3) In what way did you oppose the profession? I can't see you picketing outside the cathedral on the day of profession (just kidding) so what do you mean?! I was also uncertain why you said one does not make vows to gain more data. 4) Aren't temporary vows made while one is still discerning a vocation? Shouldn't they be made exactly to gain more data? I think my last question is a what if question. 5) If you discover there has been a profession, now, several years after you opposed this, what will you do? 6) Do you feel the same way you did when you first opposed the profession? 7) Isn't it possible the person you described has discerned a real eremitical vocation?]]
Thanks for your questions; I've added numbers and divvied things into two paragraphs for readability. I have also opted to use feminine pronouns throughout (except for bishops) because that is the form I ordinarily use in my blog pieces; the alternatives open to me are way too clumsy and unreadable. Also, any initials used in this piece were chosen at random. (I picked a couple of scrabble tiles for this!) Finally, while the church's position on professing and consecrating transsexuals is fundamental to the situation prompting your questions and at least implicit throughout this post, except concerning the idea of using profession under c 603 to achieve justice in the church (one must ask for whom?!), I mainly prescind from a direct discussion of the issue itself in the given situation.
The background:
Yes, I outlined a pattern of fraud, duplicity, dishonesty and what seems to me to be outright stupidity in the use/abuse of canon 603 and the vows/profession being planned or proposed. I should also have noted I found a kind of desperation and glibness that set this person up both to manipulate and be used. You see, the person seeking profession and I had spoken of the options open to her during a serious correspondence in 2019, as well as about various peoples' opinions that the church's teaching on the profession of transsexuals was going to change. She had been given a great deal of false encouragement and I thought this did her a distinct disservice because it involved a clear lack of candor or realism.
When she and I began to correspond again in 2021, she had spent time as a long-term guest in a couple of monasteries and/or congregations. In one case, when the bishop of the diocese in which the congregation was located became aware of the situation, they were required to make her leave and this was described as personally devastating. Though not an actual member of the Order she had been allowed to wear the habit and having to divest herself of this was something that hurt her very deeply. Once out of her guestship with the congregation, she continued to style herself as a religious and to introduce herself with the usual formal title along with a new religious name in public and correspondence.
As noted above, M____ suffered from a lot of experiences involving the unreasonable raising and (unfortunately) necessary dashing of expectations during just these few years, and experienced an (increasing?) inability to accept the truth of what the church herself (not just this or that priest or religious) was saying to her regarding her ability to enter consecrated life. Largely because some within the church raised her expectations unreasonably, M___ continued to ramp up her efforts to find a way to make public vows. Eventually, she located and moved to a diocese with an amenable bishop and enlisted him to assist in accomplishing M____'s will in this. I mention all of this because the pattern of duplicity, and dishonesty involved here (by several people), as well as the degree of M____'s personal woundedness, was more profound than I had noted in Profession of a Transsexual Person?So, with this added background, let me give your questions a shot! 1) Has there been a profession? The answer to that is apparently yes, though I don't know the details of it and only learned of it this week (in part because of a directory listing M____, and in part because of a spate of visitors from the area of M___'s chancery, residence, cathedral, etc). The diocese involved has not publicized it in any way except to list M___ in their directory as a diocesan hermit. Remember that even with temporary vows, diocesan hermits have been entrusted with a public ecclesial vocation with specific rights and obligations. Remember that this also means that people from this diocese and parish (and indeed, from the entire church) have a right to certain expectations regarding c 603 and this candidate, not least, that the profession was seriously, honestly, and conscientiously discerned as God's chosen way to wholeness and holiness for this person, as well as that the brother/sister professed exemplifies a commitment to chaste love in their foundational manliness or womanliness, the capacity for profound obedience to God, to God's church, and faithfulness to and regard for her teaching --- particularly regarding consecrated life. In the situation at hand, I think there are doubts about each of these points.
Was the Bishop Knowledgeable?
The bishop knew of M___'s transgendered status. M____ said she had been entirely open with him in this and that the two of them were looking at profession under c 603 as a matter of justice in the church. I also mentioned it when I wrote the bishop as well as that I would prescind from the issue of sexuality and focus on the misuse and abuse of canon 603 itself except where M____ raised the issue herself. I was advised by a second canonist to write not only M____'s bishop, but the metropolitan and Nuncio to the Vatican as well with a summary of the issues this proposed profession would raise. I did that, so yes, M___'s transsexual status was known. I also wrote M____ directly and reminded her of what she had written during our original correspondence or published in interviews around the same time. In that M___'s very real Spirit-breathed vocation was evident; she would have to give that up if she chose to pursue profession under c 603 and live solitary eremitical life faithfully in all of its depth and dimensions.Vows, whether temporary or perpetual, imply the gift of the whole person, body, soul, and spirit to God. We make vows not to do initial experimentation and discernment, but rather, because in the process of discernment --- sometimes over long years, both the candidate or novice and those discerning with her have come to reasonable clarity that this is indeed the way God is calling the person to human wholeness and holiness. Yes, temporary vows allow for further discernment, particularly as one moves into a new situation with new expectations and responsibilities. But one makes temporary vows with the same sureness one makes perpetual vows, giving the whole of oneself without reservation or reserve. One does not admit another person to vows without the sense that this is God's call they are answering, and more, that they are answering that call appropriately. To do otherwise is to indicate one does not regard this person's growth and sanctification (God's making them whole and true) as an authentic human being. Yes, post-profession, of course, there will be continuing exploration of the vocation for the candidate, but it will be an exploration of one's deepest self and the depths of the vocation in which one is professed and made transparent to God and God's love!!
Unfortunately, none of this seem to me to be what M____ was about, nor were the reasons she gave for seeking profession an adequate reason to make vows of any sort. Here is M____'s explanation: [[The available position that feels closest to the identity I have discovered within myself is that of hermit. . ..I don't know yet if that position will lead to the discovery of a new vocation [meaning she doesn't have any sense of having an eremitical vocation yet and may never have such a sense despite being publicly professed and identified in this way] , but I can't know until I have begun to explore from it. In the meantime we are going to experiment for a year and see how the exploration goes. If exploring from the position of a hermit does not work, then very well -- we have gained that data and can reorient. If it does ring true, then we will have gained that data. we're constantly checking in with each other, discerning, reassessing, and trying - together - to find the next right step.]]
All of this kind of experimentation and exploration needs to take place before profession, and most of it before a candidate even knocks on the chancery door to petition for admittance to a mutual discernment process and eventual vows and consecration. Most candidates instinctively (or quickly come to) understand and accept that they need to explore eremitical life as a non-canonical hermit long before seeking admission to public profession. Many bishops and chancery staff, especially those with a background in formation, are even more keenly aware of this! Most seekers also recognize they might be wrong in what they have discerned and may need to humbly discern anew. But not in this case! After all, what M___ sought was public ecclesial standing itself and, if at all possible, life as a member of a monastic community. By this willingness to misuse c 603 to achieve some of this, she was settling for public standing within the best canonical "slot" she could find. But settling in this way is not discerning, and making profession in these terms is not a canon 603 profession. It uses c 603 as a stopgap means to living a fiction, as M was well aware and admitted to me while hoping I would understand the complexities involved. As I wrote to the bishop in question about this: [[In no way does this indicate the settled heart and mind of someone approaching profession in an ecclesial vocation. Neither does it indicate true discernment, whether on M___'s part, or, to be very frank, (to whatever degree it is a true statement of your role in all of this), on yours, Bishop Y____, as representative of the Church in whose name M___ will live this vocation.]]
Could this Person Discern a True Vocation to Eremitical Life?
Your fifth question is the most difficult one. What more can I do? What more am I called to do, if anything? There is no doubt the fact of the profession makes the situation more problematic than when I answered the questions in the last post on all of this. I became aware of the profession unexpectedly. As a result, my feelings in the matter have intensified and become more complex, particularly those concerning the bishop responsible here. For that reason, I will continue to pray about everything and likely ask for assistance in considering what is necessary and possible. That can include conversations with canon lawyers, the USCCB (members and committees), and even representatives of DICLSAL. At the very least the situation requires clarification regarding the validity of vows already made. You see, from my perspective, this profession has done a serious disservice not only to the person admitted to profession dishonestly, but to the vocation itself, to the People of God who should be able to trust the seriousness, faithfulness, and honesty with which bishops are called to approach implementing canons like ##603-605.
I believe it could also become a significant disservice to other members of the diocese in question who may also be admitted to c 603 profession while trusting the church has done a really competent discernment. (The fact that the church discerns this vocation with us can be particularly reassuring in times of struggle and self-doubt. Usually, this allows one to persevere despite difficulties. But what happens when the diocese shows it is truly careless in dealing with questions of discernment and formation of vocations?) Similarly, it could do a disservice to others who find themselves turned away from admission to profession and/or consecration even though they have the same qualifications (or lack thereof) as M____. And consider if bishop-shopping for an amenable bishop is permitted for one hermit, then what of others with similar medical backgrounds, avocations, desires, and ability to relocate at will? How far will the hermit vocation be stretched and distorted to accommodate these persons in the name of some agenda-driven justice in the church before it ceases to have any real meaning at all? I could pose many more similar questions raised by this profession but will hold those for now.
Summary:
For the present, in this specific situation, here is where things stand, I think. An authoritative church representative and one who sought him out, acted dishonestly and without regard for the vocation itself, for its true nature and charism (gift quality), or for those who might be either directly or indirectly affected by such a fraud to accomplish an agenda the church regards as illegitimate. Fraud was done to achieve "justice," though at the expense of diocesan credibility in matters of at least this vocation. Thus, again, I see it as a very serious matter with the potential for significantly destructive fallout. Though I never thought I would find myself saying this, I would much rather see bishops refusing to implement c 603 for anyone at all than indulging in this kind of travesty.