Feast of the Transfiguration, The Invisible Gorilla (Reprised)

Although today's Gospel is Luke's version of the Transfiguration, I am reprising a post I put up . . . looking at Matthew's version of the story. I hope it is helpful. The painting, Transfiguration, is by Lewis Bowman.

**********************

Transfiguration by Lewis Bowman

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lesson could not be clearer, I think. In this day where the Church is conflicted and some authority seems incredible, we must take the time to see what is right in front of us. We must listen to the One who comes to us in the Scriptures and Sacraments, the One who speaks to us through Bishops and all believers. We must really be the People of God, the "hearers of the Word" who know how to listen and are obedient in the way God summons us to be. This is true whether we are God's lowliest hermit or one of the Vicars of Christ who govern our dioceses and college of Bishops. Genuine authority coupled with true obedience empowers new life, new vision, new perspectives and reverence for the ordinary reality God makes Sacramental. There is a humility involved in all of this. It is the humility of the truly wise, the truly knowing person. We must be able to recognize how very little we see, how unwilling we are to be converted to the perspective of the Kingdom, how easily we justify our blindness and deafness with our supposed knowledge, and how even our well-intentioned activism can prevent us from seeing and hearing the unexpected, sometimes scandalous God standing there right in the middle of our reality.

God Creating Adam -- Chartres

 A friend returned from a trip to France (etc.) with about 32 other Dominicans from various congregations and brought me a picture of this statuary from Chartres Cathedral. It is a favorite of hers and is called God Creates Adam; it is a small piece, only about a foot and a half or two feet high and is located on a Northern portal to the cathedral.

While I had never seen it before, I loved it instantly. It recalls for me so many prayer times when I had the sense of having God's entire attention or of being held securely and loved into wholeness. It speaks to me of the place of God in each of our lives --- even when we fail to realize how inextricably wed our lives are with one another. There is an amazing combination of strength and gentleness, quiet joy and determination, as well as dependence and independence here. God looks completely sure of himself and quietly pleased. Adam --- who looks neither male nor female to me --- looks content and at peace.

I hear an invitation here: "Give yourself over to me; let me make you my very own creation, my very own image and counterpart! Let me truly make you what you are!" --- as God reminds me of the dignity and nature of my original creation and all the potential it holds. There have been times I have not known or remembered that God's creative presence was at work in me calling into existence, healing, molding, shaping, and summoning me into the absolute future of God's own life; there were times when I thought all potential had been spent or was lost forever. Yet I know very well now that this is an image of every day of my life as well as a picture of  the covenant reality I am most truly meant to let myself become. For me it is a wonderful image!!

Patience and Wisdom!

Two of the most important qualities in life: Patience and Wisdom:

Sometimes friends send pictures or videos that just can't be improved upon in their ability to illustrate life lessons! The next time I think of patience or wisdom (or prudence or humility or courage, or resignation, or empathy, etc!) this picture will come to mind! Thanks to the friend who sent this my way!

Charges of "Over-institutionalization": Why Several Rules Written at Different Stages?

[[Sister Laurel, Canon 603 only requires one write ONE Rule. Aren't you making something simple much more difficult and complicated? You have been criticized before for "institutionalizing" what is a free and simple vocation. So aren't you doing this once again with all these made up ideas about writing several Rules and stages of formation or "readiness" for consecration"? The canon is straightforward and so are paragraphs 920-21 of the Catechism.. Why not let them just speak for themselves?]]

Thanks for your questions. As I have noted before, I personally agree the eremitical life should not be overly "institutionalized" in some of the ways I think you mean; however I continue to disagree that what I am suggesting in Notes From Stillsong: Role of Diocese, Writing a Rule, and Possible Stages of Discernment actually does that. Instead I think my suggestions protect not only the vocation generally, but the legitimate freedom authentic hermits need. At the same time it provides assistance to dioceses on the basis of my own lived experience and the experience of other hermits I know, as well as that of folks writing about formation, etc whom I have read. I can state with all sincerity that such a practice and its attendant process would have helped me immensely in negotiating the time frame and "tasks" involved in becoming a hermit (instead of  remaining or being "just" a lone pious person) and then, a diocesan hermit; I similarly believe it also would have assisted my diocese in discerning not only my own vocation but in evaluating and implementing canon 603 in prudent ways more generally. I also believe it answers some of the questions I occasionally get from Bishops and Vicars who deal with candidates or inquirers for canon 603.

The Context:

First, while canon 603 is very simply stated, and while on one level it can be said to be straightforward (especially for one who has lived eremitical solitude for some time and has the experience to read it with an appropriately enlarged "desert" understanding), for most people these simple or straightforward elements are deceptive in their supposed simplicity. For instance, and as I have noted before, the canon speaks of "the silence of solitude," rather than silence AND solitude. It does not note that this phrase has Carthusian underpinnings, for instance, nor that it means MUCH more than the simple absence of noise or company. For instance, it presupposes that chancery personnel who read this canon and try to implement it know that "the silence of solitude" has to do not only with external silence and physical solitude, but that it is more than the sum of these two elements and involves the unique wholeness and individuation achieved in communion with God within the context of a desert spirituality. It has to do with being oneself in and with and through God alone --- and the various kinds and degrees of silence (or song!) that occasions. You see, despite the apparent simplicity of the canon, the reality to which it points in this instance is neither so simple nor so straightforward as most readers think.


Similarly, and related to this, we are speaking of a vocation that is truly little known and often misunderstood in our contemporary world. It is a vocation fraught with stereotypes and it is being attempted (or actually lived) in a world which distrusts solitude, hardly understands the meaning of real silence, rejects the possibility of life commitments, trivializes sexual love and in conjunction with that does not understand celibate love, is overly enamored of affluence and efficiency, and generally idolizes these as well as individualism (which is often mistaken for eremitical life). In contrast however, eremitical life is counter cultural to all of these and someone proposing to be consecrated under canon 603 needs to be very clear they are not simply using (or trying to use) the canon to "consecrate" any of these serious temptations. It takes time to clarify one's own motivations, first to become clear about what they are and secondly to purify them. This is especially true if one has never lived religious life before and is really starting right from the beginning sans adequate mentors, and models --- and, for the most part today, chanceries are mainly getting inquiries re canon 603 from lay persons who have never lived religious life and never lived in eremitical solitude.

Thirdly, we are talking about an ecclesial vocation in which one represents the eremitical tradition in dialogue with the contemporary church and world and does so in a way which is publicly responsible. While there is a great deal of freedom (especially authentic freedom)  in the eremitical life, it is not the case that one simply lives alone and does whatever one wants and calls that "eremitical". Especially one cannot justify misanthropy, selfishness, a lack of generosity, individualism (including pietistic or devotional privatism), a lack of discipline, ignorance of the tradition, or the isolation of personal eccentricity via this canon. In other words, not every form of aloneness or physical solitude is eremitical nor consistent with eremitical tradition or attuned to the needs of contemporary church and society. Not every form of liberty is synonymous or consonant with eremitical freedom. Not every form of physical silence contributes to the silence of solitude and some may be a sign of a destructive antithesis. Thus, we are speaking of an institutionalized reality which involves canonical rights and obligations, legitimate definitions and public expectations and hopes, as well as the hermit's public commitment to be responsive to the Holy Spirit and responsible in all the ways this vocation calls for.

These lines are part of the horizon against which my suggestions about the writing of various Rules need to be measured. They form the context which is a necessary PART of allowing the canon to speak for itself. They are a large part of the context which prevents us from reading the canon in a theological, historical, or spiritual vacuum and distorting it completely.

The Reason for Several Rules:

The simple fact is even for those with a true vocation we grow into eremitical life. It takes time not only to discern whether or not we have such a vocation, but in the process, to learn either that it is not simply about living alone, or that it is truly a a gift to others. It takes time to intelligently and faithfully appropriate a living tradition that is capable of speaking to the contemporary situation. It takes time not only to learn to pray and live in the ways that monks, nuns, and hermits live, but to be able to articulate the what and why of all that. If one is to take all of this on and then modify it in ways which fits one's own specific vocation, that too takes time, experimentation, and lots of thought and prayer --- not to mention consultation and supervision. While one will discuss all of this with one's director and delegate (or diocesan Vicar, etc), one also needs to prepare to write a Rule which is the result of years of practical learning and which will be canonically binding. It seems to me the only reasonable way to do this is to 1) recognize the basic stages involved in becoming a hermit, and then 2) write a Rule which corresponds to what one knows and is ready to live and live into.

A related fact is that very few of those who contact dioceses with inquiries about canon 603 ever advance to even temporary profession. Some of those who do not advance may in fact have eremitical vocations which, in time, they can make evident to their dioceses. Of those who do advance, some who are prematurely professed or who are using canon 603 as a stopgap solution to canon law's lack of any other means of professing an individual person, will live the life badly or leave it altogether. How do we  allow all possible vocations to participate in a serious discernment process? How, at the same time, do we prevent inappropriate professions or uses of canon 603 which create seriously disedifying precedents? How, in other words, do we intelligently and wisely implement canon 603 without 1) infringing on eremitical freedom, and 2) without betraying the eremitical tradition or the meaning of the canon itself?  Diocese's need a better means of discerning authentic eremitical vocations while they also minister to those who approach them with interest in canon 603. It really seems to me the suggestions I have made help do that.

Likewise, too often today dioceses ask candidates for profession to write the Rule required by canon 603 before they are ready to do so. One solution to all of this is to expect several Rules over a longer period of time --- each of which allows for growth and may be used for discernment. So often our first attempts at writing such a Rule serve only to show us and our dioceses how unready we really are. Anyone who has tried to write a Rule or Plan of Life knows how truly difficult a project this is. So often what we live, we live unconsciously and without real understanding. So often we think we are living certain values and then discover that we have never actually taken time to define them, much less to understand how a tradition defines and lives them. So often we think living a life is merely about doing certain things when in fact it is about committing to be or become persons whose hearts are configured a certain way; we do certain things in certain ways and often over long periods of time precisely so that this transformation of our hearts can occur. Writing several Rules over a relatively brief period allows us to accommodate (and consolidate) the changes disciplined living and the grace of God occasions in our hearts.

The Bottom Line:

I personally think it is either arrogance, naivete (sometimes a helpful naivete!), or both, to believe that someone with no background in religious life, no real background in eremitical life, no particular theological background, and limited experience of spiritual direction, etc would be able to write the Rule which canon 603 calls for on their first attempt. At the same time no one in the chancery can or should relieve the hermit of this obligation. And here is really the bottom line: Canon 603 requires one Rule written by the hermit who will be professed, but it is meant to be a livable Rule which is consonant with the eremitical tradition, appreciates the charism of the vowed diocesan hermit, is tailored to the individual living and writing it, appropriately inspires, guides, legislates, and finally, which can also serve others in demonstrating what this life is really all about.

When Canon 603 was promulgated it presumed that candidates would mainly come from the ranks of religious/monastics who had grown into a solitary vocation; it therefore presumed an extensive background, knowledge, experience, and wisdom on the part of the candidate. In fact it grew out of such a situation. Today, however, individuals inquiring into or seeking profession mainly do not have this background or experience. We must find ways to remedy this deficit and prepare candidates (or, better put perhaps, assist them to achieve the requisite preparation)  to write the Rule the canon requires. Adequate discernment of and formation in the vocation presuppose and necessitate this and my suggestions are one piece of a process meeting this requirement while protecting eremitical freedom and diversity.

Role of the Diocese, Writing the Rule, and Possible Stages in Hermit Discernment

[[Dear Sister, I have read what you have said about dioceses not being responsible for forming diocesan hermits but isn't it true that a diocese plays an important role in being sure that  persons who approach them requesting to become diocesan hermits really are called to this vocation? Are most dioceses really ready and willing to follow candidates for profession through the stages you have listed here: lay eremitical life, temporary profession, perpetual profession? As you have described it this could take nearly a decade. How reasonable is it to expect dioceses to do this?]]

Introduction to the "Stages" I have already spoken of:

Great questions. As an introduction for those who have not read what I have written on this before, the stages I have described include 1) a period of trying out solitude for an indefinite length of time on one's own (one is not really a hermit at this point, neither lay nor consecrated and will live this period until one makes the transition from being a lone pious person to actually being a lay hermit in some essential sense and is ready to approach their diocese with a petition regarding c 603), 2) a period as a lay hermit (this is NOT a novitiate!) while one discerns initially and with one's diocese whether one is called to continue as a lay hermit or to (possibly) be consecrated under canon 603, 3) a period of temporary profession (3-5 years) if and when the diocese discerns this is appropriate, and 4) perpetual profession --- again if the diocese and the hermit discern this is what one is called to. The time frame from actually approaching the diocese (as one who is already essentially a lay hermit) to perpetual profession could well reasonably take 6-9 years. The time prior to this could also well take several years and in fact, the transition I spoke of might never occur. (Dioceses need to be aware that a person may never make this fundamental shift from lone person to hermit in an essential sense and act accordingly.) Still, generally I am speaking of a diocese working with a candidate or temporary professed hermit for anywhere from 6-9 years to discern the nature and quality of the vocation in front of them. How reasonable is it to expect this?


Reasonable and Essential:

It is not only reasonable, it is essential if a diocese is to be responsible for the solitary eremitical vocation generally as well as for an individual candidate. I would argue that if a diocese is NOT willing to follow and accompany a candidate for the requisite period of time up to (and of course beyond) perpetual profession, then they ought not implement canon 603 in their diocese; that is, they ought not profess anyone accordingly. Instead they ought to encourage folks either become or remain lay hermits and simply be clear that they will not publicly profess anyone under canon 603. At the same time that I argue this lengthy process of accompaniment and discernment is not only reasonable but essential, I recognize that it is a demanding requirement not only for the diocese's own chancery personnel but for candidates who are serious about living eremitical life and perhaps being consecrated. For this reason I also think it is helpful to provide some basic signposts along what might otherwise be an entirely trackless and therefore an unnecessarily risky and difficult journey for both hermit and diocese. (There is risk  and difficulty enough in the eremitical life; it need not be added to unnecessarily.)

Discerning the Place of Solitude in the Person's Life

Because a hermit is formed only over time in solitude, a diocese (and certainly a candidate) MUST expect and allow this formation to require significant measures of both. A diocese cannot be expected to form a hermit and must not interfere with the formative place of silence and solitude. At the same time, because solitude can deform a person not really called to it beyond those occasional periods of solitude-as-transition life throws our way or makes necessary (solitude always breaks a person down!), a diocese must be very sure that 1) the hermit is well-directed or followed both by a spiritual director and by the staff of the offices of Vicar of Religious / Consecrated Life or Vocations, and 2) that the hermit gives every indication of growing in solitude emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and just generally as a whole and holy person. (For the hermit solitude not only breaks down, it edifies or builds up in the truest sense of that word; it also occasions growth in wholeness and communion with God and others. The inquirer's diocese must be keenly aware of the power of physical solitude to lead to either personal disintegration or to profound personal integration and watch for both as part of the process of discernment.)

In fact, this kind of  vigilant acompanying and evaluating is really what discernment is about: namely, one attends to how the candidate is formed, deformed, or simply fails to thrive in a given life or set of circumstances and from this determines whether or not God is calling a person to this at this point in time. (Formation overlaps this by adding the dimension of supplying (or discovering and taking advantage of) resources and experiences which allow the person to grow not only to wholeness, but to wholeness as a credible  and responsible representative of a lifestyle, congregation, Rule, tradition, etc. It cannot be stressed strongly enough, for both hermits who might like dioceses to "form them" or for dioceses that might desire a more structured "formation program",  that for the diocesan hermit, despite the diocese's critical role in accompanying and in recommending resources for the candidate, formation is achieved mainly through the hermit's own initiative and (in cooperation with God) in the context of the silence of solitude.) Discernment of a vocation to consecrated life under canon 603 depends on a hermit candidate being able to negotiate the transitions and personal growth which occur in eremitical solitude.

Signposts: The stages of writing a Rule and discerning a vocation coincide

In what I have written previously about writing a Rule, the Bishop's/diocese's role (or non role!) in that, what it means to be ready to write a livable Rule, etc, I believe the steps to readiness I have outlined  tie in well to the stages I have outlined above. I also believe the time periods required for each stage can be more or less gauged by the candidate's ability to write: 1) an experimental Rule or plan of life based on a limited but still-sufficient experience of solitude and the requirements of canon 603, 2) a Rule which will be canonically binding for a period of temporary profession, and finally, 3) a more definitive Rule which is adequate for the living of the life for the time being and can be granted a Bishop's Decree of Approval without temporal limitations.

What I am thinking here is first, that if someone comes to a chancery and seems to be serious about canon 603 they may be given some guidelines on the eremitical life and asked to write an experimental Rule or Plan which reflects their own experience, meets their own current spiritual needs, and will also help the diocese gauge whether they have made the transition from lone person to being a hermit in some essential sense. Let me be clear. This is not ordinarily to be considered the Rule required by Canon 603; it is usually merely going to be part of a person's preparation for gaining the experience needed to eventually write such a Rule. Next, they can be asked to live this plan for three years or so to discern how faithfully they live it, how mature and discerning their necessary modifications and adaptations of it are, what the nature of their struggles with it are as well as how those have changed, and again, how it contributes to their growth in wholeness and holiness. (This particular period could be varied if the person already has experience living religious life according to a Rule or, on the other hand, if the diocese still has questions but not significant doubts about the person's suitability for eremitical life.)

If this goes well and the person (and diocese) believe in the wisdom of petitioning for admission to profession (they might also agree the person is called to remain a lay hermit for instance or they might decide the period of solitude has been transitional or will never really be eremitical), the candidate can then be asked to revise the Rule as needed to deal with new elements. For instance she will need to demonstrate some significant understanding of the vows she is now proposing to make, add a vow formula, include a section on ongoing supervision or accountability, and consider adding other sections regarding canon 603's defining elements she has not yet addressed adequately. In other words, candidates can be asked to write a Rule that reflects their own lived experience of eremitical life and that can be binding under law for a temporary period. If this (writing) also goes well and the Bishop agrees, they can be admitted to temporary profession and become publicly obligated for the living of this Rule. Finally, if this period of living the Rule under temporary vows goes well and the hermit continues to demonstrate fidelity, integrity, along with an intelligent and faithful flexibility with regard to the Rule, then a "final" version can be submitted some time prior to admission to perpetual profession and consecration. While I refer to this last version as "final" I have included quotation marks to indicate that the hermit may well both need and want to change pieces of it in another few years.

Evaluations at Each Stage:

What this kind of arrangement makes possible is not only intelligent discernment, but serious discussions at each stage where the diocese, hermit, and spiritual director can evaluate how things are going and whether there are significant experiences the candidate needs to have if she is to continue to grow in this vocation. For instance, it might be very important for the candidate to spend some time in a monastic community following a regular horarium, praying office, experiencing the kind of silence she is being asked to embrace in her urban hermitage, learning to do lectio, dealing with monastic tedium, balancing the parts of her life (work, prayer, study, and leisure) and generally learning what monastic attentiveness in everything actually involves.

Personally, I would think that one month every year or two would be really helpful and for those who have no background in religious life, essential. Similarly, to name just a few things that might come up or be helpful during these years, it might be important for the candidate to break with active ministry, or family, or friends to a greater extent than she already has; on the other hand or at another point in her formation, it might be important for her to do a limited amount of  ministry under pastoral supervision, reestablish regular but limited contact with family and friends, and so forth. At given points it might be necessary for a candidate to "put her TV in storage" (some would-be hermits actually watch a lot of TV and don't realize it is both contrary and profoundly detrimental to the vocation), or become more active in her parish community (some candidates really lack a sense of the vocation's ecclesiality), or speak with a therapist, or take a series of classes in theology, monastic life, etc. Meanwhile periodic meetings (every 4-6 months) at the chancery and some at the candidate's own place would be necessary. (If this were pertinent the monastery's formation personnel could also contribute informally to any evaluation process.)

At the same time, in writing a Rule at each stage the candidate and the diocese will come to see what parts of the canon/life she is living and which she has not yet embraced, which she understands and which she does not, how she sees her life contributing to the understanding and living out of the canon and eremitical tradition more generally, how this life is a gift to the church and world, etc. The candidate moves to the next stage only when she is genuinely ready to do so and that readiness is marked by the ability to write a livable Rule for the next stage. The point is that each stage is geared towards growth and discernment rooted in the candidate's increasing experience of living the eremitical life per se and this growth is reflected in the Rule she writes at each point.

Further, while eventual profession is not guaranteed of course, the candidate should still find the process challenging and fruitful without it also feeling interminable or being onerous. Diocesan personnel would also find such a process helpful; they would neither be tempted to rush to premature profession or to simply match the time frames provided in canon law for active and contemplative cenobitical religious life, nor would they be forced to simply dismiss someone of whom they are simply uncertain as "unsuitable" without giving them an adequate "hearing" or chance to grow into the vocation to whatever extent they are capable.  If, during the course of this process, a person is discerned not to have a diocesan eremitical vocation, she will still have experienced a significantly growth-oriented process enabling her to seek the vocation to which she IS called.

The Role of the Diocese is Significant:

Thus, it is true that dioceses play a significant role in discerning the nature and quality of vocations in front of them even though with hermits dioceses do not actually form them. What a diocese has to convey to a candidate or possible candidate, I think, is 1) that they value the authentic (and contemporary!) eremitical vocation and will not consecrate someone without real evidence of a life call to the silence of  eremitical solitude, 2) that they value the formation that comes in the silence of solitude and expect the solitary hermit to take responsibility for this, 3) that they will follow the candidate with care and assist as they can and as appropriate, and 4) that when and as the candidate or hermit is ready, they will evaluate this readiness to proceed toward or to consecration, not only with conversations, but through the versions of a Rule she has written as reflections of where her individual vocation stands at any given moment.

As I have noted before, Canon 603 includes a marvelous mix of non-negotiable elements along with the freedom to structure and live these elements according to the will of God via one's own Rule. It is in the writing of the Rule that the hermit truly comes to understand and claim her overall life as an instance of a vital and fragile tradition; it is here that the dialogue she negotiates every day between the traditional eremitical life and the contemporary situation comes to fullest articulation and summing up. It simply makes sense for dioceses to use this tool as a key to discernment, and to do so in a way which helps the hermit or candidate to grow in both eremitical freedom AND necessary accountability in relation to canon 603. What I have suggested here is one way of doing that.

Francis says to "Make a Mess" and "Disturb Complacency"!

In a talk right out of Scripture ("I came to bring not (superficial) peace but a sword!") Francis has given the youth of the Church their commission (marching orders!) as disciples of Christ. It is a stunning call to action and sure to capture the hearts and minds of young Catholics (and recapture those of many of us older ones as well!). For those suggesting Vatican II did nothing new, involved no break with certain dimensions of the old, was merely continuous with Tradition, listen to this report on a relatively spontaneous talk by Francis; it is a reflection of Vatican II and an interpretation of the Council's teaching which involved discontinuity as well as continuity. "Make a mess!" "Disturb complacency!" "Shake up clericalism" "Take the Church to the streets" and open up the windows of a church "closed in on herself!" This is the SPIRIT OF VATICAN II so much maligned and denigrated over the last 35 plus years. And here it is, alive and well in the Bishop of Rome!!

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Jul 25, 2013 / 12:18 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis told a gathering of some 30,000 youth from his homeland that they are to “make a mess,” shaking up the comfort, self-satisfaction and clericalism of a Church closed in on itself.

“What do I hope for from World Youth Day? I hope for a mess ... that the Church takes to the streets. That we defend ourselves from comfort, that we defend ourselves from clericalism,” the Pope told a group of pilgrims from Argentina during this week's World Youth Day. “The Church must be taken into the streets,” he said in the cathedral of Rio de Janeiro July 25.

Pope Francis' meeting with the youth of Argentina was not originally planned, and forced a rearrangement of his schedule. The encounter was not announced until Tuesday, when the Pope was already in Brazil. At least 35,000 Argentines flocked to the cathedral to see their Pope. “Thank you to those who are inside, and to the 30,000 who are out there: I greet all of you from here, you who are standing in the rain,” he said. “Thank you for your gesture of being close to us, of being with me here at World Youth Day.”

“I asked my organizers if there was a moment this trip at which I can meet with my fellow Argentines, please find it.” He indicated that the meeting was a result of his own “personal request.” Pope Francis told them his hopes for the event, and stressed that the Church, that the life of parishes, must be taken into the streets. “If not, the Church becomes an NGO. And the Church cannot be an NGO,” he said, echoing his very first Mass as Bishop of Rome, in which he preached to the cardinal electors that “if we do not profess Jesus Christ … we may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord.”

Pope Francis said that the world “has made a cult, a god, of money. We are before a philosophy that exults material goods,” and that this striving for comfort and following the mundane must not seep into the Church. This philosophy, he reflected, “excludes” the youth and the elderly. “We do not let aged people speak, and as for young people – it is the same. They do not have the experience and the dignity of work … Young people must be able to go out and fight for their values,” he urged. “Care for the two extremes of life,” he taught. As youth must be able to stand up for their values, so must “older people be able to speak out, to transmit their wisdom and knowledge.”

“You must not let yourselves be marginalized. Faith in Christ is not a joke. The only sure way, is the way of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus.” “Faith in God's Son, who became man and who died for me, must make a mess, must disturb us out of our complacency.” “This is your protocol for action: the Beatitudes and Matthew 25,” he advised the youth. Matthew 25 tells of the separation of the sheep from the goats at the Last Judgement: “I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in.”

“Please, do not water down the faith,” he pleaded. “Stir things up, cause confounding, but do not diminish faith in Jesus Christ.” Finally, Pope Francis thanked his countrymen for their closeness to him. He lamented that he could not be closer to them. “At times I feel (encaged) … how ugly it is to be encaged, I would have liked to be closer to you all,” he said, sharing his heart with them.

“Don't forget to make a mess, to disturb complacency. Don't forget the youth and the aged.” The Pope concluded by blessing the crowd, as well as a Franciscan cross and an image of Our Lady of Lujan, Argentina's patroness, which will be returning with the youths to their country. “The Lord left his mother among us to accompany us. She cares for all of us, protects us on our way, in our heart, in our faith. May we be disciples, just as she was, and missionaries, also like her.” Pope Francis asked God's mother to give voice “to the scandal of the cross …. which speaks of the closeness of God.”

“May God bless you all,” he said, leaving his compatriots. “Pray for me. Do not forget to pray for me.”

Consecrated Virginity and Separation from the World

[[Dear Sr Laurel, Thank you for answering my e-mail in the past. I have read your comments on phatmass about consecration to both hermit and consecration (sic) virgin with interest - especially the possiblity (sic) of a call to both a spousal relationship with Christ and the call to contemplative solitude. Just to take things a little further... do you think it is possible that a vocation to consecrated virginity can include an element of separaton from the world (whilst in the world), living a life with a great degree of solitude and contemplative prayer ?]]

If one is very careful in delimiting how one uses the term "world" (the Johannine usage has three senses and canon law reflects these in c 603 for instance), if one is not attempting to mitigate much less do an end run around the essential secularity of the vocation, and if one is careful not to actually be embracing (or attempting to embrace) eremitical solitude, then yes, I believe one could integrate a secondary "separation" (i.e., not being of the world which is supported by contemplative prayer) with the secular (being in the world) character of one's vocation as well as integrating the contemplative dimension of one's life with one's active and ministerial life. Besides being profoundly Christian this is the only way I can see what you are referring to actually working for a canon 604 CV. For that matter, it is probably also the only way one can genuinely maintain a profoundly eschatological secularity.

You see, while the hermit embraces stricter separation from "the world" primarily in the sense of "that which is resistant to Christ", she ALSO embraces a stricter separation from the things of the world which are more ambiguous (qualified goods and realities which are mixtures of (the) godly and godless) than even other Religious, and thirdly, in her call to remain within her cell living a life of assiduous prayer and penance, she often maintains a stricter separation even from elements of God's good creation per se. (These unqualified goods are often sacrificed in order to maintain custody of the cell, an even greater good for the hermit.) A consecrated virgin, like every other Christian, is called by canon 604 to embrace "separation from the world" in the first sense but in relation to the other senses of the term she is entirely secular. Thus, unlike religious whose relationship with the things of the world are qualified by their vows and hermits who are called to stricter separation from the world than even most religious, the CV under canon 604 will live, work, and minister in the world which is ambiguous and freely relate to the world which is God's good creation. If she negotiates this division in senses of the term "world" and integrates contemplation with a ministerial life in and to the world she will actually be living the very thing which distinguishes secularity from secularism; she will be refusing to allow the secular a place of ultimacy in her life and will, moreover, be modeling an appropriate (eschatological) attitude toward the secular.

What remains primary for the c 604 CV, however,  is the fact that by definition her vocation is a secular one (that is, it is lived out in the world and exercised in the "things of the spirit AND the things of the world"). This does not allow her to opt out of engagement with or ministry to the world and it means her contemplative life serves her secularity. Frankly, many people live (or attempt to live) as lay contemplatives today; they combine responsible secular lives with a strong contemplative prayer life and, apart from the consecration of the virgin per se which they do not share, this actually seems to be what you are describing. Remember that it is the Virgin's consecration under c 604 itself which obligates her to and makes her capable of  an eschatological secularity the world needs very much. However, the moment one's description of the CV's life veers into eremitical or semi-eremitical solitude (for instance with references to "great degrees of solitude") one may actually be speaking of a betrayal of c 604's essential call. Thus, the subject line of your email to me refers to a "hermit element" in the OCV vocation. I would say that description is illegitimate and should never be used with the c 604 CV. Every significant Christian vocation should probably have a contemplative dimension which requires a degree of  physical solitude and silence and contemplative prayer, but these are not "eremitical elements" nor are they specifically eremitical at all. Something more is required to make them eremitical --- which is why I argue that living a pious life alone is, of itself, not essentially eremitical.

You write: [[ I know that the Rite refers to the CV living in the world, but I always thought that this referred to the fact that the CV was not in the monastery and therefore in the world. My reasoning came partly from my understanding that the CV vocation originally was lived in solitude or within the family context, and later CV's started to live in community which led to the formation of monasteries. Therefore, it could be said that the same vocational call to a consecrated spousal relationship with Christ was lived both in the world ( i.e., alone or with family), and in the monastery. ( I would see the main difference being that in the monastery there is the addition of religious vows). ]]

But in this I would argue you are mistaken at several points. First, as I have written several times in response to Jenna Cooper's "secular lite" position, the Rite which was renewed by the Church in c 604 does not merely say "living in the world" as though this merely means "rather than living in a monastery." It says (cf. the homily) that one is called to live in the world and serve one's brothers and sisters "in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world".  As I have said a number of times in posts on this topic there are two forms of consecrated virginity today, one lived in the world (a secular form), and one lived as a religious in a vowed expression of separation from it (a specifically cloistered form). I would argue that Canon 604 very specifically reprises a secular form of the life which existed into the 12th century (until 1169 CE) side by side with the cloistered Religious form and was, unfortunately, eclipsed by it. This is really the charism and more immediate source of canon 604, the form of the life the Church sought specifically to re-establish in a world crying out for witnesses to consecrated or eschatological secularity. 

Even if one seeks to move back behind this fact to the early Church, it is important to remember that in the early Church, worship was done in house churches; it was homes that were the center of ecclesial life and consecrated virgins were a central part of this life. Public and private life interpenetrated one another and their boundaries were blurred. The same is true of lives of prayer; folks lived integrated lives of profound prayer AND profound secularity. The entire Church community described in Acts of the Apostles embraced the values later associated specifically with the evangelical counsels of Religious life. This did not make them monastics or other than secular. When folks decided to embrace solitude and rejected "the world" (as in the desert Fathers and Mothers) they left this more integrated life behind and traveled into the desert. Monastic life grew directly out of this desert/eremitical movement as lauras were transformed into monastic communities per se. Meanwhile religious profession via the vows qualifies one's relationship to the world in at least two and sometimes three senses of the word and creates a form of relative separation from it, especially in the senses of 1) that which is resistant to Christ, and 2) that which is ambiguous, the realm of power, wealth, and so forth. The monastery setting is an appropriate physical way of accommodating this entire pattern of qualified relation to the world as is life in community more generally. It is a symbol of a life which is NOT the original form of consecrated virginity, that is, not secular, and not given over to both the things of the spirit and the things of the world.

[[b) - Also, can it be understood that the main service of a CV could be prayer? ( The Rite distinguishes service and prayer, which suggests a form of service on top of prayer as service - or is that not necessarily the case? ) I wonder, because the Rite does suggest that the lifestyle is adapted to the gifts of a person, which could include a predisposition to a life of contemplative prayer and a degree of solitude) ]]

No, I don't think so. Again CV's are consecrated to serve the church and world in the things of the spirit and the things of the world. They are called to a form of eschatological or consecrated secularity.  While prayer is a central and critical component of the CV's life, it is not the defining characteristic, at least not to the extent where it could be said to detract from or replace service in more direct ways. If a person has the necessary gifts and a predisposition to contemplative prayer, this is wonderful and certainly serves any authentic active ministry, but if you are speaking of the gift and predisposition to a contemplative life and vocation per se then  it is unlikely you are speaking of a vocation to canon 604 for women living in the world; again canon 604 very explicitly articulates a secular life of service in the things of the world as well as of the spirit.

If a woman truly feels called to a contemplative life and even to one of eremitical solitude, then I personally believe she should pursue these in a specific and conscious way, either in a monastery, a semi-eremitical community, or perhaps, in rare cases, as a diocesan hermit. These avenues as well as religious life more generally are open to her in the contemporary Church as is lay contemplative life so, unless her original discernment and formation were completely inadequate or skewed and her consecration premature or ill-advised, I wonder why she would want to formally embrace a specifically secular vocation and then fail to live it (or even seek to redefine it as an essentially contemplative or even semi-eremitical one) because she has now discovered different gifts and a different sense of call. This does raise the question of adequate discernment however, and it argues for consecrating only mature vocations, rather than allowing the consecration of women whose spirituality is not yet well-defined. (Note well that I am not ruling out elderly CV's embracing a life of prayer in their post-work years, but this is a different question I think.)

You also write: [[To explain my question further: c) - My impression is that some if not most of the early virgins lived lives of prayer, lived at home, and were not so involved in apostolic service - which was more the domain of deacons / deaconesses. I don't have ready literature to support this view, it's more of an impression that I have gained with time and general reading, although I would like to follow this up if I have the opportunity.

d) - While I intend to be loyal to the teaching of the Church, and seek to understand it more fully, I wonder how interpretations have developed historically... In the light of Vatican II which encouraged a return to roots of consecrated life, it does seem to me that some of the modern interpretations of CV, (perhaps including the Rite itself ), do not always make room for the expression of the vocation as it was in the early Church. ]]

Unfortunately, from what I have seen and read, there is not a lot of direct evidence regarding the nature of the lives lived by virgins in the early Church supporting this. I have seen nothing that indicates they lived essentially contemplative or eremitical lives, for instance.  Again, I think it goes without saying they were women of both deep prayer and significant service. I say this in part because categories were not so sharply drawn at that time so the lives of deaconesses and virgins probably overlapped, especially given the domestic focus or locus of local churches as well as the sense that virgins dedicated to Christ became "men" in a spiritual sense and that they specifically argued for the opening of ministry in ways that would not have been possible otherwise. What I am also suggesting here is that the evidence of what virgins who had given themselves wholly to Christ did in the face of being barred from certain ministerial roles suggests this limitation was more a function of cultural biases than it was the acceptance of a true charism. Thus, St Perpetua et al argued for their essential "maleness" and struggled to be allowed to minister in all the ways men did. This hardly suggests they saw the original charism of their lives as one of separation from the world or of being given over to contemplative prayer except to the degree this supported direct ministry and witness in and to the world.

However, this seems to me to also be somewhat beside the point in looking at c 604 vocations. As I noted above, in promulgating canon 604 the Church seems very clearly and deliberately to have been recovering the secular form of the life that not only pre-dated but also had developed side by side the cloistered form and, again, which was first subverted by the cloistered form of it (cf Sharon Holland, IHM's essay on Consecrated Virginity today) and then was completely eclipsed by it in a Church which came to value Religious life and devalue the secular. It seems to me that contemporary CV's must be keenly aware of and honor not only these more immediate roots of her vocation, but also the correlative reasons the Church established canon 604 when she did as well as the limitations she imposed by removing references to a habit, living in community, vows of obedience, etc. In particular the contemporary CV under c 604 must be able to see her vocation in light of Vatican II, the emphasis on the new evangelism and missiology, and a growing esteem (and need) for a consecrated secularity which is in necessary contrast to both secularism and to (non-secular) Religious life as it is institutionalized today. It would be nice to see CV's who have read the proceedings leading to the promulgation of canon 604, for instance. If we want to understand the mind of the Church in reprising this life that surely seems to me to be a primary source of understanding the authentic charism of this vocation.

There are a number of posts I would refer you to here which have already covered these points more adequately. One of them is Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Minimized Secularity, a Legitimate Development? Another is Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Secular vs Secularism and Consecrated Virginity but others would also be helpful, I think. I hope you will look at these (cf the labels below as well as the links). 

A bit of the Orchestra I play with

Occasionally I get questions about playing with an orchestra, how do I do it, where do I do it, why and so forth. I am not going to answer those questions right now, but partly because of the piece posted on Cyprian Consiglio and references to his music as a piece of his Camaldolese life, and partly because I recently referred to the problem people have understanding this part of my life in the Saturday Evening Post article, I wanted to give folks a taste of the amateur orchestra I do play with. (We all have day jobs, mostly NOT in music, and rehearse one evening a week; we play four sets per school year.) Last season (just finished in June) I missed both of these concerts (and most of the rehearsals!) due to illness, but here is the Oakland Civic Orchestra with movements from two of my favorite symphonies. Ordinarily I would be sitting in the second or third stand of the first violin section or playing principal second. In these concerts I would have been playing first violin.





One blog post I put up last year or the year before referred to working on a Beethoven Symphony; I was trying to illustrate what life in the hermitage was like --- the intensity and struggle, the work, the community, the solitude, the not-so-occasional "failures" or falling short, the life giving quality and the joy of it all. You can find that piece here: Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: On Struggle, Peace, and Authenticity in Eremitical Vocations. These are the people and this is the orchestra I had in mind in the following passage:

[[The hermitage is the place one lives in a conscious way and as constantly as one is able before the face or gaze of God. That is, at once, both a wonderfully affirming and recreating, and a terribly demanding task and experience. All of those things which prevent us from loving well, all of those things which have wounded and distorted us as human beings eventually must be worked through here. Union with God is the primary goal of the hermitage to which all else is ordered; it is the reason hermitages exist, and while this does not mean a stress-filled vocation, it does indicate an intense one. For me it is akin to playing a Beethoven symphony with an orchestra: we work and work intensely --- individually, together in sectionals, with and without the conductor, with the whole orchestra in ways which are physically, intellectually, and emotionally exhausting, and yet, the invigoration and sheer re-creative power of the work is awesome. When the music is allowed to come to life through this orchestra, and through (for instance) my own heart, mind, and muscles as a functioning part of this orchestra, the experience is indescribably exhilarating and joyful even as it exhausts. Life in the hermitage is like that.]]

Father Cyprian Consiglio: New Prior for New Camaldoli

For the second time in less than two years New Camaldoli has a new Prior. It is with joy that the community announces the election of Father Cyprian Consiglio, OSB Cam to this ministry. He succeeds Fathers Robert Hale, Raniero Hoffman, and Bruno Barnhardt in this role. Most know Father Cyprian from his music. Some will recognize the name from his writing and blogging or from the workshops he does on prayer. From whatever direction your knowledge of Cyprian comes you will recognize him as an immensely spiritual and gifted individual and an amazing ambassador of the Camaldolese charism.


For those of you unfamiliar with his work as a musician (he is an amazing guitarist and composer) perhaps the following will give you a very small taste. Meanwhile, I highly recommend the book imaged to the right, Prayer in the Cave of the Heart, the Universal Call to Contemplation. In both his writing and music (and, of course, in his prayer) Cyprian draws from both Eastern and Western contemplative and mystical traditions; readers will find it both nourishing and challenging I think.


Dom Robert Hale decided to resign the position of Prior due to limitations associated with his age (76). He is happy to be "just a simple monk" again and notes that while some things may be more difficult these days he is able to pray more, and more easily. With Camaldolese monks, nuns, and oblates everywhere I offer him my own thanks for his service and generosity and extend my very best wishes and congratulations to Father Cyprian. New Camaldoli is entering a period of change marked by renewed and more extensive collaboration between Oblates and Monks; it will be challenging and I am sure Cyprian will find his gifts in serious demand.

Father Cyprian's installation as Prior will be held during the 11:00 a.m. Eucharist this Saturday, the 20th of July, followed by a simple festive lunch. All Oblates and friends of the community are invited.

Reservation of Eucharist: Is it Essential for the Hermit?

Over the past years several people have written me about their desire to become a diocesan hermit in order to be allowed to reserve Eucharist in their own living space. Most striking about three of these emails was the clear sense that diocesan eremitical life per se held no interest for the person apart from this privilege, and indeed, were the ability to reserve Eucharist in their own living spaces withheld by the diocesan Bishop one person said honestly but bluntly, "What is the point of being consecrated?" It is a good question (for there IS a point!), but it also likely says the person posing the question is not called to diocesan eremitical life at this point in time --- if at all. The following is an accurate characterization of the questions I have received from the three posters referenced compiled as though from a single correspondent.

[[Dear Sister, I would like to reserve the Eucharist in my own home. I live alone and I attend adoration when I can. It is really pivotal to my own spirituality. I am discerning a vocation as a diocesan hermit so that I can do that and I am pretty sure that I am called to this. From what you have written though, I understand that my Bishop does not have to grant me this right [to reserve Eucharist]. So here're my questions: What would be the point of becoming consecrated if my Bishop was NOT going to grant this right? Why not just continue to live as I am already? Also, isn't the right to reserve Eucharist critical to discerning such a vocation? Shouldn't those discerning such a vocation be allowed to reserve Eucharist before they are professed/consecrated?

Further, wouldn't I be kind of "stuck" if a new Bishop took this right away from me?  Personally I feel if that happened it would be devastating to my vocation. I know that obedience is important and I don't mean that I would be disobedient to my Bishop; however, I want to be obedient to the will of God and I think that reserving Eucharist is God's will for me. After all, who are we serving?  I love the Lord in the Eucharist; I experience God flooding my being with his presence during adoration sometimes and having Him in my private chapel apart from distractions and noise by other people is absolutely necessary to my becoming consecrated. I imagine this is true for any consecrated hermit, isn't it? ]]

Thanks for your questions.  I am afraid that given what you have written about your reasons for embracing an eremitical vocation, and especially a consecrated form of that, your question "why not continue to live as [you already are]?" is pretty much my own question to you. What I hear you saying to me is simply that you want to reserve Eucharist and that you will seek and accept consecration as a diocesan hermit if that is allowed you, but there is no point in doing so otherwise; that is, you really see no point to living as a diocesan hermit or embracing the rights and obligations associated with this public vocation in the Church otherwise. As significant as devotion to the reserved Eucharistic presence may be for a person (I say "may" for it may also be unhealthy, theologically unsound, and destructive) and as significant as it is for you personally, it is not a sufficient reason to live an eremitical life much less seek or be admitted to consecration in this way. Similarly it may actually suggest that one is not a suitable candidate for either eremitical life generally or for consecration under canon 603 more specifically. Let me try to explain.

Reservation of Eucharist is a privilege; it is not essential to eremitical life:

While you may imagine that what you feel and believe is and would be true for any consecrated hermit, it is simply not the case. The privilege of reserving Eucharist is not an absolute right and, in fact, is not even typical of the eremitical tradition. Only rarely have hermits been able to reserve Eucharist in their hermitages; it is a distinctly modern development and is still not universally  practiced. Not all diocesan hermits are granted this right and some personally feel no need for it (or they may feel they don't have adequate space for it given the simplicity of their living arrangements). Most religious hermits also live without this privilege (it is typical of the Carthusians and Camaldolese to live in cells without Eucharist reserved). I am sure you would agree nonetheless that there is a point to their lives and that the presence of God in their cells is undoubted. 

Eremitical life has generally been lived in both the Eastern and Western Church  for almost 2000 years without the privilege of reservation of the Eucharist by individual hermits.  If this is truly the reason you are seeking consecration, that is, if this is really absolutely vital to your being consecrated, then I believe you have missed something critical about this vocation. Let me suggest that, for instance, you may not yet be sufficiently appreciative of the ecclesiality of the vocation or of the other ways God dwells with the hermit (or the hermit with God) and the ways the hermit is called to give witness to these realities. Similarly, you may not be open to the loneliness and paradoxical experience of God's presence which is not tied to a literal tabernacle and sometimes feels like an absence. Dealing with this is part and parcel of the eremitical life and of the witness it is called and commissioned to offer both Church and world.

For instance, while the Celebration of the Eucharist and its extension to the hermitage through the reserved Eucharist is central to my own life and to the ecclesial sense of this vocation, and while I would need to change some of the ways I pray were the privilege of reserving it revoked ---especially on days I do not attend Mass --- that revocation would not adversely affect the quality of my prayer or my sense that God is with me as he is in the Eucharist --- in Scripture, in contemplative prayer, in my solitary meals, etc. Neither would it diminish my sense that I live this vocation both for the sake of others and empowered by them and their love and prayers as well (again, part of what I have been calling the ecclesial sense of this vocation). The Eucharistic presence is significant, of course, and it symbolizes all of these things. I emphatically do not mean to minimize that, but my hermitage is and is meant to be a tabernacle of the Risen Christ whether or not I am also allowed to reserve Eucharist here. This is true, I would suggest, for any consecrated hermit and again, is part of the public witness they are called on to give those others who have no chance of reserving the Eucharist in their own spaces but who are also called to recognize and realize their own lives as instances of Eucharistic presence and as places where that presence can become manifest in everyday moments and activities.

Neither is Reservation of Eucharist Essential to the Candidate's Discernment Process

Reservation of the Eucharist is not part of the discernment process --- at least not in the way you are thinking above --- because it is not absolutely necessary to the eremitical life per se or even to consecrated life. It is a privilege, and I agree it is wonderfully life giving and significant, but it is not part of Canon 603's essential elements, for instance. (You might want to review those and also read something like Wencel's book on eremitical life to help you reflect on them.) It is customary only post-consecration at this point, but it is not more than customary. If you continue to develop your own prayer life I think you will find that God's being can flood your own regardless of whether or not you have Eucharist reserved; that is one piece of a strong Eucharistic theology which carries one beyond the limits of Mass or chapel or tabernacle. YOU are to become bread broken and wine poured out for others, whether you have access to Eucharistic reservation or provision for adoration or not. As a hermit your own response or experience should actually be as much to the living God who, in the silence of solitude, resides in  your own heart as it is to the presence in the reserved Eucharist. If you do not find this to be the case it may well be because as yet you are less open to this. Again, Christ is present in many ways in the life of a hermit. All of them must be given attention and allowed to be as fully nourishing and inspiring as God wills them to be.

Not least this is so because OTHERS will benefit from the witness of your life when this is the case and because, as Canon 603 says explicitly, we live it "for the salvation of the world", not merely for ourselves. Our world itself is at least potentially sacramental and we are meant to see that realized (revealed) in every home, etc; a hermitage should surely do this in a way which is paradigmatic for the whole church and world --- significantly this means whether or not the privilege of reservation is allowed. Because of this, genuine discernment looks for signs that this is true for candidates for eremitical consecration without the reservation of Eucharist. You see, you, like anyone else living by themselves, are alone with the Lord the moment you sit down to pray, or eat, or read a page of Scripture. You, like anyone else, are alone with him the moment you sigh in need or fear or loneliness or pain.  Like anyone else, you are alone with him when you shower or wash dishes, lie down to sleep, clean house, work in the garden or take a walk outside the hermitage, etc. This too is real presence. 

A hermit's life witnesses to THIS reality and if one is truly attentive and maturing in her faith she will seek to come to know this sense of presence and faithfulness whether with or without the presence of the reserved Eucharist because, as noted above, this experience can assist the majority of persons called to a similar holiness to embrace this truth in their own lives despite the fact they will never have even the possibility of reserving Eucharist in their own homes. For these reasons, among others, discernment of a vocation to canon 603 eremitical life may well even require that one NOT be given permission to reserve the Eucharist in their hermitage before perpetual profession and consecration. Though this would be an unusual step, I think, it might well be important for a superior to refuse, suspend, or revoke permission to reserve the Eucharist in one's hermitage, at least temporarily, even after a person is professed and consecrated.

I say this because unless a person can live with God in THIS way they may not be called to eremitical solitude at all. Instead, their physical solitude may be a form of illegitimate isolation and their desire to reserve the Eucharist a form of privatistic devotion which is actually a betrayal  1) of the vocation's ecclesiality, 2) of the nature of eremitical solitude, and 3) of the very nature of Eucharist itself. (cf, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Narcissism and Exaggerated Individualism, or Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Ecclesiality vs Individualistic Devotional Acts) In a little-understood vocation fraught with stereotypes related to selfishness, narcissism, and misanthropy and with regard to a canon which has already been abused in merely stopgap solutions for those who cannot be consecrated in any other way, it is important that candidates for profession be models of significant ecclesiality or communion, generosity, love for and witness to others.

What would be the Point of Becoming Consecrated if the Permission could be Revoked?

The fact that you ask "what would be the point?" regarding consecration as a diocesan hermit in the face of lack of permission or revocation of permission to reserve Eucharist in your own space again suggests to me you do not yet truly sufficiently understand nor value the nature of consecrated eremitical life or the witness it gives to so very many whose isolation can and must be redeemed by the presence of God in their physical solitude. A hermit knows this because she has actually been formed in solitude usually without the privilege of reservation. The hermit finds God in ALL the ways God is present, and all the ways every person is called on to find God and she does this not only because she is called to do it, but because it is a central redemptive truth and possibility anyone in the consecrated state must clearly witness to. There is a significant "point" to eremitical life and communion with God is certainly pivotal to that; however, reservation of the Eucharist is NOT absolutely necessary for achieving this communion and may even be an obstacle to it for some, especially if it makes of solitude an instance of isolation and Eucharist a mainly privatistic indulgence.

Bishops know this and my own experience is that they allow reservation of the Eucharist only as PART of a rich and varied life where God's presence is perceived and celebrated in all the ways it is real. They are aware that the reservation of the Eucharist must never be isolating (again, solitude and isolation are very different things), never cut off from the whole People of God or fail to be a true extension of her Eucharistic liturgy, never merely a privatistic act and certainly not an elitist or selfish one. Permission is given when reservation is a piece of a healthy Sacramental theology which sees every meal in the hermitage as a continuation of Eucharist with the hermit's local community, every interchange with others as an exchange of the kiss of peace, and so forth. Reservation of Eucharist is allowed because in a life of eremitical solitude it calls for and can nourish this kind of spirituality which serves the  hermit and whole People of God. Ironically, for a hermit to actually learn these things and live them fully as part of a profoundly ecclesial vocation, it may be important to withhold permission to reserve Eucharist in the hermitage. (cf:  Notes From Stillsong: On Reservation of the Eucharist and, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: On Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Ecclesiality vs Individualistic Devotional Acts for more on Eucharistic Spirituality and the dangers of privatistic or individualistic devotional practice in its regard.)

This is not merely a matter of obedience in the sense of doing as one is told (though it certainly may include that), but it is very much a matter of a more profound and fundamental obedience where one learns to hear, respond to, and celebrate the God who comes to us in the ordinary things of life and who, in the hermit's life especially, is allowed to transfigure all of reality including one's living space itself. You ask, "Who are we serving"? We are serving God, of course. But, as I have noted above, we are serving him as we serve others with our own witness to the ascended Christ who is present to all of reality and can transfigure it with that presence. We are serving all those others whose isolation needs to be transformed by God's presence as it comes to them in every moment of every day. We do so by witnessing to these possibilities and to the Kingdom of Heaven that is meant to interpenetrate and transform this reality.

As noted earlier the issue of ecclesiality comes into play in all this. This time, however it is a consideration because you speak as though you might disobey your Bishop if your own sense of what God calls you to differs --- or at least you already believe you know better. In fact, as a diocesan hermit you have to consider that God's will ALSO comes to us through the Bishop and our vows and commitment to an ecclesial vocation requires we listen attentively to this. Also as already noted, Bishops can have VERY good reasons for denying or removing permission for the reservation of the Eucharist in the hermitage of a diocesan hermit. Of course, the hermit must be convinced of the value of this vocation apart from himself. He must see its value for the whole church and, while his own discernment is important and should be considered by the Bishop, the hermit must also let go of the notion that he alone knows best.

Mary Magdalene and the Requirement she not Cling to the Jesus she knows so well:

Let me say finally that the way you narrowly cling to the reserved Eucharistic presence alone reminds me of Jesus' words to Mary Magdalene: "do not cling to me, I have not yet ascended to my Father." Jesus clearly was pointing to a presence which would be harder to perceive perhaps but which Mary was really called to commit herself to. It is a more risky presence, less comforting for some maybe, and certainly less comfortable, but it is the real Eucharistic spirituality we are all called to embrace. Whether or not we are allowed to reserve Eucharist in our own living spaces it will be a symbol of this more extensive and even harder-to-perceive reality --- the ascended Christ present in every bit of ordinary reality. If you are ever to truly discern a vocation to be a hermit, much less a consecrated solitary hermit, you are going to have to open yourself to this presence just as Mary Magdalene was required to do. More, you are going to need to commit to allowing it to become more and more pervasive in our world. That is part of committing yourself to the coming Reign of God among us and part of every disciple's call and commission --- but it is particularly so for those called to ecclesial vocations and consecrated life.

In other words before you can say you have truly discerned a vocation to be a diocesan hermit you are going to need to discern a vocation to love God wherever God is in your solitude, wherever he desires to be present to you and to all that is precious to him, not only in Eucharistic reservation. Similarly, you are going to need to discover and be able to articulate the charism of the eremitical vocation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the WHOLE People of God --- not merely to you or for the purposes of your own private devotion. Beyond this your diocese will need to mutually discern this vocation with you and admit you to profession/consecration; otherwise you simply cannot consider yourself truly called to this vocation. You asked what is the point of being consecrated without permission for reservation of the Eucharist, and as it stands, it seems very clear that for you there is no point. Unless and until you really discover and are prepared to embrace the purpose, mission, and gift (charism) of a life of eremitical solitude lived for others I think you are correct that you ought not pursue this path.