides a normative vision for all eremitical life in the Church, but living under this canon, "in law," is not the only way to live eremitical life in the Church today and we should not make the mistake of thinking it is, particularly if we take seriously that there are many members and many gifts in this One Body.

A Crash Course in the Language of things Canonical and Non-Canonical

 Recently questions and misunderstandings came up about the meaning and implications of the term non-canonical. I have written about this before and added a postscript to my follow-up post on why God wills many forms of hermit life in the Catholic Church. I also wrote about it four years ago when a non-canonical hermit suggested she had discovered she was illegal and perhaps couldn't even think of herself as Catholic. 

But, it seems the lesson was never really internalized. I am going to come at it again now for two reasons: 1) it is a terrible and very costly error to believe that because one is non-canonical and cannot call oneself a Catholic hermit, one cannot be a Catholic if one wants to remain a hermit or that one cannot be a hermit if one wants to remain a Catholic, and 2) if one person is making this error, others may also be making or being led to make it as well. So here is the basic question, does non-canonical mean illegal? The answer is no, it does not!!  Here is one place it is probably more helpful to think of canons as norms rather than laws, (I am not denying canons are laws, but the use of the word law and its cognates (illegal, illicit, unlawful, etc.) in this context is seriously misleading. If we think of canons as norms, the opposite of having them apply is not being illegal, but being unbound by, or free of them. To be a non-canonical hermit is to be free of the specific canonical rights and obligations that bind a canonical hermit.)

When we are baptized into the Church certain norms of the universal Church apply to us automatically. We are, by virtue of our baptism, Catholics, and we have the right to call ourselves Catholic. That right and others come with baptism as do certain obligations, the requirement that we attend Mass on Sundays, follow the laws of fasting and abstinence, go to confession once a year in case of mortal sin, etc. In other words, at baptism we are admitted to the lay state of life and like all new states of life it is a public vocation with pertinent canonical rights and obligations. We do not lose these rights and obligations so long as we are in the baptized state. In this sense, though we don't usually speak this way, baptism makes us canonical; it causes us to be bound by certain norms or canons corresponding to specific rights and obligations that belong to every person in the Church in virtue of Baptism.

As laity, every baptized Catholic can pursue all kinds of avenues of life including the eremitical life. However if one makes vows on one's own, private vows, even if encouraged and witnessed by someone in authority in the Church, they are a private matter not a public one. No additional public rights or obligations, no additional norms or canons bind this person in law. Suppose the vows are associated with living as a hermit (including the evangelical counsels!). In that case, the person is a Catholic and a Hermit, but they are NOT Catholic Hermits (more about this below). They are bound by all the canons that bound them upon baptism, no more, no less. In other words, when we speak of these hermits as non-canonical we do so because they live eremitical life without additional canons that bind them in law, whether c 603 or those appropriate to religious institutes. 

Some persons seek to live as consecrated hermits, either as part of a community or as solitary consecrated hermits. Each option is a public and ecclesial vocation requiring the Church's approval for admittance to public profession and consecration, and each of these fall under its own set of new canons beyond those associated with the lay state. For those whose profession is received by the Church in a public rite, they become canonical hermits. New Canons beyond those binding at baptism become legally binding on these hermits. For this reason, they are called canonical hermits. Canonical is a shorthand term for bound by (additional) canons or norms. Non-canonical is a shorthand term for unbound by additional canons or norms. Because the Church acting in God's name consecrates them in the hands of the Bishop they are consecrated hermits. And finally, because canonists point out that because of c 603, the category of religious life now applies to people with no relation to an institute of consecrated life, these hermits are considered Religious. Canon 603 hermits are Catholic Hermits and live the eremitical life in the name of the Church. They are specifically commissioned by the Church to be and do this because the gift of this vocation belongs first of all to the Church and only secondarily to the individual hermit. 

This emphatically does NOT mean that privately vowed hermits are illegal!! They live this vocation privately rooted in their own discernment and dedication under the same norms every baptized Christian is bound by; they do not consecrate themselves nor live this vocation as a public representative of the eremitical life in the Catholic Church. The Church has not entrusted them with this calling nor have they embraced the rights and obligations associated with a public and ecclesial vocation. However, they remain Catholics living a private eremitical life. They are, as one friend said, hermit (or eremitic) Catholics but they are NOT Catholic Hermits because the latter means they live this life in the name of the Church. 

(By the way, once again, by way of illustration, I do not write in the name of the Church nor do I teach Scripture or theology in her name. I am not and cannot call myself a Catholic theologian, though the theology I do is profoundly Catholic. To do theology as a Catholic Theologian requires a pontifical degree (not just a PhD or a ThD from a Catholic College, University, or Theological School) and a mandatum to teach in the Church's name. 

Deus Meus et Omnia! The Feast of Saint Francis!!

The first two pictures here are taken of one of the small side chapel niches at Old Mission Santa Barbara. The first one shows the entire sculpture setting with statues of St Francis and St Clare along with the San Damiano Cross in the background. The second is a close up of a portion of this setting which I have used before; it was a gift given to me on this Feast Day [several years ago now] and is my favorite statue of St Francis. The third stands in the (private) covenant courtyard of the Mission and is another contemporary rendering through which a Father (sculptor) worked out his grief over the loss of his son.

Today St Francis' popularity and influence (inspiration!) is more striking than it has been in a very long time. We see it animating a relatively new Pope to transform the Church in light of Vatican II and to live a simple Gospel-centered life just as Francis of Assisi was inspired by God to do. We see it in the renewed emphasis of the Church on evangelization and ecumenism where the One God who stands behind all true religious impulses is honored while he is proclaimed most fully and revealed with the most perfect transparency in the crucified Christ. We see it in a renewed sense of the cosmic Christ and in a growing sensitivity to the sacredness and interconnectedness of all creation.  Saint Francis lived the truth of the Gospel with an honesty, transparency (poverty), and integrity which captures the imagination of everyone who meets him in some significant way -- something that happens for so many in his papal namesake. This saint inspires a hope and joy that only the God who overcomes death and brings eternal life through an unconditional mercy and love that does justice could do. He renews our hope in Christ that our own Church and world might well reveal the glory of this God as they are meant to do. Saint Francis is a gift to the Church in ways which are hard to overstate.

On this Day dedicated to Saint Francis of Assisi I feel privileged to celebrate this great man (saint) and all those who go by the name of Franciscan. In particular I celebrate friends and Sisters like Ilia Delio whose book, Making All Things New, I am reading right now --- and which I highly recommend! [It is as readable as her books on Saint Clare, Franciscan Prayer, or The Humility of God and explores some of the theological implications of an unfinished universe and the "new cosmology. What is "new" here is that she does so with regard to classic topics more typically associated with the whole history of systematic or dogmatic theology (e.g., the nature of Catholicity and the Church, the last things, putting on the Mind of Christ, etc).]  I also especially give thanks for Pope Francis, a shepherd so clearly inspired by Saint Francis and the Crucified Christ. . .. Our world is simply a better place with a more truly Christian presence, sensibility, and spirit because of Saint Francis and those who seek to live his way. 

In my own life I am watching as God makes all things new as well! It is exciting, not only to see the efforts of long years come together, but to watch as the mutual efforts with my Directors pay off in growing wholeness, energy, and creativity. I never heard God call me to rebuild his Church, of course. What I heard was his delight over my perception of the beauty of c 603 and a call to explore it and make it understood! And I am starting to see glimmers of the beginning of that happening. With my Scripture class we are exploring a theology that was new for the class when we did Romans, and that stresses not heaven, but the new heaven and earth that is our ultimate goal and God's ultimate promise to us in Christ. That means we are also looking at the reshaping of the Church in terms of working for the coming of the Kingdom that will exist beyond life after death. As NT Wright puts the matter, we are not working toward life after death, but rather life after life after death when God will be all in all and all creation is brought to fullness!!

Peace and all Good to my Franciscan Sisters and Brothers!!

Picture of the crucifix is of a painting by Rev Arthur Poulin, OSB Cam. Fr Arthur is formerly a Franciscan and transferred to the Camaldolese. His painting style is unique and recognizable. In this one, we see the crucified and risen Christ and what looks like it could be the coastline around Big Sur's New Camaldoli Hermitage. It hangs in the chapel at Incarnation Monastery in Berkeley.

Isn't "Solitary Hermit" Redundant?

[[Sister Laurel, why do you say "solitary eremitical life"? Isn't that redundant? I mean hermits are solitary aren't they, so why both words, solitary and hermit?]]

Good questions!! No, it's not redundant. Canon 603 was created for solitary hermits, not hermits in a community of hermits. The Church has other ways to establish communities, whether of hermits or not. Solitary hermits under c 603 write their own Rules of Life and they may live in lauras of hermits, that is, colonies of hermits so long as these do not rise to the level of a community with a single Rule, single purse, community superior, single spirituality, etc. There are a number of posts about this under the labels "lauras" and "solitary eremitical vocations", so please check those out! One of these includes comments from a canonist, Therese Ivers, so that is especially helpful, I think.

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.