Private Vows do Not Constitute Profession

[[Sister, are you saying that the word profession is not rightly used for private commitments? It's commonly used any time someone makes vows so are you saying that is incorrect? That's going to shake some folks up!!]]

Yes, there are a couple of words that are used commonly when they actually have technical and more limited meanings and applications. Profession is one of these. (Consecration is another.) The making of private vows does not constitute profession. It is an avowal, a dedication. a significant personal commitment, but it is not a profession. A profession is made publicly and in the hands of a competent authority receiving one's vows; it is an ecclesial act to which one is carefully admitted after mutual discernment. It binds one in law, that is canonically, to new public rights and obligations and thus, establishes the person in a new state of life. Moreover, it gives the People of God the right to certain expectations rooted in this profession. Private commitments, whether using vows or not, do none of these things. Even so, we have begun to qualify profession with the term public (or private) because of how common the mistaken usage (speaking as though profession refers to any vows at all) has become.

But there is a problem in shifting the meaning from an exclusive usage to a qualified one. It happens when we read older texts that simply say "profession" without qualification. JPII, for instance doesn't say "public profession" in Vita Consecrata, but this is what he means when he says "profession". It is what he assumes when he speaks of "consecrated life" or the "consecrated state". He is using the term in the unqualified way it was always used until very recently; in so doing he compares and contrasts a "second consecration" which is an ecclesial act with the consecration of baptism, as well as contrasting profession with vows of poverty, chastity and obedience made by a couple within marriage. In the latter case he is clear these vows do not initiate into the consecrated state.  Some may simply not know this and may assume "profession" has the same meaning in recent documents as it did in the past. Bearing all this in mind the bottom line that must be made clear is that whichever usage we adopt (qualifying the term profession or using it exclusively for public commitments) there is a vast difference between private and public commitments.

If a person claims to have been initiated into the consecrated state with private vows I would ask them several questions: 1) in the hands of what competent authority did you make your commitment? 2) what new canonical rights and obligations are incumbent upon you now? 3) What expectations do the People of God have the right to hold in your regard precisely because of the new canonical rights and obligations you have been entrusted with and embraced? 4) Who, on behalf of the Church, (i.e., what competent authority) discerned this vocation with you, 5) Who admitted you canonically to vows? 6) To what do your vows legally bind you that your (baptized, lay) state in life does not already bind you? and finally, 7) What then do you make of Par 944 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: [[944 The life consecrated to God is characterized by the public profession of the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, in a stable state of life recognized by the Church.]] This is not a matter of quibbling over terminology. It is a matter of making clear what profession (and here I mean the entire Act or Rite of Profession) effects or makes binding in law that private vows do not and cannot. In this usage "profession" is a synecdoche.*
_____________________________________
*Again, profession is more than the making of a commitment whether one uses vows or other sacred bonds. It includes the Church's calling forth, the person's request to be admitted to public vows, an examination of readiness to  make this  commitment, the prayer of the whole Church, both militant and triumphant to witness and participate in what is happening here (Litany of Saints) and celebrant's prayer, the making of vows (Profession), the Solemn blessing or Consecration of the Professed (in perpetual profession), the presentation of religious insigniae (ring, cowl, etc.). . . concluding rite with solemn blessing.

As you can see, the rite is an ecclesial act. It involves the entire Church participating in the granting and embracing of a new ecclesial identity with new public rights and obligations. This is where the term public comes from. The commitment is not a private one no matter how hidden the hermit's life. Throughout this rite the Church calls the candidate for profession and the candidate responds. This is repeated in an ongoing dialogue between Church (competent authority) and the one making profession/being professed. It is this entire dialogue of giving and receiving, calling and responding that is referred to as Profession though we refer to the making of vows themselves as profession; this is a synecdoche where one part gives the name to the whole.

 Similarly one can speak of one's consecration as a synecdoche where the solemn blessing or consecration names the entire event. When someone refers to this event they will say either "your profession" or "your consecration" but they mean the entire rite and what it occasions canonically, personally, ecclesially, etc. Note well, consecration is not something the professed does with herself; it is something God does to or with her through the mediation of the Church.

Feast of the Presentation and Celebration of Consecrated Life (reprise)

While this was Pope Francis' homily last year on the Feast of the Presentation and the opening of the Year of Consecrated Life, it is a wonderful homily for the whole Church. I wanted to reprise it here as a challenge not only to Religious and Consecrated Virgins, but to all of us.

Homily: Feast of the Presentation of the Lord

by Pope Francis

From VATICAN RADIO

2 February 2015

[[Before our eyes we can picture Mother Mary as she walks, carrying the Baby Jesus in her arms. She brings him to the Temple; she presents him to the people; she brings him to meet his people.

The arms of Mother Mary are like the “ladder” on which the Son of God comes down to us, the ladder of God’s condescension. This is what we heard in the first reading, from the Letter to the Hebrews: Christ became “like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest” (Heb 2:17). This is the twofold path taken by Jesus: he descended, he became like us, in order then to ascend with us to the Father, making us like himself.

In our heart we can contemplate this double movement by imagining the Gospel scene of Mary who enters the Temple holding the Child in her arms. The Mother walks, yet it is the Child who goes before her. She carries him, yet he is leading her along the path of the God who comes to us so that we might go to him.

Jesus walked the same path as we do, and showed us a new way, the “new and living way” (cf. Heb 10:20) which is himself. For us too, as consecrated men and women, he opened a path.

Fully five times the Gospel speaks to us of Mary and Joseph’s obedience to the “law of the Lord” (cf. Lk 2:22-24,27,39). Jesus came not to do his own will, but the will of the Father. This way, he tells us, was his “food” (cf. Jn4:34). In the same way, all those who follow Jesus must set out on the path of obedience, imitating as it were the Lord’s “condescension” by humbling themselves and making their own the will of the Father, even to self-emptying and abasement (cf. Phil 2:7-8). For a religious person, to progress is to lower oneself in service. A path like that of Jesus, who “did not count equality with God something to be grasped.”: to lower oneself, making oneself a servant, in order to serve.

This path, then, takes the form of the rule, marked by the charism of the founder. For all of us, the essential rule remains the Gospel, this abasement of Christ, yet the Holy Spirit, in his infinite creativity, also gives it expression in the various rules of the consecrated life, though all of these are born of that sequela Christi, from this path of self-abasement in service.

Through this “law” consecrated persons are able to attain wisdom, which is not an abstract attitude, but a work and a gift of the Holy Spirit, the sign and proof of which is joy. Yes, the mirth of the religious is a consequence of this journey of abasement with Jesus: and when we are sad, it would do us well to ask how we are living this kenotic dimension.

In the account of Jesus’ Presentation, wisdom is represented by two elderly persons, Simeon and Anna: persons docile to the Holy Spirit (He is named 4 times), led by him, inspired by him. The Lord granted them wisdom as the fruit of a long journey along the path of obedience to his law, an obedience which likewise humbles and abases – even as it also guards and guarantees hope – and now they are creative, for they are filled with the Holy Spirit. They even enact a kind of liturgy around the Child as he comes to the Temple. Simeon praises the Lord and Anna “proclaims” salvation (cf. Lk2:28-32,38). As with Mary, the elderly man holds the Child, but in fact it is the Child who guides the elderly man. The liturgy of First Vespers of today’s feast puts this clearly and concisely: “senex puerum portabat, puer autem senem regebat”. Mary, the young mother, and Simeon, the kindly old man, hold the Child in their arms, yet it is the Child himself who guides both of them.

It is curious: here it is not young people who are creative: the young, like Mary and Joseph, follow the law of the Lord, the path of obedience. And the Lord turns obedience into wisdom by the working of his Holy Spirit. At times God can grant the gift of wisdom to a young person, but always as the fruit of obedience and docility to the Spirit. This obedience and docility is not something theoretical; it too is subject to the economy of the incarnation of the Word: docility and obedience to a founder, docility and obedience to a specific rule, docility and obedience to one’s superior, docility and obedience to the Church. It is always docility and obedience in the concrete.

In persevering along along the path of obedience, personal and communal wisdom matures, and thus it also becomes possible to adapt rules to the times. For true “aggiornamento” is the fruit of wisdom forged in docility and obedience.

The strengthening and renewal of consecrated life are the result of great love for the rule, and also the ability to look to and heed the elders of one’s congregation. In this way, the “deposit”, the charism of each religious family, is preserved by obedience and by wisdom, working together. And, along this journey, we are preserved from living our consecration lightly and in a disincarnate manner, as though it were a Gnosis, which would reduce itself to a “caricature” of the religious life, in which is realized a sequela – a following – that is without sacrifice, a prayer that is without encounter, a fraternal life that is without communion, an obedience without trust, a charity without transcendence.

Today we too, like Mary and Simeon, want to take Jesus into our arms, to bring him to his people. Surely we will be able to do so if we enter into the mystery in which Jesus himself is our guide. Let us bring others to Jesus, but let us also allow ourselves to be led by him. This is what we should be: guides who themselves are guided.

May the Lord, through the intercession of Mary our Mother, Saint Joseph and Saints Simeon and Anna, grant to all of us what we sought in today’s opening prayer: to “be presented [to him] fully renewed in spirit”. Amen.]]

Question on Vita Consecrata

Dom Robert Hale, OSB Cam

[[[St. John Paul II clearly differentiates in Vita Consecrata how it is that traditional privately professed hermits are definitely not part of the laity. This is by virtue of our allowed and legitimate profession of the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, by our vows, our rule of life, and our having lived in all aspects of solitary hermit life: fully surrendered in sacrifice and our bodies, minds, hearts, and souls fully consecrated to Christ and His Church.]]

Dear Sister, have you read John Paul II's Vita Consecrata? I don't have it and have not read it. I figured you surely would have! Because of your post on basic vocabulary. I am thinking that the phrase "legitimate profession" is a technical term which does not merely refer to the making of vows, especially private vows. Am I  right? I am guessing here, but does it mean a profession of vows made in law or under canon law and initiating one into a new state of life? That would mean that if John Paul II said "legitimate profession" he is not referring to private vows. Also, is the following quote accurate? [[(Pope JPII makes clear we are not part of the laity by reality of our professing the three evangelical counsels, our vows, rules of life, and way of living our vocations daily, some of us for years, and considering all the historical, traditional hermits of the past many centuries)]]

Yes, of course, I have read Vita Consecrata, but it was not recently. I have a copy of it on Kindle so I can review it. I don't recall what JPII said of historical hermits prior to canon 603 or apart from those professed in societies or institutes of consecrated life so I will need to check that out. I sincerely doubt that he says hermits who use private vows to make their dedication of the evangelical counsels  (sans religious poverty or religious obedience) have made a legitimate profession. Moreover, I am sure he never says anything about someone not being part of the laity because he is specifically writing positively about canonical consecrated life, nothing else. However, you are correct in what you surmise, the word profession always refers to a public and thus, an act of dedication  made by canonical vows or other sacred bonds; when perpetual profession is made along with ecclesial consecration this profession initiates one into a new state of life. If John Paul spoke of  legitimate profession he means a canonical (legal) and public act involving the one professing, a competent authority who receives the profession, and the entire church also witnessing to this exchange between God, the hermit, and the competent authority.

(After reviewing) The document speaks of hermits under forms of consecrated life and at some length only once that I could find: [Men and women hermits belonging to ancient Orders [e.g.,Benedictine, Camaldolese, Carthusian, etc] or new Institutes [new canonical Societies and Congregations of consecrated life], or being directly dependent on the Bishop [c 603] bear witness to the passing nature of the present age by their inward and outward separation from the world. By fasting and penance, they show that man does not live by bread alone but by the word of God (cf Mark 4:4)   There are then references to contemplative life, much of which will apply to hermits, however, there is no way that I can see that the document suggests much less affirms that hermits with private vows are not considered laity (and therefore, lay hermits). Private vows are never explicitly mentioned with regard to hermits. JPII does speak of those who are married and make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience but he says of these: [[However by reason of the above-mentioned principle of discernment, these forms of commitment cannot be included in the specific category of the consecrated life.]]

In another place he says of the difference between the consecration of baptism and that of the "second consecration": [[This further consecration, however, differs in a special way from baptismal consecration, of which it is not a necessary consequence. In fact, all those reborn in Christ are called to live out, with the strength which is the Spirit's gift, the chastity appropriate to their state of life, obedience to God and to the Church, and a reasonable detachment from material possessions.. . .]] I believe this is another way of saying, one does not profess what one is already bound to do. For instance, every person is bound to chastity and to poverty as well as to obedience as appropriate to their given state. Religious obedience and religious poverty are different matters and are only embraced by public profession (vows made publicly and received by a competent authority). Public profession initiates one into a new state with new canonical rights and obligations; the People of God have the right to new expectations of such a person and there are new structures (e.g., legitimate superiors and the ministry of authority) which bind in law. Private vows do none of these things.

Thus, as you surmised, JP II uses the term profession to indicate an ecclesial action by which the Church, in the hands of a competent authority, receives the vows and mediates the Divine consecration that initiates the person into a new state of life with new legal (canonical) rights and obligations. Private vows do not constitute profession. Avowal, yes, but profession, no. I read through the entire document and read a theology of consecrated life which is as I have posted many times. Perhaps you could ask (and please cite) your source what s/he read that made his/her alternate conclusion so clear. I didn't see it. Get back to me with the info and once I review it I'll correct this post as needed. Thanks.

Basic Vocabulary, One Final Time

[[Dear Sister Laurel, while reading several posts on terminology for hermits I realized I nor anyone else have ever asked you why it is you refer to yourself sometimes as a canonical hermit, sometimes as a consecrated hermit, sometimes as a diocesan hermit, and at other times a c 603 hermit. Can you please summarize why you use these terms and also lay hermit and priest hermit? Also why do you draw a distinction between the term profession and "vowed"? Isn't every making of vows a profession? If that's not the case then what word is used for making vows that are not a profession? Can you cite church authority for your position?]]

I suppose I haven't ever put up a post which is just vocabulary. Probably I should have done that. The various ways I describe my own vocation are rooted in the ways they are authorized, established, and governed. This vocation is canonical, that is, it is legally constituted in and by canon law. Specifically it is constituted primarily under a specific canon, namely, canon 603. (Other canons do apply, but c 603 is the definitive canon for this vocation.) This is the way I get canonical hermit or c 603 hermit. Also, my vocation is lived alone or (sometimes) in a laura of hermits (a laura of c 603 hermits which does not rise to the level of a community of hermits, or a semi-eremitical institute).

I also call myself  and this vocation "consecrated". That is because in addition to the consecration stemming from baptism (the consecration that makes each of us a lay person), the church has consecrated me (i.e., mediated God's consecration) in the Rite of Perpetual Profession with a prayer of solemn consecration. Thus I and some others are consecrated hermits. We did not consecrate ourselves, we dedicated ourselves to God and the service of God's Church; God consecrated us in a second consecration (God set us apart as sacred persons) through the mediation of the Church. The hermit's dedication under c 603 takes the form of a profession of the evangelical counsels or other sacred bonds which bind in religion (and so, under the pain of sin), but additionally the Rite includes consecration and commissioning. This also means that in professing vows (always a public act), and receiving God's consecration, we are initiated into a new state of life, namely, the consecrated state.

The entire event can be called "profession" or "consecration" (a form of synecdoche where the whole (event) is named by a single part) but in either case we are dealing with something more than just the making of vows; we are dealing with all that is necessary to initiate one into a new state of life with new legal rights and obligations. In answer to your question, not every making of vows is a profession; only those acts of dedication using vows or other sacred bonds which also initiate one into a new and public state of life are rightly called profession. This is why a vocation to consecrated eremitism uses the terms profession (not just avowal), consecration (not just blessing).

Also, I call myself a solitary hermit because although I am consecrated, I am not formed in the charism nor do I make my profession in the hands of the legitimate superior of a congregation or institute of consecrated life. I do not represent such a congregation as a vowed member. (So, I am Camaldolese by oblature, and a diocesan hermit by profession.) The church calls me and this eremitical vocation diocesan because it is a state of consecrated life 1) governed most immediately on the diocesan level and is 2) supervised by the diocesan bishop in whose hands we make our professions and 3) who (along with anyone he delegates) is our legitimate superior. And finally, the church calls this vocation public because it involves the public act of profession which initiates me into a state of life with public rights, obligations, and in some ways expectations on the part of the People of God -- people in my parish, diocese, and wider Church.

Lay hermits are baptized but have not been initiated into the consecrated state of life which requires a "second consecration" publicly mediated by the Church. Lay hermits may make private vows or none at all but if they make vows this is not a "profession" it is an avowal but does not initiate into a new state of life. They could use the evangelical counsels or other promises, but none of this is done canonically (publicly under law), nor do they acquire the public rights, obligations, or create public 'expectations for the whole People of God. No competent authority receives these vows though they may witness them without becoming responsible for the vocation as would a legitimate superior. Priest-hermits are like lay hermits, but in the ordained state. They may also be consecrated under canon 603 or as part of a canonical institute of consecrated life, or they may not be consecrated. 

Thus, hermits may exist in and are named in terms of the lay, consecrated, or ordained states. The first is a direct expression of one's baptism, the second and third are specifications of one's baptismal consecration with the addition of a second consecration that sets them apart as a "sacred person" or an ordination. (I don't much like this description, "sacred person", but neither do I know a better way to say this.) These three states of life are the most fundamental vocational divisions and descriptors of eremitic life and the ones the Church uses. The terms lay and clerical are also used in a hierarchical sense. When the term lay is used hierarchically rather than vocationally, then I (and all religious who are not ordained) are lay persons because I am not ordained.

Blogs, Books and Miscellaneous Questions re Lay Hermits

[[Dear Sr Laurel, I have enjoyed your posts which speak so positively of lay eremitical life. I've looked all over on the internet for blogs by lay hermits but I can't seem to find any. Oh, you  know, there are eccentrics living lives of solitude and some of them are really impressive, but they don't seem to be religious hermits. So I was really pleased to see the video of Regina (Felicity) and her decision to make private vows as a hermit in the Benedictine tradition. It's ironical to find it on your blog since you are a consecrated hermit. Do you have any blogs you could recommend by lay hermits who are "loud" and "proud" about their vocations? (I guess hermits don't get loud or proud but you get what I mean, I think,) How about books by hermits, are there any by lay hermits you could recommend? Why is it so hard for lay hermits to accept their state of life, anyway? You said something about Vatican II, so  maybe you can say more about that? Thanks.]]

Great mail and questions, thanks! I know what you mean about finding it difficult to locate really paradigmatic lay hermits on the web. I have known a couple of blogs or websites by lay hermits but their owners both had trouble themselves accepting they lived this life in the lay state. One of these moved from blog to blog as things changed in her life and it became harder for her to write about eremitical life itself or her own state of life. The other had a similar problem and dressed in a religious habit and styled himself "Brother" despite never having been given the right to either by an appropriate authority. The shame in this was that his writing and photography were both stunning; the dishonesty was unnecessary and more importantly, neither of these persons were able to witness openly or appropriately to the way God was actually working through them to the church and especially to other lay people who might also be called to eremitical life in the lay state. There are a couple of women living as solitaries who are wonderful examples of eremitical life in the lay state but I will need to locate their blogs; I haven't kept up my blog links.

Books might be a tad easier. I read one last week I really enjoyed. It was called One Man's Wilderness,  and was taken from the amazing journals of a hermit (Richard Proenneke) who lived in Alaska, built his own cabin with hand tools, created his own utensils, bowls, etc. He was an amazing craftsman, careful, meticulous, and someone who showed amazing focus and forethought. I would say he was a contemplative -- though not a man of prayer exactly -- because he was attentive, patient, and a man of peace seeking to live in real harmony with creation. Dick was in profound touch with the rhythms of creation and he honored nature at every turn. He was not antisocial and certainly not misanthropic. A friend flew provisions in for him pretty regularly and brought and picked up mail at the same time. Proenneke kept in touch with family in this way, took and shared photographs and got presents (warm clothing, knitted socks, home-made curtains, etc.), for his incredible handmade log cabin.
 Also, Richard was incredibly articulate, a bit of a poet, and  taught me any number of new words! (These tended to be geographical terms or those having to do with woodworking and woodworking tools, for instance.)

Reading about the way he lived from season to season was amazing. (The first Winter the temp dropped to nearly 50 degrees below zero and with each journal entry he would end by noting the temperature and marking how deep the lake ice was -- the ice is at 36 inches thick; the ice is 42 inches think today, etc! I got cold just reading this. He did the same as Spring neared and came with the number slowly moving in the opposite direction and I could feel the sunlight gradually strengthening from its wintry state); similarly, to read how he planned and built his very carefully- constructed cabin, was  inspiring. When he later added a fireplace and chimney constructed from rocks he gradually and very methodically gathered during fishing and other trips it was even more impressive. The story was sometimes harrowing, tragic, or otherwise poignant, and often humorous. The book was interesting because the man and the way he approached life was interesting. Dick was himself interested in and curious about everything he saw and he saw everything; consequently, I got caught up in that and was pulled along as he showed his awareness and shared how he thought and felt about it all. Significantly, the story was not at all narcissistic. I have a couple more books on hand (bios or autobios of hermits like Richard Kropf) but haven't read enough of them to recommend. Now that I  know of your interest though, I will post on this occasionally.

On another tack, why does it seem to be so hard for lay hermits to accept the state of life in which they live their lives? It is not just hermits of course, but the lack of understanding of what constitutes a consecrated solitary hermit along with the relative newness of c 603 does add to the situation and may make it easier for folks  to set themselves up as consecrated. One piece of all of this seems to be the prevalent misuse of "consecrate" for something human beings do to themselves rather than something only God can do. At the same time it seems to be a leftover from pre-Vatican II times when religious life and priesthood were seen as the "real" vocations.

To even speak of "having a vocation" meant moving from what was often (mis)treated as "entry-level" Catholic life (the baptized state) to religious life  and priesthood. It takes time for changes to take hold, for conciliar teaching to be received and made real in everyday life. The universal call to holiness and the significance of the lay vocation (or the many vocations that exist in the lay state) are taken more seriously by some (especially by religious women) but the entire Church still has a long way to go to implement the teaching of Vatican II in this regard. For instance, it seems that there should be a way of celebrating various significant vocational pathways in the lay state. To allow someone to be recognized specifically as a lay hermit in their parish and to do that in a way which does not confuse folks re the state of life might be a way of allowing people to imagine possibilities and understand that the Church truly values lay vocations.

I do think it is a mistake to simply allow someone to live a lie because doing that really hurts them in the long run as well as their relationship with God and everyone else. In the eremitical life there have been so many eccentrics, stereotypes and straight-out nutcases, that a person misrepresenting himself as a consecrated hermit, for instance, is unlikely ever to get much of a hearing in a parish or diocesan chancery. Instead, they may be rejected because misrepresentation is such a huge obstacle to allowing oneself or one's vocation to be known. Of course one can't force a person to accept the truth  of their vocational state if they think it is second class or insignificant. Even so, we all have to work to make it clear how truly valuable vocations in the lay state are just as we must honor the calls of our brothers and sisters. To do this  is to honor the God who calls them.

Meanwhile, back to websites and books, I'll keep my eyes open and either email you or add them to the list of blogs in the lower right column or create a post. Do check out the book I described: not an openly religious hermit but very much a contemplative nonetheless. It's available and inexpensive on kindle. Good reading!

Fourth Series for Parish Bible Studies Underway

Well, the past month has been difficult, mainly health-wise, but things are getting back to normal for me. Also, saw my doc yesterday and we worked out a couple of plans for the  similar situations in the future. Last week I began a new parish Bible Series on 2 Corinthians and had the second class this morning. It went well both days and I am feeling excited regarding the way I have introduced the Letter and what Paul is doing in  it. We spent the first week looking at Corinth, what kind of city it was, etc. Then we talked about paradoxical thinking vs non-paradoxical thinking, because Paul's theology is profoundly paradoxical and rests on the greatest paradox the world has ever known, namely a Crucified Messiah or Crucified Christ. When Paul met the risen Xt on the road to Damascus he met this incredible paradox face to face. It changed the way he saw and thought about reality, It changed the way he thought about God, and it remained burned into his soul (mind and heart) in a way which colors and shapes everything he says theologically.

But the Corinthians see reality differently, probably in the way most of us see it.  What they see is the ordinary way we think of things: If weak, then NOT strong; if poor then NOT rich; if cast down then NOT raised up; if dead then NOT alive; if human then NOT divine, of suffering then NOT comforted, if of God then NOT subject to sin/godlessness, and so forth. This is a fairly "Greek" way of thinking. Greeks thought in terms of thesis (weakness), antithesis (strength) and synthesis (golden mean of some sort). They would have avoided radical positions on either side (thesis/antithesis) and accept as wise some sort of compromise (synthesis). But Christianity is radically different; its greatest wisdom and truth is paradoxical at its heart: In Christ, if weak then strong (power is perfected in weakness), if poor then rich (blessed are the poor, theirs is the Kingdom of God), if cast down then raised up (we believe and live in a Crucified Christ), if human then also divine (to the extent we are authentically human we reveal or are transparent to God), if God (of God) then godless and subject to death (Jesus as crucified One), and so on.

So, Paul is coming to a church he has founded and spent 18 months with. They are "baby Christians" living in a Greco-Roman culture entirely foreign to paradoxical theology and philosophy. Moreover, they have personal differences with Paul which are also culturally driven crying for reconciliation and are being influenced by "Apostles" proclaiming a "different" Gospel. All of this leads to significant doubts held by the Corinthians in Paul's regard. They question his Apostleship, his message, his appropriateness as a minister of the kerygma, his sincerity and integrity as well as his love for them. And so, Paul takes on the defense of himself and his Apostleship, and as he does he develops a genuinely apologetic or answering theology rooted in his vision of the Crucified Christ. He sees with new eyes and is hoping that through his ministry the Holy Spirit will empower the Corinthians to see and approach reality similarly in order that reconciliation can be fully achieved and the gospel of the Crucified Christ proclaimed.

It is exciting to teach this material. I have already come to greater personal understanding in many ways by approaching the Letter in this particular way. Especially, I am freshly aware of the way we cannot grasp paradox but instead need for paradox to grasp/take hold of us --- to open our eyes and hearts to reality in a way which creates astonishment, joy, and genuine hope.  Finding ways to encourage the same experience in the class is demanding but also, inevitably, the job of the students and the Holy Spirit together. I am also looking ahead and planning the next book we will study. I am thinking perhaps we can do the Gospel of Mark next. There is a strong paradoxical dynamic in that book and it will allow the class more opportunity to grow in this even as we leave Paul for the time being.

What is Required for a Bishop to Profess and Consecrate a c 603 Hermit?

[[Dear Sister, could you clarify something for me in the passage you cited from the canonist? If a bishop professed and consecrated you under canon 603, what makes that different from a bishop blessing a priest-hermit or another hermit. I hear what Ms Ivers said about competent authorities and I figure it must have something to do with that, but when your own bishop consecrates you and only blesses another hermit what makes the difference? Is the bishop "holding back" some of his power to bless or something? Does it matter who the hermit is in any of this? I mean what if he has always criticized canonical status and really hates the idea and calls it a perversion of hermit life? Does that matter? By the way, thank you for posting that. I hear you say it and I believe what you write, but it makes a difference to hear someone who is a canon lawyer say it too.]]

Thanks for your questions. Two things allow a person to consecrate a diocesan hermit (or rather, mediate God's consecration of the diocesan hermit): 1) authority, and 2) intention. Both of these come together  in the Rite of profession and consecration of a diocesan hermit by her bishop (or someone he delegates to act on his behalf). The church gives the bishop the authority to create diocesan hermits (solitary consecrated hermits) under canon 603. He cannot do so apart from canon 603. Others do not have this authority as Ms Ivers makes very clear. In part this is due to the Catholic notion of subsidiarity. While diocesan hermits are hermits of the universal church, they are governed and responsible in terms of their vow of obedience primarily on the diocesan level, the level of the local Church. What I mean here is that I owe obedience to my own legitimate superiors in a way I will not to other bishops --- though I will certainly respect these as bishops of the church.

When a bishop blesses a hermit outside this specific context (canon 603, Rite of profession and consecration) his intention differs than it does within the context of implementing canon 603. He is intending to bless but not to initiate someone into the consecrated state. The blessing is significant; it indicates some degree of approval or hope for the hermit's vocation, but it does not cause consecration. Neither is the bishop holding back in some way. His intention is different and what he does as God works through him will differ in what it effects.

By the way, as your questions perceptively indicate, there is another piece that is also necessary for consecration and this one is on the hermit's part, namely, she must truly believe this is her vocation, she must desire and freely request this consecration, and be committed to taking on its rights and obligations. If someone walked in during a Mass of Profession and somehow took the hermit's place (I admit this is hard to imagine), and the bishop consecrated and professed her, her profession/consecration would be invalid. This is a reason the Church requires the individual to petition for admission to canon 603 consecration and spends time in discernment and formation. As best as possible, the Church can only profess and consecrate those who truly desire this, are very clear it is God's will for them, and have therefore readied themselves for it.

Despite what some bloggers are writing, the church doesn't drag the reluctant or barely-willing candidate to the altar for profession and consecration nor do spiritual directors compel directees to seek this in some misguided notion of obedience.  The church hierarchy doesn't call upon the whole Church, militant and triumphant, to witness a half-hearted acquiescence on someone's part! She does not force someone to accept canonical standing or, thus, to lay prostrate before God and the Church on earth and in heaven, or make vows which bind her in religion (and thus, under the pain of sin), merely because she's supposedly "phasing out hermits in the lay state". Neither does the Church profess criminals, bad hermits, etc, in order to bring them under a bishop's authority. Instead she keeps them away from unnecessary positions of honor and responsibility. One does not admit a person to a precious gift of God to the Church if the person has not indicated both worthiness and readiness for accepting, indeed, for giving their lives for the sake of this gift to church and world. This flawed and cynical notion of what profession is about is a perversion of the Church's entire theology of consecration.

Will Canon 603 Replace other Forms of Eremitical Life?

[[Dear Sr Laurel, why don't you think c 603 will take the place of other forms of eremitical life? Do you know other hermits living that in the lay state? I  think maybe it would be a good idea if you could introduce them once and a while here on your blog.]]

Thanks very much for writing! Your questions are good ones. First of all, my belief is rooted in the relative rarity of eremitical vocations generally, and because of the relative infrequency with which canon 603 has been used in the past 37 years not only generally but in my own diocese. There are a variety of reasons for this rarity of vocation and infrequency of the canon's use so let me point a few of those out. 1) simple ignorance of what an eremitical vocation is: people believe being a hermit is a way of justifying "anything goes" and substitute various stereotypes for eremitical life. Some of these are lone individuals whose lives are motivated by escape or isolation. Some of these believe eremitical life doesn't differ from their ordinary lives lived alone, so, for instance they do not reflect or live a desert spirituality.

Some simply want to be a religious without the responsibilities or expectations which come with life in community (I.e., in an institute of consecrated life). They have not lived in solitude, experienced the redemptive character of a life lived in the silence of solitude, nor is the silence of solitude a charism they have embraced for the sake of the Church. Some have needed a way to validate lives of personal failure and misanthropy, etc. One once wrote me he wanted to reserve the Eucharist in his space but saw no other reasons to become a hermit. Still, he was willing to consider it --- though his reasons were inadequate at best. 2) Misusing the Canon in other ways: some wish to create religious communities by using this canon first and then gathering others around them. This is not an uncommon desire from some approaching their dioceses seeking profession under c 603. The church has other well-established ways to create institutes of consecrated life and commentators on canon 603 are clear it is meant for solitary eremitical life. A final reason (and perhaps the most fundamental) is that human beings come to wholeness in relationship with others. Solitude is a rare form of community and few are called to achieve wholeness or holiness in this way.

While all of this has been going on and dioceses have been working with those they consider suitable for profession, many more individuals have come seeking information and accompaniment by their dioceses in discernment. Even so, vocations to consecrated solitary eremitical life are rare. For instance, though some dioceses have professed several hermits over the years, I was told my own diocese has heard from somewhere around 120-144 inquirers in the past 10-12 years and none have been perpetually professed or consecrated. Each of those persons is still entirely free to live non-canonical eremitical life in the lay state or (if a cleric) can try to do so in the clerical state (it is very rare for bishops to allow priests to become hermits); a number could try entering a community of hermits. 

If only half of these 144 lived as non-canonical hermits successfully, my diocese would still have more than 70 non-canonical hermits right now and only one diocesan hermit. We also have a large community of Camaldolese oblates in Northern CA as well as a small Camaldolese Monastery in Berkeley as part of our diocesan resources related to both Benedictine life and hermits. The Monks in the monastery are also consecrated hermits and contribute to the lives of oblates; meanwhile, most oblates are not hermits in any sense but some few are interested in living eremitical lives. This snapshot of a small part of my diocese indicates that eremitical life in this contemporary local Church might be quite vibrant and likely to carry on into the future. However, the bottom line remains that the number of consecrated hermits will always be quite small relative to non-canonical hermits.

I should point out again that c 603 grew out of a situation where monks discerning eremitical calls in their later years and after many years in solemn vows, were required to seek dispensation and secularization. To sacrifice so much for eremitical life called for the Church to give this series of monks' experiences some real attention and regard. Bishop Remi de Roo became bishop protector of about a dozen hermits. Eventually from this came his intervention at Vatican II, and then the revision of the Code of Canon Law with canon 603. The Church did not expect for there to be hordes of consecrated hermits taking the place of lay hermits. What they meant to provide was an option for the rare instances of solitary hermits called to live this in the consecrated state of life. For this reason too, along with the historical fact that most hermits have always been a lay vocation, I believe non-canonical hermits will continue to live eremitical life not least because they don't feel called to the consecrated state. After all, Vatican II stressed the importance and place of the Laity in the Church; non-canonical hermits drawn from the laity are a significant and longstanding instance of the eremitical life the church is meant to esteem

Raven's Bread is a newsletter some of us get. It is open to anyone interested in solitude or the eremitical life. I read with interest the sharing of lay (that is, non-canonical) hermits and solitaries. There is a growing interest in the eremitical life and it is real in every state of the Union and in many other countries. Regarding your suggestion of presenting or introducing some of these hermits on this blog, I like the idea and will do what I can to do something about that. Perhaps some will write and volunteer for a brief bio and picture. If I find someone like Regina whose story is so inspiring I will consider posting it. In any case, I'll give your suggestions some thought and see what might work. Thanks very much for writing.

Once Again: On Esteem for the Vocations in the Lay State

[[Sister, you wrote about Regina [Kreger] -- the new lay hermit --- on a way which makes it clear that you think a lot of the lay vocation. What makes her life different from yours? Is it the evangelical counsels? Is she called to a lesser degree of holiness? Lesser separation from the world? I am trying to hear what changes with consecration.]]

I've written about this a lot so let me give a brief answer and you can look up the specific topics. Every person is called to holiness, an exhaustive holiness, rooted in one's baptismal consecration. Every person who is baptized and a member of the laity is obligated to embrace the evangelical counsels though poverty and obedience will not be religious poverty nor religious obedience because 1) such persons (most anyway) are responsible for raising a family, and 2) they are free from having legitimate superiors. Still, while they have not received the second consecration associated with initiation into the consecrated state of life, and while they have not been graced in the way God graces those with the new and differing rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state, they have been consecrated in baptism and called to a life of genuine holiness.

There have always been lay hermits. Think Desert Abbas and Ammas. They live the evangelical counsels and the call to holiness rooted in the consecration of baptism. But they do not live this vocation in what the church calls "the consecrated state" because this state is entered through a second consecration and associated with rights and obligations beyond those associated with the baptized or lay state. Until 1983 there was no possibility of such a solitary hermit being admitted to the consecrated state of life (hermits in institutes of consecrated life are a different matter). That only came with canon 603. I would say the consecrated state differs from the baptized state in these terms. It is not better than the baptized state but it is different, both in the way it is constituted and in its rights, obligations, and expectations -- as well as the grace associated with these so that one might adequately live this state of life.

In terms of its call to holiness I would argue it is the same as the call to holiness in any other state of life, lay (single, married), or ordained. This is exhaustive. What is important to recognize is that  the life of the lay hermit may look exactly like mine, for instance; they may even live a more exemplary hermit life in greater solitude, poorer circumstances, etc. What differs is the presence or absence of the second consecration and the rights, obligations, expectations of the faithful, and the associated graces (which includes structures and relationships for the ministry of authority). Still, the call to holiness and the requirement of the evangelical counsels (as value or vow, but not profession) are very much part of the lay hermit's life. This is true by virtue of the sacrament of baptism; the second consecration is often called a "specification" of one's baptismal consecration.

Since Vatican II, a particular challenge and call the church has left the laity with is the refusal to see the lay state as a second class vocational state; they must esteem it appropriately. That means lay hermits need to clearly identify and claim the state in which they live eremitical life because it too is a way to live and come to an exhaustive holiness. To do so will be a significant witness to others and an affirmation of the potential of every life. Thus we have hermits in the lay, the consecrated, and the ordained states of life. In every case the well-lived vocation is a rare and admirable one which glorifies God and serves the Church.

Regina Kreger to Make private Vows as a Hermit

One of the things I have written about a lot here is the fact that it is entirely possible to be a privately vowed hermit within the Catholic Church as an alternative to consecrated eremitical life under canon 603 or within a canonical institute of hermits. Recently it has been suggested that this option is going away as c 603 becomes "the way of the Church". I have disagreed with that and continue to disagree. Lay hermits (hermits living their lives in the lay state but living excellent and paradigmatic eremitical lives exist and have done since the days of the Desert Abbas and Ammas who followed Christ in this. One discerns what is right for oneself and takes the steps necessary to achieving it. (If one believes they are called to consecrated eremitical life, one will discern this with the diocesan Vicar for Religious and/or Bishop.)




In the video above I was quite impressed with this hermit's clarity and ability to express the landmarks of her journey. Felicity (Regina's newly-taken hermit name*) has, like many who become hermits, had difficulties throughout her life that she has had to learn to live with and through. She speaks matter-of-factly about these from the perspective of one transcending them through the grace of God. She has clearly had the kind of redemptive experience I recognize as central to any eremitical life and frankly articulates that. For Felicity, it is private vows and a life of silence, solitude, simplicity and (because she is a Benedictine Oblate), conversatio morum, which are the way she recognizes God is calling her to live a call to holiness in the lay state. She is clear that she is not going to be a canonical consecrated hermit, but seems not to find any need to be one. Exactly!!  She strikes me as genuine, joyful, and someone I personally will learn from if I can** as she continues the tradition of eremitical life in the Church after the example of innumerable hermits from the Desert Abbas and Ammas onward.

I wish her very well in this  chapter of her journey and am grateful for the significant sharing this video represents!! Especially, I am glad to find a hermit clearly and courageously representing an edifying example of an eremitical vocation in the lay state. She especially indicates with her life how important and what a significant call to holiness life in the lay (i.e., the baptized) state is! Her witness is incredibly important to the whole church but hermits and those discerning hermit vocations especially will benefit.
______________________
* Regina can take a new name as she might at oblation as an OSB Oblate in some monasteries. This is not truly the same as a Religious name because she is not a religious, nor (unless she changes her name legally) can she use it in civil documents, for instance. She will not style herself as Sister, but in this private (in-house) way she will mark and celebrate the life step she is taking.

** I am hoping to be able to get a way to contact her occasionally.

Guidelines for Those Asking Questions

Over the years I have posted this (or versions of it) at least a couple of times before this, but it is a good time to do so again, and also to add a clarification or two:

1) If you cite a blog or other source by name please be sure you are citing a public blog. [I will treat public blogs the same way I treat any other form of public media, namely, wherever possible I will cite the material and identify the author as possible as well as the date if that is included. I will also review the entire post cited to be sure nothing is being taken out of context.]

2) In some cases my answer may delete references to the person you are citing, but ordinarily I will treat names and blog titles as normal forms of attribution. I will leave your attributions intact both for the sake of accuracy and in order to be sure that critical questions are specific and not unreasonably generalized. For instance, if a diocesan hermit (or lay hermit, etc,) says something I disagree with I will use the person's name rather than risk appearing to criticize a whole group of hermits or an entire vocation.

3) If you can ask your question without direct quotes please consider doing that; if the quote is essential to the question then feel free to include it.

4) Please be sure your question is relevant to the topic of c 603 or eremitical life (or to my own life). If you believe I may have answered something like it before, please read up a bit before submitting it. This practice may answer your question or it can improve or even sharpen it. As a matter of course, however. I will answer all questions on the blog unless you ask for confidentiality.

Thanks for your consideration and for helping make this blog one I receive lots of thanks for.

On the Profound Benefits of Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sr. Laurel, I am one who considers himself a non-professed solitary. I have considered consecration under Canon 603, but have not found a reason to follow-through. Essentially, I envision formal consecration as a matter of primarily professing poverty, chastity, and obedience, but without benefit. For instance, confessed hermits do not receive stipends, medical insurance, pensions, or help establishing their life work, as other consecrated folk do. Recently, I read one of your posts that mentioned the "benefits" of consecration, but you did not list them; would you please expound on this topic?]]

Thanks for your question. I believe I have recently said "without benefit of consecration" rather than speaking of "the benefits of consecration" but it is true I believe consecration is beneficial to the Church as well as to the hermit and those she serves with her life. It is true that canonical (consecrated) solitary hermits do not receive stipends, insurance, pensions, assistance establishing one's life's work (which is eremitical life, nothing less and nothing other), financial support for library, retreat opportunities, housing, or expenses associated with limited apostolic ministry, and so forth. However, I think that this way of measuring the benefits of this vocation, is narrow and even superficial. It is also, at least ostensibly, self-centered. In any case, it is incomplete at best.

Thus, as I measure the benefits of canonical eremitical life, I do so not only in terms of associated rights, but in terms of obligations as well as in terms of others' expectations and the grace associated with consecration. Especially, I measure them in terms of the responsible freedom and witness value canonical standing and consecration create and sustain. Note that this way of measuring the "benefit" of consecrated eremitical life necessarily points directly to its benefit to others; it points directly to the Church and world as a whole, as well as to the hermit herself. Thus the term I use to "contain" and reflect on these dimensions of the consecrated or canonical eremitical vocation is "ecclesial"; that is, this vocation belongs to the Church and participates in a conscious, deliberate, and public way in the proclamation of the Gospel entrusted to her. 

All of the characteristics of public or canonical vocations contribute to this proclamation, and this is so whether we are speaking of the vows, the Rule a hermit writes, her stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, limited apostolic ministry, or the supervision of the vocation by legitimate superiors. All of these elements help produce a responsible freedom in the hermit which is very specifically directed to the living of the Gospel in the service of God, the People of God and a needy world. Moreover, because the Church herself recognizes and constitutes these vocations canonically, they are capable of doing so in ways private dedication ordinarily cannot and will not do. This is one of the reasons I persisted in pursuing canonical standing. It became clear to me that the Holy Spirit was working in my life in a way which made of my life a unique proclamation of the Gospel, especially as it so often is stated in paradoxical terms: divine power perfected in weakness, comfort in suffering, wealth in poverty, completion and wholeness in brokenness, and so forth.

You identify yourself as a solitary. Perhaps I can contrast that with the way I see my own vocation precisely because I am canonically professed and consecrated. Of course, I don't know how or why you use the term so I am not commenting on that, but I will say that because of the ecclesial and eremitical nature of my vocation I just can't use the term solitary as a definition of my life. The emphasis in the word solitary seems to me to stress aloneness and a lack of significant bonds; this, in turn, seems antithetical to who I am called to be.  At the very least it is a dimension I do not want to emphasize at the expense of the significant bonds associated with ecclesial vocations. Neither do I want to substitute a generic or unspecified solitude in place of desert spirituality as the Episcopal canon seems to do. Yes, I am a solitary hermit, that is, one who lives a very particular kind of solitude rooted in desert spirituality but without belonging to a community (aka, an institute) of hermits. Even so, it is my canonical standing which explicitly links aloneness with significant bonds and establishes the whole as a paradigm of paradoxical gospel meaningfulness. It is canonical standing that both requires and allows me to live my whole life in terms of the Gospel and, as one with an ecclesial vocation, to do this in the name of the Church.

At every moment I and other diocesan hermits are both called and empowered to do this in the very heart of the Church for the sake of the proclamation entrusted to her for the salvation of others. I understand the benefits of profession and consecration under canon 603 in these terms. When I write about the vows, canonical standing, responsible freedom, or freedom vs liberty and the capacity to become the person God calls me to be, or about the importance of the ministry of authority in this, etc., I am describing the benefits of canonical standing. I am doing this as one whose consecration means she is participating in and has been entrusted with the rights and  obligations of an ecclesial vocation in which she can become her truest self --- and in doing so, serve others and glorify God. Thus, again, I resist seeing myself as a solitary, while the way I measure the benefits of consecration is not in material terms, but in who I am called and empowered to be in light of this ecclesially mediated Divine call and setting apart.

Hermit Sisters of Mary and Marymount Hermitage

[[Dear Sister, do you know the hermit Sisters at Marymount Hermitage in Mesa, ID? I was wondering if they were "the real deal"? If they are, are they c 603 hermits? You see, I have been thinking about eremitical life but I think I would like to live in a laura of hermits. Since I live a couple of hundred miles from them and since my grown children live in Boise, I thought maybe they would suit me. Can you recommend them? Will they accept a divorced woman?]]

I do know the Sisters of Marymount Hermitage, yes, but not well. I first wrote them around 1984 or 1985 after canon 603 was first published. At the time there were two Sisters there, Sisters Rebecca and Beverly; they were very responsive and helpful to me in those early years of canon 603's new life. Occasionally, I check their website to see how they are doing (they have good newsletters there) but, until I checked the website this morning, it had been a while since I had done that. Yes, they are (or were originally) c 603 hermits but I believe they were considering establishing themselves canonically as an institute of consecrated life. I'm not sure I have that exactly right, where they stand with that now, or how far they ever got with the process. I believe one of them (Sister Rebecca) is now living in a convent in OR where she can receive skilled nursing care. I don't know if they ever grew beyond just Sisters Rebecca and Beverly. I  do believe there might have been a third Sister as well. I do know that personally, I resonate with their spirituality; it is 1) Benedictine, 2) rooted in the Desert Ammas and Abbas, and 3) an authentic expression of the high desert in which the Hermitage is located. (Personally I love the high desert; it may be one of my favorite settings in the entire world.)

Still, I'm sorry. I can't say I know enough about them currently to recommend them or not. Yes, they are definitely "the real deal". They have been living this life since around the first anniversary of canon 603 and maybe a year or so before I first contacted them. That means they have lived as hermits for about 37 years or so and, like many of us, came at it from religious life. My sense is they have a good relationship with their new bishop (Bp Peter Christiansen, Bishop of Boise) who has been their local ordinary for about 5 years. They also clearly receive support of parishes in the area. (That is, members of parishes come to help with maintenance and have done so with building needs in the past, etc. 

However, I also have reservations. One thing in particular gives me pause when I consider whether to recommend them or not because you specifically said you were drawn to a lavra; however, as far as I know, only Sister Beverly now lives at Marymount. Because I don't know either her age or the state of her health (or yours for that matter!) I ask you bear in mind that you are considering associating yourself with a lavra which apparently consists of only one Sister; that is both a difficult and a precarious situation at best, especially if (as your remark about grown children suggests) you don't have a background in religious life or much experience with significant silence and solitude.

Your mention of adult children raises several issues on your side of the equation as well. The first issue is that of canonical freedom. Like anyone desiring to be professed and consecrated under c 603, you will need to be canonically free to be admitted to the community and, after suitable discernment and formation, profession and consecration. This would mean a.) if your spouse is deceased the marriage bond no longer exists and you are canonically free; b.) if your spouse is still living you will need to get a declaration of nullity to establish the fact of your own canonical freedom. The second issue is age. While eremitical life is ordinarily a second half of life vocation, communities still tend to have limits re how old one can be and still enter. This is something you will need to research with the Sisters and/or the diocese.  

A third issue is that of health and physical stamina. Marymount is very secluded and the weather is typically rugged for the high desert in a state that gets snow anyway. The physical plant is relatively large and requires good health to negotiate. I suggest you bear all this in mind and maybe arrange to make a retreat with them at the very least. The fourth issue is whether they have experience with forming solitary hermits or whether it is preferred they have already-professed c 603 hermits join them post-profession along with some experience living the vocation in other than a group setting. (This is especially important when a lavra appears to be coming to the end of its natural life as core members die, move to care facilities or convents, or are too remote to allow for regular caregivers to do what the other hermits either can't or are not really called to do.)

My best advice is that if you are really serious about testing a vocation with the Hermit Sisters of Mary or even just want to discuss it seriously, I would advise you to contact them and have several conversations with Sister Beverly and/or personnel of the Diocese of Boise.

Citing a Canonist: What are Private Vows?

I wanted to post this as an addendum to my last post but since that post was long, I decided to post it separately. Some have wondered by what authority I contend that private vows do not initiate one into the consecrated state. Let me quote Therese Ivers, JCL, a canonist specializing in consecrated life. In this excerpt Ms Ivers briefly defines private vows and continues by defining "competent authority":

[[It seems that there is always a lot of confusion regarding private vows. Private vows are any vows that are not public vows or semi-public vows. What is the difference, you may ask? It is very simple. Public and semi-public vows are accepted by the competent Church authority and are necessary for consecration. Private vows are all other vows]] . . .She continues: [Competent authorities are] 1)  The diocesan bishop for diocesan/canonical hermits, diocesan right religious communities and diocesan right secular institutes.  Any other ceremony involving vows is done by the bishop as a witness and not as a lawful superior.  Therefore, anything that a diocesan bishop witnesses or blesses outside of these limited circumstances is automatically considered private even if done in the cathedral in front of a million viewers. 2)  The superior of a religious institute, personal prelature, or a secular institute for members of the institute!  They are the competent authority designated by the Church to receive vows in the name of the Church. 3)  No one else!  All others are merely witnesses and cannot receive vows in the name of the Church.  This includes Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Confessors, Spiritual Directors, and others!!!]]

Ms Ivers then explains:

[[What is a private vow? A private vow is a promise made to God for a greater good and is NOT accepted by a competent authority. Who are NOT competent authorities? Spiritual directors, confessors, pastors, and others!!! Even bishops if they are not admitting someone to an institute of consecrated life (that is, a religious community that is of at least diocesan right or a secular institute that is at least of diocesan right or to consecrated life as an individual as a diocesan hermit!). Private vows do not constitute someone in the consecrated state! Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a person under private vows is consecrated. They are dedicated individuals who have promised, resolved, or vowed to live a life of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom! Again, private vows do not entail a true consecration. Consecration is mediated by the Church through the competent authority (see above for who the competent authority is). Because there is no legitimate authority who can receive a private vow in the name of the Church, consecration, or the setting aside of a person for God’s service that is over and above the consecration of baptism does NOT take place with private vows!!!]]  (cf., Private Vows Revisited) Folks should read the entire article.

Anyone with doubts or who still thinks that they can make private vows and become a consecrated or Catholic hermit should ask their chancery (Chancellor, Canonist, Vicar for Religious, Bishop) if private vows initiate one into the consecrated state. Anyone who believes the Catechism has precedence over the Canon Law should do the same. (Remember that c. 603 was promulgated years before the CCC,  which alone would mean that it is thus no mere proviso, or addition to the CCC.) The issue here is truth and a need to protect people from being misled. God calls canonically free hermits to live eremitical life in every state of life: lay, clerical and consecrated. It produces a wonderful diversity and witness we are all called to respect.