Do Catholic Hermits Seal Their Vows With Blood? (Reprise)

[[Sister Laurel, the author of Catholic Hermit blog wrote she had sealed or signed her vow of suffering with blood. I think that sounds gross. She wrote about this in Hermit Vow of Consecration of Suffering. Does the Church allow this kind of thing does she? Does she encourage it?. . . ]]

 Joyful Hermit (screen name associated with blog) has written about this kind of thing before but at that point she was describing private vows she had made in a chapel before an altar, all witnessed by her spiritual director. I wrote about that here before  knowing whom the question was about. I am reprising that post here since I think it answers your question:

[[Sister Laurel, do Catholic Hermits seal their vows with blood? I've heard of blood vows (something about the Mafia) and blood oaths but before today I never heard of a Catholic hermit sealing his or her vows with blood or a Catholic priest allowing it. Is this part of canon 603 or the ritual of consecration?]]

Assuming this is a question prompted by an actual situation and not by an old (or new!) Sister Fidelma mystery, I should say that the entire situation you describe completely creeps me out. However it also raises the serious question of the use of normative rites for profession and the relation of liturgy and belief.

One of the things I don't think I have written much about here is the idea that public professions and consecrations are done according to approved rites and liturgies. This, I think, is part of the truth of the traditional saying "as we pray, so we believe" ("Lex orandi, lex credendi"). Let me also say that it goes almost without saying that the approved rites for religious profession in the Roman Catholic Church (including the profession and consecration of the c 603 hermit) or the consecration of Virgins do not EVER use blood to seal the commitment.

The idea of doing so smacks of pagan sacrificial or esoteric rites which attribute mystical powers to blood or think in terms of a kind of crude physicalism and magic. (This is the kind of mistaken and unsound physicalism that talks about hosts spurting blood or speaks of munching on Jesus' bones or fingernails when one is consuming the Eucharist! Too often have Catholics been accused of believing such nonsense. Too often have theologically or spiritually naive Catholics contributed to this judgment --- something which has needlessly inflamed anti-Catholic sentiment over the centuries.) In any case, this notion of sealing vows in blood certainly ignores the fact that Jesus' death and resurrection, something celebrated anew in the Mass that contextualizes a public profession, has done away with such things forever.

Contrary to what you describe or at least imply has occurred, I honestly can't imagine a
Catholic priest allowing such a thing either --- and of course in the profession and consecration of diocesan hermits we are also dealing with diocesan bishops and canonists who absolutely would never allow such a thing to happen. As alluded to above, hermits in such situations are ordinarily professed using either the established Rite of Religious Profession approved by the Vatican or a version of profession for anchorites which is vetted by the hermit's Diocese beforehand. Whichever is used, the insigniae given, the vow formula and forms to be signed and witnessed, and the liturgy more generally are all approved beforehand. (Any individual accommodations are prepared and submitted to the diocese prior to the day of celebration.) The necessary forms are embossed or stamped with the diocesan seal and signed by the Bishop, the Ecclesiastical notary and/or Vicar for Religious, the one professed, and witnesses (pastor, delegate, etc). Barring an inadvertent paper cut or something similar, blood plays no part at all.

While all of this may seem to be legalistic and insensitive to the sentimentality of the one making the vows it really does serve the foundational truth of "Lex orandi, lex credendi." ("As we pray so do we believe"). We Catholics do not make blood oaths and no Catholic Hermit professed by the Church to live eremitical life in her name uses such a gesture with her vow formula because it does not comport with our faith. Could you please let me know where you heard of or read about such a thing? I am actually feeling a bit stunned or off-footed by the question; the notion that anyone might do such a thing, especially a Catholic hermit in a Roman Catholic liturgy is offensive.

Postscript: Perhaps I should rewrite this whole post instead of writing a postscript but I have now seen what brought this issue up for you yesterday. It was a post by  "joyful hermit" on the A Catholic Hermit blog. The author writes:

I admit the profession ceremony was intimately holy, beyond anything I could ever have dreamt nor asked for. God provides! I yet have the vows written, signed by the priest and myself, my blood spread inside a small heart drawn at the bottom--a seal that only my spiritual father has seen. (cf.,Major Occurrence)

Please remember that according to her blogs the author of this description is a baptized Catholic and lives as a dedicated lay hermit. Her vows are a private matter between herself and God; they are not public and have not been received by the Church --- an act which allows and in fact, commissions one to live vows in the name of the Church. (In this situation it is particularly important that we understand this lay hermit was not making a public (canonical) commitment in the name of the Church! To do so in this specific instance could actually give scandal.) Because Joyful Hermit does not say whether the blood-filled heart on the vow formula was added during or after the ceremony  anyone reading about this should remember that whenever it happened it did not occur at a public liturgy nor does this action reflect Catholic theology, belief, or normal praxis. (I personally expect the blood had to have been added afterwards in an entirely personal and sentimental gesture because again, I don't believe the priest witnessing the vows would ever have approved or allowed it himself. )

I do think this action illustrates one reason it is sometimes especially important to distinguish those persons who make and live their professions in the name of the Church  from those who make dedications which are not --- why it is sometimes critical to distinguish between Catholic hermits who live a public profession and Catholics who may live as hermits as part of a private commitment. It also helps illustrate my concern with individualism and sufficient formation in eremitical life with commensurate catechesis prior to any formal commitment.

While to some extent I can understand the sentiment behind the act, I believe and sincerely hope it is very rare for those making private vows and dedications to err in this way; I also see even more clearly why the Church does indeed supervise the professions and lives of those living eremitical life in her name. Namely, she does so in order to help make sure that these persons reflect the Faith and are edifying in all the ways they are called to be by God through the ministry of the Church. This would  include ensuring that profession liturgies celebrated as instances of Catholic worship truly are authentically Catholic in every sense. Again, lex orandi, lex credendi!! As we pray so do we believe!!

On Discernment and Extraordinary Experiences in Prayer

[[Sister Laurel, in your last post you wrote that you discern what is best for your vocation and sometimes it is not the same as what you might discern is best for you yourself. Does this happen often? I would think it would be hard to tease these two apart. I also think it would be hard to live a vocation where these two conflicted.]]

Really great question and observations! It is rare for me to discern one thing that seems best for me but not for my vocation or vice versa. My point was that consecrated hermits need to discern what's best for the vocation itself, that they are responsible for this specific "bigger picture" in discernment. Sometimes there can be an immediate sense that what is good for me is evident. That evident thing may serve my own growth or developing gifts, etc. It may allow a clear use of gifts which are the result of God's grace, but at the same time  it really may not serve the eremitical vocation itself. For instance, I could teach Scripture at my parish and do so in a way which allowed classes to be open to many parishioners and others. That would tap into my own gifts for teaching and my own education in Scripture and Theology. Moreover that is something I would really like to do even as it energizes and allows me to grow further in some ways! It is a good thing and might be very good for the parish, for my own intellectual and spiritual growth, etc., but the fundamental question I would need to answer before doing this is, would it be good for eremitical life itself? (And of course this is only one possibility for work I can do and am drawn to do.)

Remember, I have written before that sometimes hermits must give up using or developing discrete gifts in order to allow their life in the silence of solitude to be the gift. We have sometimes thought that hermits are those who have failed at life, or that they simply had little to offer the church and world in terms of active ministry. That is nonsense of course; what is the case is that hermits make an even more fundamental choice than that of active ministry. Prayer and one's relationship with God is at the heart of every form of ministry but hermits say with their lives that prayer and one's relationship with God IS the beating heart of authentic humanity. Hermits reveal the naked beating heart that empowers every form of truly effective ministry. Even our essential hiddenness is a reminder of something that has absolutely foundational importance and is often given short shrift by ministers because of so many things that seem more urgent. Of course, when we think about it we know that to neglect the heart is fatal just as we know that it is the heart, the very center of our lives and faith, that we give to others in ministry. To try to do ministry without attending to one's heart is like giving people sawdust to eat. Hermits call everyone to recognize who we each are and why we have anything to give at all.

My point in all of this is that there is (or can be) in each of us, hermit or not, a tension between the short term demands of the apostolate and the long term demands of our truest vocation. I try, especially now that I am very secure in who I am as a hermit, and too, in my growth and healing, to accommodate some demands for ministry in my parish and beyond. I am not sure whether this is all I will do or not. I am considering doing one other Bible (or maybe catechism) class down the line. For right now, I am at my limit and need all my extra time for reading, studying and prayer. Currently ministry is the natural outflow and revelation of my hermit vocation; it comes from there and it constantly calls me back to my cell for prayer and study. As long as this is true I am discerning that active ministry is intrinsic to my contemplative and eremitical lives; it is not in conflict with these. But what happens if or when it seems that perhaps I am called to do yet more active ministry?

I think you can see that discernment is something that doesn't cease with my decision to do Bible Study in some way for my parish. I have to keep my finger on the pulse of my own spiritual life, my physical health, the nature and witness value of eremitical life, the content of my vows and Rule, the needs of my parish and my own intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs. God's will works through all of these and calls to me through each and all of them. In the end it might be that doing one more Bible (or catechism) class would be good for me in several ways and good for my parish, but it might also be true that this would be contrary to my commitment and witness to eremitical life. Sometimes there is conflict but so far my experience of this has been that it usually involves a conflict between goods, between something good and something better. A dozen years ago I found this specific discernment very difficult but now I expect it and am open to watching God bring life out of which ever choice I make. All I can do is be as faithful as possible to my own identity, to the call the Church has extended to me and entrusted me with,  and to the God who empowers me to love in whatever I do.

My Director has said to (an impatient) me what seems like a gazillion times at least, "Trust the process!!" This is in regard to healing and growth work in PRH which does indeed demand we work according to a certain "process" or methodology. But at root the phrase also means (not necessarily in this order!): "Trust me and my expertise, trust your deepest self, trust God who is at work in both of us!" God is at work in all things to bring wholeness and holiness forth. Trust Him! Trust the Process!" The "process" is also one of discernment. Discernment doesn't occur just once in awhile in our lives any more than a vow of obedience binds us to simply "do what we're told" when and if a superior requires it. Obedience is a way of living; it is an attentive, open-hearted way of being present to God and the whole of reality. So too is discernment a way of living --- an attentive and open-hearted approach to reality. There are times when this way of living will require assistance, clarification and consultation, and sometimes even the guidance of directors and superiors, but on the whole it is really all about "trusting the process" and especially the God who authors us. When this trusting (of) God is at the heart of all discernment even serious conflicts are easier to handle.

[[Also, I wanted to add a question about your experience of God if I can. Do you hear God speak to you or see visions? I wondered if this is common to hermits since one blog I read seems to have the hermit hearing and seeing visions of [or hearing] "locutions" all the time. Would this be a sign someone is called to eremitical life?]]

Thanks for your last question as well. Let me give you a brief answer now and perhaps enlarge on it at another time. Yes, sometimes I have seen Christ or a representation of the Trinity during prayer.  And yes, I sometimes hear Christ or the Father speak to me. Usually it is a couple of words or a single sentence or two. Never more than that --- no long soliloquies. It can be months or even years between such experiences, and that is entirely fine because one sentence is ordinarily enough to nourish, comfort, and empower me for years. The truth is, however, that these kinds of prayer experiences are infinitely rich and can be touched into again and again over time. One extended prayer experience I had while my director was present assisting me was now about 34 years ago and I still am finding things in it which at the time I missed or simply wasn't ready to appreciate fully.

To be blunt, I do not believe people who claim to have many, many such experiences or who need or depend upon such experiences in order to pray, to discern the will of God, or to live eremitical lives. I believe such a pattern is unhealthy and such "spirituality" both spiritually and psychologically aberrant and suspect. Though I have Sister friends who have genuine experiences like this more frequently than I do, and though I am completely convinced of their genuineness, ordinarily I do not believe patterns of experiences such as you describe to be of God. Accounts I have read by "hermits" who claim numerous such experiences as the basic pattern of their prayer seem analogous to me of someone going to a posh restaurant three times a day, day in and day out and ordering a rich meal each time only to take a single bite of the dessert and throw the rest away. Such a person goes away unnourished and ungrateful. They may also come away consumed by a sense of their own specialness --- a specialness which, unfortunately, does not edify but instead alienates. I don't believe God comes to us in these significant ways if we don't actually benefit from them in the way they can empower.

The truth, however, is other than this, namely, such extraordinary experiences of God are profoundly nourishing for a very long time --- perhaps for the whole of our lives. They are like a parable of Jesus to which one can return again and again and be inspired anew at every turn. So, no, I don't think this is a sign someone is called to eremitical life. It seems more likely to me to be a sign that they need medical assistance, a good therapist, and a really good spiritual director to help them grow to a spiritual maturity capable of finding and hearing or seeing God in the ordinary things of life. Sorry to be so blunt. I understand if this raises more questions for you than it answers but hermits live profound prayer lives which call us all to do something similar. There is nothing either more ordinary nor more extraordinary than their prayer lives. This is not because of extraordinary experiences in prayer but rather because the hermit's own ordinariness and the mundanity of her daily routine is touched and embraced every day by the extraordinary presence of an Incarnate God --- even when the hermit is entirely unaware of it in some sensible (able to be sensed) way.

The Silence of Solitude, Yes. But No, I am Never in this Alone!

[[Sister Laurel, because your vocation is an ecclesial one this means you are not in this alone doesn't it? I mean I know you are in this with God and say with your life that God alone is sufficient for you (or anyone) but I also mean that when you make decisions or do discernment you are not in this alone. You have people you are responsible to and who are responsible for you, isn't this so? I was wondering how that works; how do you get permission for things and how often do you do this? What would happen to you if you didn't seek permission and your bishop disagreed with something you did? Can you just get up and do things on your own? I mean can you do big things in this way: can you move, or buy a car or home (hermitage I guess) or something else which is really serious without permission?]]

Thanks for your questions. I especially like the observation you began with. Yes, you are right, neither I nor any other consecrated hermit is "in this" alone. And yes, first of all that means God is with and in me and I am in, with, and from God. But you are also correct when you describe others being responsible for me (and in some ways, more especially they are there for the sake of eremitical life itself) and I am responsible to God through my obedience (attentiveness) to them. God's presence, power, and will are most often mediated realities. We understand this readily enough when we think of Christianity being mediated to us in sacraments, preaching, the Scriptures, and so forth. This occurs in and through people as well: for hermits our pastor, spiritual director, Director/delegate and bishop are also privileged mediators of God to and for us, and just like for anyone else others may also serve in this way, especially friends and mentors. The bottom line here is that while God touches us directly in prayer more ordinarily he does so only through others in a mediated way.

No, I am not alone. I pray, write (journal), and discern things as best I can and I do so in solitude; my decisions are my own of course, but at the same time, I certainly run things by my director. In matters of serious change or ministry we will talk about things both before my decision and afterwards to see how it is working out --- sometimes just to share and celebrate things. I rarely if ever ask for permission for something. (I can't remember the last time I actually asked for permission -- it may have been while I was in community -- and, as I have noted before here, my director rarely acts/speaks in a way that could be construed as a command/requirement. She trusts me to work things out, to make good decisions consonant with my call and commissioning by the Church, and will assist me in this in whatever way is best for me and for my vocation. It is important to realize, I think, that a hermit's Director/delegate is concerned not only with what the hermit may need but with what is best for the eremitical vocation she is living. Thus, it might seem that doing more active ministry, for instance, is good for me, but at the same time it might seem to conflict with eremitism itself. In such a case the decision made and encouraged is that which best serves the vocation --- which is what I am professed and commissioned to live. In this I would trust that God's will for my vocation is also best for me even when, how, or why that is, is not entirely apparent. Similarly though, to reiterate, most of the time what is best for me seems to be what is best for my vocation as well.

I don't know what would happen if I were to make a decision (or, more likely, a series of smaller decisions constituting a pattern of behavior) and then have my bishop disagree with it although there are several possibilities. He could request or even require I go back behind the decision, but I am fairly certain this would not happen without his asking to hear how and why I discerned and made the decision I did. In such a case he would likely request I come into the chancery for a conversation. If he really felt he needed more information he could ask my Director/delegate to come in to discuss the decision. If he continued to question the rightness or soundness of the decision my sense is he would explain his reservations to me and require I reconsider my decision. If I could not do that and  my bishop believed my decision conflicted with eremitical life, he could eventually determine my vows would be dispensed. If things reached this level I am pretty sure I would revise my initial decision. I only know of one situation involving a diocesan hermit which fits some of these conditions. A bishop decided something a hermit was involved in was contrary to her commitment as a canon 603 hermit; he said (essentially), if you choose to continue in this I cannot consider you are living eremitical life and will need to dispense your vows. In that case the hermit revised her course of action.

In the main I have all the freedom I need to make decisions and to act as I understand is best for me and for consecrated solitary eremitical life. I continue to read about it, learn its history, reflect on its essential elements, write about it, grow in the vows and my relationship with God, and assume my place in this living tradition. My Director helps me to do all of these things and to attend to the Holy Spirit in ways which assure my personal growth and maturity in Christ. She also works with me to achieve wholeness, something which means healing from woundedness or anything which can be an obstacle to wholeness. In the midst of all of this there are some major decisions to be made --- usually medical, some regarding elective or experimental surgery, provisions for future care and living situations, and on a less serious level, there are sometimes decisions to be made regarding ministry at the parish or other time spent outside the hermitage (speaking, playing violin, etc). I am not in this alone nor is it for my own sake, and that is important because the life I live is essentially ecclesial.

I and those who accompany me in his vocation assist me (and the church herself) to be sure I am faithful to what has been entrusted to me. There is nothing heavy-handed in this kind of accompaniment. Though I make my own decisions, I do not ever go off on my own simply because I am not on my own. This means I do not move or make really major purchases without some communication and even consultation. Again, I don't necessarily need permission for such things --- though if, for instance, I were to move dioceses that would require the permission of the new bishop and the assurance of my old bishop that I was a hermit in good standing if the new bishop was also to accept my vows under canon 603. 

No religious, no consecrated hermit, no consecrated virgin, no one admitted to the consecrated state of life can simply get up and do things entirely on their own --- if by this we mean taking major actions like moves, extended trips, really major purchases, and so forth without some consultation or oversight. That oversight might simply mean turning our yearly budget over to the diocese or our congregation once a year, for instance. It might mean providing details of our discernment to our superiors or delegates after our decision has been made, and in other instances it may mean consulting someone beforehand. The bottom line here is the same: because of public vows (and/or life in community) we do not have the same kind of freedom lay persons have in such matters (though, I would point out, our freedom is profound and, in many ways, little more limited than someone with and responsible for a family, etc.).

Hermits live significant silence and solitude with God for the sake of others, but no, we do not enter into this silence of solitude in a way which isolates us from the Church or the guidance she provides. So eremitical solitude, yes, but no, we are not in this alone nor merely for our own sakes, not even merely for the sake of our own holiness. Ironically, this paradox has always been a major grace of eremitical life lived as an ecclesial vocation; its opposite (isolation undertaken for one's own sake, no matter how outwardly pious one might be) is at the heart of most of the perversions and stereotypes of eremitical life I can think of.

Canon 603: Living for the Praise of God

[[Dear Sister, if you are a hermit (sorry, I mean because you are a hermit) how do you live a life in praise of God? You write this blog, which I need to thank you for, but how can you praise God if you live alone? Is your blog meant to carry out the idea of praising God? I know you say prayers which praise God but don't people need to hear your praise? Do you do more than this? You have written that canon 603 has certain central elements and one of these is "a life lived for the praise of God". Does this mean all your prayer is praise or all your life is or am I even close? Thank you.]]

You know, these are great questions, especially as you put matters at the end. You seem mainly to be thinking of praise of God as a matter of saying certain things including certain prayers or kinds of prayers, but at the end you broaden things. I think that's very insightful. I do agree that my whole life is meant to praise God; I think that's what the canon calls for so let me say more about what I think that actually means.

Praise is a form of evaluation, commendation, and even glorification (a term that also needs defining; cf below). When we praise someone we find them laudatory and commend them to others. If that person is a teacher, we commend their teaching by learning from them, by becoming wise in what we learn, and too we will share that learning with others. If the person is a realtor we let folks know they can trust that person to serve them in finding appropriate housing and related financing; we recommend them because they will do their best for those we send their way just as they did for us. When we praise a musician to friends, for instance, we do so in order that others may experience the musician's art; we do it so our friends' hearts and minds may be touched and shaped by an experience of skill, talent, and beauty; if we ourselves are musicians we may copy the musician's technique and allow their aesthetics to shape our own so that our own music-making is deepened and even wider audiences can be reached. This is praise. In even more serious matters we may commend or praise our physicians and recommend friends turn to them in their own medical needs. To sing someone's praises is to express gratitude for (and often to) them; it is to exhort others to let their lives be shaped by these persons, by their work and giftedness, as well as by the same kind of gratitude we have come to know.

Sometimes praise is more pro forma (as when we praise a six year old playing their very first notes on an out of tune violin!) -- though in such a case praise is critical for the child and heartfelt on some levels! But more often praise indicates the profound ways in which our lives are shaped for the better by the one being praised. This is, above all, the case with praise of God and especially with canon 603's requirement that the hermit's life be a life of praise for God. God creates us on an ongoing basis. At every moment he calls us into being and continues to call us into a covenantal existence lived with and in Him; God shapes us and makes us authentically human with his love. He forgives and brings us back to himself when we have fallen away from that love -- and he has done this again and again at great cost. When we allow God to create and recreate us, when we live from his love, tell others his story, stand strong in his truth, we praise God. More, we glorify or reveal him to others.

Hermits say with their lives that God alone is sufficient for us. God alone can complete us and bring us to fullness of life. We praise him by allowing these things to be true, by allowing them to be realized in space and time in our modest hermitages. To commit to this growth in wholeness and holiness is to praise God. Everything in the hermitage  and the hermit's life is meant to foster this goal, this purpose. Assiduous prayer and penance (including the inner work we commit to in spiritual direction, etc.), stricter separation from all that is resistant to Christ or promises fulfillment apart from him (i.e., from "the world"), the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels, and the limited ministry we might do outside the hermitage,  all work together to make that praise concrete and pervasive.

I have written before here about human beings as "language events". We are created and shaped by the words spoken to us and we come to be articulations of their truth and power. I have also said that Christians are meant to become God's own prayers in our world; we are not merely to reflect God's Word or to pray occasionally or even frequently, but always. We are called to be prayer, and most profoundly -- to be God's own prayer in the world. Similarly then, we are to praise God with our lives. We are meant to live those lives in light of God and reveal (glorify) that same light in all we say and do precisely so that in some way, at some time, others may come to know that same God and the humanity he makes possible. Again, this is praise.

I don't need other people to hear what I say or see what I do for this praise to be real, though of course it does bring things full circle when I share with others the fruits of eremitical life. (This answers your question about this blog; yes, blogging is a chance to "praise God" sometimes, as we all ordinarily understand that action, but also by sharing the nature of ecclesial eremitical vocations with readers. In this vocation God is understood to be doing both something ancient and something very new. To represent this clearly is praising God by pointing to the way God is working in our World and Church.) At the same time, simply to live an integral life in the power of the Spirit of God is to live a life of praise. After all, my life in and of itself witnesses to the sufficiency of God for each of us; to do that then is to praise and glorify God.

I hope this helps.

Discernment and Formation go Hand in Hand

[[Sister Laurel, you wrote: "Given the nature of these vocations (rare, difficult to distinguish from individualism without significant discernment and formation) and the Church's esteem for them. . .." Did you mean that formation is also a period of discernment? How does formation change what others distinguish?]]

Hi there! Yes, I do mean that discernment occurs during formation. While we usually refer to these two things separately (x and y) the fact is that significant discernment occurs during formation (and vice versa). If a person negotiates the kinds of formation required by hermits (e.g., to silence, solitude, a regular life of prayer and penance, work/ministry and the relationships essential for well-being even in a solitary hermit) or to religious life, they are being supervised during the process. How well candidates negotiate the challenges and opportunities of formation will yield information which can be used for discernment.

Formation is a focused and usually structured program in which an individual is initiated into the vocation they wish to be professed in. In religious life generally there are three main (and somewhat overlapping) periods of formation: initial formation (candidacy and novitiate) which can take from three to three and a half years, juniorate (temporary profession to perpetual profession) which can take up to six or seven years, and ongoing formation which applies not only to juniorate but to all formation that occurs once perpetual vows have been made. In solitary canonical eremitical life there is neither candidacy nor novitiate (this is true no matter the diocese in which one resides); a person is worked with/followed by the diocese for several years (3-5 is typical and minimal) and if their director, the Vicar for Religious/Consecrated Life and others recommend it, a bishop may agree and admit the hermit to canonical profession under canon 603. This can be solemn (perpetual) profession in certain cases, but temporary profession (3-5 years) is a prudent step prior to this in most cases. This will allow more discernment as well.

Because in cenobitical religious life the supervision is pretty constant, and because it is well-understood and involves not just education and training but socialization in the ethos and charism of the community, canon law is specific on the degree of formation required, and the time frames it takes. The situation is different with hermits. Supervision of a direct kind is sparing and each vocation is discerned individually and without reference to others. All the Director/delegate (who does not live in the same house) can do, is to meet regularly with the hermit, listen to what she tells her, ask good questions and gauge the degree of personal growth and fidelity in keeping whatever Rule the hermit has written at any given point.

There are a number of areas Directors/delegates routinely pay attention to: 1) personal wellness. This involves emotional and psychological health in silence and solitude, 2) knowledge of the vocation. This involves not only education in the eremitical life itself, it's history, characteristics, and graces, but its importance in the life of the Church, its charism --- something the hermit must come to recognize herself I think, 3) prayer and lectio. This includes the way the hermit lives a contemplative life of prayer and lectio divina, the choices she makes in these, her ability to respond obediently in varying circumstances along with her flexibility and fidelity to God in all things, 4) growth in the vows. This includes the way the hermit handles her finances, the choices she makes for simplicity, the relationships she cultivates (because in an ecclesial vocation there must be meaningful relationships which actually contribute to the hermit's solitude) and the healthiness of her capacity for love. It can include the way she responds to authority, the degree of trust she is capable of, along with her capacity for independence from legitimate superiors (even as she entrusts herself to their experience, wisdom, and authority), and the love and commitment she demonstrates to the life of her parish faith community even in the silence of solitude.

Above all the Director/delegate will pay attention to the hermit's genuine happiness and wellness in this vocation, the degree to which she is marked and measured by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the ways the hermit grows as a human being in light of the vocation itself, and the ways in which God brings life out of every circumstance the hermit may experience. She will gauge the authenticity of the piety shown and be cognizant of superficialities or exaggerated reliance on "mystical" (or pseudo-mystical) experiences or notions of God (and/or Satan!) which infantilize and rob the hermit of mature accountability and the capacity for true discernment.

In other words, a Director/delegate will look at the developing quality of the hermit's heart and discern whether Christ has invited this candidate into solitude to grow in maturity, unity and, eventually, union with Him. What I have found in persons I have accompanied in this way is a definite pattern of growth in insight into the life, a tendency to make the vocation one's own (the development of a kind of proprietariness with regard to the vocation) over time as well as to add one's own gifts/specific insights in an organic way to the eremitical tradition of c 603 vocations themselves, and a constantly renewed sense of amazement and awe because of their deepening sense that the vocation is a grace; I have also found in myself and those I have accompanied, growth in personal freedom and authentic independence under ecclesiastical authority. This makes of such accompaniment more a matter of celebration and sharing than of difficult meetings to discuss permissions, inadequacies, etc. I believe my own Director(s) would say the same.

One of the ways I think dioceses and solitary hermits moving towards profession can structure meetings re discernment and formational stages and needs is through the writing of the Rule. This process takes several drafts and correlative attempts at living what one has written; even (sometimes especially!) in persons who have lived religious life before this, the changes from the original version to the one the hermit will eventually submit to her diocese for canonical and bishop's approval are substantial. (I am quite sure I have at least one reader here rolling her eyes and laughing while saying, "Oh, Sister, are you ever right about that one !!) It takes time to make the eremitical tradition one's own, to inculcate the values and sensibilities of the vocation so that one represents eremitical life authentically in a way which is not only consonant with history but relevant and edifying to the contemporary Church and world. In other words, it takes time and a real commitment to growth (as well as a Divine call!) to become the kind of person envisioned in canon 603, one who, inspired by God in Christ, the Desert Abbas and Ammas and hermits throughout the centuries, represents the Church's canonical appropriation and embodiment of the solitary eremitical tradition in the 20-21st C. If one comes to eremitical life from a religious or monastic community one must learn to let go of a lot of very good stuff  (including some of how one lived religious poverty and obedience) while embracing these same values in a way which is appropriate to the solitary canonical hermit.

The hermit's deficiencies, strengths, growth, and other changes are reflected in the Rules she writes over a several year period; additionally the Rules themselves give the hermit and her superiors/guides something to explore and discuss at meetings as well as a way to set goals or decide about necessary resources which might be needed for continuing personal and vocational growth. They are a key to both discernment and formation for everyone involved in the processes. In any case discernment and formation go on at the same time. That, I think, is the nature of a divine vocation; more, it is the nature of a well-lived life.

Basic Vocabulary: Status and Approval

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why would a hermit want status in the Church? I am asking about the idea of canonical status. Why would a humble hermit desire "status"? Also, why is it important to be approved by the Church as in being approved for canonical status or profession. One hermit points out these are hardly what Jesus would want so why should you want these?]]


Thanks for your questions. I'm pretty sure I have written about these terms before so please look them up under labels. Still, let me point out briefly that you seem to be using these terms in ways contrary to the way the Church uses them, especially in regard to profession and consecration as a hermit. First, status refers to a particular kind of standing in law. It does not mean status in the sense of higher social privilege, ranking, or status. Once admitted to public profession a hermit has a standing in canon law she did not have before. What this means concretely is that she has new rights and obligations in law and is commissioned to live the eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. She has "canonical standing" or is "canonical" to use a more informal term. Statum et Status are the Latin forms of the terms status or standing.

Approval, in the limited sense the Church uses this term, is given to someone who meets the Church's requirements and discernment to be admitted to profession or ordination, for instance. A person petitions to be admitted to public vows, and this is true whether one is in a congregation or whether one is a solitary hermit seeking to be professed under canon 603. (One must petition the Church in this matter; it indicates personal freedom, a genuine sense that God is calling one in this way and has done for some time, and so forth.) After the petition has been received the person may be approved for admission or denied admission to profession or profession and consecration; sometimes one petitions only at the end of a long discernment and formation process so one knows fairly well whether the petition will be granted or not). However, admission doesn't mean this person is generally approved by the Church -- though they will have been vetted as to their suitability (the usual term used to speak of character, personal habits, integrity, etc.) to make a public commitment in the Church beyond that of baptism itself.

Some vocations in the Church are called "ecclesial" because they "belong" to the Church herself, to her life of holiness, and sometimes to her hierarchical nature. These vocations must be mutually discerned. It is never enough for an individual to discern such a vocation herself. This is because the Church plays a part in mediating God's own call to the person. So, for instance, once my petition to be admitted to profession under canon 603 was granted we celebrated a Eucharist in which the Church called me forth from the assembly, questioned me regarding my readiness to accept this call, and then received my vows and extended God's consecration to me. The canonical eremitical vocation, like any religious vocation, "belongs" to the Church and she will discern, mediate God's own call to the hermit --- as well as supervise, and govern such vocations on God's behalf precisely because she regards the fact that she, not only the individual, has been entrusted with such vocations as God's own gift to the world.

Given the nature of these vocations (rare, difficult to distinguish from individualism without significant discernment and formation) and the Church's esteem for them and the God who calls those gifted with them, I actually don't think "approval" is too strong a word for determining "suitability" but since it has a much narrower sense than ordinarily, I am careful about pointing out that one is approved, for admission to profession, consecration, or ordination and that such "approval" is not more global. For instance, the Church does not approve my writing, my friendships, etc. They do approve my Rule with a Bishop's statement "(Decree) of approval" that is very clear the Church hopes it will serve the eremitical vocation well. The Rule, therefore, passed muster in terms of content and canon law but no one was sure it would serve the vocation as hoped --- not exactly unqualified "approval."

Regarding the question of humility, my answer is simple. Canonical standing provides a context for living my vocation which creates or ensures stability, accountability, integrity, and freedom. Because eremitical life is lived in the silence of solitude with God in a way which bypasses most normal (and ordinarily necessary) avenues for personal growth, community, and love of and by others (the primary ways we become who God calls us to be), the need for structure including spiritual direction and those in the ministry of authority becomes especially important. Because eremitical solitude is not individualism and is actually antithetical to individualism, in a world largely defined in terms of individualism and a license which is mistaken for authentic freedom, canonical standing and all it implies is particularly critical for the hermit with an ecclesial vocation. Accepting this requires humility where humility means a loving acceptance of the truth of oneself (and others) vis-a-vis God.

Exaltation or Triumph of the Cross (Reprise)

[[Could you write something about (Saturday's) feast of the Exaltation of the Cross? What is a truly healthy and yet deeply spiritual way to exalt the Cross in our personal lives, and in the world at large (that is, supporting those bearing their crosses while not supporting the evil that often causes the destruction and pain that our brothers and sisters are called to endure due to sinful social structures?]]

The above question which arrived by email was the result of reading some of my posts, mainly those on victim soul theology, the Pauline theology of the Cross, and some earlier ones having to do with the permissive will of God. For that reason my answer presupposes much of what I wrote in those and I will try not to be too repetitive. First of all, in answering the question, I think it is helpful to remember the alternative name of this feast, namely, the Triumph of the Cross. For me personally this is a "better" name, and yet, it is a deeply paradoxical one, just like its alternative.


(Crucifix in Ambo of Cathedral of Christ the Light; Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, or Cathedral Sunday in the Diocese of Oakland)


How many times have we heard it suggested that Christians ought not wear crosses around their necks as jewelry any more than they should wear tiny images of electric chairs, medieval racks or other symbols of torture and death? Similarly, how many times has it been said that making jewelry of the cross trivializes what happened there? There is a great deal of truth in these objections, and in similar ones! On the one hand the cross points to the slaughter by torture of hundreds of thousands of people by an oppressive state. More individually it points to the slaughter by torture of an innocent man in order to appease a rowdy religious crowd by an individual of troubled but dishonest conscience, one who put "the supposed greater good" before the innocence of this single victim.

And of course there were collaborators in this slaughter: the religious establishment, disciples who were either too cowardly to stand up for their beliefs, or those who actively betrayed this man who had loved them and called them to a life of greater abundance (and personal risk) than they had ever known before. If we are going to appreciate the triumph of the cross, if we are going to exalt it as Christians do and should, then we cannot forget this aspect of it. Especially we cannot forget that much that happened here was NOT THE WILL OF GOD, nor that generally the perpetrators were not cooperating with that will! The cross was the triumph of God over sin and sinful godless death, but it was ALSO a sinful and godless human (and societal!) act of murder by torture. (In fact one could argue it was a true divine triumph ONLY because it was also these all-too-human things.) Both aspects exist in tension with each other, as they do in ALL of God's victories in our world. It is this tension our jewelry and other crucifixes embody: they are miniature instruments of torture, yes, but also symbols of God's ultimate triumph over the powers of sin and death with which humans are so intimately entangled and complicit.

In our own lives there are crosses, burdens which are the result of societal and personal sin which we must bear responsibly and creatively. That means not only that we cannot shirk them, but also that we bear them with all the asistance that God puts into our hands. Especially it means allowing God to assist us in the carrying of this cross. To really exalt the cross of Christ is to honor all that God did with and made of the very worst that human beings could do to another human being. To exult in our own personal crosses means, at the very least, to allow God to transform them with his presence. That is the way we truly exalt the Cross: we allow it to become the way in which God enters our lives, the passion that breaks us open, makes us completely vulnerable, and urges us to embrace or let God embrace us in a way which comforts, sustains, and even transfigures the whole face of our lives.

If we are able to do this, then the Cross does indeed triumph. Suffering does not. Pain does not. Neither will our lives be defined in terms of these things despite their very real presence. What I think needs to be especially clear is that the exaltation of the cross has to do with what was made possible in light of the combination of awful and humanly engineered torment, and the grace of God. Sin abounded but grace abounded all the more. Does this mean we invite suffering so that "grace may abound all the more?" Well, Paul's clear answer to that question was, "By no means!" How about tolerating suffering when we can do something about it? What about remaining in an abusive relationship, or refusing medical treatment which would ease mental and physical pain, for instance? Do we treat these as crosses we MUST bear? Do we allow ourselves to become complicit in the abuse or the destructive effects of pain and physical or mental illness? I think the general answer is no, of course not.

That means we must look for ways to allow God's grace to triumph, while the triumph of grace ALWAYS results in greater human freedom and authentic functioning. Discerning what is necessary and what will REALLY be an exaltation of the cross in our own lives means determining and acting on the ways freedom from bondage and more authentic humanity can be achieved. Ordinarily this will mean medical treatment; or it will mean moving out of the abusive situation. In ALL cases it means remaining open to and dependent upon God and to what he desires for our lives IN SPITE of the limitations and suffering inherent in them. This is what Jesus did, and what made his cross salvific. This openness and responsiveness to God and what he will do with our lives is, as I have said many times before, what the Scriptures called obedience. Let me be clear: the will of God in ANY situation is that we remain open to him and that authentic humanity be achieved. We MUST do whatever it is that allows us to not close off to God, and to remain open to growth AS HUMAN. If our pain dehumanizes, then we must act in ways which changes that. If our lives cease to reflect the grace of God (and this means fails to be a joyfilled, free, fruitful, loving, genuinely human life) then we must act in ways which change that.

The same is true in society more generally. We must act in ways which open others TO THE GRACE OF GOD. Yes, suffering does this, but this hardly means we simply tell people to pray, grin, and bear it ---- much less allow the oppressive structures to stay in place! As the gospels tell us, "the poor you will always have with you" but this hardly means doing nothing to relieve poverty! Similarly we will always have suffering with us on this side of death, and especially the suffering that comes when human beings institutionalize their own sinful drives and actions. What is essential is that the Cross of Christ is exalted, that the Cross of Christ triumphs in our lives and society, not simply that individual crosses remain or that we exalt them (especially when they are the result of human engineering and sin)! And, as I have written before, to allow Christ's Cross to triumph is to allow the grace of God to transform all the dark and meaningless places with his presence, light and love. It is ONLY in this way that we truly "make up for what is lacking in the passion of Christ."

The paradox in Saturday's Feast is that the exaltation of the Cross implies suffering, and stresses that the cross empowers the ability to suffer well, but at the same time points to a freedom the world cannot grant --- a freedom in which we both transcend and transform suffering because of a victory Christ has won over the powers of sin and death which are built right into our lives and in the structures of this world. Thus, we cannot ever collude with the powers of this world; we must always be sure we are acting in complicity with the grace of God instead. Sometimes this means accepting the suffering that comes our way (or encouraging and supporting others in doing so of course), but never for its own sake. If our (or their) suffering does not result in greater human authenticity, greater freedom from bondage, greater joy and true peace, then it is not suffering which exalts the Cross of Christ. If it does not in some way transform and subvert the structures of this world which oppress and destroy, then it does not express the triumph of Jesus' Cross, nor are we really participating in THAT Cross in embracing our own.

I am certain I have not completely answered your question, but for now this will need to suffice. My thanks for your patience. If you have other questions which can assist me to do a better job, I would very much appreciate them. Again, thanks for your emails.

On Parishes understanding the Hermit's Vocation

[[Hi Sister Laurel, do you find your parish doesn't understand your vocation? Would you choose not to tell people you area consecrated hermit because "Catholics cannot understand this?" I read something like this recently and don't understand why Catholics would have a hard time understanding it. The blog passage I read had a priest telling the hermit not to tell people about her identity (status?) because "Catholics wouldn't understand it". Guess I already said that, but why would a parish priest say that? Couldn't he help the hermit by introducing her and talking about the vocation? Does this have something to do with the hiddenness of the vocation? How do you or your diocese make sure your diocese and parish understand your vocation?]]

Good questions and some things I will need to guess at though as I think about instances I have read about, I think they are reasonable guesses. I think in a general sense my parish recognizes that I am a contemplative woman religious. I think fewer among them really understand what being a hermit is all about, but at the same time, they are more than open to finding out about that. In the beginning of my time at the parish I gave a talk on being a hermit and I think that was helpful. In the future I would like to do another talk and combine it with a presentation on desert spirituality itself, something which could have wide appeal for anyone given its importance in developing a healthy spirituality. Most times, however, I tend to answer people's questions on a one-on-one basis-- a much more casual approach to things. I never choose not to tell people who I am because I am publicly responsible for the solitary eremitical vocation under c 603 and currently am the only diocesan hermit Oakland has or has ever known. It is who I am; I can't hide that or lie about it or pretend to something else. Most of the time I am in my hermitage so when I can be available and provide accurate information I try to do that.

Knowledgeable Parishes and parishioners:

There is no reason Catholics cannot understand having a consecrated hermit in their midst. If a priest has asked someone to refrain from telling people in the parish that they are a consecrated hermit I think it is more likely to be about them (the hermit) than it is to be about the (other) parishioners. For instance, it might well be because they are not really a consecrated hermit and the priest is attempting to protect them from the reaction of others to an announcement which would make them look foolish or delusional or something similar. Since fraud is something of a problem today with some hermits coming into parishes and presenting themselves in this way, the best way to protect the sensibilities of the parishioners and the feelings of someone misrepresenting themselves (no matter the reason for this!) is simply to say, "Oh, I wouldn't go there; don't tell people about that -- they won't get it." I suspect, therefore, it could be a face-saving device which is pastorally sensitive and protective to both the individual who is misleadingly claiming consecrated standing as well as to the members of the parish faith community who would react to this.

I just cannot imagine any other reason for such a comment by a parish priest, but especially I cannot imagine a parish priest telling a consecrated hermit, "Don't say anything; Catholics will never understand this" and meaning it literally! What many Catholics would not understand, for instance, is a person telling them someone is a consecrated hermit via private vows. Catholics may not know lots (or even anything at all) about canon 603 or eremitical life in the Church per se, but they tend to understand religious life and know that private vows do not EVER a consecrated person/religious make!  If the putative hermit has other things besides her claims to be consecrated hermit which make her seem eccentric in this way or that, the tendency to question her claims will be encouraged and magnified. The easiest way to avoid all this along with the pain and fallout which could come to the hermit and parish as a result is to ask her simply not to make her claim in the first place. "Don't tell folks you are a consecrated hermit; they won't "get" what you are claiming and you will alienate them and isolate yourself in the process!"

The Pastor's Assistance, helping the hermit fulfill her Mission:

And yes, you are exactly correct in suggesting how a parish priest or pastor would tend to proceed if they truly have a solitary consecrated hermit in their parish -- especially if that hermit will be attending Sunday and/or daily Mass at times. They would introduce the hermit (at liturgy or in the bulletin, for instance), say something about the vocation, canon 603, the place and date where the hermit was publicly professed/consecrated, and perhaps outline some of the ways the hermit will and will not participate in the life of this faith community. A pastor might well indicate the hermit would like to receive prayer requests but would prefer not to get phone calls with these, much less knocks on the hermitage door. I sometimes offer Bible study and other things so I try to indicate the best way to contact me (email) and, if a person needs to phone, hours when it is best to try and reach me or, on the other hand, to refrain from calling the hermitage.

You see, the hermit, no matter how strict her physical solitude, represents a form of ministry in the parish and the diocese; she is there for God and others, never merely for herself. This fundamental understanding of the eremitical vocation is one of the reasons hermits have always given a privileged place to hospitality should guests arrive at their hermitage. Hospitality, over the centuries, has come to mean many things but it does not cease to be a privileged reality for the hermit precisely because her vocation is lived for others; it is not individualistic or selfish. Similarly, eremitical hiddenness, as I wrote earlier, exists for the sake (and as a reflection) of other more primary values and I don't see how that would have to do with the statement you quoted anyway. (I just can't imagine a link here.) Underlying any of the central elements of canon 603 specifically or eremitical life in the Church more generally --- assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude --- is the foundational understanding that this life is lived "for the praise of God and the salvation of others (or, 'of the world')". It is up to the hermit with the aid of her bishop and parish pastor to work out how  can and will best be carried out and witnessed to in her concrete faith community while protecting and nurturing the hermit's own eremitical life in the silence of solitude.

My own diocese made sure there was a diocesan-wide newspaper article on my profession and consecration. I think that's pretty typical in dioceses around the world. Beyond this, working things out falls to me with the assistance of my Director and my pastor. Other parishes may and have asked me to do presentations on the eremitical life for them; groups within the parish or diocese may request the same. In general I am responsible for accepting or declining such invitations as I can, and I am similarly responsible for making clear when I can actually be available if I must decline. I have not found nor would I expect that my diocese plays a continuing role in educating people on my vocation beyond the publicity surrounding profession; though the diocese would be of support in this it mainly falls to me and indirectly, to my pastor.

Hiddenness as a Derivative or Subordinate Value for the Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I need you to clarify something for me. Are you saying that hiddenness is not an important value for the hermit? I think hermits make sacrifices so wouldn't remaining hidden be one of these especially when one is ill and needs medical care? Wouldn't a hermit accept the sacrifice of hiddenness and forego some kinds of contact with medical personnel? Why would it be different for someone who is privately vowed than it is for someone publicly professed?]]

Thanks for your questions. Hiddenness is a characteristic of eremitical life. It can be and often is an important value but in the eremitical life it is also a derivative one. Hermits do not make vows of hiddenness, for instance. Canon 603 does not even mention hiddenness much less make it normative. Instead solitary canonical hermits are bound to a life of "stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer", and "the silence of solitude" for the praise of God and the salvation of others. Hiddenness stems from these normative elements. It is derived from them and is a helpful description of a significant dimension of these elements; clearly the  Catechism of the Catholic Church knew this. However, this also means it is not normative in a way which allows it to supersede more fundamental values and obligations -- the obligation to live well, to take care of one's health, to be sure one's eremitical life is a witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others in ways which edify (build up), and any number of other obligations.

Think about this from the perspective of witness value. The central elements of canon 603 I mentioned are normative because of themselves they have a witness value. Assiduous prayer has meaning in itself and witnesses to the fact that God alone completes us as the covenantal people we are meant to be. Every human person is called to significant and even assiduous prayer in one form and another because every human life is meant to be completed and made true in and through the powerful presence of God's love. We are all called to allow this Presence/love to work by being attentive and open to it --- though hermits do this in a way which defines their lives in terms of prayer.

The "silence of solitude" has a fullness of meaning beyond mere silence and solitude; it points directly to the wholeness, integrity, stillness, and completeness of the life lived in and for God alone. Every human being is called to "the silence of solitude" as the goal of their lives even if they are not called to live in eremitical silence and solitude or witness to this specific wholeness and holiness with lives defined in terms of "the silence of solitude" per se. "separation from the world" is a value in and of itself because every human being is called to be separated from those things which promise fulfillment apart from God or which resist the God who comes to us in Christ. Most, however, are called to live this separation while living within the world of everyday affairs and concerns. Hermits live a stricter separation in a more intense and paradigmatic way; they do so to witness to the importance of "cleaving to God" in every person's life. But hiddenness is different. It may be a value  and will be if it serves these other values, but it may also be a disvalue. Consider what hiddenness means if it is linked to fear, escapism, a lack of integrity, or hypocrisy and dishonesty.

My canonical eremitical life is an essentially hidden one marked by assiduous prayer, study, inner work, contemplation, recreation with God for the sake of balance, wholeness, and so forth. But the hiddenness is meaningful and of witness value only because and to the extent it serves and reflects these things --- only to the extent it serves the central elements of c 603 life outlined above. If I spent my days merely watching TV or sleeping, reading, and eating bon bons etc, if, that is, I lived in ways which actually gave the lie to my eremitical commitment, my life would also be hidden but the hiddenness would actually be a disvalue and it would be destructive and disedifying to the eremitical vocation and the Church who received my commitment and consecrated me. (Please note, I am not referring to days or parts of days when illness prevents my more usual eremitical life here. I am just trying to contrast what my eremitical life is meant to be vs something it is NOT meant to be and how both of these reflect hiddenness.) Thus, again, hermits do not make vows of hiddenness nor are they called to hiddenness except as a derivative or subordinate value which serves more primary values. To reject necessary medical care or refuse to build a necessary network of folks who can assist one in case of serious illness or other need in the name of "hiddenness" is wrongheaded and, I would argue, unwise and illegitimate.

Your questions about sacrifices fit in here. Yes, eremitical life is marked by sacrifices -- as is any life which is truly given to God in all things. But note that this means it is a moral life in which objective values are discerned, prioritized, and acted upon. Hiddenness of itself is not a value which can trump a commitment to fullness of life. Were I, as a canonical hermit, to decide to forego necessary medical and/or post-surgical care (especially after I had appropriately discerned the rightness of having the surgery in the first place!), my superiors (bishop, Director/delegate) would have every right (and obligation) to question my decision and to work with me to be sure my decision was well-founded and served not just myself but the eremitical vocation I live. In something serious like this they would need to agree with the quality or soundness of my discernment or they could even require me to accept the care my physicians have said is required for good post-op recovery.

Note well, that the question of elective surgery itself is something that requires discernment; assuring sufficient assistance for a good post-operative course would be part of that. I could not agree to elective surgery as the will of God in my life unless I also could affirm that the necessary post-operative care was something I could commit to in this way.  If the surgery is not elective the necessary post-operative care is still undertaken as part of the necessary surgery itself. As you might guess, for most hermits the real sacrifice in any of this would be to accept the necessary medical care and assistance of others because we do love our physical solitude. And yet, in accepting assistance in this way the hermit witnesses to her solidarity with others even in the essential hiddenness of her life. She reminds every person that eremitical solitude (which, again, is very much more than just physical solitude) is actually a unique way of living community; she reminds us all that Love is the highest value of her life and that loving and being loved is the highest dynamic in every life --- but certainly in the life of a consecrated hermit living a solitary vocation affirming the sufficiency of God as Love-in-Act.

In light of all this the consecrated (publicly professed) hermit cannot make hiddenness an absolute value; even less can she put hiddenness above this most foundational witness -- especially when the Church will allow the mitigation of even physical solitude in order to accept appropriate care and assistance. Moreover, in a point I made in the last post, if a canonical hermit is allowed and even required to accept such mitigations, how much more so would this be true for a lay hermit whose commitment is a private one? I hope that to some degree at least this answers your question about the difference between publicly professed hermits and those with private commitments. If you feel it does not I would encourage you to read other articles on the differences between private vows and public profession, especially those dealing with the public rights, obligations and expectations which are part and parcel of any public commitment. And of course, if that is not sufficiently helpful to you, please get back to me with your questions.

On Accepting Necessary Medical Assistance and Eremitical "Hiddenness"

 [[Dear Sister, Thank you for writing about chronic illness and the ways one might need to adjust or change their prayer because of it. I don't think I have ever heard anyone write about this before. It makes sense. I always just thought you (one) prayed as always when sick and then I got on my own case if I was unable to do that! It makes a huge difference when prayer is understood as God's active presence and our openness to that presence!! I have some other questions about what happens if you are disabled for some reason. If you need special assistance for a time because of your illness are you allowed to have people come into your hermitage? Are there any limitations on medical needs or assistance which apply because of a requirement that you remain hidden from people? How about for someone living as a hermit with private vows??]]

Thanks for your comments on my earlier posts. I think we need to do a better job educating folks about praying in various situations and developing a kind of repertoire of prayer forms and resources. Also we need to be sure folks understand that prayer is God's work within us and can certainly do that if we are ill or otherwise unable to follow our Rule or horarium. God is the supreme Consoler or Comforter so when we are ill if we allow God to be with us and rest in him what more could God will or we want?

Regarding special assistance in cases of medical need --- of course I am allowed to get what help I need so long, generally speaking, as my insurance will pay for it and my physicians/other clinicians order it. If it is medically necessary there is nothing in canon 603 or my own Rule which prevents this. Were my family located close by perhaps I would expect some assistance from them if and as they were capable of it. As it stands I would ask friends in my parish and from other venues to assist me as they could. Similarly, I would pay someone to come in to do necessary work if and as I could afford to do that. The point is that even (or especially) as a canonically professed hermit the Church would expect me to do what I need in order to heal well and to live as full a life as I am capable of. I remind you that hiddenness is NOT a canonical requirement of the eremitical life. It is an important but derivative quality describing a contemplative life lived in the silence of solitude and stricter (not absolute) separation from the world. This does not mean it is unimportant, but merely that the Church does not demand or require hiddenness as a primary characteristic; were it otherwise hiddenness would be listed in the canon (legal norm) defining the essential characteristics of the vocation.

Granted, I know I wouldn't like to be dependent on assistance to the level it might actually be necessary in situations of medial need, convalescence, etc, but morally I believe I am required to accept whatever degree of assistance is necessary in order to be well enough to live my vocation fully and fruitfully. For me this acceptance would be a bit of a cross I would need to embrace for the larger perspective of my own life and vocation itself. Thus, the acceptance of assistance by others is not just a medical requirement but an ethical one; to refuse it in the name of "hiddenness" is to place a relatively vague descriptive catechism term above the canonical requirements which define the legal and substantive contents of diocesan hermits' professions in the hands and name of the Church and have priority over pars 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

With that in mind it strikes me that it would be even less justifiable to make "hiddenness" (whatever this word actually means --- because it is never actually defined!!) as a reason for limiting necessary medical and social assistance for the non-canonical hermit living in the freedom of the lay state. This is not to suggest private vows are not significant, but it is to reiterate they do not create public rights and obligations which might be given precedence over one's rights and obligations as a lay person. (N.B. When a Rule is approved by the c 603 hermit's bishop and canonists one of the things looked at are places where the hermit is claiming or creating obligations which might be unhealthy or disedifying; such obligations would not, generally speaking, be allowed.) Moreover, when an unforeseen situation threatening a hermit's health arises, neither the hermit's delegate/Director nor her bishop would refrain from dispensing (mitigating or allowing the hermit to mitigate) at least on a temporary basis, whatever part of the Rule is necessary to allow genuine healing and appropriate medical care.

In situations which are equivocal and require discernment and discussion, it is the canonical framework which assures necessary discussions are had and appropriate discernment is reached. My own delegate assures I have someone with whom this can occur. To suggest (or be told by a privately dedicated (or vowed) hermit) that such a hermit might be "obligated" to forego the assistance and relationships needed to allow the same care/healing as a canonical hermit -- despite the fact that s/he has no public obligations beyond those binding any other lay person --- would be to suggest or be told something that has no basis in fact, law, or reason. Instead it represents an individualistic interpretation of a too-vague catechism term, which interpretation the Church would reject as contrary to canon and moral law. Of course, such an individual might decide to cut herself off from relationships, medical assistance, family ties, etc in the name of her own understanding of eremitical life, but this is not a matter of the Church obligating her in this way or accepting a public commitment which  might so obligate her in certain circumstances.

All of this points to another situation in which the assumption of public rights and obligations occurring with Baptism or beyond this with public profession and consecration is of critical importance and distinction from a private commitment, even when using vows. When, as noted in earlier posts, we speak of a stable state of life we are speaking of a life with stable structural, legal, relational and institutional elements. In light of this post, that can be expanded to include the fact that such stable states ensure that the life being lived in the name of God and the Church is lived according to divine, moral, and canon law. When questions arise as to which obligations have precedence, for example, stable states of life will ensure the capacity and obligation for adequate consultation and discernment. In point of fact, one central characteristic of a relatively non-stable eremitical life is an individualism (including the absence of canonical obligations beyond those of baptism) which therefore may not allow and does not sufficiently require adequate medical and pastoral consultation and discernment to ensure divine and moral laws are observed in a genuinely edifying way.

A point of clarification:

Please note, in what I wrote above about relatively unstable states of life I am not referring to lay life per se; again, lay life represents a stable state of life rooted in baptism characterized by a particular freedom marked by specific rights and obligations. I was specifically referring to instances of eremitical life lived in the lay state while claiming to be obliged to the requirements of consecrated eremitical life without ecclesial initiation into the grace or the support and institutional structures of this stable state of life.

To falsely claim to be bound, for example, to the "hiddenness" of consecrated eremitical life without also being obligated to the pastoral consultation or discernment inherent in the consecrated state, and to do so in a way which prevents one from getting adequate medical care and the social assistance genuinely consecrated hermits are allowed (or even obligated) to accept by way of mitigation or exception is to betray the stability of both the lay and consecrated states of life. One cannot pretend to be bound by (or graced in a way which allows one to be bound by!) the rights and obligations of the consecrated state unless one is bound by ALL of these, including the right and obligation to be obedient to the ministry of authority embraced, authorized, and exercised by legitimate superiors or the divine and moral law these individuals help serve in the consecrated hermit's life.