Response to Joyful Hermit's Post

[[It does seem that I should either be a legal hermit or remain an illegal hermit, and if that, to very much acknowledge that I am an illegal hermit, even if God chose me for the hermit life.  Even if Scripture states in various ways and verses of books in the Bible, that God's law is superior to man's law.  St. Paul is reminding of that reality, in that he was not sent by man or men, but was sent by God as an apostle. Illegal Catholic Hermit?]]

So wrote Joyful Hermit yesterday in her current blog. There is, it seems, a sad and apparently painful dimension to things for her and I wanted to address it directly and apart from the questions that have already begun to come in. I know I once answered a question about so-called, "illegal hermits" before but I don't remember how long ago, why it was posted or if it is relevant. Perhaps I need to reprise it. In any case, it is a mistake to use the term "illegal" of what is a significant vocation in the Church many have embraced, and for that reason, it sounds to me to be a somewhat self-pitying or just intransigent choice of self-designation when there are two perfectly good and more accurate choices from usual Catholic usage, neither of which are in the least denigrating or derogatory.

The first available term is non-canonical. Some way of living or some enterprise not yet granted a particular canonical standing beyond baptism, or those who live a particular way (as a hermit, for instance) but do not choose to be canonical when there is such an option are simply described as being non-canonical: they choose not to live according to the canonical form of the life. A second alternative --- as Joyful looks for a way to describe her state and the state in which her form of eremitical life is lived is --- lay hermit. (I mean this throughout this piece in the vocational, not hierarchical sense of the term "lay"**.) I did not make these terms up. Joyful is a baptized person living in the lay state; she is a Catholic living privately vowed hermit life from an impulse of her baptism in the lay (non-canonical) or baptized state. Most hermits in the Church have always been and will always be lay hermits without benefit of a "second consecration" and its initiation into the consecrated state of life because either it did not exist as an option, they thereafter chose not to seek this, they were somehow discerned by diocesan personnel to be unsuited to it, were not canonically free to do so, and so forth. Still, they lived and do live eremitical life within the Church. We therefore do not call them illegal hermits or illicit hermits, nor any other derogatory term. They are in the baptized state and live from the inspiration of God which is fundamental to that state of life.

In fact we are trying to find ways to appropriately encourage and honor these hermits in the lay state, to recognize them and write about it so that is becomes a fully known and esteemed vocation. This is one of the reasons I put up the post on Felicity Kreger, OblSB recently. I have said many times that I believe in vocations to chronic illness and the potentially eremitical life some of these as well as among isolated elderly might have. I have also written about the way my own canonically consecrated life might make it harder for me to witness to such people. After all, they will likely never be canonical hermits (and most have no desire for this) but they might well be called to live as lay hermits, hermits in the baptized state. So, how wonderful it could be if Joyful Hermit worked through her difficulties in all of this and accepted ordinary Catholic usage (non-canonical or lay hermit) and the wonderful gift such a life could be for the whole church! How incredible it could be if she became not a paean of pain but a significant example of edifying Lay eremitical life!!

Early on I was concerned for Joyful's own well-being when she posted the following dialogue ("the hermit" refers to the blogger herself, not to hermits in general): [[The hermit still did not have a PLACE. But the hermit is part of the laity--that is the place for the hermit. No, the hermit is not really part of the laity. The hermit is irregular. The hermit blurted out, finally, that there is no room for a mystic in the Catholic Church. But the confessor said of course there was and has been through out the history of the Church. Well, this hermit, this mystic hermit, has no place.]]The Complete Hermit, September, 30, 2007

I felt concern. This sense of being nothing and having no place is a terrible sense of unfreedom, of not belonging, of being ineffective and entirely disregarded. Joyful, according to her blog. was trying for consecration under canon 603 and apparently that was not going to happen. Though fairly newly baptized (a few years) as a Catholic, she apparently had not come to sufficiently appreciate that being laity definitely gives one a place and private vows in that same state were still tremendously significant. And so I wrote about the importance of the lay state and the reality of lay hermits. Earlier in response to her questions (she wrote me prior to my perpetual profession), I responded directly to Joyful and suggested she begin thinking about herself as a hermit and about private vows. And I blogged. I couldn't see another way to assist her in my writing. But of course, it has to do with more than Joyful's own feelings and needs; there are vocations involved. To see the Lay Vocation as bereft of significance in the church is to fail to understand the nature and dignity of baptism as foundational of the Church, the lay state grounds every other state in the Church. Occasionally I hear from others who feel as Joyful does. This has to be countered; it certainly mustn't be worsened with terms like "illegal", "illicit", or "undocumented," on a public blog.

Joyful also writes [[A legal Catholic hermit who also writes blog posts, has written eloquently of why CL603 makes a hermit "free." While I do not want to seem ubiquitously irritating, I immediately ask the question, "Were not any or all of the holy, even canonized saint Catholic hermits prior to 1983, then, free? It would seem not. Definitely in today's Church, they would not be legal hermits, and not recognized by the Church as hermits. Was John the Baptist not free? Were not St. Paul the First Hermit, St. Antony of the Desert, St. Mary of Egypt, St. Sarah of the Desert, St. Benedict (the three years he was a hermit), St. Bruno, St. Romuald, St.Godric, St. Nicholas of Flue, St. Seraphim, St. Charbel--and so many more--not free?]]

Actually, I wrote very specifically that for those called to it (and therefore, to the state it constitutes) Canon 603 provides a realm of freedom --- but it is not the only state in the Church, and not the only way to live as a hermit. It would not provide a realm of freedom for one not called to it any more than I would be able to find the same freedom in the clerical or married states. I am called to neither. I lived as a lay hermit for a while when my diocese determined they would not profess anyone under Canon 603. During that time I continued to grow in my eremitical life and in time I learned I had something unique or at least significant to bring to the Church as a hermit and I sought again to be admitted to canonical standing under c 603; this seemed the responsible way forward for me to live my life in Christ to its fullest ecclesial potential. Though I lived freely as a non-canonical hermit, nonetheless I truly felt called to eremitical life in the consecrated state. A number of persons discerned that with me, and though it took time, we were correct. I experience greater freedom as a diocesan hermit than I did even as a hermit in the lay state. In some ways c 603 represents the norm defining a realm where the associated constraints become freeing; some don't understand this paradox. That's okay; they aren't called to this. One wrote recently he didn't see the benefit in consecration; that's okay, apparently he's not called to it at this point. Their freedom apparently lies elsewhere within the lay state.

One can and many do experience freedom in living as lay or non-canonical hermits. Think of all the norms that help define the lay state, all the rights and obligations associated with it when these are taken seriously. None of the people Ms. McClure listed who were actually Christians felt (I truly believe) unfree because they took their lay prophetic vocations very seriously. (There was no canonical option here.) John the Baptist did it in a Jewish prophetic context. The Desert Abbas and Ammas lived the gospel as fully as they could in the desert and did so in direct contrast to a post-Constantinian Church. They lived from the Spirit and Word of God within the Church they helped constitute, but also against its tendency to accommodate itself too freely to the world of power and privilege. They were lay hermits in the main. Others like St Romuald lived under the Benedictine Rule, and traveled to bring others (those hermits who were lone, unaffiliated, and sometimes, simply lost) under the Rule of Benedict as well. It provided order, inspiration, and a way of seeing one's solitary eremitical life as integral to the life of the Church. Benedictinism is a living thing represented by those who live his Rule in faithful and intelligent ways.

St Bruno established what would become a canonical congregation beginning slowly with a group of friends living lay (or possibly clerical) eremitical life together and ending with a canonical congregation that has been (and remains) paradigmatic of a form of consecrated semi-eremitical life. They lived God's will as the Church context made possible (and sometimes necessary). Their lives were creative and pushed boundaries. But yes, at the same time there were lone individuals calling themselves or being called hermits, validating failure by being "hermits", giving scandal and otherwise denigrating the very term "hermit,"  with their lives. The church had no canonical definition of the term for solitary hermits, but these were not John the Baptists or St Romualds. They were eccentrics, and the desert/wilderness was not profoundly humanizing for them. St Romuald's efforts to bring together the hermits scattered throughout Italy was not entirely successful and the disordered and disedifying "hermits" continued to exist as lone individuals and often nothing more than misanthropes, the badly wounded, individualists, etc. Were these individuals free? Not insofar as they were not driven and empowered by the Gospel to do what they were doing. Not insofar as they lived this terrible solitude in the name of woundedness, illness, alienation, or bitterness and not in the name/power of the God of wholeness and freedom. They were not free nor were they hermits --- at least not in the way the Church now defines that and actually, has always understood it through orders and lauras and anchorites who were under their bishop's protection and supervision.

What the Church has never truly esteemed or recognized --- and never adequately assisted us to even understand enough before 1983 --- is the solitary eremitical life lived in the heart of the Church. This vocation comprises both those in the Lay and the Consecrated states (it includes --- though very rarely --- those in the Clerical state as well). Canon 603 is used to consecrate those called to live solitary eremitical life in the name of the Church. At the same time, it outlines the essential elements that define a solitary eremitical life -- no matter one's state of life. By professing and consecrating solitary hermits with clearly discerned vocations, it recognizes solitary eremitical life in law for the first time in the Church's life. But it is important to realize this works paradigmatically, not exclusively. What I mean is it establishes a call to a relatively small number of hermits who will live this life so that the whole Church can begin to accept the solitary hermit life in whatever state eremitism is lived as positively significant. Before this happened in the Western Church, solitary hermit life had died out and semi-eremitical life continued; it was accepted but remained a bit of a curiosity. Canon 603 establishes solitary eremitical life as a viable, contemporary, important example of a spirituality of wholeness in the silence of solitude; it establishes this life for the witness it represents, and (despite what folks might have thought) shows it is still a vital form of life present in some few responding to the Holy Spirit.

I am truly glad to hear Joyful Hermit struggling in the way she is to accept and embrace the truth. I am especially glad she has people to work with whom she trusts in this process. What she is doing is not easy and takes courage, but if she persists it can be incredibly life-giving. I accept gratefully the kind words she has written recently about my blog. I sincerely hope she hears what her once-diocesan-Bishop and parish Rector and others (including myself in our brief email correspondence) were trying to explain about living as a lay hermit according to her baptismal consecration, or about not needing a declaration of nullity if she lives eremitical life in this state. I am sorry she was misled or left uncorrected on the use of the designation Catholic Hermit, though I am very glad that in those early years, she had blogged about a canonist who told her several times about the link between canon 603 and "living as a hermit in the name of the Church." One sincere hope I have is that she can accept the language of "lay state" and "non-canonical" to distinguish her eremitical life from those in the consecrated state if that is ever necessary. There is no need to denigrate such a calling with labels like illegal, illicit, or undocumented. No one should do so!!

Joyful and many others besides her are "documented"; she (and they) are Catholics and have a baptismal certificate and likely one for confirmation and other Sacraments of initiation as well! Again, except for a few centuries of monastic ascendency, lay eremitical life has always been the most prevalent and possibly the most prophetic way of living the eremitic vocation in the Western Church. That has not changed with Canon 603. Perhaps what has changed with Canon 603 is the possibility for all hermits, of whatever state of life, to live edifying eremitical lives that will build the church with its witness to the gospel and be recognized for their place in that. I sincerely hope so!

** lay has two senses, one a vocational sense and the other a hierarchical one. In the first sense, we identify members of the lay, consecrated, and clerical states of life. In the second or hierarchical sense, we identify folks as either clerical or lay. In the hierarchical sense, any hermit who is not a priest is a lay hermit. In the vocational sense, hermits may be members of the lay state, the consecrated state of life, or the clerical state of life. The use of the term lay hermit can be confusing and non-canonical or canonical can be used to clarify matters.

On Freedom within Constraints: Taking another Shot at this!

[[Dear Sister, your post on freedom (On Questions of Freedom vs License)  on freedom was interesting, but I still don't see how having constraints can be a source of freedom. First off I didn't get the illustration on playing violin. I don't play an instrument so I couldn't relate. Can you give me another example? I mean it just seems weird that someone would want to take on legal requirements so they can be "free". I am thinking of all the things you can't do because of your vows. You know, like marriage or having kids, or just hanging with friends or having money. So you know, I just don't see what you mean when you say you can be yourself. It looks to me like when a person makes vows they are making sure they cannot be themselves but what someone else thinks is right.]]

Thanks for giving the original post a try. Yes, I can at least attempt to give another example and maybe clarify. You didn't say whether the sports example was helpful so I am hoping it assisted a little.  What I was trying to point out was how constraints can allow the potential someone has to be fully realized whereas the lack of constraints associated with license (the ability to do anything at any time whenever one wanted) actually prevents the realization of one's potential. Think of learning to write cursive or "longhand". You practice stroke after stroke for hours and days and months. There are constraints in the ways you can form letters and words, constraints on your physical capacities, constraints which stem from your teacher's expectations and talent in teaching handwriting, or her lack thereof, and so forth. Over time however, your observation or respect of these constraints begins to translate into the ability to write freely, legibly, with facility and personal expression or "flair" (because you will find ways to do that even within the constraints imposed). The limitations imposed also created a realm of freedom and fruitfulness.

Without those constraints, those limits and definitions, those patterns and shapes and all the time it took to practice and master them, you could have used your pencil or pen to explore and create infinite numbers of shapes, patterns, lines, spaces. etc; at the same time you might have found you only drew a few over and over because of limited imagination and coordination. You could have scribbled in deep pain, gouged the paper in anger, and in time you  might have developed an actual consistent schema to express yourself. But no one else would be able to read it -- or hear you clearly.

The time you spent would ultimately be mostly a waste of time and effort for you would still lack the freedom to write and understand the cursive writing of others. You would be lacking written language and all of the capacities written language helps to develop.  In time, as you develop these abilities (and do so within the new but freeing constraints of grammar and syntax) you may well come to write compellingly of the nature and psychology of anger or write a novel exploring the deep pain you once could only scribble about --- precisely because constraints and the discipline and creativity they encourage have created a realm of genuine freedom for you to explore. They linked letters to one another and formed words; words linked to one another and to your own inner experience and created the power of expression. And over time you made these your own. You became a writer,

An even simpler example maybe: think of a child's room, full of toys including crayons, paints, chalks, etc. The parents want their child to develop her creativity and capacities for art. When she draws surreptitiously on the wall next to her bed, they add a black board and an easel along with the rule, "No more drawing or coloring on the wall or floor." (No more need to face Mom's anger.) "No more need to draw or color in hiding or secrecy. Draw and color all you want, but you must use the easel and the chalk board!" Constraints. Limitations. Physical challenges. But they also create a space of freedom where one can (learn to) paint or draw with chalk openly to one's heart's content. Law is a lot like this. Traffic laws create a realm of freedom where one may travel the streets without fear in relative safety; they create the freedom to go wherever one needs or desires to go without worrying about folks running red lights, driving on sidewalks and operating potentiality deadly machines entirely without constraints.

Canon law and standing in law does something very similar for the consecrated hermit. For one called to this it gives us a sacred space to be a hermit no matter what in the world around us militates against that, or what doubts inside us may come up from time to time; we have discerned our vocations with others and have been admitted to profession after a time of careful evaluation. Standing under canon law is a reminder of who the church has perceived and charges us to be. That is truly freeing. But it comes with constraints: it comes, as I say so often, with rights and obligations, as well as with legitimate expectation on the part of others. It limits what I may and may not do, who I may be and may not be; evenso, because I am called to this by God through these limitations and related freedoms, I learn that constraints of this sort can free me (and allow God to empower me) to be my best self in the silence of solitude.

Celibacy in Christ, for instance, a clear constraint frees me to be a complete woman and makes me free to relate to males generally comfortably and freely, of course, but I am also free to relate to male contemplatives especially, in a profoundly deep way without anxiety or ever feeling the slightest danger of impropriety. It's a paradox where specific limitations create realms of deep freedom in which one may truly grow in genuine wholeness and holiness as the man or woman they are. My vows and the requirements (more, the vision articulated in) my Rule give me the space and time to spend in prayer and with Scripture in study and lectio. The constraints of my Rule create a realm of freedom, excitement, and personal growth. Silence (a constraint on noise, music, TV, and unnecessarily disturbing things as well  --- unless there is an important reason for them) creates a realm of freedom in which all kind of things (some quite difficult) can occur for and within the hermit's inner life. In the space created by constraints, God is powerfully present and dwells with and in me. In this way, the limits of my hermitage are also the ways in which this small place and my own life open to eternity.

So, that was some of what I was trying to say.in my earlier post. I hope this helps a little more, but if not, get back to me again and let me know what remains unclear.

Cloistered Nun: May She Transfer Her Solemn Vows to Canon 603 Life?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal,  is it possible for a cloistered nun to transfer her solemn profession and consecration to canon 603? It would be to a different diocese than the monastery [she is currently in]. Does that make a difference?]]

Thanks for your question. The quick answer is no, there is no way to transfer solemn monastic profession to canon 603 no matter the diocese(s) involved in such a significant step. Because I either have previously or am currently accompanying a Sister involved in the process you asked about, I am familiar with the outline of the elements required (though not in detail). You will find it involves at least the following elements: 1) exclaustration and establishment of your life as a hermit in (though not yet of) the receiving diocese, 2) working with the local ordinary as you actually discern whether or not you are called to be a diocesan hermit. (Remember that besides the possibility of living as a non-canonical hermit in the lay state, there are two other canonical options you might find preferable to c 603; At least one of these would allow for transfer of one's vows: a) life in a laura, and b) life in a canonical semi-eremitical congregation). Another necessary "element" such a change involves is, 3) the assistance of canonists and the General Superior or Prioress of your congregation who, among many other 4hings, will eventually submit all necessary paperwork to Rome. These three elements break down into many necessary steps and I do not know the specific order in which all these steps needs to be accomplished, but in even considering profession under c 603, a first conversation with the bishop in the "new" diocese regarding what you are considering seems to have priority.

Because canon 603 is not about another Order or Congregation, transfer of vows is not possible. Really it is a different vocation than some form of cenobitical life. Instead, exclaustration will be necessary as you establish yourself in a diocese (I assume you already know the bishop will seriously consider professing you under c 603 if that's the way your mutual discernment truly leads; if you have not ascertained this, please set up an appointment with him to discuss matters before taking any steps toward exclaustration; I am also assuming for purposes of this response, that your question pertained to yourself.) If you know the new (or alternate) diocese's bishop will definitely consider professing you under c 603, you are in a secure position to move towards exclaustration. Know that before a bishop will profess you he must not only be sure you have a solitary eremitical vocation, but he must be sure you will be able to support yourself, pay your own expenses (insurance, medical care, rent, food, utilities, library, spiritual direction, transportation, retreat, etc.). One thing that might be very helpful, especially as the details of exclaustration and definitive separation from your monastic family begin to take shape, is a canon lawyer who works for you and not for the diocese or your  monastic community.

The situation is complex (much more so than a transfer), requires lots of coordinating on the part of everyone involved. One thing that, as a matter of prudence, calls for your own canon lawyer  is the matter of patrimony. While you are on exclaustration and establishing yourself in a hermitage of some sort, your community is responsible for your expenses and upkeep (you are still an OSB, OCSO, or something similar, but once you receive an indult of departure, once your vows are dispensed and perhaps even before you are subsequently professed under canon 603, that changes, of course. (Canonists will assist you and your congregation to work out things in the way departing religious typically do today after x or y  or z years of solemn profession;  here it is both prudent and charitable to have a canonist working for you and looking out for your own concerns and future needs specifically.)

A serious question you will need to answer for yourself in time is, "if I am called to consecrated eremitical life, where is the best place for me to live that out? Is solitary eremitical life best for you (in which case, again, no transfer is possible), or should you consider transferring somewhere like the Sisters of Bethlehem, for instance? There are also small monastic houses which can allow for greater solitary than your own might. The Benedictine Sisters of Transfiguration Monastery in Windsor, NY  are one such I know of (I am an oblate with them since they were formerly Camaldolese.) but I am sure there are others. For instance, are you being called to a greater degree of solitude but lived in community? What you are proposing (moving from one vocation to another) is certainly doable, but again, it is complex even without the "complication" of actually discerning eremitical life and the form this should take. I hope this is a little helpful and wish you the best on your journey. If you are called to this it will be a really wonderful adventure! Meanwhile, please keep in contact if you think I can be of assistance in the future, especially if and as you embrace the eremitical life.

On Prayer: Holding the World in our Hearts (Reprise)

Just sharing (once again) a wonderful image my delegate sent to me several years ago. As I have written before, it is so important that the hermit's "stricter separation from the world" be about freedom FROM enmeshment which allows a very real freedom FOR compassion and genuine regard. We do not "wash our hands" of the world, nor are we called to leave it behind entirely. Rather, empowered by God's love for us experienced in solitude we love and embrace it in a new, creative, and prophetic way.

I would only change one thing about this image; For hermits and other contemplatives especially I would either add or replace the original text with [[Be Prayer for the world!!]] I say that because of Pope Francis' new (2016) Apostolic Constitution,   Vultum dei Quarare (Seeking the Face of God) On Women's Contemplative Life. There he reminds us that contemplatives are set in the heart of the Church and the world and, in their contemplative lives, are a "sign and witness of the prophecy of the Church, virgin, spouse, and mother,"  or here, [[And how great is the joy and prophecy proclaimed to the world by the silence of the cloister!]]

or yet again, [[It is not easy for the world, or at least for a large part of it, dominated by the mindset of power, wealth, and consumerism, to understand your particular vocation and your hidden mission; and yet it needs them immensely. The world needs you every bit as much as a sailor on the high seas needs a beacon to guide him to a safe haven. Be beacons to those near you to you and, above all, to those far away. Be torches to guide men and women along their journey through the dark night of time. Be sentinels of the morning (cf. Is 21:11-12) heralding the dawn (cf. Lk 1:78). By your transfigured life, and with simple words pondered in silence, show us the One who is the way, and the truth and the life (cf Jn 14:6), the Lord who alone brings us fulfillment and bestows life in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10). Cry out to us, as Andrew did to Simon: "We have found the Lord" (Jn 1:40). Like Mary Magdalene on Easter morning, announce to us: "I have seen the Lord!" (Jn 20:18). Cherish the prophetic value of your lives of self-sacriifice. Do not be afraid to live fully the joy of evangelical life, in accordance with your charism.]]

P.S., One of the most wonderful things about this document was that on the front page, below the indication this was from the Holy See Press Office or the Symbol of the Papacy and the large note that this was embargoed until the Feast of Mary Magdalene, below all of this official hoopla stood a single word: Francis --- followed by the title of his document. Not Pope Francis, or even Francis, Bishop of Rome, and certainly not His Holiness or Vicar of Christ, etc, but simply "Francis" --- a Brother religious writing to fellow religious and Sisters in Christ --- not forgetting his role of course, but setting a tone via which the text itself could be heard. I was quite touched by this.

The Lay Vocation: Living as part of the People of God in the Name of the Church

[[Sister O'Neal, I am trying to get my head around this idea of "living a state of life or a vocation in the name of the Church." Does this only work for people in the consecrated or clerical states? Is it also true for lay people? If it is true of us then what are my rights and obligations? I don't think you have ever said anything about this.]]

Terrific question! And no, I may not have written directly about this. Yes, it applies to folks living in the lay state and/or lay vocations. Remember these are people who have been initiated through baptism (and other Sacraments of initiation) into membership in the People of God and thus, it also means people with all the rights and obligations of lay persons in the Church. You and any other lay person lives your vocation in the name of the Church: you are a Catholic lay person and the right to call yourself this is a significant right all by itself. It also comes with obligations.

(Assuming you are a baptized Catholic) everything you are and do is meant to be done in the name of your Catholic identity. You may teach or nurse or do medicine, you may be a business leader, a CEO, a housewife, or shipbuilder, student, caregiver, etc. As a Catholic lay person (or "just" as a Catholic) you are entirely free to live your faith and thus be a Catholic lay person in an infinite number of ways. You never stop being a person who lives your Christian faith in the name of the Church --- unless of course you reject  and walk away from this identity in some material way. Not everything you do may reflect well on your calling or on the Name in which you are called to live your life but the call is still yours. By the way, one tricky piece here is that you are not a Catholic shipbuilder, or a Catholic CEO. The Church has not commissioned you to do or be these specific things in her name. Even so, you are a Catholic Lay Person and CEO, or Catholic and shipbuilder, etc. You are free to make as much money as you can (though the evangelical counsel of poverty is also an obligation which is part of your Catholic vocation), free to marry, to raise a family, to move wherever you like, study whatever you want, and so forth (though in all of this the evangelical counsels of obedience and chastity also bind you --- though not religious obedience or religious chastity in celibacy).

You have the right (and sometimes the obligation!) to receive the sacraments regularly, to keep the precepts of the Church, to participate in a parish or other faith community, to participate as you feel called in all of the forms of lay ministry the church opens to you. If you are trained and commissioned as an EEM you do this in the name of the church. You are a Catholic EEM. You have the obligation to be knowledgeable about your faith, to inculcate the theological and cardinal virtues (etc.), to live the law of the Church and of God's Law of Love, to become  a person of prayer (the very prayer of God), to raise your children in a similar way, to create a home which is genuinely Catholic and reflects Catholic faith and values. You are free to associate with others and create associations of the lay faithful. In serious or emergency situations you are even free to baptize! These are also rights which are yours as a person in the lay state. Moreover, you have the right and obligation to discern the shape of God's call in your life and to live this out the best you can. This vocation is the foundation of every other in the Church.  At every moment and mood of your life you have the right and obligation to hear and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a Catholic in the Lay state.

When people say "I am a Catholic" all of this and more is implied --- or at least is meant to be implied. Above all, I think, to say, "I am a Catholic" is to recognize and embrace a call to holiness in Christ, to recognize and embrace a call to be God's embodied Word as you image Christ in this unique and foundational state of life. Because you are baptized, confirmed, and nourished with  the Eucharist and the Word of God, strengthened as needed with the Sacrament of the Sick, healed and reconciled with the Sacrament of reconciliation, you are called and commissioned to live this state of life in an inspired and edifying way. Here rights and obligations become hard or impossible to tease apart but they are all part of your unique vocation as a Catholic and as Catholic Laity.

Are there limitations on your rights and obligations? Yes, of course. What I mentioned as "tricky" earlier points to some of these limitations. If, like I have done, you study Theology and become a theologian by training, expertise, and even passion, unless the Church specifically charges you with this right and obligation you cannot identify yourself as a Catholic theologian because you do not do or teach theology in the name of the Church. This requires a special Mandatum which can be granted or taken away. This does not mean the theology you do or teach is anything other than Catholic or profoundly orthodox, but unless the Church herself has granted you this Mandatum, you, like I, cannot call yourself a Catholic Theologian.

Similarly, you may be a gifted preacher, knowledgeable in the Word of God and human psychology, but unless and until the Church grants you the right (and charges you with the associated obligations), you cannot call yourself a Catholic preacher. (You would be a Catholic and a preacher, but you do not preach in the name of the Church; she has not granted this ecclesial calling, rights, and commensurate obligations to you). You may pray and live in all the ways a Catholic Religious prays, but you do so in the lay state (and why not?!); you are not a Catholic religious unless and until you are initiated by competent authorities into this state of life. Such rights and obligations belong to the Church (we call these callings, "ecclesial vocations") and they are hers alone to confer; they are never self-assumed.

But the more pertinent point in light of your question is the truth that by the very fact of your Baptism you live lay life in the name of the Church. The Church recognizes you as part of the People of God, the (Gk.,λαος laos,laity, or People), and that is a very significant vocation wherever and how ever you live it out or express it; for wherever and how ever you do this, you are called to be Church. You are (a) Catholic; your selfhood is lived in the name of God and the name of the Church. The challenge, of course, is always to live this vocation worthily in a way which builds up the People, to understand that with baptism you did not simply join a religious group but were gifted with and embraced a Catholic vocation marked by its undeniable call to an exhaustive (if difficult!) holiness-in-community, and very unique (and challenging!) freedom.

Institutes of Consecrated Life vs Lauras of c 603 Hermits

[[Dear Sister, why are c 603 hermits allowed to form lauras but not communities? Where can I find more about this?]]

Thanks for this question.  Do please check the labels at the right to see what else I have written about this; there's background in earlier posts which should be helpful. I'm not sure if anyone ever asked "why not?" before. Lauras are colonies of hermits, and those of c 603 hermits are composed of solitary hermits professed and consecrated apart from a community. They must therefore be able to exist as a specifically solitary hermit should a laura dissolve or otherwise fail. (I have read that the success rate of lauras is really very small. They apparently fail far more frequently than they succeed.) If their vows were made as part of a community commitment, and the community dissolved or was suppressed or something, the hermits left would need to have those vows recontextualized canonically (transferred to another group) or have them cease to be binding due to a material change in the hermit's circumstances.

The second but related reason is that there are already other canons which govern the foundation of institutes of consecrated life. Canon 603 is not meant to be used as a way to sidestep these canons and the process established by them. The foundation of religious communities is a complex and demanding project. This is true even when the founders are possessed of an evangelical genius. The church governs the formation and development of new institutes so that they grow in a healthy way, embody gospel values and represent sound theologies and praxis of consecrated life. It takes time and there are a number of stages which must be negotiated before the community is considered an institute of consecrated life and members are admitted to profession and/or consecration. Such institutes are ecclesial just as diocesan hermits are ecclesial. They represent religious life lived in the name of the Church and for that reason the church governs their establishment formation, and life canonically.

Some of the commentaries on the revised Code of Canon Law discuss the  prohibition of using c 603 for the establishment of communities. The one I have by Coriden et al, speaks of this. I have written some about the differences between lauras and communities several years ago. There may be some work done on this in Canon Law journals, because there are now groups that began as lauras which morphed over time into actual communities, but I can't point you to anything in these. If I find anything myself, I'll add it to this post. Meanwhile, your best resource is apt to be canonists specializing in consecrated life. Therese Ivers, JCL is one who can be reached online or by email and might be directly helpful or able to refer you to someone else who is.

On Moving to Another Diocese: Diocesan Hermits vs Consecrated Virgins

[[dear Sister, why is it you [a diocesan hermit] would need the permission of both Bishops if you [a diocesan hermit] were leaving one diocese and moving to another? I don't think consecrated virgins need permission of a new Bishop, so why do you?]]

Thanks for the question. As I understand the issue, there is a difference in Consecrated Virgins and diocesan Hermits that is pretty fundamental. Diocesan hermits make vows and are thus considered religious where Consecrated Virgins do not. CV's do promise to remain chaste in their virginal state and like anyone in the Church the evangelical counsels are important to their lives, but they do not have a vow of religious obedience and the Bishop does not take on the responsibilities of legitimate superior in their case. Their bishop is rightly said and asked to have a "special relationship" with CV's in his diocese, but this is not one that binds in obedience in the way a vow of (religious) obedience does for a c 603 hermit. Canon 603 reads that the hermit's life is undertaken under the direction of the local ordinary. This is not a reference to spiritual direction, but more to the "direction" of a role like that of "Novice Director" or "Director of Juniors" in a religious congregation. Vows are made in his hands and he is thus a legitimate superior; the term direction underscores this.

While I don't personally think bishops generally find the direction (or supervision) of a hermit is particularly onerous (delegates serving as "quasi-superiors" or "directors" are a major assist in governing here), it is still a different matter than in the relationship that exists between a Consecrated Virgin and her bishop. Thus, before a Bishop takes on such a responsibility with a hermit proposing to move to his diocese, he will be certain the hermit is in good standing with the original diocese and meet with the hermit in order to decide whether or not he can take on this responsibility. There may be good reasons he decides he cannot. My sense is CV's will meet with a new bishop as an important piece of courtesy and also to begin establishing what is meant to be a significant relationship with both bishop and diocese, and I believe some are writing as though this rises to the level of "permission" but I don't think this last bit is accurate. In any case, c. 603 hermits require a new bishop's agreement to accept their vows and serve as legitimate superior, otherwise, though consecrated, in moving to a new diocese they would have to leave the consecrated state with its ecclesial rights and obligations.

p.s. I should have clarified this earlier. A diocesan hermit does not need "permission" of both bishops, though that is a shorthand way of saying both bishops will be involved. Hermits will need the "cooperation" of their home bishop in attesting to their good standing in the diocese and the permission or formal acceptance of their vows by the bishop of the new diocese.

Is Canon 603 Exclusionary?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you have written any number of times about what is unique about canon 603. I have never heard you saying that it excludes people from the consecrated state. Instead I have heard you saying that the church finally allowed hermits to be included in the consecrated state. Is this the case? Were hermits always understood to be lay persons? How about religious? How were they regarded? What I am most concerned with is whether canon 603 excludes people from being thought of as consecrated as one blogger is now arguing.]]

Thanks for your question and your summary of what you have heard me saying. I think you have heard me very clearly. When I emphasize the Desert Fathers and Mothers were a lay vocation my intention is not merely to be accurate and avoid anachronism, it is  also to point to how varied and significant lay vocations can be and have always been in the Church. But let's be clear, despite being rooted in baptismal consecration, these vocations were not understood as consecrated vocations in the way we use that term today. These and later hermits were not somehow part of the consecrated state (a different and even later category within the church). Hermits could be seen as consecrated when they were part of an institute of consecrated life and made vows within this context, but otherwise, they have not been seen as consecrated except insofar as the  whole People of God is consecrated in baptism.

Remember that the Church was pretty much always divided hierarchically into laity and clerics. Early on there were also ascetics, virgins, and widows. Monastic life pretty much overtook eremitical vocations by the sixth century. (The rise of monastic life from the 3rd C and Benedictinism beginning in the 6th C continued as the Desert Fathers and Mothers died out and eremitism continued as semi-eremitism in the Western Church.) Consecrated virgins outside of monastic life died out (was subsumed into religious life) by the 11th C.  Religious became unofficially a kind of third and median division in the hierarchical schema. In time this ambiguity was clarified. Vatican II and the revised Code of Canon Law especially said very clearly that religious are not a median division in the hierarchy of the Church, not a third or middle level, and that hierarchically speaking, Religious are part of the laity. Even so, solitary hermits were not regarded as part of the consecrated (Religious) life within the Church. Eremitical life was a diverse, often eccentric, or disedifying phenomenon which also had occasional saints, but it  was not considered an instance of consecrated life unless the hermits belonged to an Order or congregation of Religious.

What was significant re canon 603 was that for the first time in the history of the universal Church solitary hermits could be recognized in law as part of the consecrated state.  As I've written before, but with a different emphasis maybe, when Bishop Remi de Roo made his intervention at the Second Vatican Council he had been dealing with a dozen or more hermits who had had to leave their Solemn vows, leave their congregations, and be secularized because they could not be hermits according to the proper law of their congregations. That was the term used: secularized. It was the term meaning antithetical to the consecrated or Religious state. Even today we remember references to religious vs seculars. These monks had to leave the consecrated state and live the silence of solitude as hermits in the lay (or, if they were priests, clerical) states. This was the only possibility that existed in the Church. They could not leave their monasteries and expect to be considered to still be in the consecrated or Religious state. (At this point in history religious and consecrated are essentially synonyms; this changed with the reintroduction of consecrated virgins who were not religious (c 604) and consecrated hermits (c 603).)

In any case, though consecrated with what was called the "second consecration" they no longer existed in the consecrated state and there was no way within the Church to contend or achieve the opposite. Their vows had been dispensed, they had no legitimate superiors (though Bishop de Roo served them as Bishop Protector), and the church generally had no way to canonically govern or legitimately support their eremitical vocations or those of others like them unless they formed a semi-eremitical community under established canons. In other words, solitary hermits who had been secularized were unable to consider themselves consecrated hermits even if they had spent years in religious life and solemn vows.

It is important to understand what these monks had given up in order to live a call to eremitical life in the lay (or clerical) state; they had no other option in attending to God's call. Their situation, and that of others desiring to live lives as solitary consecrated hermits, meant there was a lacuna or gap in Church perception, practice, and law. The church needed to recognize the nature and value of the eremitical vocation in general (no matter the state of life), but particularly, she needed a way for solitary hermits, when this vocation was mutually discerned, to be initiated into the consecrated state with all that implied. Canon 603 was the result and it filled this gap. That occurred in 1983.

Canon 603 was not added as an option for those who liked law, were legalistic, or simply prideful. It was not added so Bishops could discipline recalcitrant lay hermits. (First, there weren't many in the Western church, and second, admission to the consecrated state is not the way the Church deals with difficult or troublesome people or situations.) It was added because the Church as a whole had never had a way to consecrate solitary hermits. Indeed, the Church had rarely wanted to do so! Some bishops had seen the value of eremitical life and taken anchorites under their care in the Middle Ages while other (mainly male) hermits wandered the land, sometimes helpful (ferrymen, foresters, etc.) and often simply eccentric or bizarre. While legends grew up around hermits (the source of most stereotypes) and some were considered quite holy, they were never part of the consecrated life of the Church because they did not belong to Religious Institutes.

When one reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one must be careful not to read it anachronistically. The same is true of Canon 603. It has never been meant to exclude hermits through history from the consecrated state (as though it could do so retroactively!). It was meant to fill a lacuna in Church perspective, practice, and law and make it possible for the first time ever in the universal church to constitute and recognize solitary hermits in law (canonically) as members of the consecrated state. In doing so it extended the category "Religious" to those with no connection to a religious congregation (Handbook on Canons 573-746) --- a very great change in the way the Church thought and practiced.

Is This Correct? What Happens When. . .?

[[ Sister Laurel, is this correct? "If, for example, a diocese hermit had a new bishop come to the diocese, and that bishop did not want diocese hermits, the diocese hermit would need to find a diocese in which the bishop was accepting hermits under his direction, and relocate. Or, such as a diocese hermit in the UK, when a serious illness occurred, that hermit had to relocate to be close to medical facilities and practitioners, so has had to ask the diocese bishop of the diocese in which she had to relocate, to accept this hermit's diocese hermit designation. If the bishop of the new diocese would decline, then the diocese hermit would need to accept being a hermit of the traditional, historical type and not be that of CL603. These are just hypothetical situations and examples"]]

Thanks for the question. The first statement is entirely incorrect. Remember, a diocesan hermit does not make her vows to a particular bishop. She makes them to God in the bishop's hands. In so doing she becomes a hermit of the Diocese of x --- rather like diocesan priests are priests not just in a particular diocese but priests of a specific diocese. When a new bishop comes to a diocese a diocesan hermit in perpetual vows does not need to worry about relocating at all. The new bishop assumes pastoral/episcopal responsibility for the whole diocese and that includes any and all diocesan hermits. My own profession, for instance, is perpetual and canonical. I have been given a particular "standing in law" and my vocation is governed on the diocesan level (though recognized by the universal Church), no matter who is or becomes the bishop. When I speak of the rights and obligations of canonical standing, freedom from arbitrary situations like the one described in your quotation are part of the "rights" involved.

Nothing undoes this canonical standing except a formal (i,e., canonical) act of dispensation. There is nothing  hypothetical about this situation (nor that of Sister Rachel Denton, Er Dio). There have been four bishops since I have been professed and consecrated (one was interim). This means I have had three different bishops as legitimate superiors (the Vicar for Religious served during the interim). There was never the least question about my ceasing to be a diocesan hermit due to these shifts. Now, it may be true that a bishop sympathetic to the vocation does a better job in relation to his pastoral role with a diocesan hermit than one who is not open to using c 603, but the hermit is perpetually professed and a new bishop becomes the new superior whether he agrees with the implementation of c 603 or not.

New Bishops in Cases of Temporary Profession:

If, on the other hand, a diocesan hermit is only temporary professed under c 603 (and therefore, also not yet solemnly consecrated),  and a new bishop is installed who does not want to implement c 603, there is a chance he could simply allow those vows to lapse and refuse to admit the hermit to perpetual profession. I have never heard of such a case. My sense is that, instead, the bishop would recognize the time and significant process (and commitment!) that is already spent and underway; he would discern in good faith this particular vocation even if he had already decided not to admit anyone else to profession under c 603 in the foreseeable future. Since he can easily delegate someone to be the hermit's superior and act as such for him, such a situation would not be onerous. Moreover (at least this tends to be true in larger dioceses), since bishops rarely deal with hermits until the Vicars for Religious are ready to recommend profession, the c 603 vocations are, again, not a burdensome matter for bishops.

After all, when one is temporary professed there have to be really good reasons for not admitting her to perpetual profession and consecration. A bishop can honestly discern reasons not to admit to perpetual profession, of course, but these will be done in good faith and not merely because of personal bias. (When one makes temporary vows, personally speaking, one is still disposing of one's life entirely; one is giving oneself to God and his People without limits, despite the temporary nature of the vow itself. This capacity is necessary if one is to be admitted to vows at all, even when the vow itself is temporary.) Remember too, others are and have also been involved in the process of discernment over a period of years. We are dealing with Divine vocations to the consecrated state and, generally speaking, bishops will not act whimsically.

Moving in Cases of Medical Necessity:

In medical situations like of those like Sister Rachel Denton in the UK, one would need to know the whole situation to say how inevitable the outlined solution is.This is because what is also true is that when one needs to relocate because of medical needs, the situation can be temporary or permanent. If it is a temporary situation and the hermit is perpetually professed, my sense is the hermit's bishop would speak to the bishop in the new locale and assure the hermit's ability to continue to live her public profession with the assistance of the new bishop --- much as when a priest is moved temporarily and granted temporary faculties. A hermit's diocese will, among other things, assure the hermit is professed and in good standing.

It is only when the relocation is a permanent one that the new bishop must  accept the hermit's vows and assume full responsibility for such a vocation in his diocese. In the case of medical need I think it would be unusual for a bishop to refuse to accept the hermit's vows. His acceptance of this hermit in this situation would not need to mean a change in diocesan policy if the bishop was otherwise unwilling to implement c 603. However, if the bishop refuses and one moves permanently to this diocese anyway, then one's vows cease to be binding due to a material change in the circumstances under which they are valid. The original diocese may dispense the vows or otherwise declare the material change renders the vows invalid. (I don't know if they can or prudently need to do both.) What is clear is that in such a situation, the hermit leaves the consecrated state and returns to the lay state whether or not she continues to live as a hermit.

If, on the other hand, the vows are temporary, several different things can happen. Hopefully the medical treatment will allow the hermit to return to her diocese and truly live eremitical life in time to make perpetual profession. If not, both the hermit and the home diocese will need to decide what to do. So long as adequate supervision and regular spiritual direction can be maintained, renewing temporary vows while on "medical leave" of some sort is a possibility. Expediting perpetual vows is also possible (and most charitable) in some cases. Approaching the new diocese for admission to profession (whether temporary or perpetual) is another option so long as one can live one's Rule. Canon 603 is no longer an untried and entirely novel vocation. We now have examples of well-lived and edifying eremitical lives, rare though this vocation will always be. As a result, once a hermit has been professed under c 603 people will ordinarily work to discern the best thing for the hermit and for this canonical vocation itself.

Reminder to all readers, if there is a link for your source, please include it with your question.

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.