[[I earnestly desire to respond to the gift of vocation to the eremitical life . . .]]

Hi Sister Laurel,  I wondered what happens next to Brother Christian? What happens with her vows? What could the Church do since the Bishop has professed her? From the articles I read involving Bishop Stowe's and Cole's responses they seem to be waiting for push back from the Vatican. What does that mean?

Thanks for your questions. In part, I would ask your questions this way: What happens next since Cole Matson has attempted temporary public vows in 2022 and renewed that attempt last year? And my answer is that, in some ways your guess is as good as mine. The situation is unprecedented and some determinations regarding the appropriateness and even the validity of Cole's profession need to occur. For instance, there is a significant question regarding whether, canonically speaking, any profession actually occurred, and thus too, whether the vows made are even valid. (The former CDF published a document in 2000 that concluded transsexuals could not enter religious life, so that must be considered. At the same time the issues I have raised regarding the misuse of c 603 must be considered.) In any case, one thing I think we all must remember, however, is that these vows were temporary and will lapse. That means that this August, if the renewal was for one year, either Cole and Bishop Stowe will attempt to renew them or they will attempt not only to profess Cole perpetually but to (have God) consecrate him in a very public ceremony. I personally believe this is the reason Cole came out now. Next steps may be only three months away (August 25 or thereabouts) and the Church, as we all know, ordinarily moves at a glacial pace. (It turns out that these vows were for three years and for that reason, would not ordinarily lapse until 2026 at which time a new profession and even a consecration might be attempted unless the church prohibits such a thing.)

What can or will the Church do? As a diocesan hermit, I truly don't know. Here are some ideas though. 

• 1) Perhaps the simplest option (in light of the Dicastery's 2000 document on transsexuals) is to forbid Bp Stowe to profess Cole again and require he let the vows lapse (if they were ever truly binding in the first place). Bp Stowe could admit that Cole has not truly (yet?) discerned this vocation, remove him from the Diocesan directory (probably a good idea in any case), and let him continue with his non-canonical community for artists. Bp Stowe could proceed from there. 
• 2) Less simple, but also possible is to declare Cole's vows invalid due to fraud or dishonesty re what Cole felt called to when he made his profession and again forbid a repetition of such an action. 
• 3) Alternately, the church (or Bishop Stowe himself) could do what one Bishop did in Australia about 15 years ago when he was hoodwinked into professing someone on false grounds under c 603, and declare that these eremitical vows are private in nature, not public; let Cole continue to live private vows, keep him in the Diocesan directory whether as a quasi-hermit or not, and change his designation (the Lexington directory allows individuals with private vows to be listed), because Cole would not be and could not be listed as a Diocesan Hermit.

If the Church cannot or is unwilling to take any of these steps or fails to address the transgender issue in regard to admission to vows (again, if and only if we prescind from the 2000 document of the DDF which disallows admission of transsexuals to religious life), and if Bp Stowe continues to insist Cole should be publicly professed and consecrated as a solitary hermit under c 603, then 

• 4) allow that profession to take place, but only after a suitable discernment and formation period has taken place in genuine eremitical silence and solitude. Usually, this period occurs before any vows are made, but it would still need to mean a period of either no or carefully limited involvement in theatre or other work outside the hermitage (at least three to five years as Matson lived this discernment and formative desert experience and a commitment to a clearly eremitical life); limitations would need to be required thereafter as well, just as they are for all c 603 hermits. During the initial 3-5-year period, Cole would need to find ways to work from his hermitage and pay for his own living arrangements. (If he remains at Mt Tabor Monastery, Cole would still need to be responsible for all his own expenses: rent, food (or room and board), insurance, medical expenses, etc.) 

Finally, (again setting aside the transgender issue for now) it would mean that for there to eventually be a legitimate and credible perpetual profession, Cole would need to write his own liveable and genuinely eremitical Rule of Life that includes the affirmation required by the church as part of my own vow formula at perpetual profession, namely:

 [[I earnestly desire to respond to the gift of vocation to the eremitical life and freely follow the inspiration of grace to a hidden apostolic fruitfulness in a life of prayerful contemplation as a solitary hermit.]] 

As things stand now, there are a number of elements in this affirmation that I believe Cole not only cannot affirm but that he has explicitly contradicted or even rejected in statements made to me just weeks before attempting first vows, as well as to media representatives in the years and months preceding those vows. But, assuming Mr. Matson has truly discovered an eremitical vocation in the past year or year and a half, the Church could easily require this same affirmation to be added to whatever vow formula Cole writes. Since Mr. Matson has said publicly in the recent past that he does not feel called to eremitical life but to community and even more narrowly, to public vows per se (meaning he believes he is called to assume a public position or achieve public standing from which he might continue his own agenda) I believe such an affirmation is even more imperative than it might be for any other diocesan hermit.

While I recognize Cole's yearning in all of this, sympathize with his desires and empathize with his profound disappointments over the years, what the Church does moving forward will likely have to have more to do with Bishop Stowe and his actions in all of this than with Cole directly. Continuing to put the transgender issue aside for the moment because my concern is with c 603 and the life it defines, it would have been immensely easier and more honest, I think, had Bishop Stowe required of Cole the same thing the church demands of every candidate for c 603 profession. Had he done this the case for Cole's profession would have been much stronger, even with Cole revealing his transgendered status. No matter who they are, male or female, the one making profession under c 603 must have truly discerned and been formed in an eremitical vocation. (This is not the same as visiting monastic communities here and there, even for extended periods.) 

To give one's life to Christ in a religious or monastic community comes only after significant testing of one's capacity and fit for that and is vastly different than an extended "come and see" visit. To then leave such a community after years of solemn vows because of an overwhelming call to solitude is wrenching. Yet that is the context out of which c 603 was born. In any case, candidates for c 603 profession need to be contemplatives who, over some years of supervision and mentoring if available (not the same as spiritual direction), have discovered a yearning for greater solitude than they were (or would be) able to live in community life. Finally, they must have been prepared to make vows including chastity in celibacy and obedience! All of this takes time and supervised formation in the silence of solitude --- none of which, so far as I can tell, Cole ever received. 

Ultimately, this is Bishop Stowe's responsibility to make right. If he can't do that, I honestly don't know what steps the larger Church will take next.