Here it is, Ash Wednesday, and a rather long-term difficulty is being addressed, finally. It is of interest only in the aspect of the difficulties that can arise even in a Catholic hermit who is canonically approved (CL603) by a bishop. Such a shame!
The issues involve libel, cyberstalking, personal endangerment, harassment, and violation of right of privacy--and whatever else that can go along with such wrongdoings. This is not a new situation but has been going on for quite some time.
It became a major problem for the one Catholic hermit who has always remained private and anonymous online as well as in prior writing when a publisher would agree to using the pen name or pseudonym, which was agreed upon in three Catholic publications in the past and also with two newspaper columns.
When a UK publication contacted the private Catholic hermit and wished to do a feature story on the hermit's way of life, the hermit was agreeable but only under the provision that the major publication would use a pseudonym, not reveal location of hermit, and when publication also wanted photographs, to request only distant and showing back of hermit.
The publication did not want to agree to the requests, and while they took a day to internally discuss, the Catholic hermit regretted even being open to such a feature article. There would be none of that! The privately professed yet consecrated Catholic hermit was relieved and praised God for the protection. Deep within, the call to nondisclosure of personal identity and location is His and has been, even prior to profession of vows.
The privately professed Catholic hermit is to write and/or speak, but anonymously.
What to do when another hermit (or anyone consecrated in the Church) crosses the moral, ethical, and legal line with a fellow hermit? The first order is to do whatever one can in response, especially to pray for the person who detracts in various forms. One can also respond in writing, although that can at times only inflame the other and tempt to more wrong doings.
Finally, when the hermit is canonically approved, one can contact that person's bishop who is liable and responsible for supervising and the spiritual direction of said hermit. This is the case, even if the bishop has left the diocese where and in whose hands (so to speak, per CL603), the hermit has professed his or her vows. One ought contact the current, succeeding bishop in the diocese in which the canonically approved hermit yet resides.
When contact has been made (a phone call should be a simple first step), it ought be a simple problem to correct by the canonical hermit's bishop. However, when that diocese bishop's office and person trying to resolve the wrong doings, is adamant that they do not have such a person by that name in their diocese as a hermit--then one must do more research and contact other dioceses in which the hermit's actual diocese recommends, when they say they do not know this hermit.
When the other diocese investigates, and they do not have any record of said canonical hermit in their midst but take it quite seriously, then one must make more phone calls, finally pointing out to the canonical hermit's actual diocese that yes, indeed, this hermit belongs to them (for ease of explaining this factual example). That bishop's personnel say they will look into it, as they still have no knowledge of this canonical hermit being in their diocese.
When time passes, and the offenses have not been corrected, the next step can be to contact another office that handles abuses within a diocese. Written requests may be made to the diocese bishop, outlining the history of the offenses, requesting that their canonical hermit redact the personal information of the privately professed hermit.
Another step can be to set up an appointment with the canonical hermit's bishop, and go to that diocese in person, to seek rectification of what are actually crimes being perpetrated by a canonical hermit. Or if not practical to travel, an attorney can be engaged to write a letter to that hermit's bishop.
[Most canonical hermits do not continuously reveal themselves by name and location publicly; or some, if their mission includes writing, tend to do so anonymously, using pseudonyms, of which may be the desire of their spiritual director and/or parish priest and/or bishop/religious superior. Often, though, upon their profession of vows, depending on the bishop, a diocese newspaper might photograph the hermit and have an article, or the bishop himself might announce publicly the hermit/s' names. (Seems not wise nor prudent, especially when hermits live in solitude or are older, other than if hermit is more outward in vocation, more active, wears a noticeable habit, or bishop wants for whatever reasons the hermit to be known.) However, it can be that a publicly professed, canonical hermit may desire and is allowed to be quite public in giving personal name, location, and publish photos with his or her name and other identifying details.]
The situation begs the question: How are canonical hermits who by Church law are the responsibility and liability of the Bishop in whose diocese they are approved and under jurisdiction, dealt with in such cases of wrong doing? There are processes involved in the cases of priests and religious order brothers and sisters who cross the moral, ethical and/or legal lines. We are all too familiar with that scenario especially in our current society and world. Even so, dioceses yet struggle with being transparent or in taking immediate action against abuse by perpetrators who are within their jurisdictions.
There are civil legal means to set into motion. In this circumstance it seems rather unusual for a canonically approved hermit to break the laws which encompass slander, libel, defamation, stalking, harassment, and in current times, the whole area of cyberstalking laws and penalties.
Most states have cyberstalking laws, and in some states it is a simple matter of going to court to file a report, and then receiving a restraining order against the person who is committing what are actual crimes. Then there are consequences if the person breaks the court order. One also can retain an attorney to explore options if the infringements go into libel and threats, verbal abuse, bodily harm such as desire to physically harm the person even if stated in writing those desires.
Another recent law put into effect by increasing number of states, is a law against "doxxing." It is a crime. According to Wikpedia:
Doxing (spelling variant Doxxing) is an abbreviation of document tracing, the Internet-based practice of researching and publishing personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed in pursuit of this information range from searching publicly available databases and social media websites like Facebook to hacking and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism, hacktivism, and cyber-bullying.
There is also the matter of intimidation. When others have made it known that they, too, have been intimidated, stalked, and harassed, yet fear retaliation and retribution for having mentioned to such as a wronged hermit, how fearful they are if the (for example) canonical hermit would find out they'd said what was done to them--this is intimidation. It is wrong at many levels. Yet when others are involved in having been harassed, intimidated, stalked and discredited even if online--cybercrimes--there is the possibility of a larger-based suit against a diocese, bishop, and also more personal culpability of the hermit committing the crimes.
It is a serious matter, as it ends up. There seem to be no prior incidents on record of such a situation involving a canonically approved hermit breaking such laws, but there is always a first. It is an ugly situation, and who is at the root of such ugliness? Catholics ought to know well the wiles and wickedness of the devil. It has been mentioned by those who either have been likewise stalked and harassed by such a person or those who are aware of the one committing the wrongs, that the person has evil within. It would seem so.
The situation can include the canonical hermit's close ally (or more than one) to encourage or incite him or her to harass and disparage another hermit publicly and privately. This exposing on what is a world-wide internet is wrong, especially when the private hermit is being obedient to spiritual director, priest and above all to God in fulfilling a mission to write yet to remain anonymous. Well, the wrong doing seems not only outrageous but also, evil.
Part of the issue is that hermits live in solitude (or should according to the Church's specific notations on The Eremitic Life as subsection under the section: Consecrated Life of the Church in The Catechism of the Catholic Church). These specifications for privately and publicly professed hermits are repeated in Canon Law 603, with the added proviso that the publicly professed (or commonly called "canonical hermits") are to profess their vows in the "hands" of the diocese bishop.
Such a situation as this type of abuse seems not to have arisen since 1983 updating of CL603, although such a matter involving a canonical hermit breaking laws of any type may have been handled quietly without notice. The canonical hermit might have poor or no spiritual direction, or may be in some type of denial of the reality of having morally, ethically, and legally crossed the line.
This situation may be a first involving what may end up being a civil matter if the diocese bishop or the canonical hermit's diocese cannot provide correction of the wrongs being perpetrated by their canonical hermit. A simple resolution, as has been suggested to the diocese in initial phone calls, is redaction of the other hermit's identification, including pseudonyms used in writing, physical location--past, present, and of course to cease and desist from future such identification with writings, name, location or other identifying indicators. This would also, hopefully, stop the libel, defamation, and other harassment from occurring ever again.
A very practical reason for a hermit to remain anonymous is obvious. Hermits live alone, in solitude of silence, in stricter separation from the world. Hermits usually discern and are discerned by their spiritual directors or religious superiors in calls to the hermit life when older in years. They are of either gender, and some have physical disabilities, or in advancing years, making the hermit the more physically vulnerable.
Once someone puts out on the world-wide web the name of such as a privately professed, consecrated Catholic hermit with long-term precedent of being explicitly private, it is not too difficult to locate that hermit, thus making him or her horribly vulnerable for harm. Why would another hermit do that to a fellow hermit, anyway? Especially, what force would drive a canonically approved hermit whose bishop is to be overseeing and directing, or having a (usually priest or religious order monk or nun) supervise and direct, to expose another hermit to such danger of physical harm or break-in?
Hermits being robbed, burglarized and physically assaulted is not new to our times. There are hermits (of which I've written in past blogs on the three or more blogsites I've had since 2005) who were thus harmed in past centuries. Some were killed, most were physically damaged so as to prevent their being able to remain in their hermitages where they had been free to live their hermit lives in the silence of solitude and stricter separation from the world.
What liability will a diocese, a bishop, and a canonically approved hermit face if such situations arise? It could become another public blight against the Catholic Church for having allowed a canonically approved hermit continue to perpetrate such abuse. At minimum, it is pathetic that the Catholic hermit vocation should be so degraded by such miscreant behavior.
I suppose this is a situation in which the process will unfold. It is necessarily a good thing to finally bring it to a head through the temporal channels available. Ultimately, of course, God will mete out whatever justice He wills, when He wills.
We shall continue to pray for the person involved, for that person's diocese, bishop, and those in bishop's office who didn't have any idea this publicly professed and publicly quite visible canonical hermit was even a hermit in their diocese. It rather upends the process, in a way, of canonical hermits; or else it shows how difficult it is for a bishop to keep track especially when one comes into a diocese in which previous bishop of the distant past has canonically approved someone.
Lord, have mercy on all our souls. Pray that this messy and unfortunate situation finally be cleansed and rid out during this Lent. It has been a decade-old problem now, and one way or another, needs to be stopped for the good of others out there who have been or will be wronged by this perpetrator.
No comments:
Post a Comment