She Just Wants to Help

I have been working on a homily for the Solemnity of the Ascension and struggling with it some. Part of what I am trying to convey is that Luke's way of telling the story with its various stages, time frames, and images of leaving, absence, and eventual return are a paradoxical way of speaking about  a new and challenging Presence in a new and sacramental world --- if only we have the eyes of faith to see it! In the midst of this work I received the above picture with a brief note from my Director. 

One can see a foolish child, mistaken in what she sees, misguided in her futile attempts to assist with something she would be too small and insignificant to help with even if this weren't a statue --- and maybe allow "how cute" such foolishness is! Or, one can see what it means when Jesus says we must become like little children and view the world with the eyes of faith. Yes, this is a tableau of Jesus' way of the cross, not merely because of the suffering, struggle, and failure associated with the scene, but because it is simultaneously a tableau of two hearts, blind to their very human limitations, and united in their alertness to the infinite potential of Love. 

This "little one" may not have moved this statue but there is no doubt in my mind she moved God with compassion and delight --- and deeply touched the hearts of whoever has seen this. 

On the Performative Nature of Profession and The Prayer of Solemn Consecration

[[Dear Sister, I've read your last couple of pieces on the profession and consecration of hermits. You are saying these things are more than some kind of official recognition by the Church, aren't you? Would this be like ordination is more than a kind of official recognition of a priestly vocation or of a person? Is this why you use the word performative or speak of a "making real" quality? If a bishop said that profession and consecration was just a form of official recognition he would be incorrect wouldn't he? Because you write that neither the canonical nor the non-canonical hermit vocation is better than the other why is it a problem if someone contends they are canonical when they are not?]]

Yes, you've gotten it. The term performative is used about language events and means that something comes to be or is "realized" in the very act of speaking. We all have a slight sense of this from when we finally put obscure feelings into words and sense they are suddenly more real. But consider, when a judge pronounces a jury's finding of "guilty" the person is guilty under the law and convicted --- even if they did not commit the crime. When the pronounced judgment is "not guilty" the person IS acquitted even if they committed the crime. When an umpire calls a person "safe" they ARE safe; they become so at the moment of the call. On a more significant level, vows work this way as well. They are performative: in the pronouncing of one's vows one becomes bound by them and committed in a way one was not prior to making such vows.  Marriage vows are exchanged and in the process of this exchange a couple marries one another; something comes to be that was not a reality before this and the bonds are unbreakable. If one is admitted to religious profession with public vows, what comes to be is a complex set of relationships, rights, and obligations that did not exist before this, because these vows have implications for more than the person making them. Meanwhile, the prayer of solemn consecration prayed over the person by the bishop mediates God's own consecration where someone is actually set apart in the consecrated state.

Yes, though the two are not identical, there is some similarity between consecration and ordination in the sense that something comes to be that was not before.  Some write that in consecration a person is set apart as a "sacred person". Whether we speak of it this way or not (I tend not to do so) this consecration cannot be undone. While one can be removed from the consecrated state of life (meaning one can be deprived of the rights and obligations associated with this state) consecration itself is an act of God and cannot be undone.  With ordination one is admitted to a Sacrament which also changes one in a lasting way. Those who are ordained are ordained forever (their souls are marked and they are made capable of or ordered to ordained ministry) though they too may be deprived of the rights and obligations associated with their priestly state and returned to the lay state. What is important in all of this is hearing why it is the Church is as careful as she can be in admitting to ordination or, for that matter, to consecration. There are elements of both that, once done, cannot be undone and this makes both very significant acts. Again, there is something involved in each which is God's own doing and is far more than official recognition. Even in terms of the Church herself there is more involved than official recognition including supervision, governance, and mediation.

No Roman Catholic bishop would ever say profession and consecration are merely forms of official recognition because he would have to be ignorant of (or actually denying) the Church's own theology of profession and consecration to do so. Thus, you are correct: were a bishop to say this seriously he would be incorrect. At the same time, if he is trying to assist someone come to terms with the fact that they are not called to a vocation to the consecrated state, but wishes to encourage them to continue to live as a hermit in their baptized state if they feel so called, I can understand him adverting from what public vows and consecration signify within the church. This cannot mean using an actual untruth, however. I tend to think it is important to state the whole truth and to point out that while different from one another neither being a hermit in the lay state nor being one in the consecrated state is better than the other. They have different rights and obligations yes, and they speak to different people in different ways, but neither is "better" than the other, neither is a "higher" vocation than the other.

Even so, the fact that neither is better than the other or higher than the other does not mean they are identical either. Again, the rights and obligations associated with each differs. For instance, diocesan hermits live eremitical life for the sake of others in the name (authority) of the Church and they take on the rights and obligations of someone specifically called to and made responsible for that. They are Catholic hermits because they are explicitly authorized by the church to live this life and because these vocations are specifically governed and supervised under canon law by the local ordinary who is also doing this in the name of the church. Hermits in general may not need such governance and supervision, but those who call themselves Catholic Hermits, who claim to be consecrated, who wear habits to signal this, who reserve Eucharist in their hermitages, and who, on behalf of others they serve, assume other titles like Sister or Brother, DO require canonical standing and episcopal/diocesan supervision. At bottom this is about truth. It is about being the person one says one is -- and being the person God has called one to be. It is about not participating in pretense but instead treating others with charity by telling them the truth.

By the way, a variant of this is the purported assertion of a bishop that canon law (c 603) "does not speak to the validity of a vocation." This was recently posted in the blog Catholic Hermit and I cannot verify either the context or the text of the exact assertion; for this reason the meaning is entirely unclear as well. Even so, the given statement is true if the vocation being spoken of by the bishop is a non-canonical vocation lived in the lay state. After all, there is nothing about canon 603 that says a non-canonical eremitical vocation lacks validity, nor does anyone I know contend this.  On the other hand, does canon 603 "validate" or "speak to the validity"  of consecrated solitary eremitical lives? Yes, of course. The canon establishes in law and in fact allows for solitary eremitical life to be validly lived as an instance of consecrated life for the first time in the universal Church. It serves to establish, measure, and govern vocations precisely as valid vocations. Does this mean such vocations will be lived well? No, c 603 cannot do this, but it does say to the extent everyone involved is acting in good faith the vocation is a divine one recognized as valid (well-founded and legally established with corresponding rights and obligations) in and by the church.

A Contemplative Moment: The Lightest Touch

THE LIGHTEST TOUCH

by David Whyte

Good poetry begins with

the lightest touch

a breeze arriving from nowhere,

a whispered healing arrival,

a word in your ear,

a settling into things,

then like a hand in the dark

it arrests the whole body

steeling you for revelation.

In the silence that follows

a great line

you can feel Lazarus

deep inside

even the laziest, most deathly afraid

part of you,

lift up his hands and walk toward the light.

On the Paradox of Externals and the mediation of Spiritual Reality

[[Dear Sister, it seems contradictory or maybe it's just paradoxical that a vocation as profoundly spiritual and countercultural as hermit life should have to depend on canon law and other externals.  isn't there a conflict here or at least a danger that a hermit living her life under canon law will lose focus on the spiritual?]]

Excellent questions and also an excellent move from "contradictory" to "paradoxical" instead. That was the exactly right shift and the key to understanding the importance of structures and canons in ensuring or helping to ensure the spiritual and countercultural nature of the consecrated hermit's vocation.

Let me ask you some questions which should help me make my point: have you ever tried to nail jello to a wall? Ever tried to drink or even pour a cup of coffee without the cup? Have you ever tried to deal with mercury outside some kind of container or sleep on a feather "pillow" without the sewn encasement? Ever tried to live a productive life without a schedule, or a place to live or work or tools to work with? How about trying to live as a Christian without benefit of baptism or attempting to ensure a strong sacramental life without depending on "externals" like water, oil, unleavened bread, Scripture, or ordained ministry? Ever tried to take a long journey while avoiding the use of "externals" like roads, maps, gas stations, restaurants, or food stores? How about crossing a busy street at rush hour safely without regard to traffic signals or when there are no traffic laws? How about playing a violin sonata without the violin or the sonata or the technique and musical structure and rules for doing so? Similarly, have you ever tried to cook a complex meal without recipes, timers, utensils, or a stove providing assured temperatures (how about by using sticks and leaves over a campfire)? How did that work out for you? Better than it did for me, I hope!!

A few more questions: have you ever tried to live a consecrated life without being consecrated by God, or a married life (with all the rights and obligations intrinsic to this state of life) without being married? How about raising healthy children without rules or consistent norms; how would that work out do you think? And how does one play games with one's children and have fun doing it if the game has no rules or norms and play itself is "anything goes"? Finally, what would happen if I tried to grow vines without a trellis, the proper soil, water, and other nutrients, or taste/feel the effervescence of CO2 without a liquid in which this occurs? In other words, where do externals stop being merely external to something and instead become necessary for and sometimes even intrinsic to the thing itself? The simple fact is the more precious and fragile or frangible an activity or thing is, and certainly the more important, the more dependent it is on established norms, customs, rules, structures and "containers" of all sorts. Similarly, because we are embodied (historical) beings living our lives in space and time we need these "externals" for protection and health.

The dichotomy being drawn between externals and the spiritual in your own question is largely a false one. You see, in my life I need certain structures, relationships, and laws as well in order to live this vocation fully and faithfully. Others need some of these same things so they can truly benefit from this vocation, but also sometimes, truly serve it. These "externals" are not really merely external; instead they are part and parcel of the vocation itself. I am not merely called to be a lone individual, but a hermit and this requires I stand in the tradition of eremitical life known throughout the history of humankind. But beyond this I am also called to be a hermit living this life in the heart and in the name of the Church and for that reason certain "externals" like consecration, public profession, canon law, legitimate superiors and the ministry of authority, a Rule, and so forth are necessary for and also an intrinsic part of this vocation. All of these things serve this vocation and the God who is its source and ground. Can one be a hermit apart from these things? Yes, or at least yes to some of them. But one cannot be a hermit living this vocation in the name of the Church without them.

The thing is none of these supposedly "external" realities get in the way of the spiritual dimension of my vocation any more than the cup gets in the way of a cup of coffee, or a pillow encasement gets in the way of the feathers. Instead they make these things possible -- and capable of benefiting others. Just like I need a violin and the music for a sonata if I am to play a violin sonata, so too does a call to be a diocesan or canonical hermit require the church, canon law, and the mediation of both the call and the response. There is no call to such a vocation apart from these. My vocation was not a call I heard once in my mind, and responded to similarly once and for all. It is a call I heard, responded to in a definitive way and continue to respond to day in and day out in an embodied way. Canon 603 and my own prayer, work in direction, and life within the Church, sacramental and otherwise, continues to mediate that call to me and to receive my response. Not everyone needs all of this to live as a hermit, of course, but to live as a hermit in the name of the Church and with the rights and obligations which allow that vocation to take concrete shape in my life and the life of the church, one needs these things. Again, they serve this vocation and I am glad for their service.

Our God reveals Godself exhaustively as incarnate. God is exhaustively revealed (made known and made real in space and time) in an embodied way in the person of Jesus. Jesus' humanity does not get in the way of this revelation; it serves it!! It makes it possible! It is an incredible paradox, and something theologians throughout our history have struggled with. So too it is with the  supposed "externals" of canon law, church, ministry of authority, liturgy of consecration and profession, vows, Rule, etc. These allow the call of God to be revealed day in and day out, not only to the hermit, but to all of those the hermit's life touches.

These things shape my life in significant ways, yes, but they are also shaped by my life and reveal the way God is at work in it. Canon 603 isn't merely an external for me but rather something essential to mediate the voice and presence of God --- and thus, intrinsic to it. The same is true of the relationships I have with my Directors, my local parish, diocese, and so forth. These help create a realm of profound freedom infinite in its capacity to allow my exploration of life with God alone. To remove them is like sleeping night after night with one's head in an unconstrained pile of feathers. While this analogy fails like any analogy, it would not be long before the pile would cease to be and the feathers would be lost entirely through my own movement, and sweeping, bedmaking, laundry, an open bedroom window or door, and 1,001 other things which are part of everyday life.

Canon 603: A Process of Approval or a Process of Discernment?

[[(. . .This negative affirmation reminds me all over again why not to be involved in a newish canon law that allows such persons with history of hubris, nastiness, and outer attack not only of myself but of others over the past 12 years and likely longer, to have been approved by a bishop. This reminder of the inconsistency and lack of holy bishops having time to supervise their approved hermits, brings up what seems a solid suggestion. When bishops who have canonically approved persons in their diocese to be hermits, are transferred with a new bishop arriving, the person who was approved by the first bishop ought be taken through the approval process over again by the next bishop (and so on with new bishops), for not all bishops would approve of certain types of persons. In not continuing my writing as a Catholic hermit, I will definitely not miss this person nor the person's followers, but I will pray for them as I pray for the salvation of all the world. I also hope in God that you readers will pray for me.)]]

Sister, could you comment on this passage? I think it's messed up in some way, but I can't explain exactly how.

Sure, and I agree that your basic sense is correct. Personalities aside, this passage raises an important question, namely, does admission to perpetual profession and consecration represent a bishop's personal "approval" of the candidate for profession or is there something more involved? There is a corollary: should canonical hermits be run through the process of discernment and profession again and again as the diocesan bishop changes? (For instance, my own diocese has had 5 bishops -- 4 installed and one interim --- in the time I have lived here and first petitioned for admission to profession under c 603. Should I have been asked each time to undergo a new discernment process, and if so, what happens to the concepts of life or perpetual profession and consecration?) I have emboldened the critical part of the post cited and formulated these questions in a way which highlights what is actually at stake here, namely, do we accept the Church's theology of consecrated life or not? Do we accept the Church's theology of vocation or don't we?  Once someone is perpetually professed and consecrated, once they have been initiated into this stable state of life with all of the graced ontological changes that implies, it cannot simply be taken from them without grave reason and canonical process, nor can they be asked to "do it all again" whenever there is a change in the office of Bishop (or for any other similar situation).

The Problem with the term "Canonical approval":

The term "canonical approval" is inaccurate and, depending on how it is used, it can be seriously misleading. Someone who has petitioned for admission to public profession and divine consecration are either approved or disapproved for this specific admission. If they are professed and consecrated they assume a canonical standing they did not have before. They are not "canonically approved" nor is the approval given to admit to profession about whether they are a certain kind of person or not.  Neither does it have to do with whether or not the bishop likes or dislikes them, their theology, their personalities, reading habits, taste in music, or any similar thing. It has to do with whether or not this person has been discerned to have a divine vocation. God calls whom he will and when one is determined (as best as this is possible) to have a vocation to the solitary consecrated eremitical state, for instance, they will be allowed and (if they petition) required to accept the canonical rights and obligations associated with profession to this under c 603. In this way they are initiated into to the state of life of those called to live this life in the name of the Church. They become Catholic hermits. Canonical standing does not assure anything more than the fact that the Church and the person professed and consecrated has been determined, as well as can be by those with oversight in such matters, to be called to this; it says nothing about their personalities or a bishop's personal approval of them in a more general sense.

If, after profession/consecration the person lives the vocation with fidelity it makes no difference whether or not an incoming new bishop likes her much or not at all. She has been deemed ready for, called to, and admitted to a perpetual commitment and consecrated by God in the hands of her bishop who represented the whole Church in doing so. Yes, it is a big step and petitioning for and accepting this new standing in the Church under canon law by the hermit is a big decision. But it has been done and cannot be undone on a whim or bit of personal pique. There is a performative or "making real" quality to profession and consecration. They literally change reality. For this reason, the incoming bishop will learn to work with this hermit or not, he will supervise this vocation adequately or not, but without grave reasons having to do with the hermit's own failure to live her vocation, a bishop cannot take action against the hermit, nor can he simply deprive her of her vows or the state of life associated with her consecration by God. She has standing in law and that is something incoming bishops also have to honor.

There is a theology of consecrated life and profession at play here that I don't have the sense that the poster you quoted understands in the least. When one continues to speak in terms of canonical approval one gives signs of not having understood the seriousness or nature of the commitment one is being asked for the right to make or the church agrees to receive.. When I petitioned my diocese to admit me to profession and consecration as a diocesan hermit I was asking to be allowed not only to live eremitical life, but to be graced (in fact, consecrated) in a way which allowed me to do so in the name of the Church, and with all of protections and demands of canon law, church law, that pertained. I was petitioning to live this life in the very heart of the Church, and to do so as one whose life would exemplify this call if I were faithful to God in my living out of it. I was petitioning to be allowed to accept a public role, an infinitesimally small yet significant part in the long tradition of eremitical life that had helped shaped the Church and religious life. And I was asking to be allowed all of these things for the whole of my life --- to pour myself into my relationship with God as he poured himself into my heart and took me into himself in the silence of solitude --- all without having to worry that somehow the values and concerns of "the world" or even my own insecurities re "worthiness" or "ability" would be obstacles to this.

Perpetual profession and consecration under canon law provides all of this. Because the Church recognizes divine vocations (ALL vocations!) as significant gifts of God she creates laws to govern and nurture them. One dimension of canon law and having canonical standing as a hermit is the freedom to pursue one's vocation as God calls one without having to fear being deprived of what is necessary to live this calling for merely superficial or selfish reasons. None of this occurs because a bishop likes or "approves" of a person personally. After long discernment a bishop approves someone for admission to profession because it seems clear they have a vocation to eremitical life lived in the name of the Church, and because using canon 603 in this way could benefit the diocese. Similarly, a bishop receives one's profession and mediates God's consecration in the name of the church. The qualification, "in the name of God" is critical here because it emphasizes a recognition of God's calling here. After profession and consecration the bishop supervises this vocation as do others who might take his place as bishop. Again, none of this merely depends on the diocesan bishop's approval of the hermit personally, nor does canonical standing imply merely personal approval --- though I am sure there cannot be serious concern with nor disapproval of the way a hermit lives her vocation or action would be taken to assist her with this. In any case, I hope you can see the difference here.

The Problem with the term "approval process":

The process is rightly called a discernment process, not an approval process because one will approve a person for admission to profession and consecration if one determines they have a divine vocation. Approval for admission to profession is the natural consequence of a process of discernment involving many people, Vicars, canonists, pastors, spiritual directors, and bishop.  We name the process after the  thing everyone is most concerned with, namely seeing (or not seeing) the hand of God in this person's life and petition. Do we discern that canonical standing, admission to public vows and divine consecration reveals, nurtures, and protects the hand of God in this life and in the Church, both local and universal? Are we willing to undertake the obligations of canon 603 here (because the local and universal church also take on rights and obligations in admitting to profession, etc.) because we believe this person has a vocation to consecrated solitary eremitical life or not?

In case this is not clear though, imagine what the discernment process would be like if a diocese were to say: we are going to determine whether you have this vocation and are ready for perpetual profession; if we determine you have such a vocation and are called to perpetual profession, we want you to make your profession and give your entire self to God for the whole of that life --- but should something happen to the bishop, we'll ask you to do it all again, and again, and again --- as often as a bishop dies, or is transferred or becomes an Archbishop somewhere else, etc etc. Oh, and about the Divine consecration you receive at that perpetual profession, well, though we can't change it, we'll just act as though it never happened and ask God to do it again if and when the time comes! Unless of course the next bishop or the one after that doesn't personally "approve of you", or of having diocesan hermits at all, in which case we'll ask you to just cease being who you are (and who we have made you with the grace of God) and take up a new life in the Church. Meanwhile, we want you to live your vocation like its an eternal gift of God and to do so in our name, because that is what we teach it is. Are we asking you to live a lie? No. Are we giving the lie to what we are asking you to live? Yes.

You see, the very idea that the Church could pull the rug out from under this vocation once an honest discernment process had been done and profession and consecration occurred makes the state of life entered into by the hermit radically unstable. It gives the lie to every element in the situation being enacted in either profession or consecration: the vows cannot truly be perpetual, the consecration is made subordinate to the whims and vagaries of historical circumstances and a particular bishop, rather than being honored as the will of the eternal God, while vocation itself is treated like something one can regard or disregard, turn on or off like a light, without serious consequences for the person, the vocation itself or the Church's theology of vocation. Meanwhile, the canons which carefully provide the needed conditions for a truly stable state of life are emptied of meaning.

Summary:

When the Church admits someone to perpetual profession they have determined the person has a divine vocation.  When the Church uses the solemn prayer of consecration she mediates God's own consecration and will govern and supervise it for the glory of God. The Church recognizes she is not the source of such a vocation but its servant. Part of her service is engaging in an honest discernment process --- nothing less and nothing other. As a result of a positive discernment, the church agrees to celebrate a liturgy in which God's call and consecration of the person is publicly mediated to the hermit and the hermit's response and life commitment are also received in God's name. Together with the one called, the Church works to provide a stable foundation for the vocation to thrive and the person living that vocation to grow into the authentic likeness of the God she loves more than any other. Canonical standing is a fundamental part of this obligation for both the larger church and the individual hermit. This means that were the church to do as the poster you cited suggested she would be guilty of abandoning the gift of vocation altogether.

Clarification: Inconsistent Answers?

[[ Dear Sister O'Neal, thanks for your responses. You wrote recently that the most crucial issue in the discernment and formation of canon 603 vocations was an understanding of the charismatic quality of the vocation and enlarged on that by referring to how important it is to understand the gift quality of this vocation. In your response to my question about whether the canon is being implemented more appropriately your wrote that one area requiring improvement in implementing c 603 was the role of bishops in the ministry of authority. Are these two things linked in some way? If not it seems that you have answered the same question in two contrary ways. Thanks.]]

Another good question, thank you. The two responses are linked but the point I was making about charism is more foundational for everyone's esteeming this vocation; it may or may not be implicated in a bishop's failure to adequately supervise the vocation of a c 603 hermit in his diocese. You see,  the charism of solitary eremitical life is the silence of solitude. What I mean by this is that the real gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world in this vocation is "the silence of solitude", The central elements of the canon refers not only to the environment of the hermit's life and hermitage (physical silence and solitude), but as I understand it, it is both the gift of the Spirit but also the very goal of what the hermit is seeking in this eremitical life, namely, the silence or stillness (shalom, quies, hesychia) and solitude (wholeness, integrity, union) of one who rests entirely in the love of God (cf., Silence of Solitude as Goal of the Eremitical Life). My sense is that most of the misuses of canon 603 that occur, whether by the folks petitioning for admission to profession and consecration under c 603, ultimately stems from a failure to understand and esteem this gift quality and goal of the vocation.

Specifically, it is lack of understanding of just how eremitical life is a gift to the Church and world which allows bishops to dismiss or give short shrift to c 603 hermits. It is this which allows lone individuals who will never be hermits to be professed. This same lack of esteem or regard for the charism of eremitical vocation allows individuals and dioceses to use canon 603 as a stopgap to profess those who would like to be a religious without being or becoming a true hermit. A lot of abuses and misuses would fall away if dioceses understood what a gift of the Holy Spirit this vocation is and took care to honor that. Having said that I think it is clear that a bishop not understanding the charism of the vocation or even its charismatic nature might fail in his obligations to a hermit professed in his diocese just as he might fear to use the canon at all or seriously discern with those who may well have a solitary eremitical vocation which is ecclesial and canonical. So yes, the two are related but the failure to understand the charismatic nature of the vocation is the more fundamental one and bishops may or may not fail in their own obligations because of this just as they may fail for others reasons as well.

Is Canon 603 Being Implemented More Appropriately in the Present?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, Given what you have written about the short life of canon 603 and the way diocesan representatives are learning to implement it, do you think  it is being used more appropriately now than it was in the past? Are there ways the Church could improve in this?]]

That's a great question but one that is difficult to answer except in terms of anecdotal impressions. I know that dioceses have greater resources available to them because of the hermits already professed and consecrated according to this canon than was the case early on; this includes a number of hermits who have lived this life for some time in ways that are edifying to others and who can assist dioceses. They also have greater access to the experience of dioceses more generally with relation to this canon. Some have done well with it, some have greater failure rates, and a few at least have failed to even attempt to implement this canon. Some of this has changed the way dioceses use the canon and in this I have seen improvements. For instance, the use of this canon for individuals who really want to live community life and not solitary eremitical life has apparently diminished; at the same time very few true lauras (which differ from communities) are now being established much less succeeding. In other words, the focus is rightly on solitary eremitical life and that is the reason the canon was promulgated. Additionally the use of canon 604 in its place, something that happened very early in the history of these two canons, now seems not to happen at all; dioceses are very clear today that c 603 and c 604 describe vastly different vocations even when some aspects overlap in similarity. More and more it seems to me, canon 603 is being used for true eremitic vocations and not merely to profess lone individuals who could not be professed in community or who are simply unwilling to give up what is necessary for this to happen. 

Similarly, I think it is being used less frequently for those lone individuals who are isolated from others, from the church, and perhaps too from themselves; instead this kind of candidate tends more and more to fail to be admitted to profession and consecration under canon 603, which I think, is a very good thing. Longer periods of discernment and the greater use of temporary profession without automatic admission to perpetual profession three to five years later now allows time for such persons to truly transition into eremitical life in the heart of the church if they truly have eremitical vocations.  And finally, it seems to me that more and more the canon is being used to profess second half of life vocations to solitude rather than younger persons --- especially those who must still live with their parents to undertake such a life. Generally speaking (there are a couple of exceptions, I think), younger persons should be encouraged to join semi-eremitical communities rather than embracing solitary eremitical life. Of the persons I have seen professed under this canon these latter are some of the most questionable. One wonders what happens when the parents die and the "hermit" is required to live a self-sufficient life under vows, particularly when eremitical profession occurred before the person finished their education, worked full-time, and negotiated the other stages of adult individuation.

When canon 603 first was published there was a flurry of interest. I don't know that this interest has fallen off in any steep way, but it is clear to me that dioceses have mainly taken care in professing people in these recent years and that is always a very good thing. With regard to dioceses which have simply refused to implement the canon, these were initially wise in their wait-and-see refusals but are now more and more becoming simply recalcitrant; for this reason, some vocations to consecrated solitary eremitical life are being lost. Still, better this than that non-eremitical lives seeking to use c 603 as some sort of stopgap when no other way to profession and consecration are open to folks. (Here, distinguishing clearly between the Roman Catholic canon 603 from the Anglo-Catholic canon 14 for "solitary religious" who are not necessarily hermits is an important step forward.) As a result of better discernment, and a better sense of what solitary eremitical vocations look like --- meaning that dioceses tend not to simply profess anyone seeking this until they have shown the patience, initiative, and spiritual maturity required for a lifelong commitment to the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance --- I think the faddish quality of canon 603 has diminished significantly.

Areas of Possible Improvement in the Implementation of Canon 603: The Role of Bishops

Yes, there are certainly some areas that could be improved on with regard to eremitical vocations under canon 603. The most critical one, I think, is in the provision for meaningful and regular supervision and ongoing formation of already professed hermits. The canon is clear that these lives are to be lived under the supervision of the local ordinary. The one complaint I hear time and again is that new bishops coming into a diocese do not have time for, nor much want to meet with c 603 hermits in a way we really need. I feel fortunate because when I was approaching profession the Vicars for Religious at the bishop's behest asked that I choose someone to act as a delegate for the diocese, someone who would be a "quasi-superior" for me and who would serve both the bishop and myself as my regular contact person since I would only be able to meet with the bishop annually or so. Over the years this has proved absolutely invaluable. I now have "co-delegates" (we tend to use the word Directors instead) --- one of whom takes the lead and the second who keeps in touch and is ready to step in as Director should anything happen to the other. (For instance, both of these Sisters have been in leadership in their own congregations and during this time it may fall to the other Sister to take the lead as my Director. But this arrangement also provides for illness and other circumstances as well including potential conflicts in matters of internal and external forums.) 

When new bishops come into the diocese (I have lived as a hermit under 4 bishops and a diocesan hermit under 3 with one interim bishop), I will simply continue meeting with my Director(s), and (usually) the Vicar for Religious in case of need, until the new bishop is able to meet with me. (I continue meeting with my Director(s) in any case since I would ordinarily meet with my bishop once a year unless there is a specific need otherwise.) It provides continuity in terms of ongoing formation in one's vows and is especially critical when a new bishop is less able or (perhaps) is even unwilling to meet regularly with a hermit. When I have the need, or there is something which concerns the vocation more generally, either I or my Director can contact the bishop to advise him and work out whatever is needed.

But some hermits have not had such an arrangement asked for by their dioceses and these hermits are sometimes left bereft of sufficient diocesan contact or supervision with real (i.e., legitimate) authority --- especially when new bishops "inherit" them because they are perpetually professed and consecrated. To be left in the lurch this way while trying to faithfully live a consecrated life is certainly not what canon 603 calls for nor is it wise or helpful, especially for ecclesial vocations to eremitical solitude. The need for people who truly assume the ministry of authority in one's life (and here I do not mean a heavy-handed authority which supplants individual responsibility but rather, a ministry of real knowledge and love!) is critically important in such an ecclesial vocation while the failure to provide adequately in this way by bishop who may "inherit" c 603 hermits is a failure of charity and episcopal responsibility as well. Hermits are vowed to obedience to God in the hands of their bishops; to live their vows, and grow in the ways such a vow allows for, requires a bishop (and/or his delegate) do his/her part.

Since bishops change at least occasionally, the possibility of a c 603 hermit falling under the governance of a bishop with no interest or time to act as legitimate superior is always a possibility. Here a delegate who is a consistent and regular presence in the hermit's life and who has the expertise to serve in the ministry of authority at the bishop's behest is critically important. Still, because a hermit in perpetual vows remains consecrated and bound by her vows no matter the changes in diocesan leadership bishops must assume their proper place in the supervision of such vocations. Thus, if we desire such vocations to persevere and succeed in glorifying God and serving as the gift to the Church the Holy Spirit makes them, it is a problem which needs to be addressed -- perhaps at the level of CICLSAL or others in Rome since this seems to occur more than occasionally. Besides the other areas I have mentioned above, this is the one I hear most complaints about. There are a couple of others but, if you don't mind, given the length of this post, I will follow up with those at another time.

Implementing C 603: Difficullties?

[[Dear Sister, if someone doesn't like canon 603 or the way it has been used in some instances, why would they seek to be consecrated and professed under it? You have read Joyful Hermit's blog. [Title and author's name omitted here per request.] She seems to be arguing that the canon is subject to abuse, misuse, hypocrisy, and so forth in ways that troubles her. If her bishop wants to use canon 603 in her regard is she forced to accept it? You are professed under this canon. Do you think there are significant difficulties with its implementation?]]

No, of course, neither "Joyful" nor anyone else is forced to accept canonical standing under canon 603 if she (or anyone else) has serious conscientious disagreement about its nature and/or use generally. For that matter, however, no bishop would or could admit someone to profession and consecration under this canon if that same person has serious concerns about the validity and integrity of the canon, or believes it represents something destructive of true eremitical life -- something "Joyful" has posted about a number of times over the years. For instance, the idea that canon 603 prevents someone from focusing on Jesus alone -- or, I would say instead, from focusing on Jesus and learning to see everything in light of Him --- is simply not the case.  I would say that arguing in that way indicates a lack of understanding not only of the canon, but also of what it looks like to focus on Jesus in the way the gospel and our baptisms call us each to do.

What canon 603 provides is a framework for solitary consecrated eremitical life. It is the only canonical means of doing so. It combines various essential elements (stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, within the framework of the evangelical counsels, under the supervision of the hermit's bishop) all according to a Rule the hermit writes herself. This combination allows for significant structure, eremitical substance, ecclesial accountability, and appropriate flexibility so the needs for each hermit's spiritual growth are adequately met. Not everything one needs to understand and live a consecrated life in the Roman Catholic Church is included in this canon. For instance, other canons will apply regarding the vows, provisions for end of life, canonical freedom, impediments to the vocation, etc., so it is best not to look to canon 603 as exhaustive. Even so, most hermits will find that the way it defines the essential elements and combines these with a personal Rule and the supervision of legitimate authorities, provides a good foundation which is both edifying and sufficient for the hermit's living out of this vocation with authentic freedom and space for the Holy Spirit.

The greatest problem I find with the implementation of this canon is the inadequate understanding of its history and the charism of eremitical life. This lack of understanding is true not only for some seeking to be professed under this canon, but for some who are responsible for admitting individuals to profession and consecration. It takes time and education to understand the distinction between being a lone individual and being a hermit, and especially a consecrated hermit with an ecclesial vocation.  Even some hermits should never be consecrated using c 603 because they are not suited to living an ecclesial vocation "in the name of the Church". Similarly, the discernment and formation of such a vocation takes time, education, and prayer. Cutting corners here, and using canon 603 as some sort of stopgap when other options for religious or consecrated life are not open to one, is a great temptation for those seeking and those admitting to profession both. It is critically important that those dealing with candidates for profession understand the charismatic nature of eremitical life, otherwise they may simply not take the significance of this vocation with adequate seriousness. If the charism or "gift quality" of this vocation is carefully attended to by all involved in its living out, canon 603 will certainly provide the foundational canonical structure needed for solitary consecrated hermits and their ever-deepening relationship with Christ.

Keep in mind that this canon is only 37 years old. There is a learning curve involved in using it wisely, especially in a world given to an exaggerated individualism. Remember too that this is a world in which contemplative life is rare and eremitical life is rarer. Only as dioceses work out their own approaches to discernment and formation (both initial and ongoing), as well as the fundamentals of supervision in conjunction with dioceses with successful hermits, does the nature of the life defined and governed by this canon become clearer. Have mistakes been made? Yes, there have been. Generally, these have raised serious questions by others (religious, clerical, and lay persons in the diocese of profession and beyond its boundaries) which has tended to make dioceses more careful in the future -- though it has also sometimes made it more difficult for dioceses to use the canon appropriately due to greater caution. But canon 603 has also been used well during these 37 years; as a result, diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious have learned what is necessary to live this vocation well and discovered ways to assist in the discernment and ongoing formation of such candidates.

One note: when I researched the sources for "Joyful's" recent post on c 603 Catholic Hermits and Work, I found she had used the equivalent of Wikipedia as her primary citation. Personally, I find that a credible source only for the most general description of the ways c 603 has been implemented. For someone involved in a serious discernment process, especially if they have concerns with this implementation, it is better they speak to C 603 hermits themselves or seek out information from canonists and others who have dealt directly with canon 603 hermits over the years. "Joyful"  believes C 603 will lead her from living hermit life in its "purity" and "essential nature." While I don't doubt the truth of this subjective fear, it isn't true for me nor for the diocesan hermits I know personally or have read about. And this is as it should be for someone professed and consecrated under this canon. We know the nature of the way Canon 603 works from the inside out, and for those professed after sufficient discernment and formation, this experience is positive in terms of personal and spiritual growth as a hermit. In any case, what generally remains true, is that in the Roman Catholic Church, the essential nature of this vocation to solitary consecrated eremitical life is defined by the canon itself. That is the nature of a canon or "norm". That is why the canon was created and why it functions in a "performative" way. It is tied to other canons in the Code of Canon Law where the norms for consecrated life lived according to the Evangelical Counsels are found.

If one is professed and consecrated under Canon 603 one accepts ALL of these norms as legally (i.e., canonically) binding. Together they constitute the framework in which one discovers a realm of freedom that is infinite in its breadth and depth because God and the union with God one is called to explore in this way is infinite. This is both the sacrifice and the blessing of consecrated life. If one believes otherwise or has found their experience is contrary to the witness of those living canonical (consecrated) eremitical life, it is most likely because one is not called to this. Please understand this is not a problem for Catholics since one may live as a hermit in either the lay or the clerical states without benefit of the additional canons pertaining to religious and consecrated solitary eremitical life. Instead, one needs only fulfill the baptismal and canonical obligations of the lay or clerical states and do as one feels called as a hermit within this context. Whatever state of life this implies, one must act in good conscience to live the truth of one's own call and one needs to discern/discover the best path to that life. If one feels called to canonical/consecrated eremitical life, then that pathway will be mutually discerned with representatives of the Church herself.

The real question raised by the post you cited is not whether there are inconsistencies (and far less, whether there are hypocrisies) in the way a canon like 603 is implemented from country to country and diocese to diocese, but whether the canon can provide what is needed to live the truth of one's own Divine call with integrity and the flexibility and creativity of the Holy Spirit. My own answer to that question has been proven time and again: canon 603 is exactly what I need to hear and live my own divine call. Canon 603 constitutes one as a consecrated solitary hermit; for this vocation Canon 603 is normative and constitutive. 

Is this right for everyone? Must everyone seeking to live an eremitical life embrace the same canonical rights and obligations? No, nor has the Church ever said they must. In fact, the reason discernment is relatively long-term with this vocation is rooted not only in the fact that the eremitical vocation is rare, but also in the fact that one has meaningful alternatives if the two canonical routes (semi-eremitical and solitary eremitical life under c 603) do not suit one. Lay hermits (hermits living this life in their baptismal state under the canons that pertain to lay life alone) have always been a significant and often, a powerfully prophetic form of eremitical life. That was true in the early church with the Desert Fathers and Mothers who have been paradigmatic for all hermits; it is true today as well.

Are Hermits a Sign of Hope in this Time of Pandemic?

[[Sister Laurel, I bet you never saw it coming that hermits would be a sign of hope during a time or mandatory sheltering-in-place! Do you see yourself in this way?]]

Thanks for writing. Yes, you are certainly correct in your observation! Of course I am terribly sad that the situation the world finds itself in exists at all, but it is also true that the witness of hermits has a relevance which is more direct and vivid than ordinarily. As already noted, two or three weeks ago I was "interviewed" by a journalist, and while she asked several questions about eremitical life itself, what was eventually published was some of what I said about loneliness and dealing with loneliness. This simply had a greater relevance than would ordinarily be the case. Hermits deal with loneliness (though it is not something we feel all the time!) in two main senses: 1) simple loneliness, which occurs when one experiences something wonderful, beautiful, and/or inspiring and simply wishes to share that with someone. This form of loneliness is natural for every human being and points to the fact that we are made for love and are capable of loving God, ourselves, and others. We know we are made for love, and especially that we are made for God so loneliness as a natural dimension of our existence is not hard to understand.

The second form of loneliness, and one I think is far less common among hermits, is a more complicated or even "malignant" (my word) loneliness that points to forms of emptiness which are not simply natural. They stem from woundedness and the various failures people meet through their lives to be adequately loved and respected, nurtured and nourished. My impression is that folks ordinarily cover the pain of these kinds of wounds with all kinds of addictions and "isms": workaholism, shopaholism, alcoholism, drugs, sex, etc. But during a time of "lockdown" some of these "defenses" simply can't work and our woundedness is exposed and intensified. Sometimes it is simply that the things which allow us to feel successful or that give our lives meaning are taken from us, and the pain of woundedness may become clearer or more intense than usual. Enforced solitude is certainly a way of tearing the masks from our woundedness and while it may increase our more natural loneliness the real "problem" is the fact that it deprives us of some of the various ways we have covered over our profound woundedness.

Solitude, and especially eremitical solitude, requires we face ourselves. We do that in prayer, in spiritual direction, in lectio divina, in study, in recreation, and in our relationships with others. At the same time it allows us to seek, meet, and come to know and be known by the God who is Love-in-Act. In some ways both of these are necessary to truly come to know ourselves; if we know ourselves apart form the love of God, we are apt to have skewed senses of who we are --- either arrogant overestimations of our worth, or sad and shame-based senses of our inferiority and worthlessness.

Humility, a grounded form of loving honesty about ourselves and others, a form of honesty capable of seeing who we truly are and the dignity we truly possess as beloved of God is one of the fruits of eremitical solitude and the necessary work a hermit does in direction, etc. My main theology prof used to use the phrase, "when all the props are kicked out" in teaching about Paul's theology of the Cross. Physical solitude (and especially eremitical solitude) presents us with a situation in which "all the props are kicked out" and we can meet ourselves and God anew. Thus, in time it also provides the context in which we may be healed and made whole (holy) by the love of God. In other words, when all the props are kicked out, our God is there for us and our lives are truly meaningful. That is the nature of hope.

Of course I think hermits can say to folks --- not to worry, you can do this without becoming an alcoholic or lapsing into insanity! At the same time we have to say, "But remember, I can't do this without God and neither can you!! I can't do this without support from my pastor, spiritual director, and friends (emails are precious!) and neither can you get by without support!!!" Hope is the way we measure time in terms of futurity. Does our present see the inbreaking of real future/futurity or is it without this vision? What hermits say is that lives of eremitical solitude are shot through with a sense of real futurity, and therefore, with real hope. Our lives are not meaningless; indeed they are incredibly meaningful and full of joy. Every day brings new discoveries, about ourselves, our God, those we love, and the world around us; what we let go of in order to embrace eremitical solitude was and is indeed sacrificial, but what we have been given in place of that is beyond counting or telling.

Solitude is an opportunity to share in some of this in ways which are not as possible without solitude. Especially, learning to love ourselves as God loves us -- without masks, without props, is the one thing solitude gives us an opportunity for. How our world would change if we could each and all come to this new humility!!

Questions: Eremitical Life as a Guide in Time of Pandemic?

In the middle of April I was interviewed for The Catholic Register in Toronto. A portion of that was on loneliness and that was what found its way into the published article. The main portion, however, I am posting here because the journalist had a sense that hermits might have something significant to say to those still on lock-down in light of this pandemic. I think she's right and her questions serve as a kind of introduction to my understanding of eremitical life.

            1) [[What is your daily life like within the hermitage? I.e. do you leave the hermitage, do you live with others, what is your daily work like?]] 

Life in Stillsong is divided between prayer, study (Scripture, Theology), writing (including journaling, blogging, and some more academic writing) work with clients or my own spiritual direction (every other week I meet with clients and/or with my own director; alternate weeks are mainly without clients), and everyday chores and recreation. I ordinarily leave the hermitage for Mass on Sundays and a couple of days during the week, a Scripture class I teach at my parish, normal errands (shopping, doctors’ appointments, etc.), and some extraordinary events at the parish. I am not a recluse; I am a significant part of the life of others and they are a critical and inalienable part of my own life --- even in my physical solitude. Thus, the focus and majority of my time is spent in what canon 603 refers to as “the silence of solitude”, that is, in communion with God (which requires time and space alone) for the sake not only of my own genuine selfhood but for the sake of others. While I live in a senior complex, I also live alone.

           2) [[I'm interested in what advice you might have for the people quarantined inside their       houses during the current pandemic. I wonder if you have any insights on how they could experience solitude and enclosure not as a negative force, but rather as an opportunity for growth. How does solitude make you feel more connected, and even joyful? What advice do you have for others experiencing social isolation/quarantine - how can they make the most of their situation?]]

Perhaps the best I can do here is to begin by affirming why I live in solitude (rather than in isolation) (Let me first say that I see being isolated as more than mere physical solitude; it means being personally, not just physically separated from others, perhaps because of self-centeredness, misanthropy, etc. Thus I don’t use it as a term to describe eremitical solitude.}

 A medically and surgically intractable seizure disorder and chronic pain isolated me and in some ways prevented my doing what I had planned to do with my life. Becoming a person of prayer (one who is loved by and loves God in a conscious, dedicated way) transformed isolation into solitude and I came to embrace this as away of life. I did so because over time it became clear that my life is immeasurably meaningful apart from the standards ordinarily driving us, namely work or career, wealth, “success”, and so forth. We all know we need some degree of physical solitude to be healthy, but when things like this pandemic rob us of the things which ordinarily make our lives feel meaningful it is important to recognize how truly valuable we are in and of ourselves (in light of the love of God). Physical solitude is an opportunity to discover or strengthen our sense of this truth and to be there for one another in new ways. It is a way of maintaining a truly human perspective  re all of reality. This will include loving and affirming the value of every other person when they are unable to measure their lives in more usual senses, when they seem to have nothing to recommend them in terms of career, wealth, success, expertise, etc.

 There are concrete steps anyone needs to take to live physical solitude fruitfully. Regularity and balance are two of these. A hermit has to learn to balance all the necessary parts of her life, the things without which she cannot be healthy or fully human. Most fundamentally this means beginning and ending everything with prayer, not in the sense of saying prayers before and after everything (though we certainly might do this), but in the sense of beginning and ending with our experience of God’s love, our experience of loving and being loved, in all of the ways that comes to us in solitude (formal prayer, connection with others, reading Scripture, connection with nature, care for all dimensions of self – physical, spiritual, intellectual, relational, etc.). Another way of saying this is to affirm the need to (learn to) give ourselves permission to love and be loved  especially when we are separated from our usual ways of knowing and valuing ourselves through work, career, earning power, status, etc.  It therefore also means creating a schedule where things have their necessary place and developing new habits and priorities which are truly loving for ourselves, those with whom we live, and those around us. Some concrete suggestions common to monastic and eremitical life/Catholic Tradition include:

·     As possible, take time to get to know yourself, God and your loved ones apart from the props of career, status, etc. the pandemic strips each of us of some of these things. Trust that is an opportunity.

·     Take time to pray, to think, and especially to reflect on our world and those who are suffering.

·     Take time to truly recreate, not merely to distract, but to enliven and revitalize. Do this with others as possible and desirable. Talk with each other. Watch a movie together, play board games.

·     Allow time together to be as sacred as it would be at Mass. Especially do this with meals and recreation together. Solitude is about communion, not isolation. Counter isolation with genuine community and develop the new habits needed to do this in the future. Find ways to truly say what is most important and deepest within yourself. The present moment is what we have.

In so far as we touch and continue to touch into the ways we are truly and deeply loved by God (and others), we will be more resilient and creative in this new normal. Everyday practices (making beds, doing dishes, mopping floors, meal times) will be done more attentively and take on a new importance and “fullness.” Everything becomes an opportunity for reflecting on and growing in love; more and more, nothing is “ordinary” any longer. This is the deeper meaning of “making everything a prayer.” Because everything can be transformed in this way, this is the reason hermits, among others, give priority to reading Scripture, and formal prayer in its many forms. We witness to the power of these things to heal and literally inspire genuine humanity.

3. How has isolation helped you deal with suffering? Right now, many people in quarantine are struggling with domestic abuse or suffering from mental health problems - do you have any insights as to how isolation could heal, rather than exacerbate, this suffering?

Here in Stillsong illness and suffering still “get in the way of things.” Even so suffering is part of my life and more generally I am comforted in that suffering by the love of God. This means that while suffering may get in the way of this or that specific activity, it does not get in the way of my life per se.  I think this is actually the witness a hermit’s life gives to the power of God’s love. 

It has taken real work to learn that even significant and isolating suffering is a piece of my life that can still be “engaged in lovingly” and even fruitfully, but one can learn that one is loved and can love oneself in spite of suffering that would ordinarily feel dehumanizing. My life is still infinitely meaningful in light of God’s love and can even be a source of inspiration or edification to others --- not merely because of the suffering involved, but because there is something far more primary for me, namely my (growing) ability to love and be loved in light of God’s love. Once one sees this a number of things happen. Among them, 1) one values oneself no matter what, 2) one come to see others as equally precious, and 3) One experiences one’s fundamental  unity with others and will work to enhance that as possible. When this is true the world becomes an incredibly wonder-full place and  belonging to it (even in physical solitude) a source of joy. 

+       Treat this time of enforced solitude as an opportunity to suffer honestly, without denial or   self-pity. Allow it to be an opportunity to accept whatever limitations and weaknesses are ours.
      Treat it as a chance to drop masks even as we don medical masks.
      Learn to ask for help and to grow in compassion.

 I can’t speak very effectively here to those in situations of abuse any more than by reiterating what I have said above about giving oneself permission to learn to love and be loved (by God, self, and others) in spite of what is an awful continuing reality God does NOT will.  I will say that one needs to get whatever help one can in learning to truly love oneself. There are online resources that can assist one here and some of the things I do regularly myself can be of assistance; journaling, for instance, taking time for oneself (taking walks, exercise, forms of lone recreation that allow one to relax and decompress, etc). Abusers need to do the same kinds of things, perhaps even more urgently because solitude is a demanding context which will break down as well as build up.  That causes a new kind of stress folks will need to learn to deal with. While I do see this as an opportunity to learn new ways of responding rather than reacting with violence and abuse, I also believe one will ordinarily need some help in negotiating this creatively and needs to seek that out online, etc.

 For those dealing with mental illness my advice has to be equally general: treat this pandemic as an opportunity to give yourself permission to love and be loved by a God Who is bigger than even this awful situation. This remains the foundational imperative for every person in this situation. The other suggestions are also important.  Let the stresses of the world’s expectations and ways of seeing reality become less important to you if you can. Do all you need to do to be truly good to yourself. Seek what help is available to deal with your illness, but also hear that you are someone God holds as precious and loves infinitely. Give God permission to do this. Trust that this is what God wills for you, not illness. Know that everyone touched by this pandemic has been disoriented by it; this is normal. Everyone is building new habits, learning new ways  to truly be themselves and relate to others. Those already working with mental illness may actually be ahead of the game here.