The Importance of the Lay Eremitical Vocation, Followup Questions

[[Sister Laurel, 
      is there some way to live as a lay hermit and ALSO do so, as you put it, 'in the name of the Church'? One of the problems I have is that the Church does not seem to know lay hermits exist. I don't think it is a vocation that is regarded by the Church. I guess I am asking if there is a way to avoid all the institutional red tape and requirements of canon 603 and also have the Church really CARE about lay hermits! It seems to me if the Church  herself really esteemed lay hermits it would be a lot easier for people to accept that maybe this is what they are called to.]]


I think these are really excellent questions! My response to the first one is, unfortunately, no, I don't think there is any way to live this "in the name of the Church" in the sense of a special commissioning and consecration. But one still lives it by virtue of one's baptism and that particular commissioning  ---  that is, one lives it in light of the rights and obligations granted by baptism and so, one will be a part of exploring a contemporary form of life in the tradition of the desert Fathers and Mothers. 

If one really wants to live the eremitical vocation per se "in the name of the Church" then one should pursue Canon 603 profession and consecration. I personally chose to do so especially because I thought the way God had worked in my own life added something special to the witness to the silence of solitude, namely, the redemption of the isolation related to chronic illness, and other similar situations. This was something I felt needed to be witnessed to in the Church in a more official way. Without public vows I felt somewhat "unfree" in this regard. I also chose to do so because I had lived vowed life and desired to continue living vows I had come to love but to do so now in a solitary
eremitical context. Without these two reasons I could have lived as a lay hermit without any substantive difference between that life and the one I live now. The presence of these two particular reasons suggested to me that God was calling me to pursue Canon 603 profession and consecration for  reasons that had nothing to do with status nor with believing it was a "higher vocation," or something similar.

Your desire to avoid all the red tape of Canon 603 is understandable. Many lay hermits object to the various requirements, time frames, discernment processes, supervision, and other things that seem to them to constrict the degree of freedom they need within their lives. Although I don't agree with them in this I can understand their point of view. What seems to be important in your questions and desires is for the Church to really esteem the lay eremitical vocation. The question is how does one achieve this? The problem is that there is a bit of a vicious circle here, namely, lay persons won't generally embrace eremitical life unless the Church esteems it and at the same time the Church will not esteem it in more than principle if folks are not living it in exemplary ways. So who breaks the stalemate? It has to be lay hermits --- just as was the case for those desiring the eventual promulgation of canon 603. After all, the Church officially esteems both lay life and the eremitical life; she stresses the freedom and responsibility of lay persons to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit in living out their vocations. She is open to seeing how lay vocational experiments really work and has learned important lessons from the desert Fathers and Mothers, so what more encouragement do lay hermits need?

A lay hermit could well live an eremitical life in the midst of her parish. She could reflect on the life, its significance, nature, etc and write about that. She could contribute on the parish or diocesan levels or she could begin a blog and write about the eremitical life, the importance of its counter-cultural witness and the ways she personally lives it out. And of course, she could be an encouraging and even inspiring presence to those in their parishes that had to live some forms of isolated existence due to illness, age, or other problematical circumstances. This could include modeling significant ways to live the evangelical counsels as all baptized are called to do even though the person does not have public vows and it might even include demonstrating the importance of a Rule of Life for any person attempting to live a truly Gospel life. All of this and more could be done better than a canonical hermit might well be able to do because the diocesan hermit is (or is often perceived to be) distanced to some extent by virtue of her canonical standing. What is important is that this be a true lay life lived from the graces of baptism in ways which speak profoundly and powerfully to every segment of the Church. it would be a vocation which had listened attentively to Vatican II's teaching on the laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem) and on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) and addressed the necessary contemplative dimension of implementing these documents in the contemporary church and world.

If persons in the lay state of life could do this and effectively accent the generosity and love which compelled them to live this vocation, they would also go a long way to free the notion of eremitical life from stereotypes and distortions. Their lives would also underscore the notion that religious are not called to a higher form of holiness than the laity, and that contemplative life and some degree of the silence of solitude is important, indeed, foundational to all states of Christian life. Finally, if lay persons could do this they would go a long way towards assisting the whole Church to realize the goals and values of Vatican II. The hierarchy would come to appreciate the vocation and, more to the point perhaps, pastors would begin encouraging the (at least experimental) living of it in those they felt or even suspected were called to it. 

On the Significance of the Lay Eremitical Vocation --- Revisiting the Question

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I have returned to thinking I am a lay hermit, and nothing more, and though God can work miracles in our lives and does marvelous things we could not foresee, at this moment I don't see anything so grandiose [as being admitted to profession as a canon 603 hermit] happening in my life. My life is marvelous in itself, and I try in all humility to bury myself in His will, not thinking anything of myself as being in the least special at all. I feel that God has consecrated me, but any consecration the Church would do would have to be as a consecrated lay man, and I still don’t see any provision in Canon Law for such a state; perhaps you can clarify what other options may exist of which I am unaware.]]

Hi there,

      By way of introduction and since you have read this blog for a while let me suggest you and newer visitors reread some of the pieces on the importance and nature of the lay vocation and the lay eremitical vocation. I don't want to repeat everything I have said in those but I feel a need to reiterate some of it as in a partial response. 

First though,  let me say that I understand the pain you feel at desiring eremitical consecration and the difficulties of waiting on a diocese to respond to your request. You are new at living eremitical life (just two years or less) with no background in religious life; it ordinarily takes much more time to discern this vocation, much less to be allowed to live it in the name of the church. I also went through the hassle of long waiting periods,a sometimes unresponsive diocese, occasional fearful and controlling chancery personnel, lost files, mislaid letters, and so forth. It was not always easy and I almost found other ways to live my gifts from time to time, but in patient prayer and reflection I also came to see that lay eremitical life was an immensely valuable vocation and if that was what God was calling me to, then perhaps I was meant to learn to appreciate this more than I had come to already.

I will take issue with some of what you said and applaud some other things. First, any sentences referring to being a lay hermit and using words like "just" or "only" or "nothing more" to describe this are dead wrong and may well indicate you have not yet come to completely see how truly wonderful is the vocation to be a lay hermit or the way in which your life can speak to those right around you and the Church as a whole. You ARE consecrated. That happened for you at Baptism. I think you need to consider that part of what you are feeling is the reality of your baptismal CONSECRATION. There is no need for a separate vocation to be a "consecrated lay person" since lay persons ARE, by definition, consecrated or they would not be part of the laos, the laity, or People of God. I strongly suggest that part of what God may be calling you to is a stronger, clearer sense of the dignity and significance of an eremitical vocation lived in the lay state.

It is true this is not the same as being called to the consecrated state of life, but because there is nothing higher or more sacred than baptism which makes of us a new creation and calls us to an exhaustive holiness, neither therefore can we say that the consecrated state of life is a higher calling nor that the lay state is some sort of merely entrance-level vocation. As I have said many times here, these two states of life are different in their canonical rights and obligations, but neither is higher than the other. The language of objective superiority which Aquinas used does NOT translate in this way and Aquinas seemed to assiduously avoid implications of vocational inferiority or a lower vocation. I would urge you to drop any qualifying language which diminishes the dignity of the lay state or the significance of lay eremitical life. Whether or not this stage of your life leads to diocesan eremitical life it is an infinitely significant vocation and the model you are currently given to live out for all those persons living around you, many of whom are isolated elderly or chronically ill, etc, and need to be reassured of the significant value of their lives.

This week we begin the 50 year anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II and one of the most important pieces of theology it fostered was on the dignity of the lay vocation and the universal call to holiness. One of the challenges the Church still must accomplish is a move to implement this dimension of the Second Vatican Council consistently, completely. Ironically, that achievement falls MAINLY to lay persons to claim and make real! You can do this right now, without waiting for the Church to admit you to profession under canon 603. You write: [[Nor can I really speak with any authority, never having been a novice, professed monk, or anything more than just a layman. I do not want to be an "outlaw" or rebel of any kind, but the existence of people like myself means God is anything but done with moving among men to bring redemption to them by any means possible.]]

But the truth is while you do not have the training provided by religious life you do have authority. You are a baptized lay person living (and learning to live) an eremitical life and coming more and more to understand what doing so means for those living in the world you inhabit all the time. You can speak to THIS vocation and this world with a particular authority and credibility I might myself have relinquished in accepting canonical standing. What I mean by this is that my own life is separated from those around me, not merely by eremitical life, but by my canonical standing. While I am very keen on witnessing to isolated elderly, chronically ill persons who are isolated by their illness, and others who may discover that eremitical life could redeem their isolation, In the past few years I have come to realize that lay hermits might well be able to speak with greater credibility to these people than someone with different standing in canon law. I suspect this may be a special charism which lay hermits have especially; that is, I think this may be a gift of the Holy Spirit which lay hermits bring to both the Church and the world in ways canonical hermits may not be as effective in bringing.

But doing this means taking the fact and dignity of one's baptismal consecration with complete seriousness. Of course God is not done bringing people to redemption in Christ by any means possible; you are absolutely correct in this, but the primary, essential, or foundational way God does this is through baptism. Bringing the charism mentioned above  to the Church and world also means reflecting on the place eremitical solitude occupies in your own life. When you can speak clearly to yourself about what these mean you will come to appreciate what they mean or could mean in the lives of others around you. You could begin blogging about this perhaps, or finding ways at your own parish to speak about it. You have begun this process already. In what you wrote above you said, [[My life is marvelous in itself, and I try in all humility to bury myself in His will, not thinking anything of myself as being in the least special at all.]] I applaud the first part of this sentence  --- for your life is indeed marvelous in itself. But you are entirely special and so is your call. All of us, by virtue of our birth and then again by virtue of our baptism and rebirth in Christ are infinitely significant and ultimately special. Genuine humility actually recognizes this and genuine spirituality is a grateful response to it. 

I ask that you try to imagine how many people who were once catechized and inculturated to believe that vocations to the lay state were second or third class vocations and yearn to really serve God in a "special" way would welcome hearing from a lay hermit that they simply have to recognize the truth of their lives as they stand right now! During this year of Faith where we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Vatican II and renew our commitments to its achievements this could be quite a gift for you to bring to the Church and world in your own unique way! In fact, in a Church where we once again have a growing clericalism and similar forms of hardening elitism it may be a critical mission God has given you. At this point in time you are a lay hermit and nothing less!! It is a crucial vocation. Whatever the future holds for you in regard to canon 603, the only thing which can diminish this lay eremitical vocation is appreciating it inadequately and living it badly. I urge you to embrace it as an infinitely significant vocation and really make it your own.

I will respond to other parts of your email as time allows, especially to those parts which make observations based on the situation outlined in my post on the diocesan hermit in the Archdiocese of Boston. In the meantime I ask that you look again at earlier posts reiterating the significance of baptismal consecration.

Implications of Abuses of Canon 603 on the Diocesan Level

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
you have written that Canon 603 hermits are solitary hermits and that while they can come together in a laura, they cannot form a community in the proper sense. You have also written that canon 603 is not meant to be a stopgap means of achieving profession on the way to another vocation. While all that makes sense to me isn't it true that the Archdiocese of Boston has a diocesan hermit perpetually professed in 2005 who is now the superior general (Mother) of a new community? Are you aware of the situation I am currently speaking of? I am from Boston and was confused at this Sister's approach to eremitical life. You may remember I wrote you back then. But given what you have written about using c 603 as a stopgap means of profession and other things, I am now even more confused. Can you clarify things for me?]] (Redacted for this blog)

Thanks for your letter. I do remember your email from about two or three years ago. While I did not write about the situation specifically here (at least not by name of Archdiocese), it was one of the reasons I subsequently wrote posts about c 603 misuses and abuses, the use of Canon 603 as a stopgap means to profession, etc. (cf, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Solutions to Using C 603 as a Stopgap way to Profession)  At the time the situation you ask about raised a lot of questions and as I may have mentioned then, your own were not the only ones I received. What was at issue then was a diocesan hermit who was working full time as head of campus ministry at Boston University and later became Chaplain for the University's student body. Now, to be very clear, Sister Olga had an amazing background, was much-loved, worked very hard and, as I have noted before, is someone I would personally be really privileged to know. The problem then was that she was no hermit, despite being professed under canon 603. Since admission to profession under canon 603 was not her decision or responsibility, I cannot point to her as the source of the problem. Instead, it seems to me that it is more likely that she became caught up in something that was not truly right for her or for the solitary eremitical vocation under canon 603.  The responsibility for professions under canon 603 falls ultimately to the (Arch)diocesan (Arch)Bishop.

Looking at Sister Olga's Story:

A little of Sister Yaqob's story is important --- not least because it points up the exceptional person she is. Sister Olga had come here to study from Iraq. She was not Roman Catholic but had begun a congregation of Sisters in the Assyrian Church of the East. After she came here she became a Roman Catholic. However, this was something of a problem since she could not remain a professed religious in light of this change of affiliation. Canon law had two and only two options she might have pursued which deal with the consecration of individuals apart from communities. The first was canon 604, the canon for consecrated virgins living in the world. In such a case, however, the CV is not a Sister, does not have public vows, does not wear distinguishing garb, etc. She belongs to the order of Consecrated Virgins, but is not a religious and cannot begin a religious congregation. The only other option was and is Canon 603. However, this canon governs solitary eremitical life, not merely any form of pious solitary living. As you and others made clear, it seemed to everyone looking on that Sister Olga, who once claimed the term "hermit" as a "metaphor for her life", was not living an eremitical life. A description of her life noted that she set Saturdays aside for contemplative prayer and solitude and mainly worked full time at the University in a highly social job.

For whatever reason, her Archbishop had professed her in 2005 under canon 603 then, and this raised serious questions for others all around the country and the world. Some dioceses heard from people who wanted to make vows, wear a habit, and work full time outside the "hermitage" (residence) in a similar way. They were completely comfortable committing to one day of contemplative prayer per week, never mind the LIFE the canon demanded, and some had had experiences which isolated them so that they felt okay about using the term hermit as a metaphor for their lives --- just as Sister Olga had characterized  her own life. Bishops mainly refused to admit them to profession under canon 603, and rightly so.

Yet this raised serious questions for those wishing to become canon 603 hermits.  I  received several questions, letters, or emails from people wondering how, if an Archbishop could profess a person involved in full-time ministerial activity as a University chaplain as Sister Olga certainly was, their own Bishops could refuse to profess them because they were "not living an eremitical life" or needed to work full time outside the hermitage. One of these persons was living an essentially eremitical life but still needed to work alone at nights outside the hermitage. It was a difficult situation. Still, some were professed and so today we have "hermits" living primarily non-contemplative lives given mainly to active apostolates instead of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance and stricter separation from the world. The precedent was destructive and even yet threatens the vocation itself --- a vocation canon 603 was designed to protect and nurture. Thus, it continues to be problematical.

Where we Stand Today

Current descriptions of Sister Olga's life today mention her perpetual profession in 2005 but they do not mention that her vows were made under Canon 603 nor that she was (and perhaps still is) professed therefore as a diocesan hermit. It may be that her eremitical vows were dispensed, but apparently no new public vows have been made. It sounds like the Archdiocese has decided to allow the entire diocesan hermit portion of Sister Olga's life and profession to slide into the oblivion of forgetfulness in order to avoid further stumbling blocks for folks both within and outside her diocese. However, the situation still raises significant problems canonically and a number of questions are left unanswered by such silence and obscurantism.

You see, diocesan hermits cannot allow their lives to morph into ministerial religious lives. There is often a constant pressure to do more active ministry for one's parish or diocese and most of us feel some pain or regret in needing to say no (or to fail to offer to serve in various ways) because we have embraced a contemplative vocation to solitude which is much less understood and whose value is much less evident to those around us. This example of the Archdiocese of Boston thus makes living c 603 with eremitical integrity much harder for those of us who are tempted to become more active in a directly ministerial way. At the same time, c 603 hermits cannot (as I have been told at least) simply transfer their vows to a congregation. They must be dispensed from them, discern another vocation and then be admitted to vows within the congregation according to universal canonical procedures and time frames.

In fact, diocesan hermits cannot even move to a new diocese without the permission of both ordinaries involved. Though they are diocesan hermits wherever they visit and anywhere in the Church, their professions are very specific and circumscribed by a form of diocesan stability. And, though this second point (moving) is not directly applicable to Sister Olga's situation it points to the narrow constraints involved in Canon 603 profession and of course it could become significant should Sister Olga Yaqob seek to leave Boston as her new community grows. After all, if her vows are still canon 603 vows, then a new Bishop will be placed in the position of accepting a non-hermit living according to a canon governing eremitical life. Consider the precedents and questions this would raise in the new diocese!!!


As it apparently stands, the situation in Boston also raises the issues of hypocrisy and non-comp-liance: namely, if a diocesan hermit ceases to live an eremitical life she can (and should) certainly be dispensed from her vows. That remains true even if one discerns and embraces a new and different vocation to ministerial religious life . One has still ceased being a hermit and is living as though they are no longer bound by either an eremitical Rule or eremitical vows nor by the canon governing such vocations. How can one ask the Bishop of a new Diocese to merely accept such a situation (and the person's vows) and turn a blind eye? How can one ask a  new incoming Archbishop to do something similar?

And what of other newly-fledged congregations who would like to take short cuts in becoming canonical? Should canon 603 be used to profess at least the superior/moderator of such congregations? Why not if it was once appropriate in  the Archdiocese of Boston and there is still someone living out public vows made under canon 603 but now doing so as the founder of a new community? Why pay attention to expert commentators on c 603 and its history and nature, who note lauras are permissible but that these should not rise to the level of communities? Why not simply use c 603 as a stopgap means to profession for any and all individuals desiring admission to public vows never mind whether they live anything remotely resembling eremitical life? Why, that is, should we not simply turn a blind eye to the gift of the Holy Spirit which c 603 seeks to nurture, govern, and protect?

Protecting against the Repetition of this Situation

As part of the hermit's own vow formula, some dioceses require the specification that these vows are made as a part of responding to the grace of a solitary eremitical vocation.  The wisdom of this requirement is clearer to everyone involved with the canon as time goes on. Further, since canon 603 governs solitary eremitical vocations which allow for coming together in lauras but not the establishment of communities per se, it seems clear that a hermit should be dispensed from her vows in order to begin a community. Further, as one dispensed from her vows she cannot ordinarily simply begin a canonical foundation. Not only does she cease to be a vowed religious in such an instance, but ordinarily, any community she begins will need to move through the same stages any other aspiring group needs to move through: private association of the faithful, public association of the faithful, and, if all goes well over time, institute of consecrated life. This process is not only codified in law but reflects simple prudence.

Because of all these factors the extraordinary situation in Boston is still a thorn bush of difficulties. It is understandable, I think, that 1) Sister Olga dropped the pretense of being a hermit to fully affirm the truth of what she is apparently more truly called to, and 2) the Archdiocese of Boston has allowed all this to merely slip from view and memory by focusing  (a) on the fact of vows while omitting the fact that they were solitary eremitical (c 603) vows and  (b) on the new community. Diocesan hermits and others, however, are interested in and perhaps could be said to have a right to know how the situation is resolved canonically because this has significant implications for how the diocesan eremitical life is lived out concretely.

The primary reason for bringing all this up is to make sure that canon 603 is never misused in this manner again. Sister Olga (or Mother Olga as she is now known) is an exceptional person (and apparently an exceptional religious) and it makes sense that the Archbishop of Boston was particularly open to accommodating her in some way -- especially given her history, her faith and people skills, and her ethnic background and skills in Arabic language and Iraqi culture. I very much appreciate the integrity Sister Yaqob has personally shown in leaving the diocesan hermit designation behind. However, professing her using canon 603 was a serious mistake which threatened the diocesan eremitical vocation in the process.

The secondary reason for bringing this situation up then is because the canonical questions it raised are still with us and require answers. Similarly, the pastoral questions it raises are also significant and, in part, will only be answered over time with the education of the episcopacy and church as a whole regarding the nature of the solitary eremitical vocation along with a history of well-discerned professions which ensure the integrity of the life which canon 603 governs. At some point the Archdiocese of Boston also needs to clarify publicly how they resolved this situation. Sister Olga's eremitical profession could have been determined to be invalid, for instance, but if that proved to be the case then what is the canonical standing of Sister Olga now and what precedent does her situation vis-a-vis the new community set for other aspiring founders and communities? Aspiring hermits? Remember, Sister Yaqob cannot have made canonical vows as an individual under any canon but 603. Again, the situation is a thorn bush of difficulties and unresolved questions.

I know this doesn't really clarify what is largely still obscure for many of us, but hope this is of some help.

Rules of Life: Why are they required for Diocesan Hermits but not for Consecrated Virgins?

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
      why does a diocesan hermit write a Rule of Life when a consecrated virgin does not? As I understand it from what you have written, hermits are required to write a Rule of Life. Why aren't CV's required to do so in the same way? Is their vocation less significant? Less important?]]

Interesting questions and not ones I have been asked before. I am not sure I can answer why a virgin conse-crated under canon 604 (a consecrated virgin living in the world) is not required to write or live according to a Rule but I know why a hermit MUST write and live by one. Let me start there.

Remember that a Rule functions is two main ways. First, it provides a vision of  Gospel life rooted in both the eremitical tradition and also in the hermit's own story and experience. This vision honors both the past and the present. It allows the more abstract idea of hermit life to be lived in a concrete contemporary context. Since the hermit turns to the Rule frequently it serves as a touchstone to remind her of the way God has worked in history and especially in the Christ Event; it reminds her of how God has worked in her own life and in the lives of other hermits while it also affirms the way God needs to work though solitary hermits in the life of the Church and world today.

Besides reminding the hermit of these things, the Rule inspires her to persevere and live her vocation with integrity. It is especially important to have something like this when one's life is largely self-directed and counter-cultural. As I have noted before, on the negative side of things, the slide into mediocrity and lack of integrity is a very easy and quick one when one lives alone with only God as a companion. It is SO easy to let this prayer period or that period of lectio or journaling or study slide, to allow the silence of solitude which is not only the essential environment but also the goal of the life to be replaced instead by days of some silence and some solitude which allow one simply to relax and kick back.  On the more positive side of things, it is easy to embrace other goods (choices for life with others, ministry to others, etc) which have a clear Gospel value and significance but which also may eventually lead one away from an eremitical life; the value of eremitical life is not always easy to see clearly when faced with such immediate needs and goods. A Rule presents the hermit with a vision of reality which is eremitical, a rare and mainly misunderstood life which is defined in  terms of the silence of solitude, not merely a life of peace and quiet lived alone, and it reminds her how desperately the world and church needs her witness to the value of such a life.

Secondly, the Rule functions in a legislative sense. It is law as well as Gospel and the hermit is bound canonically to live it well. She has a vow of obedience and the Rule serves the living out of this and the other vows of poverty and chastity as well. Besides the Gospel-rooted and eremitical vision of reality the Rule provides, it spells out the daily ways in which the hermit embodies these in her own concrete situation. Does she pray the Divine Office? Which Hours? When does she pray quietly and contemplatively? How does she live out poverty or chastity or obedience? What limited ministry does she do outside the hermitage? How does she ensure this does not threaten a life of the silence of solitude? What activities does she undertake outside the hermitage and when? With whom? How does she support herself, take care of health care, funeral and other kinds of needs?

The ways these are spelled out need not (and, in fact, should not be) in picayune detail or without room for flexibility, but there must be a basic listing of concrete obligations which are part of this particular hermit's living her vocation well. In negotiating the challenges and opportunities which come to her through parish community, friends, pastor, and so forth, this dimension of the Rule provides a baseline for serious reflection and consideration. Always it summons her back to the fundamental commitments and requirements of a HEALTHY life, and more, a healthy eremitical life of stricter separation from the world even as it frees her to respond within limits to new and legitimate challenges and opportunities to love and minister. Without the vision the Rule provides, however, there would be no way to achieve a faithful flexibility with regard to concrete obligations or to deal with the task of negotiating the challenges and opportunities that come her way.

More fundamentally, without the Rule the hermit is more than apt to simply become a more or less pious person living alone. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it is not what she is called to nor is it the life or witness  so many who are isolated by age or illness or circumstances need today. Bereft of an overarching vision and mission she may become individualistic and even narcissistic in the way she lives physical solitude. More positively she may commit to any ministerial request that comes her way imprudent as that may be. She may say yes to many goods and commit to love in ways which are necessary and typical for most Sisters but which also will make her something other than a hermit. As I have noted before negotiating this particular set of tensions between goods IS an inescapable piece of her vocation and she ought not eschew it.  Still, she needs some assistance in negotiating it effectively and with integrity. The Rule essentially ensures that whatever she does, whether in cell or outside the hermitage she will do as a hermit.

Now, what about consecrated Virgins? Why no required Rule for them? My own sense is that a CV can be a CV anywhere in any situation and may indeed be called to that. Whether active or contemplative she can embody the mission of  the consecrated Virgin living in the world. She may well commit to praying certain Hours of the Divine Office, periods of quiet prayer, and so forth, and she may certainly benefit from living some sort of Rule, but she lives this calling "in the world" and that requires a kind of responsiveness to the everyday give and take, demands and invitations of the secular world which hermits are not called to.  Of course it is absolutely not the case that the hermit life is more important or significant, but it is radically different, witnesses especially to a vastly different group of people,  and in its own way, is less flexible and far more fragile. Thus both diocesan hermits and CV's can benefit from a Rule but for the c 603 hermit it really is indispensable; hence I think c 603 is wise in requiring it.

I hope this helps.

On Divine Paradox: The God who is truly New because he is Eternal and Unchanging

I had a conversation with someone today regarding some questions she was asked to answer about the image of God she held. The questions were posed in an either/or format: do you believe in  1) a God that is unchanging or 2) a God that seems to change? Do you believe in a God of  1) might and majesty or 2) one who can be addressed as Daddy or Mommy? Do you believe in a God that is incomprehensible or a God who can be known and even described? That kind of thing. The problem with either/or formats is they never do justice to the paradoxical nature of God. In fact they are apt to tear the paradoxical nature of God asunder and in the process lose the really amazing qualities of the God of Christian Tradition. Now, I suspect posing questions in an either/or way is designed to see where the respondent stands generally in their approach to spirituality and reality. Those asking the questions are probably not ordinarily expecting a tremendously theologically sophisticated answer which demands BOTH answers be given their due in a paradoxical form --- although they may well be hoping someone will surprise them with their answers in this regard. Even so, depending on the context, asking questions in this way may be theologically misleading. In any case I want to look a bit at the first question because it came up recently, though indirectly, in the post "Always Beginners". Throughout I will refer to the distinction between kaine (qualitative newness) and neos (newness in time) raised in that earlier post.

I have written about paradoxes here quite a bit over the past five years but it is time to say something about these kinds of questions and how one addresses them adequately because the answers are never either or but both/and, and even more sharply, one BECAUSE the other. For instance, I recently wrote about the experience of being always a beginner in prayer and I explained that it was the fact that God was eternal and living that mainly accounted for that experience. Actually, there is a significant paradox here that has to be clearly affirmed, namely: to the extent God is eternal, so too is God always new. To the extent God always was, always will be (i.e., is immutable), to the extent God never grows, matures, or deteriorates (i.e., is ungenerated and incorruptible)) and does NOT change, so too is God ALWAYS new. Or, to the extent God is genuinely new (qualitatively or kaine new, not simply novel or new in time), God is truly eternal (ungenerated, incorruptible, immutable). We speak routinely of the God who is eternal and living to express this paradox. We are not speaking of a static God --- for static would not be living OR eternal. Static refers more to the realm of death than to One who would be the ground and source of ever-renewed life. (As Thomas Aquinas noted, rest or cessation of movement implies imperfection.) ONLY the eternal is always and everywhere new. Only the eternal God is truly dynamic. Only BECAUSE God is unchanging and always fully being-in-act is God ALWAYS NEW. Conversely, only because God is always new (kaine) and dynamic is God eternal.

 Michael Dodds, OP notes while commenting on Thomas Aquinas' theology, [[ Far from implying, therefore, that God is somehow static or inert, immutability directly signifies that God. as subsistent esse [which is not the same as simply existing], is pure dynamic actuality. And while we may still rightly predicate motion of God in virtue of his immanent activity of knowing and willing and in virtue of his causative act of creation and providence, we best designate the dynamic actuality of God who exercises, or better, is this act when we speak not of a changing God, who would possess only the limited actuality of a creature, but of the immutable God who is the boundless actuality of subsistent esse itself.]] The Unchanging God of Love, Dodd, Michael OP, pp 159-160

Problems occur in theology when paradoxes are neglected or unduly softened.  Thomas Aquinas had an appreciation of paradox and spoke, among other things, of the movement of the immovable God or the motion of the motionless God. Unfortunately those that followed him often did not appreciate paradox and used the categories of his thought in ways which betrayed Thomas' own insights and work. Thus, some who argued for God's immutability in language which was similar to Thomas' ended up with a static God and no way to do justice to his dynamism. In contemporary theology we most often find theologians trying to do justice to God's dynamism in ways which deny his eternity and immutability. This enterprise is important in light not only of the Biblical witness and Christ Event, but in light of an evolutionary world where science and faith learn to relate to one another as complementary approaches to reality. On the other end of the spectrum we still find theologians trying to do justice to God's eternity and immutability by denying his dynamism, his living quality, his always-qualitative-newness; sometimes this is because they resist or deny the truth of an evolutionary world or a God who creates via evolution and sometimes it is because they have not truly perceived the depth and uniqueness of Aquinas' own thought.

To deny God's eternity in order to stress his newness or apparent changeability is to substitute a God who may be novel (neos) but one who is incapable of making all things qualitatively new (kaine). He is insufficiently transcendent or sovereign and there is no reason to believe we can really hope for anything ultimate from him. Such a "god" may indeed change, evolve, and be an exciting reality in the short term, but unless he is ALSO eternal and immutable that change may well include ceasing to be as it does for everything else. On the other hand, to deny God's eternal qualitative NEWNESS (kainotes) in order to assert his eternity and immutability gives us a "god" who cannot relate to an evolutionary creation much less ground its newness and summon it towards fullness. What has to be maintained is the ever-new God who grounds evolutionary reality and does so precisely from a position of transcendence and eternity. He summons an evolutionary world into existence from the absolute future of his own being. In other words, without an eternal and transcendent God, there would be no evolutionary world moving towards fulfillment in greater and greater levels of complexity and intelligibility.

None of this is merely an exercise in logic. We assert paradox because God has revealed himself to be essentially paradoxical. He is the eternal, unchanging God who is both always new and, in his transcendence and immanence, is the source of all genuine newness. He is the sovereign God of might and power who reveals himself perfectly in self-emptying (kenosis) and weakness (asthenia). He is the God of justice who asserts his rights over reality and makes all things right or just via mercy. He is the WHOLLY OTHER God who is revealed most clearly in turning a loving heart and human face to the world while he reveals himself in Christ as the exhaustively compassionate one, the incomprehensible God who is known only to the extent he is an essential part of our lives and knows (embraces and inspires) us intimately. No part of these paradoxes can be sacrificed without sacrificing God's very nature. Thus, answers to questions like those with which  we began this post demand formulations like: "I believe in a God who is both/and," and further, to sharpen the paradox, "I believe in a God who is one thing only because or to the extent he is the other."

Bishop Appointed Apostolic Administrator for the Diocese of Oakland

Archbishop Alexander Joseph Brunett, the retired Archbishop who served the Archdiocese of Seattle prior to Peter Sartain has been appointed to serve as the Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Oakland until a new Bishop is appointed. His appointment becomes active on the same day Bishop Cordileone becomes Archbishop of San Francisco.

Archbishop Brunett is [[a native of Detroit, Michigan, was ordained to the priesthood in 1958 in Rome. After a number of assignments in the Detroit area, Pope John Paul II appointed him as bishop of the Diocese of Helena, Montana, in 1994. He was named archbishop of Seattle in 1997, and remained in that post until he retired in 2010, at the mandatory retirement age of 75.]]

In a brief visit on 21. September to the chancery of the Diocese of Oakland, Brunett commented to assembled staff: “Part of my job is to prepare (the diocese) for another bishop. I’m not here forever."

As has been noted in other media sources, [[though it was previously announced that Archbishop-designate Cordileone would remain apostolic administrator of the Oakland diocese even after his installation as archbishop of San Francisco, he explained in a memo to employees the appointment was made “in order to relieve me of the burden of the pastoral governance of two dioceses at the same time as I assume leadership in San Francisco.” He also expressed his gratitude to Archbishop Brunett for “the enthusiasm with which he accepted this appointment. He has a wealth of experience, and I am confident that this will benefit the diocese during this period of transition,” he added.]]

Some have noted that there is an average waiting period of from one to two years for the appointment of a new Bishop when one retires or is promoted or reassigned. That is a long time to be without a Bishop or competent and dedicated Apostolic Administrator. Bishop Brunett has a reputation for "stabilizing dioceses and being a good fundraiser," but I have not personally been able yet to learn much about his pastoral gifts or qualities as a shepherd. I am glad that Archbishop-designate Cordileone will not have to provide pastoral leadership for both Oakland and San Francisco --- a truly huge responsibility for any person I would think --- and I think that this assignment is unquestionably a wise choice for the Diocese of Oakland in that regard.

Called to be the Mothers, Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Today's gospel passage is, like so many of Jesus' statements about the Kingdom of God, a bit scandalous to us. We are offended by the way he treats his Mother and Brothers and his affirmation that, "Those who hear and do the Word of God are my Mothers and Brothers" might well cause us to say, "Hey, wait a minute! What about the Commandment that we honor our Father and Mother?" As always, this lection causes us to stop, rethink, and even question things we think we know very well; it calls us to make a choice for or against Jesus and the Kingdom he represents and proclaims.

Because of this we realize that much of what we know and live here and now is really a veiled symbol of the Kingdom of God, proleptic or anticipatory of it. Married love, sexual love, is a powerful symbol of the intimacy between God and his People as well as of the union of individuals and God experienced in contemplative prayer. The fruitfulness of sexual love which stems from the union of man and woman as they become one in body, mind, and spirit in Christ is clearly a symbol of the Church as well as the Kingdom. Consecrated celibates symbolize a different kind of love, more universal in its scope and reminding us that in the Kingdom people will be not be given in marriage. Through the service of Word and Sacrament, Priesthood reminds us that we are a single people who live from the Word of God and the Sacraments as we worship together in Christ.  Even family is a veiled symbol of the Kingdom of God. When family "works" as it is meant to there is nothing more inspiring or beautiful. When families are dysfunctional, when adults misuse one another, or children et al reject or disparage the demanding call of life together or refuse to carry the family's deepest memories, carry on its traditions, or hearken to the stories from which the family lives, it is hard to think of anything more painful or awful. They can serve as images of an anti-kingdom or world as well as the Kingdom of God.

Throughout his Gospel Luke reminds us of the partial or anticipatory nature of these things and turns our common values on their heads, especially in his references to children and families. On Sunday we heard the story of Apostles arguing over status --- who would stand highest, who would sit nearest Christ, who would be first in the Kingdom. Jesus responds by standing a small child in the center of the group and explaining that this (according to the values of the culture of Jesus' day) valueless non-person is precisely an image of the one who would be first in the Kingdom of God. It is also Luke who tells the story of a young Jesus in the Temple. When his parents come to find him he reminds them in a way which seems disrespectful and uncaring about their own anxiety: Didn't you know I am to be about my Father's business? And yet he goes with them. However, the Greek words Luke uses distinguishes between this and the obedience Jesus owes his Father. Jesus subjects himself to Mary and Joseph, but to God he is obedient.  While there is no disrespect for his blood family, that family is relativized in regard to his identity in and with God.  In yesterday's passage from Luke he reminds us what real obedience is when he admonishes us to "Take care how you hear" and then explains real obedience means hearkening, hearing and responding to the Word of God so that our small lights light the entire world.

And today he brings all of these pieces together in an extraordinary way. We are to be hearers of the Word, people for whom the Gospel is truly Good News, Sons and Daughters whom the psalms and canticles inspire, console, and for whom they are the way we pour out our hearts to God and with one another; we are to be the ones for whom Jesus' parables are the places we enter while we suspend the values and perspectives of the world and recommit to the values and perspectives of the Kingdom of God. We are to be the ones, that is, for whom Christ is truly Lord. And we are to be these hearers of the Word because just as doing so makes us literally not merely metaphorically the Body of Christ, so too doing so makes us equally literally Mothers, brothers, and sisters to Christ. As persons who grow in our faith we move through stages. We are called to serve, but beyond this Jesus says he does not call us servants but friends, and now, astonishingly, he says we are called to be his own family, closer than even blood can make us.

This is a scandalous truth and it should give us pause. But it should also prompt us to make a decision with regard to the Word of God. And, when we hold hands today around the Paschal Supper table as we pray the Lord's Prayer, the prayer of the baptized, we do so as family --- a Holy Family. We do not do so merely because we are into "touchy-feely" liturgy or because we belong to the "Church of Nice", but because as those who are called to truly hearken to God's Word we strive together to really be the family who are Jesus' own Mothers, Brothers, and Sisters, both here in our truly blessed parish, and in the world that needs us so badly. What an astounding, heart-stopping call and mission!!

Importance of Spiritual Direction for Hermits

[[Dear Sister Laurel, How important is it for a hermit to have a spiritual director? How do I find one? Can I work with one online? Also, will a diocese profess me without one? I am a hermit  by which I mean I live alone and avoid people, but I do not have a director; neither have I worked with one before. My parish priest hears my confessions but he says this is not the same as spiritual direction and has suggested that if I am serious about being a hermit that I get a spiritual director. He said to check out your blog and see what I thought. He also encourages me to get more involved in parish activities and relationships with people in the parish. Would a spiritual director help me decide about these kinds of things?]]

Stillsong Hermitage Oratory

Hi there,
      First, my thanks to your parish priest for recommending this blog to you. I think you will find a lot of material that will be helpful on your journey, whether or not you ever live as a lay or consecrated hermit --- or even if you continue simply to live alone. Check out the labels in the upper right hand column and you should find stuff of interest. If not, do as you have already done and email me with your questions.

For the Hermit Spiritual Direction is Indispensible

      Second though, your questions. A good spiritual director is critical even indispensable to a hermit. No diocese will profess you without one, and more than that, no diocese is apt to treat your petition to be recognized as a hermit and admitted to canonical profession seriously without a history of spiritual direction and a recommendation from your director --- and rightly so. When living in eremitical solitude, especially as a solitary hermit, there are so many ways things can go awry that a good director really is necessary. After all, the human heart is an ambiguous, complex reality. By definition it is the place where God bears witness to himself, but it is also a wilderness where one battles with demons --- the demons of anger, jealousy, fear, bitterness, resentment, boredom or acedia, etc, etc that can truly defile. A director can be immensely helpful in all of this, and in assisting us to grow into persons of authentic and profound love and sanctity. Similarly one needs to negotiate the shifts that come with prayer, and  discern the significant decisions which need to be made regarding what one is called to in this area or that. For instance, you speak of avoiding people and living alone; a good director can help you determine the authentically eremitical motives for these things and tease apart the more unworthy reasons we may live alone or avoid people. She can assist you in discovering the difference between eremitical solitude and simply living alone as well; together over time you can discern what it is God is truly calling you to whether than means how you personally will live eremitical life authentically or something else entirely.

Finding a Director

      Regarding finding a director and working with one online, let's start with finding one. My suggestion is to speak to people in your parish and diocese who are already working with a spiritual director and ask them about who that is. Most Sisters have directors, many priests do as well while many Sisters as well as some priests do direction. (It is not the same as hearing confession as your pastor clearly understands.) Retreat Houses in your area will know of some directors and may even have one or two on the premises. Your chancery office may have a list of directors in the diocese --- though I have found these are not always kept up to date. Another source of listings in your area is Spiritual Directors International. Not every director belongs (usually because of the annual fee) but you will get a good listing of folks who fit the bill in your area so it can be a jumping off point. Finally, if you have any seminaries or theological schools in your area most programs in pastoral theology or ministry require students to have a director so you can always check with  them and see if they have a list of prospects. You will especially want a director who is knowledgeable about contemplative prayer and life (they do not need to be contemplatives but they need to be contemplative prayers), and knowledgeable about the difference between eremitical solitude and simply living alone. Some background in psychology is helpful as well. If you are considering becoming a diocesan hermit they should also have some background in formation and what it means to live the vows. What is most important is that they be persons of prayer in spiritual direction themselves; access to a supervisor is also very helpful.

On Working with Someone by Phone or Skype

Sisters of Bethlehem

        I do not recommend working with a director online or by email and to be very honest, unless the director is very well-known and regarded by competent directors, I would personally distrust them if they accepted clients online except in the most carefully judged exceptions. I will say that this is especially true if the person they are working with is a "hermit" or desires to be a hermit. Spiritual Direction is a particularly intimate and intense relationship which requires face to face meetings whenever that is possible. While this is a help to the director it is far more important to the directee who really does deserve the best such a relationship can be.

While I have some clients I work with by phone or skype when people live a distance from me, I also tend to require regular face to face meetings whenever they can be arranged. That means traveling here for these clients, but I have found it is an important and even necessary arrangement. Occasionally I will accept a client for phone or skype-only meetings, but that person will have a history of  receiving spiritual direction somewhere in their ongoing formation and be clearly able to benefit from the relationship even without face to face meetings. Sometimes I have clients that move out of the area; usually it seems a good idea to continue working together and we do that via skype or phone; it tends to work better than with someone I don't know except through skype, for instance, because we already know each other well. In working with persons who desire to be hermits it is, I would argue, even more important for face to face meetings, as well as meetings in the hermit's own hermitage from time to time. Directing a hermit candidate is a bit trickier in some ways until the relationship is well-established so I especially recommend these folks find a director in their own region or area and take the necessary time to build the relationship.

The Need for Friendship and Parish Involvement

        It is interesting that your priest suggests you get more involved in the parish and in relationships there. Since he has read my blog it sounds like he might regard the eremitical vocation and reject some of the common stereotypes hermits fall prey to. If this is so it means his suggestions could be very well taken. In contrast to some stereotypes solitary hermits need friendships and solid relationships with their own parishes and members thereof. This does not mean they can be with their friends as often as they would like or invite them over to the hermitage more than occasionally (though hospitality remains a desert value which must be honored), but it does mean that eremitical life is a healthy, loving, full life in God and for that reason being an integral part of the parish, even if one is rarely present beyond Mass, is important for the hermit and for the parish. In other words,  misanthropes and curmudgeons need not apply!! I would suggest you speak with your pastor about why it is he has made his suggestion. If he has a real appreciation of the vocation and concerns about your own tendency to "avoid people" as you put the matter, I think you should listen to him. I know that for me personally, the description re "avoiding people" is a red flag. It is about the negative or peripheral rather than the positive or central dimensions of the life. But I don't know you at all and this is a blog, so at this point your comment is merely a red flag, nothing more than that.

        Working with a spiritual director would indeed help you to discern what is going on in your own life and heart and also how it is God is calling you to serve him and those he loves and considers precious. It may be that you are called to eremitical life and to all that involves (including relationships, parish life, and a solitude which is rich with the Word and life of God. It may simply be that solitude for you is a transitional phase of your life; if so working with a director will help you move through this phase creatively and in a way which witnesses to the grace of God. By all means, take your pastor's advice and talk to him frankly about his own perceptions. You need not agree completely but they will factor into your own discernment and your work with your director.

Blessed Louis Brisson: Beatification 22. Sept. 2012

Rev. Louis Brisson

Tomorrow the Oblates of St Francis de Sales as well as the Oblate Sisters of St Francis de Sales and the Visitation Sisters celebrate the beatification of Father Louis Brisson, the co-founder of the first two groups and chaplain to the third. (Lest we forget how influential women religious have been in such situations we should note that it was through the influence of the Mother Superior at the Visitation monastery that Father Brisson eventually began both the Oblates and Oblate Sisters. Mother Mary de Sales Chappui prevailed on Fr Brisson to undertake the projects but it took decades of discussions and three miraculous interventions before he established the community of priests which St Francis de Sales had intended to found centuries before.)

The St Francis de Sales' Cross

Father Louis was an amazingly faithful, creative, and inventive man. For him faith and science were two sides of the same coin. A priest, educator, and scientist, he created an astronomical clock which is still working today; it is considered to be so accurate that NASA scientists have studied it. Those describing the ticking of the clock describe it as a great heartbeat which reflects the heartbeat of God within his creation. Thus, the St Francis de Sales' cross is a cross with clock gears inside it. St Francis de Sales wrote a meditation on the dynamic between the temporal and the eternal and found in the temporal continuing evidence of God's creative handiwork.

St Francis de Sales statue

The beatification ceremony will be in Troyes, France where the Oblate Sisters have a house and where Fr Brisson's remains are located; my pastor along with a group of Oblates from the US are attending.

Today's readings remind us that it takes the development of real character to be called a Christian. We are fortunate to have men like Louis Brisson to remind us what this means.

Always Beginners

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you wrote that hermits feel like novices even after living the life for decades. Why is that? I think Saint Teresa of Avila said like she always felt like a beginner in prayer. Are you speaking of the same experience?]]

Re your first query, what a terrific question --- and a difficult one too! I have never really thought about why one always feels like a beginner at living as a hermit even when one has lived this way for years (which, as I think about it, is definitely not the same as being a novice or neophyte),  but I would say that a large part of it has to do with the reason we are always beginners in prayer, yes. In other words, your question is a profoundly theological one and the answer itself has to do with the nature of God and the nature of prayer.

It is important to remember that prayer is more the action of God than that of human beings. Even when we define it as raising our minds and hearts to God we are speaking of something both initiated and empowered by God. Prayer is God at work in us, and when we speak of prayer periods or engaging in prayer we are speaking of those privileged or dedicated times we allow God to work more freely in us than we may at other times. Therefore, it is not, by definition, something we can become practiced at even though the smallest part of it involves our own actions and dispositions. While we can learn to relax physically, become comfortable in silence, deal with thoughts and distractions, open ourselves more or less to God's presence, a large part of prayer (including our desire to pray) is what God does within us --- and there is always a newness and a kind of incommensurability about this --- even when God's movement within us is subtle at best.

I think the second reason is related. When God is active within us, and especially when we open ourselves to that activity, we change. Our hearts become deeper and more expansive in their capacity to love, our eyes and ears are opened to the really real (Ephphatha!), our minds are also converted, and everything looks and feels differently because we ourselves are different. Thus, through the power of God we are attuned more and more to the eternal which interpenetrates our world and this means that things are never old, never static, and perhaps no longer really completely familiar. I think that ordinarily a piece of judging whether we are a beginner or not is gained by comparing how familiar doing something is. When these things are familiar there is an ease about them, and we are able to gauge the expected results without much conscious attention to things. With prayer, however, we are constantly being brought into a "far country" and in contact with a dynamic, living God we cannot imagine much less set forth expectations about. There is a sense of adventure here, even when it is very very muted; I am not sure that adventure in these terms is ever something we are "old hands" at.

At the same time there is also monotony and sometimes a tedium about eremitical life; like everyone we may crave short term novelty and distraction, but be uncomfortable with the patience and persistence required for genuine newness. Our world often mistakes novelty for authentic newness and we are profoundly accustomed to and conditioned by this. Yet, the yearning for real newness is a part of our very being. (In the NT there are two different words for new which accent this distinction. The first is kaines or kainetes which indicates a newness of character which is superior and respects the old; the second is neos which means new in time but can also mean a denigration of the traditional or the old.) The situation of monotony and tedium is exacerbated because prayer can seem like nothing at all happens despite our trust (knowledge) that God is present within us working, touching, loving, recreating, and healing.

In the short term especially we may not be able to see or sense the changes that are occurring within us and since the hermitage itself changes very little, in worldly terms we think we are not progressing. This too can make us feel like beginners because we don't feel "we are getting anywhere". It might seem that this conflicts with what I said above about the adventure of prayer, but it is more the case that both things are occurring at the same time and we see one or the other according to our perspective. I think though, that this set of reasons (focusing on our own progress in worldly terms) is far less significant or influential for contemplatives --- and that is especially true if we are speaking of St Teresa of Avila or someone similar.

In light of what I said about the distinction between novelty and authentic newness above, it occurs to me that some folks imagine heaven (the realm where God is truly Lord) as really tedious or boring (thus they fill it or at least imagine it filled with activities!); but the simple fact is that the God who is eternal and living is, for these very reasons, always new. Our own yearning for newness is a yearning for God and life with God, not a desire for novelty or distraction. (One of the reasons Christians embrace some form of poverty, by the way, is precisely to be sure their lives are attuned to the new (kaines, kainetes) rather than to the novel (neos). For those truly attuned to the new there is therefore less need to become shopaholics, less need for every new gadget or electronic gizmo. But the novel is seductive and religious poverty as value or vow helps limit the degree to which it seduces us!!) It seems to me that to the degree we are truly attuned to God's presence and live in grateful communion with him, to the extent we really are a new creation, all is new to us as well. We experience all of this with gratitude and the sense that we are always beginners.

I will definitely think about this more --- especially the link between gratitude and always being beginners just opened in the last sentences. The entire reality is fascinating, both as a topic and especially as an experience to which persons of prayer witness; so again, many thanks for the questions. I am sorry I don't have a better answer, but for the time being I hope this is helpful.

The Story of Jonah

Every once in a while someone sends me something truly wonderful. I think this video is one of those. In case you haven't heard the story of Jonah recently and would like to hear a wonderful dramatic "interpretation" from someone who has clearly thought long and hard about it from what seems a very Ignatian perspective, give it a listen!!

The story of Jonah from Corinth Baptist Church on Vimeo.

This second video includes Mary Margaret singing Holy, Holy, Holy and then telling the story of David and Goliath. I recommend both, but the first four minutes where she sings are amazing!

Mary from Corinth Baptist Church on Vimeo.

Followup Questions on Writing a Rule of Life: Should Bishops Write the Hermit's Rule?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I wanted to thank you for what you have written about writing a Rule of Life. I have been able to find a little bit of information online about this, but your own blog has the most information so far. I am not a hermit but I like the idea of living according to a Rule of Life and your posts have been really helpful. I do have a question. You have written about the benefits of writing one's own Rule and doing so on the basis of one's lived experience. You have also said that people should not write a Rule without having lived the life for some time. But what about someone writing a Rule FOR a hermit? Recently I read about a new diocesan hermit whose Bishop wrote her Rule. I guess you wouldn't agree with that practice. Am I right? Can you see this working in individual cases? Should it become a regular (no pun intended) practice for Bishops?]]

Objections to Bishops Writing a Diocesan Hermit's Rule: How the Rule Functions

Well, you are correct that I don't think the practice of having a Bishop write one's own Rule is a good way to go or a good precedent to set. There are several reasons for this. First, the Rule is usually used by dioceses not only to assess the way a person lives solitary eremitical life, but it is an excellent piece of discerning the quality and type of vocation before one. Not least, it is a fairly good way of assessing the candidate's strengths, deficiencies, and relative readiness for profession to a vocation which is strongly dependent upon the hermit's own ability to act independently and maturely in her obedience to God's will in her life. After all, she cannot grow in this vocation otherwise, especially since her contact with superiors is relatively infrequent. Besides, Bishops change and will differ in the degrees of involvement they can have in any hermit's life; there must be a strong pattern of inner-directedness and appropriate autonomy in a diocesan hermit's life before she can be admitted to vows of any sort. The capacity to write a Rule for oneself reflects one's own degree of formation, one's conscious awareness of her own spiritual needs and disciplines, the way she specifically embodies the central values or elements of canon 603 and the eremitical tradition more generally, as well as the way she sees her own life affecting the life of her parish and diocese and vice versa.

Secondly, the Rule is not simply a list of do's and don't's; it is not merely or even primarily legislative. It is meant to be a document which reflects one's own inspired vision of the life, why it is significant in the 21st century, how the various pieces of living it fit one's own story and are shaped by that, and how generally God has been present to one along with how one best responds to Him in a call to the silence of solitude. The negotiation of the tension between eremitical traditions and the needs of the contemporary world and church are the hermit's to achieve. She will do so in dialogue with others --- including her Bishop and delegate, of course --- and especially she will do so in a prayerful, discerning way, but this negotiation IS her vocation and a large part of the charism (gift) she brings to the church and world. No one can do it for her.

Thirdly, as I have said before, while both of the following are essential, a Rule is intended first of all, to inspire one to live their vocation and only secondarily to legislate how one lives it. It is meant to provide a personal way to assume one's own place in the eremitical tradition and that means that only a hermit who has lived the life and is sensitive to its values, charisms, rhythms, freedom, constraints, and history is apt to be able to write an adequate Rule for herself. Associated with this is the fact that a hermit comes to conscious awareness of and terms with much of the tradition, her own life, and the shape of God's call to her in the actual writing of a Rule. The process of doing so (living and growing in the life, consciously reflecting on this, and then articulating in writing what makes that possible or what it obliges one to) is an intensely formative process and it is one I would hate anyone, but especially a diocesan hermit, to miss. Since some of these hermits have not been formed in religious life it becomes even more critical they not miss this intensely formative process and experience.

Problems with the Practice of Bishops Writing a Diocesan Hermit's Rule

Now, what about a Bishop writing the Rule for a solitary hermit? There are several problems I can see with this. First, most Bishops have neither the expertise nor the understanding of the eremitical life to do this. Not only are they apt to write the same Rule for one hermit as they write for another (simple lack of time and knowledge of the individuals will lead to this), but they are apt to write a list of do's and don't's --- a primarily legislative document rather than a document which is geared to 1) inspire, challenge to greater and greater understanding of the eremitical tradition and one's place in it in the 21st century, or 2) one which will serve as a guardrail allowing one to journey freely, creatively, and relatively safely through the wildernesses of that journey.

Secondly, if a Bishop is the one writing the Rule, that seems to suggest the candidate does not have the necessary experience to do so herself. After all, hermits have been required to do this themselves since 1983 and the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon Law, and in the main they have been doing so effectively. One of the most significant things we see in listening to the way Rules are shaped is how truly individual they are even while they represent the eremitical tradition and canon 603. This individuality within tradition is an actual piece of the charism (gift quality) of solitary eremitical life to the church and to the world and we ought not short-circuit the work of the Spirit nor take this piece away. Thirdly, if the Rule does not really fit the candidate particularly well in certain areas but is required for the person to be admitted to profession, it then raises questions for me as to how free the hermit candidate is to say no to what does not work for them and to write in that which does. Down the line, such hermits are apt to find themselves living a Rule which does not actually suit their own individual pattern for growth in Christ and they actually may not be able to fulfill the Rule they are vowed to fulfill.

Possible Alternatives to Bishops Writing Rules for Hermits

Having said this I think a Bishop could well write a set of guidelines for ALL hermit candidates in his diocese --- just as he (or someone he delegates) might do for a laura when several diocesan hermits come together to live in solitude. But, when established for solitary hermits, these would not be a Rule, only general requirements on what should be included, reflected on, and fleshed out in light of one's own lived experience. In the situation you mentioned (that is, if the one I am aware of is the same one), as I understand it, the Bishop wrote a draft of a Rule and the hermit was able to modify and edit it as she needed to. So long as the Bishop was not, for instance, demanding certain prayer forms (chaplets, the entire Divine Office), a certain frequency of attendance at Mass beyond some realistic standard which honors the needs and obligations of solitude, a fully specified horarium, etc, and so long as these guidelines do not curtail the important discernment the hermit herself is required to do as something inherent to the vocation itself, this could work. Also, as long as the Bishop makes it entirely clear that the hermit should edit and shape this draft in light of her own experience and in light of her own needs it could be acceptable --- though, I continue to think, less adequate than a hermit writing her own Rule.

One Sister with a background in leadership and formation I spoke with about this (and after I made the above comments in the original draft of this post) pointed out that a Bishop might well provide a Rule to a candidate at the beginning of a period of discernment and then, after a period of five years  or so, expect the hermit-candidate to write her own Rule prior to accepting her for admission to profession.  I think it is a VERY good idea. I would add that another revision might well be made before perpetual profession as needed (I believe it often will be). Moreover, I would suggest another Rule be written at the two or three year point rather than the five year point as one approached the possibility of temporary profession. This would allow the diocese a much better sense of the way the vocation is developing, the maturity with which the hermit is making the tradition her own, the degree to which she is living it out in dialogue with parish, universal church, and the contemporary world, the way in which she negotiates both the essential or non-negotiable elements of the life and the need for flexibility, the degree to which this is truly the vocation Canon 603 governs, and the world needs, etc. Not only would such a solution serve the diocese's own discernment in the matter, it would allow the candidate or hermit to educate the diocese (and chancery!!) about what a contemporary eremitical vocation is all about. Finally, it would give the hermit or candidate the needed opportunity to enjoy the formative and (for those truly called to the vocation) the confirming experience writing such a Rule usually is.

Summary of Objections

However, otherwise, no, I absolutely do not think Bishops writing hermits' Rules should become a regular practice (pun definitely intended!!). I dislike it as a precedent at all. Canon 603 is sufficient and hermits have done well by tailoring their own Rules to their lives and stories. This is especially true when Bishops are admitting sufficiently experienced and mature candidates to profession. Again, they have to be aware that not everyone who lives alone is called to eremitical life, and that freedom is one of the hallmarks of mature spirituality and especially mature eremitical spirituality. If someone has not got the experience to fulfill the requirement of c 603 regarding the writing of a Rule (I am emphatically not referring here to the hermit you mentioned by the way), then they are probably not ready for profession either. Further, Bishops, I think, have to be humble enough to admit that they do not really ordinarily understand the vocation sufficiently nor have the expertise to write an eremitical Rule. This would be especially true for Bishops who are not from a religious congregation. Most are canonists and as I have said before, knowing what is allowed (or not prohibited ) canonically is not the same thing as knowing what is vocationally prudent or appropriate, especially for a given individual.