Another look at Ecclesial Vocations and the Refusal of the Church to profess Transgendered Persons

[[Sister Laurel, have you read the following quote? "Matson told OSV News, “We (Bishop Stowe and Matson) both think that it is a matter of justice that LGBT people be considered based on their character and on their actual gifts and their actual love of God and (being) desirous of the church, as opposed to saying (that) this state of being, whether it’s your sexual orientation or gender identity, in itself makes you unfit and uncallable by God.” How would you respond to this idea that a state of being makes one unfit and uncallable? It doesn't sound just to me. How can God be constrained by conclusions drawn by the Church, especially when they rule out a whole class or group of people?]]

Thanks for your questions. Yes, I am familiar with the quotation you cited. I think it is critical to remember that a transgendered state is not a natural state into which one is born. Instead, it is a created state a gender dysphoric person achieves with a variety of decisions and forms of medical intervention in order to minimize one's gender dysphoria or gender discordance. While some moral theologians argue that the pain of the dysphoria may be so agonizing that certain medical interventions would be a moral choice, this conclusion, when applicable in a given case, would still not make the adoption of public vows by the afflicted person possible. You see, dysphoria itself does not make the person incapable of also making public profession or being consecrated. It is acting in particular ways on that dysphoria in an attempt to harmonize one's sex with one's conflicting sense of gender and minimize the dysphoria that makes the person incapable of also making public vows or being consecrated; it seems to me that this is true even when the choice for limited gender affirmative intervention is a moral one.

The act of trying to shift one's sex to align with one's experienced gender to the point of undergoing surgical interventions and medical treatments that "mutilate one's body" is part of what the Church generally objects to. The related point the Church makes is that the surgeries and other medical interventions, no matter what else they do to ease the patient's dysphoria, do not change the person's sex --- though they do obscure it, and sometimes make detransitioning impossible. In every case, public vows/professions require the person to affirm their own original sexed condition, to recognize that this is very good and desired by God. Even in the presence of gender dysphoria the person is called to affirm his/her original sexed condition, and then too, to suffer the dysphoria as well as s/he can as part of coming to fullness of existence in one's foundational manliness or womanliness. 

Since medicine cannot change a person's sex but can only approximate such a change, and since the Church holds it is part of any authentic ecclesial vocation to affirm and mature in our original sexed condition, one who acts contrary to these positions to become "transgendered" makes a series of decisions and takes actions that make that person unsuited for public vows. This does not make the person uncallable, but it does limit the ways in which God can call them to public ecclesial vocations. While it may sound outrageous to think that God can be limited (or, more accurately, limits Godself) in this way, it is not. God entrusts certain vocations to the Church herself. Religious life, priesthood, consecrated virginity, consecrated eremitical life, and others yet to be established under c 605 (consecrated widowhood, for instance) are ecclesial vocations, and therefore it is up to the Church to whom they belong as a gift of God to determine how it is a person enters these.

Yes, God calls persons to these vocations, but God does so through the mediation of the Church, not otherwise. This ecclesial character is one of the most significant aspects of these vocations, and one of the most difficult to get candidates to appreciate. It is the aspect that makes it so difficult for individuals to accept when the Church says, "we appreciate you feel called to this vocation, but the Church (religious congregation, bishop, etc) does not agree". If one wants to embrace an ecclesial vocation, then one must accept it is truly ecclesial through and through; this means one must meet the qualifications the Church determines are a necessary dimension of the calling that is the gift she protects and governs. If one cannot or will not meet these conditions, then one cannot presume such a calling. In the case of transgendered persons, if they cannot or will not affirm their original sexed condition as an essential part of responding to such a call, they have acted in ways that make them unsuited and uncallable because some choices are mutually exclusive. Again, this transgendered state is not their original state of being; it is chosen to deal with gender dysphoria.

I don't think any of this suggests the Church does not regard a transgendered person's character, gifts, love of God, and so forth, in discerning one's call to consecrated life. However, yes, it does prioritize everything one brings to the Church in seeking admission to profession and consecration. What it recognizes is that one's sexed condition is the most foundational dimension of one's selfhood, the selfhood one brings in response to such a call. The vows are our threefold commitment to allow God to bring every part of our lives to fulfillment in Him. 

Neither does the Church's refusal to admit one to profession and consecration because one is transgendered equate to a disparagement of one's character, love of God, love of one's neighbors, giftedness, etc. This is simply not the case. But, it seems to me that the church does indeed ask one if s/he will live one's foundational manliness or womanliness despite the degree of repentance and correlative suffering that will absolutely entail. (I am thinking here of the story of the pearl of great price.) There is no doubt this asks a lot of a transgendered person who wishes to live religious life, but I can't see where it is unjust in the way either Cole Matson or (reportedly) Bishop Stowe think is the case. 

Are Vows Possible for a Transgendered Person?

[[Hi Sister O'Neal, Your suggested solution to the situation in the Diocese of Lexington was interesting, but if Matson were to become a non-canonical hermit, what happens to her vows? Would she make private vows? I am wondering about this because of the piece you wrote back in the beginning of May and the relationship of vows to a foundational manliness or womanliness. Wouldn't private vows require the same commitment to a foundational manliness or womanliness as public vows? I suppose I am also asking if someone living as a transgendered person could ever make a vow of chastity in celibacy. I think suggesting non-canonical eremitical life as a solution to many of the problems that are associated with the current situation in Lexington is a good idea, but what about the vows themselves? Particularly what about a vow of chastity in celibacy?]]

Wow! You're reflections on the situation are impressive! Thanks for sharing them here!!! This is almost where things began back on May 6th!! First of all, I agree that even a private vow of chastity in celibacy might not be possible for someone living an openly transgendered life. I believe that such a vow could only make sense if one had detransitioned to whatever degree was possible and committed to living their original or foundational womanliness or manliness. A vow of chastity is a vow to love as fully as God calls us to do and to do so in light of our foundational sexuality. To make a vow of chastity in celibacy is to make a vow to love fully coupled with a commitment to a discipline pursued in the service of increasing one's capacity for such love. We renounce genital activity in all of its forms in order to love others as God loves. And yes, we do this as men or women relating to others in light of our foundational sex.

I think all of this is true whether or not the vows are public or private.  The vow of chastity in celibacy (or consecrated celibacy) is never merely a vow to avoid sexual activity. It is always a vow to love as fully as one is called by God to love --- though without the exclusivity (or specific fruitfulness) of married love. Were Cole Matson to wish to make a private vow in this regard he would need to spell out exactly what he is promising to God, but I agree it could not, without "repentance" (which would necessarily imply detransitioning to whatever extent possible), be called a vow of chastity or chastity in celibacy. Of course, living as a non-canonical hermit would not require such a vow at all. 

The church would raise questions about the possibility of any or all of the vows, both the classical triad (poverty, chastity, and obedience) and those of Benedictine life (stability, conversatio, and obedience) for someone who is transgendered and committed to staying transgendered --- though stability might well be one anyone including one who is transgendered and committed to remaining so might make. One of the difficulties in making vows with built-in limitations, however, is that ordinarily vows are made in order to give one's whole self in a way which opens one to a Divine grace that can produce unimaginable fruit with the potential of one's life. Vows are a kind of blank check, a way of giving one's whole self to God to do with in whatever way and to whatever degree God wills.  In the situation in Lexington I don't think Cole is open to being female (or accepts that he is fundamentally female) and, as the Church understands these commitments and you yourself note, that is a problem in making vows of any sort.

Because private vows are truly a private matter, I believe they could be part of a solution to the situation in Lexington depending upon what was being vowed. They would be non-canonical or "non-normative" in the way the Church understands such things. But here too, c 603 might have something to offer the diocese of Lexington as they consider crafting a solution to the situation they are currently struggling with. C 603 allows a person being professed under the canon to make their commitment with vows or some other form of sacred bond. We are used to using vows at such professions, but other forms of sacred bonds are possible. Cole Matson (and others in a similar position) could well decide to embrace non-canonical eremitical life and use another form of sacred bond to make his/her commitment. That might actually be the best solution.

Thanks for your questions, I might not have pursued this line of thought otherwise, though you are correct that it flows from what I wrote on 06 May. If you want to raise the question of the other vows, feel free to do that.

[[Hi Sister, I wanted to follow up given what you wrote [above]. Could Cole Matson use c 603 and the option of "other sacred bonds" if she wanted to become a consecrated hermit? Matson would avoid making vows and be the hermit she feels called to be.]]

Wow, that was fast. I will append this to the older post if you don't mind. No, the problem with Cole's use of c 603 is that it is more than an official (canonical) way to become a Religious. It refers implicitly to the solitary eremitical vocation and allows for one's consecration by God as this consecration is mediated by the Church in the hands of the local Bishop. Were Cole to leave the Roman Catholic Church and embrace the Episcopal faith community, then he could embrace a solitary life without the definitions or strictures of canon 603. The Episcopal Church has solitaries that do not need to be hermits. They are seen as solitary religious and need not embrace the central elements of c 603 as a Roman Catholic would need to do. (Note that all of these are not just important elements of the life, but they are definitive elements, which are meant to be lived in ways that actually define one's life as a solitary hermit. 

• stricter separation from the world, 
• assiduous prayer and penance, 
• the silence of solitude, 
• the Evangelical Counsels (embraced by vow or other sacred bonds), 
• a Rule of Life one writes for oneself, 
• and lives for the glory of God and the salvation of others, 
• all under the supervision of the person's local ordinary.

But if Cole decides to pursue eremitical life within the Roman Catholic Church,  he will need to do it apart from C 603, and frankly, apart from consecrated life itself. As noted several times, and also by the Bishops at the recent UCCB meeting, the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the ability of a transgendered person to make a vow of consecrated celibacy nor to become a consecrated person in any other vocation. 

It does not change things if an individual bishop differs on this. This is the Universal Church's stance on transgendered persons and consecrated life. Canon 603 is part of universal church law and normative for all persons living consecrated solitary eremitical life. A significant question remains as to whether or not Cole Matson has discerned a genuine eremitical vocation during the two years he has lived as "Brother Christian Matson" in the Diocese of Lexington. The answer to that will require more time and continuing discernment. Additional questions can be raised about a transgendered person's ability to live vows of either poverty or obedience as well.

Feast of Saint Romuald of Ravenna, Founder of the Camaldolese Congregation

Romuald Receives the Gift of Tears,
Br Emmaus O'Herlihy, OSB (Glenstal)

Congratulations to and prayers for all Camaldolese, monks, nuns, oblates, and friends! Tomorrow, June 19th is the feast day of the founder of the Camaldolese Congregations! We remember the anniversary of solemn profession of many Camaldolese as well as the birthday of the Prior of New Camaldoli, Dom Cyprian Consiglio.

Ego Vobis, Vos Mihi: "I am yours, you are mine"

Saint Romuald has a special place in my heart for two reasons. First, he went around Italy bringing isolated hermits together or at least under the Rule of Benedict --- something I found personally to resonate with my own need to seek canonical standing and to subsume my personal Rule of Life under a larger, more profound, and living tradition or Rule; secondly, he gave us a form of eremitical life which is uniquely suited to the diocesan hermit. St Romuald's unique gift (charism) to the church involved what is called a "threefold good", that is, the blending of the solitary and communal forms of monastic life (the eremitical and the cenobitical), along with the third good of evangelization or witness -- which literally meant (and means) spending one's life for others in the power and proclamation of the Gospel.

Stillsong Hermitage

So often people (mis)understand the eremitical life as antithetical to communal life, to community itself, and opposed to witness or evangelization. (We have seen some of that these last two weeks as bishops and others weighed in on what hermits could and could not do.) As I have noted, they often mistake individualism and isolation for eremitical solitude. Romuald modeled an eremitism that balances the eremitical call to physical solitude and a commitment to God alone with community and outreach to the world to proclaim the Gospel. I think this is part of truly understanding the communal and ecclesial dimensions that are always present in true solitude. The Camaldolese vocation is essentially eremitic, but because the solitary dimension or vocation is so clearly rooted in what the Camaldolese call "The Privilege of Love" it naturally has a profound and pervasive communal dimension that inevitably spills out in witness. Michael Downey describes it this way in the introduction to The Privilege of Love:

Theirs is a rich heritage, unique in the Church. This particular form of life makes provision for the deep human need for solitude as well as for the life shared alongside others in pursuit of a noble purpose. But because their life is ordered to a threefold good, the discipline of solitude and the rigors of community living are in no sense isolationist or self-serving. Rather both of these goods are intended to widen the heart in service of the third good: The Camaldolese bears witness to the superabundance of God's love as the self, others, and every living creature are brought into fuller communion in the one love.

Monte Corona Camaldolese

The Benedictine Camaldolese live this by having both cenobitical and eremitical expressions wherein there is a strong component of hospitality. The Monte Corona Camaldolese which are more associated with the reform of Paul Giustiniani have only the eremitical expression which they live in lauras --- much as the Benedictine Camaldolese live the eremitical expression.

In any case, the Benedictine Camaldolese charism and way of life seems to me to be particularly well-suited to the vocation of the diocesan hermit since she is called to live for God alone, but in a way which ALSO specifically calls her to give her life in love and generous service to others, particularly her parish and diocese. While this service and gift of self ordinarily takes the form of solitary prayer which witnesses to the foundational relationship with God we each and all of us share, it may also involve other, though limited, ministry within the parish including limited hospitality --- or even the outreach of a hermit from her hermitage through the vehicle of a blog!

In my experience the Camaldolese accent in my life supports and encourages the fact that even as a hermit (or maybe especially as a hermit!) a diocesan hermit is an integral part of her parish community and is loved and nourished by them just as she loves and nourishes them! As Prior General Bernardino Cozarini, OSB Cam, once described the Holy Hermitage in Tuscany (the house from which all Camaldolese originate in one way and another), "It is a small place. But it opens up to a universal space." Certainly this is true of all Camaldolese houses and it is true of Stillsong Hermitage as a diocesan hermitage as well.

The Privilege of Love

For those wishing to read about the Camaldolese there is a really fine collection of essays on Camaldolese Benedictine Spirituality which was noted above. It is written by OSB Camaldolese monks, nuns and oblates. It is entitled aptly enough, The Privilege of Love and includes topics such as, "Koinonia: The Privilege of Love", "Golden Solitude," "Psychological Investigations and Implications for Living Alone Together," "An Image of the Praying Church: Camaldolese Liturgical Spirituality," "A Wild Bird with God in the Center: The Hermit in Community," and a number of others. It also includes a fine bibliography "for the study of Camaldolese history and spirituality."

Romuald's Brief Rule:

And for those who are not really familiar with Romuald, here is the brief Rule he formulated for monks, nuns, and oblates. It is the only thing we actually have from his own hand and is appropriate for any person seeking an approach to some degree of solitude in their lives or to prayer more generally. ("Psalms" may be translated as "Scripture".)

Sit in your cell as in paradise. Put the whole world behind you and forget it. Watch your thoughts like a good fisherman watching for fish. The path you must follow is in the Psalms — never leave it. If you have just come to the monastery, and in spite of your good will you cannot accomplish what you want, take every opportunity you can to sing the Psalms in your heart and to understand them with your mind. 

And if your mind wanders as you read, do not give up; hurry back and apply your mind to the words once more. Realize above all that you are in God's presence, and stand there with the attitude of one who stands before the emperor. Empty yourself completely and sit waiting, content with the grace of God, like the chick who tastes and eats nothing but what his mother brings him.

Sister, Do you really Believe you Suggested a Solution to the Situation in Lexington?

[[ Sister, I thought Cole Matson did not want to use private vows only. I thought she wanted public vows. The "solution you offer" suggests accepting privates vows, doesn't it? Aren't you suggesting she accept the very thing she said she hadn't discerned? What kind of solution can it be if she doesn't believe she is called to this?]]

You are exactly right. In the situation at hand, Cole has indicated having discerned a call to public vows. The problem, of course, is that the Church cannot acccept a transgendered person for public profession or consecration. (Moreover, prior to that there is no such thing as a vocation to public vows per se. Transgendered or not, one cannot discern a vocation the Church does not have to mediate to people.) At this point, the USCCB seems ready to reiterate the impossiblity of public profession for a transgendered person who has not "repented" of their gender affirmative interventions and thus, they will either declare Cole's vows invalid and/or disallow any further attempts at profession once these vows lapse. 

I had three or four thoughts in offering this "solution":

• First, Cole has made some significant steps with Bishop Stowe's support and supervision within the Diocese of Lexington, and freely embracing non-canonical eremitical life could allow them both to continue to take advantage of these without the obstacles or hindrances of canonical standing. (These involve issues like work -- how much and where it can take place, for instance, the kinds of expectations people may necessarily have of someone who is  canonically professed and consecrated -- which brings the transgender issue into the picture in ways that are less fruitful or positive than I believe Cole might want or be able to deal effectively with, etc.)
• Secondly, the usage of c 603 in this situation already lacks credibility (it could only be used here by demeaning the vocation it is meant to define and govern) and that will be exacerbated should the USCCB take action to invalidate the profession. Better to embrace a solution freely and courageously, thus helping the Church move forward herself than pushing the Church to take a kind of "retrenchment" stand on transgender professions as she seems ready to do. 
• Thirdly, there needn't be a focus on what Cole would not have (or be) with regard to canon 603; instead, Cole could move forward freely and honestly within the Diocese of Lexington and be honestly known as a hermit active in theatre on some level with the bishop's support. Most folks would not draw (or even know to draw) the distinction between canonical and non-canonical eremitical life so in practical terms Cole could largely have as a non-canonical hermit what he had hoped to achieve as a c 603 hermit. What this could grow into down the line is impossible to imagine, but I believe that Cole and Bp Stowe together could do something far more creative and free of constraints than they could do through the misuse of c 603. (It could be known publicly that this was an experimental way of discerning how God was calling Cole precisely as transgendered, which would open even further possibilities to both Cole and the Diocese.)
• And fourthly, if Cole chose to really embrace eremitical life, he could find (and more, be found by) the God who is more radically present and loving than he may know right now and be healed profoundly. In this way, Cole would also come to be able to proclaim a unique Gospel message that was made powerful and prophetic because of what it achieved and made possible in his own life. What ministry this would in turn empower could be simply amazing in both scope and depth. (It is this redemptive experience coming to one in the silence of solitude that must be present in anyone claiming to have an eremitical vocation.)

Of course, if Bishop Stowe is unwilling to assist Cole to make these steps, or Cole simply cannot or will not do this, the solution will not work. If Canon 603 continues to be seen by either or both of them (and the canonist they consulted) as a stopgap solution to difficult situations rather than a means of affirming authentic vocations to solitary eremitical life, this alternative won't work. If, for instance, they cannot understand that there is a lie at the heart of the professions they have attempted, then no, they will not be able to see one of the strongest benefits of the alternative I outlined, namely, that it immediately roots them in the truth and makes the life Cole is now living an entirely credible one instead of something rooted in falsehood and an agenda that is foreign to one embracing canonical eremitical life under c 603. 

Where one is not free to experiment with c 603, one is almost entirely free to experiment (ad libitum) with non-canonical eremitical life, and while I believe that c 603 life is immensely flexible, there are clear constraints or boundaries on that flexibility which do not exist with non-canonical eremitical life. (This has to do with the fact that c 603 is normative of solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church, whereas non-canonical life is not.) Unfortunately, the Church has been placed in a position where it needs to act to correct the misuse of C 603 in the Diocese of Lexington precisely because c 603 is normative. If Cole continues to hold onto c 603 because of some badly conceived "standing" he believes God has called him to, he will lose everything while if he embraces non-canonical eremitical life, I believe he will come out far ahead of what he ever expected a non-canonical commitment to mean; this could benefit many more people than he could have done under c 603, particularly as openly transgendered.

Regrets? What Would You Say to Cole Matson if you Could Speak to Him?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, do you feel any regret over having shared Brother Christian's letter to you, or yours to Bishop Stowe, his Metropolitan, and the Nuncio? Brother Christian formally objected to your having done this. Should these missives not have remained confidential? I am wondering if you have spoken to Brother Christian recently and what you would say to him if you could speak to him.]]

Thanks for your questions. No, I don't regret sharing these, though let me be clear, apart from the quote regarding Cole's motives and the agenda of transgender justice included in my letter to Bishop Stowe, I did not share Cole's emails to me. What I shared were my own letters of concern to Bishop Stowe et al. Even then significant parts of these, mainly having to do with my concern for Cole's welfare, remained off the record and the journalist with whom I worked (Gina Christian) was very good about honoring that. My own letters were not confidential (they were directed to representatives of the larger Church with the understanding others would be consulted in their regard) and while Cole might have thought his own correspondence would be held in confidence he later made public statements (and participated in public acts!) which made it important to state the truth as he revealed it to me. One statement was particularly compelling in this way. Cole noted to one reporter who published it at the end of the article: [[“I don’t have a hidden agenda, I just want to serve the church,” he said. “People can believe that or not.”]] And again, in another article, [[My only agenda is the Gospel.]]

Of course, Cole's own remarks to me directly contradicted these well-publicized statements. As he told me, his aim was public profession; private vows were not enough. He knew he was using c 603 as a stopgap when no other avenue to religious profession was open to him, and he knew I would disapprove. He knew as well that he did not feel called to eremitical life, much less to solitary eremitical life. Still, he noted that C 603 "felt truer" than beginning a lay community. "Felt truer" might work in horseshoes, but not in vocations and certainly not in the petition that one be allowed to make vows to God! I could not allow this lie to stand uncontested or the truth to remain hidden, particularly as others touted Cole's "heroic faith," and apparent determination to hang onto his identity as a Catholic while he supposedly "followed his vocation even to the loneliness of eremitical life".

Add to that the fact that two public professions (even if these were held in a private setting with Bp Stowe and a single witness, they remain public professions) --- public acts of worship --- had occurred and the faithful of the Diocese of Lexington were being encouraged to see Cole as a religious Brother and diocesan hermit who had truly discerned a rare and exemplary vocation. Comments by Bishop Stowe on the nature of c 603 life also made it compelling that I share my letters to him with others because of Stowe's studied disingenuousness about his use of the canon --- his "whom could it hurt?" approach to the matter, particularly so long as Cole was not seeking ordination or marriage. These comments were made as though I had never written Bishop Stowe with detailed concerns from within the solitary eremitical vocation itself, or that he had not acknowledged both my vocation and knowledge of c 603 life.

I sincerely wish Bishop Stowe had entered into a dialogue with me regarding the way I saw things and the way he himself saw the matter two years ago. Both of us had spoken at length with Cole Matson. Both of us could have honestly noted we had Cole's well-being uppermost in mind. Bishop Stowe could have done that and postponed any profession until we both had a clearer sense of the real issues here and came to some degree of agreement and understanding regarding why he felt compelled to misuse a canon in the way Cole had proposed he do. I might not have needed to consult canonists or write either his Metropolitan or the Papal Nuncio, and I certainly might never have needed to do the kind of interview a situation riddled with dishonesty made necessary because of the 2024 Pentecost circus Cole's public announcement occasioned. 

As it is, I came away from Cole's announcement feeling that Bp Stowe simply chose to ignore significant input on the nature of c 603 as well as regarding my own concern for Cole's wellbeing, not only in 2022, but in 2024 when he stated why he had used the canon as a mere legal loophole. That also left me feeling compelled to state the truth of the matter. Meanwhile, you ask a really difficult final question, viz, what would I say to Cole if I could speak to him now? Gina Christian asked the same question when she interviewed me and I am not sure I have any more of an answer now than I did two weeks ago. This morning, however, I wrote Bishop Stowe and Cole both with a possible solution to the situation as it stands. In part this is what I said,

[[Cole, you have tried transgender interventions and still found something in your being that was not eased by any of that. You insist that the fact that people will not admit you to religious life is the cause of this existential yearning and emptiness. I don't think it is. Religious life is not the answer to that experience you described to me in 2019, nor is your yearning for religious life its cause. Right now, religious life represents a lie you are holding onto in place of the truth.

This is the truth I know from my own eremitical life, Cole. God is the answer here and can empower you to come to terms with who you are as you stand naked (so to speak) before your Lord in the Tabernacle. Can you risk making that journey deep into the depths of your own poverty? Can you find the courage to affirm a God who delights in you even when you might hate yourself? That is the God of the hermitage and that is the good news an authentic hermit (including the non-canonical or lay hermit!!) has to share with others. Can you find the courage to do that, because that vocation is open to you now. That is the opportunity I believe God has set before you in place of diocesan eremitical life. It is more radical than anything you have embraced thus far. And its capacity for good in the Church is greater than anything you have glimpsed thus far. I believe Bp Stowe would support you in this. I know I would.]]

If Cole and Bishop John Stowe embraced this solution, Cole would continue to be a hermit (though not a diocesan hermit) and supported by Bp Stowe and the Diocese of Lexington. He could continue to work as he does now because he does not have to represent the elements of c 603 in the same way a c 603 hermit does. He could continue living where and as he does since he already pays rent for his hermitage. Bp Stowe could permit him to reserve Eucharist and wear a habit on the premises but not in public. More important than all of the externals, such a situation would allow Cole the time and space to become a contemplative, then a hermit who has met and dwells with the God authentic hermits know --- a God in whom the deepest healing becomes possible. Cole's inner life and correlative ministry would be empowered by the Holy Spirit and the potential for fruit growing from this life would be richer than anyone could imagine. What I would say to Cole is what I said this morning, namely, please consider this proposed solution as an option in which everyone could win.

On Initial Formation as a Diocesan Hermit and Some Attributes of a True Novitiate:

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am from the Diocese of Lexington and wanted to write you about Brother Christian Matson. He announced on Facebook: [[I have now completed my period of initial formation and professed public vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience as a diocesan hermit for the Diocese of Lexington, Kentucky. I made first vows in August 2022 for one year, and renewed them in August 2023 for a further period of three years.]] I wondered what it means for her to say she had completed a period of initial formation? What is usual for a diocesan hermit? 

I am asking partly because you said Christian Matson could not have experienced a true novitiate but was really participating in a guestship when she was with the Benedictines in Portsmouth. As you might guess, people here are really divided over Christian's life with us here in Kentucky. I have mainly wondered how she could be working in the theatre and be considered a hermit. A lot of comments have had to do with refusing to be open with the people of Lexington about her sexuality or gender or being allowed by Bishop Stowe to become a hermit at all. Some have made accusations of narcissism.]]

This reference to initial formation seems to be another statement that means whatever Cole wants it to mean. The same is true of novitiate (more about that below). Ordinarily "initial formation" means a period of formation leading to first vows, though it can also mean the period of formation leading from entrance to readiness for perpetual profession. In community, the time from first vows to perpetual vows is also called juniorate because one becomes a brother or sister with the limited rights and obligations of a junior in the community. When this is true, we talk about the period after perpetual profession as a period of ongoing formation. 

With regard to diocesan hermits, the tendency is to speak of the years (and I do mean years) from the time the person begins living as a hermit to the time the chancery admits them to perpetual profession under c 603 as the period of "initial formation." Because there are no set time frames for diocesan hermits (generally speaking, these really don't work very well with this vocation), we tend to mark a variety of experiences and the way these mark us. Especially, we develop the capacity to write a liveable Rule of life through this period.  I have not seen anyone do this in less than 3-5 years, and for most of us ten years is more typical of what we count as a period of "initial formation".

But yes, Cole is different in this apparently. Not only had he never lived as a hermit before making vows, he seems not to have written his own Rule of life and was admitted to first vows without any preparation. (I know because he wrote me that the religious Sister writing his vow of poverty  only understood it from the perspective of cenobitical religious life and Cole wondered if I could help her write it; he also noted there were several other places in the Rule he needed assistance with.) In other words, I don't see how Cole can claim to have finished initial formation as a solitary hermit because I don't see where he ever actually began it. Six to eight weeks before his first scheduled attempt at profession in Lexington (25. August.2022) he was still living in a Camaldolese house in San Luis Obispo garnering information on forming a community of artists. 

Novitiate in Portsmouth Abbey, Rhode Island?

In my comments on Cole not having lived a true novitiate I had a couple of things in mind. The first is the mindset with which one enters a novitiate period, namely, one receives a new name, is clothed with some version of the congregational habit, and essentially adopts a new family. One lets go of the dreams and expectations one had in terms of the world outside the monastery to find God and be found by God here. And one does all of this with the intention of allowing this family to be one's own for the rest of one's life. One commits to loving these Brothers or Sisters and to becoming the person this community needs and God calls one to be. There is a commitment to conversion of self as part of the future of this community in their unique embodiment of religious or monastic life. I think this commitment is especially true in a community like that of Portsmouth since in the Benedictine life one prepares to vow stability in this community for the rest of one's life. Cole, however, entered this period without this kind of commitment. He wanted to learn about creating a community of artists, and I believe he took the classes a novice would take to understand Benedictinism and the nature of the evangelical counsels; still, Cole's period of residence in this community was understood to be temporary without the usual mindset or expectations of a Benedictine novice (or the correlative mindset and expectations of the professed monks). 

The second thing I had in mind was the absence of any sense of vulnerability to the prospect of being sent home at any time due to the conclusion that one was not called to this life or at least to this community. Because Cole did not come here with the sense of giving himself over to a mutual process of discernment or eventually being admitted to simple vows, he really did not have the same stake in things as others in his group or class. I don't mean to suggest that novitiate is a period of overweening anxiety or fear that one will be sent home at any moment, but there is both a subtle and not-so-subtle awareness that one is more than a student in novice-level coursework work and there is more at stake than some academic achievement; as a novice, one knows that while one is deeply respected by the other members of the community, one is not a peer, but truly a novice allowing oneself to be socialized by seniors and taking on this role in all humility and hope. 

For both of these reasons, I believe that Cole never had a true sense of having entered a novitiate. I wonder how this long-guestship was financed as well. If Cole was paying for the privilege of learning in this community and paying for room and board as well, then that too would change the dynamics of the process involved. Communities invest in their novices. Novices are not there paying tuition. They allow and in their own way assist the community to grow precisely as a community, and thus too, they are interdependent upon one another in ways guests will never truly be. Finally, a novitiate is not a matter of romanticized role-playing; it is about living one's life at this time and in this place with these specific brothers and/or sisters in response to a real call by God --- a call that will change one into a monk or nun who prays his/her entire life as an act of worship. Yes, there is newness and the novelty of being called Brother or Sister while donning a habit each day, but again, this is not a matter of role-playing; rather, it is a matter of learning that, contrary to life outside the monastery, one is emphatically NOT role-playing. Instead, one comes to appreciate that this is who God calls one to be --- in all of one's potential, brokenness, weakness, giftedness, creativity, and so forth.

Miscellaneous Questions and the USCCB:

There are probably several questions you have heard and even raised yourself that you might want to get back to me on. Right now, (as of today) it is clear that the Bishops of the USCCB are taking on the situation in Lexington in committee (Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance) and will resolve the situation in a way that is consonant with Catholic teaching regarding transgender life and its ability to embrace consecrated life. (Here Bp Paprocki seemed open to allowing transgender individuals who "detransition" as much as possible and truly wish to discern an eremitical vocation to do so.) I sincerely believe the USCCB will find the professions undertaken in Lexington to be invalid for several reasons. I hope that they will refuse to allow the way they address the situation to influence c 603 life more widely than this. This was the single misapplication of c 603 to an unformed individual with an agenda. Both bishops and canonists who advise them need themselves to be advised on the use of c 603 for solitary hermits; they must come to know that this is a significant vocation with clear and substantive content, charism, and mission! From the little I heard and read, Bishop Paprocki sounded as if he wanted to address the given situation and not go further afield. I sincerely hope that is the case!

What Does it Mean to be a Hermit in some Essential Sense? (Reprise)

 [[Dear Sister when you have spoken of readiness for discernment with a diocese and even temporary profession as a solitary hermit you have said it is necessary for a person to be a hermit in some essential sense. Could you say more about what you mean by this phrase? I think maybe I know what you are talking about but I also find the phrase difficult to define. Thanks!]]

Introduction:

That's such a great and important question! For me personally, articulating the definition of this phrase or the description of what I mean by it has been a bit difficult. It is a positive phrase but in some ways I found my own senses of what I meant by this come to real clarity by paying attention to examples of inauthentic eremitical life, individuals who call themselves hermits, for instance, but who, while nominally Catholic, are isolated and/or subscribe to a spirituality which is essentially unhealthy while embracing a theology which has nothing really to do with the God of Jesus Christ.  To paraphrase Jesus, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" actually  has come to know the sovereignty of the Lord intimately. In other words it was by looking at what canonical hermits were not and could or should never be that gave me a way of articulating what I meant by "being a hermit in some essential sense." Since God is the one who makes a person a hermit, it should not surprise you to hear I will be describing the "essential hermit" first of all in terms of God's activity. 

Related to this then is the fact that the hermit's life is a gift to both Church and world at large. Moreover, it is a gift of a particular kind. Specifically it proclaims the Gospel of God in word and deed but does so in the silence of solitude. When speaking of being a hermit in some essential way it will be important to describe the qualities of mission and charism that are developing (or have developed) in the person's life. These are about more than having a purpose in life and reflect the simple fact that the eremitical vocation belongs to the Church. Additionally they are a reflection of the fact that the hermit precisely as hermit reflects the good news of salvation in Christ which comes to her in eremitical solitude. If it primarily came to her in another way (in community or family life for instance) it would not reflect the redemptive character of Christ in eremitical solitude and therefore her life could not witness to or reveal this to others in and through eremitical life. Such witness is the very essence of the eremitical life.

The Experience at the Heart of Authentic Eremitism:

Whenever I have written about becoming a hermit in some essential sense I have contrasted it with being a lone individual, even a lone pious person who prays each day. The point of that contrast was to indicate that each of us are called to be covenantal partners of God, dialogical realities who, to the extent we are truly human, are never really alone. The contrast was first of all meant to point to the fact that eremitical life involved something more, namely, a desert spirituality. It was also meant to indicate that something must occur in solitude which transforms the individual from simply being a lone individual. That transformation involves healing and sanctification. It changes the person from someone who may be individualistic to someone who belongs to and depends radically on God and the church which mediates God in word and sacrament. Such a person lives her life in the heart of the Church in very conscious and deliberate ways. Her solitude is a communal reality in this sense even though she is a solitary hermit. Moreover, the shift I am thinking of that occurs in the silence of solitude transforms the person into a compassionate person whose entire life is in tune with the pain and anguish of a world yearning for God and the fulfillment God brings to all creation; moreover it does so because paradoxically, it is in the silence of solitude that one comes to hear the cry of all in union with God. 

If the individual is dealing with chronic illness, for instance, then they are apt to have been marginalized by their illness. What tends to occur to such a person in the silence of solitude if they are called to this as a life vocation is the shift to a life that marginalizes by choice and simultaneously relates more profoundly or centrally. Because it is in this liminal space that one meets God and comes to union with God, a couple of things happen: 1) one comes to know one has infinite value because one is infinitely loved by God, not in terms of one's productivity, one's academic or other success, one's material wealth, and so forth, 2) one comes to understand that all people are loved and valued in the same way which allows one to see themselves as "the same" as others rather than as different and potentially inferior (or, narcissistically, superior), 3) thus one comes to know oneself as profoundly related to these others in God rather than as disconnected or unrelated and as a result, 4) chronic illness ceases to have the power it once had to isolate and alienate or to define one's entire identity in terms of separation, pain, suffering, and incapacity, and 5) one is freed to be the person God calls one to be in spite of chronic illness. The capacity to truly love others, to be compassionate, and to love oneself in God are central pieces of this.

The Critical Question in Discernment of Eremitical Vocations:

 What is critical for the question at hand is that the person finds themselves in a  transformative relationship with God in solitude and thus, eremitical solitude becomes the context for a truly redemptive experience and a genuinely holy life. When I speak of someone being a hermit in some essential sense I am pointing to being a person who has experienced the salvific gift the hermit's life is meant to be for hermits and for those they witness to. It may be that they have begun a transformation which reshapes them from the heart of their being, a kind of transfiguration which heals and summons into being an authentic humanity which is convincing in its faith, hope, love, and essential joy. Only God can work in the person in this way and if God does so in eremitical solitude --- which means more than a transitional solitude, but an extended solitude of desert spirituality --- then one may well have thus become a hermit in an essential sense and may be on the way to becoming a hermit in the proper sense of the term as well.

If God saves in solitude (or in abject weakness and emptiness!), if authentic humanity implies being a covenant partner of God capable of mediating that same redemption to others in Christ, then a canonical hermit (or a person being seriously considered for admission to canonical standing and consecration MUST show signs of these as well as of having come to know them to a significant degree in eremitical solitude.  It is the redemptive capacity of solitude (meaning God in solitude) experienced by the hermit or candidate as  "the silence of solitude"  which is the real criterion of a vocation to eremitical solitude. (See other posts on this term but also Eremitism, the Epitome of Selfishness?) It is the redemptive capacity of God in the silence of solitude that the hermit must reflect and witness to if her eremitical life is to be credible.

Those Putative "Hermits" not Called to Eremitical Solitude:

For some who seek to live as hermits but are unsuccessful, eremitical solitude is not redemptive. As I have written before the destructive power of solitude overtakes and overwhelms the entire process of growth and sanctification which the authentic hermit comes to know in the silence of solitude. What is most striking to me as I have considered this question of being a hermit in some essential sense is the way some persons' solitude and the label "hermit" are euphemisms for alienation, estrangement, and isolation. Of course there is nothing new in this and historically stereotypes and counterfeits have often hijacked the title "hermit".  The spiritualities involved in such cases are sometimes nothing more than validations of the brokenness of sin or celebrations of self-centeredness and social failure; the God believed in is often a tyrant or a cruel judge who is delighted by our suffering -- which he is supposed to cause directly -- and who defines justice in terms of an arbitrary "reparation for the offenses" done to him even by others, a strange kind of quid pro quo which might have given even St Anselm qualms. 

These "hermits" themselves seem unhappy, often bitter, depressed and sometimes despairing. They live in physical solitude but their relationship with God is apparently neither life giving nor redemptive -- whether of the so-called hermit or those they touch. Neither are their lives ecclesial in any evident sense and some are as estranged from the Church as they are from their local communities and (often) families. Because there is no clear sense that solitude is a redemptive reality for these persons, neither is there any sense that God is really calling them to eremitical life and the wholeness represented by union with God and characterized by the silence of solitude. Sometimes solitude itself seems entirely destructive, silence is a torturous muteness or fruitlessness; in such cases there is no question the person is not called to eremitical solitude. 

Others who are not so extreme as these "hermits" never actually embrace the silence of solitude or put God at the center of their lives in the way desert spirituality requires and witnesses to. They may even be admitted to profession and consecration but then live a relatively isolated and mediocre life filled with distractions, failed commitments (vows, Rule), and rejected grace. Some instead replace solitude with active ministry so that they really simply cannot witness to the transformative capacity of the God who comes in silence and solitude. Their lives thus do not show evidence of the incredibly creative and dynamic love of God who redeems in this way but it is harder to recognize these counterfeits. In such cases the silence of solitude is not only not the context of their lives but it is neither their goal nor the charism they bring to church and world. Whatever the picture, they have never been hermits in the essential sense.

Even so, all of these lives do help us to see what is necessary for the discernment of authentic eremitical vocations and too what it means to say that someone is a hermit in some essential sense. Especially they underscore the critical importance that one experiences God's redemptive intimacy in the silence of solitude and that one's life is made profoundly meaningful, compassionate, and hope-filled in this way.

Who Educates Bishops re C 603?

[[ Sister Laurel, who educates bishops on Canon 603 vocations? (Is educate the right word here?) If the church intervenes in the Cole Matson case will Canon lawyers be the ones to determine further time frames, etc? Can you see any place for increased time frames being made requisite?]]

Important questions! Bishops will continue to be educated (yes, I think that's the correct word!) in this vocation by those living it authentically and having been identified by their dioceses as being called in this way. Similarly, they will continue to be educated by chancery personnel who have direct and significant contact with such vocations (meaning Vicars for Religious or Consecrated Life, etc, who have discerned and helped in the formation of such vocations). It is my fervent belief that the church ought not succumb to the temptation of approaching c 603 as somehow deficient and then trying to resolve that deficiency by adding time frames and stages to the canon itself.

Consider in the Lexington case how truly abysmal the knowledge of c 603 or the vocation it governs was and perhaps still is. That was so, not only on the part of the local ordinary but also (and perhaps more fatefully!) on that of the canonist consulted in the matter. This is not a deficiency adding mandatory years or stages will resolve. In the main, the problem was not that of additional time or canonical stages, but rather of ignorance, and the studied resolution to use c 603 in a way contrary to the living charism it codifies despite having been instructed otherwise. A person came to Bishop Stowe with the proposal to use c 603 as a stopgap means of admitting him/her to public profession. S/he was aware that this could be done and had been done in the past, especially in the early years of the Canon's life; moreover, s/he knew all of this because I had written about it and s/he had read my blog for at least ten years. To complicate things, Bishop John Stowe bought into the proposal with the same question I have answered here several times, viz., whom could it hurt? Whom Does it Hurt? Meanwhile, the canonist consulted offered little substantively in response to this question apparently providing a legal loophole instead. While one hopes for better from those entrusted with the implementation of this canon, this is a rare vocation and a little-understood one.

And of course, that is the point! The solution is education and the only ones who can truly educate chancery personnel in this are hermits living (and living into) authentic vocations. To a lesser extent, chancery personnel with experience in discerning with a diocesan hermit will be helpful in this kind of education as well. Gradually bishops will come to see the character and quality of the vocation in front of them as they and other chancery staff meet with the candidate for profession, and this is as it should be. Of course, diocesan personnel need to read and consult on this matter as well. As I have written before, when I was first working with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF (Vicar for Religious), she and another Sister from the chancery took a trip to New Camaldoli in Big Sur to consult with the Prior there. Susan had one major question, namely, what would it take for a person to live a healthy eremitical life?  Years later, after I had met with Archbishop (then Bishop) Vigneron for the first time regarding my petition to be admitted to profession, he said, "Now I have to go and learn a lot" --- not only about this vocation but about me, my writing (including my Rule and published articles, which he had purposely not read yet), etc. I thought it a wise observation and I was very glad he took that tack! 

It seems to me that both Sister Susan and Bishop Vigneron recognized the Holy Spirit could be doing something new with Canon 603 and were open to taking extraordinary steps to be sure it was well-implemented. (For Sister Susan and her companion to take such a long drive from the Diocese of Oakland to Big Sur to meet with the Prior in person remains strongly suggestive of the kinds of steps dioceses need to take in order to educate themselves re solitary eremitical life. Of course, today, the church's history with the canon is more extensive than it was in the mid to late 80's, and some of us are willing and now able to assist dioceses in working with candidates so that both the candidate and the chancery personnel themselves grow in understanding of solitary eremitical life. Still, education is the key.

You asked if I could see any use for increased requisite time frames and my answer is yes, in one case. I believe that there should be a minimum time frame of five years before a person is admitted to even first vows under the canon. I believe this could apply even if the person has a history of religious life, because the transition to solitary eremitical life is still significant. If one is called to this vocation, five years will not be onerous but will be given over to growth and coming more and more to embody the values central to c 603 in any case. At the same time, diocesan personnel will be able to work with the person regularly and will be able to learn about the candidate, as well as about the depths and breadth of the canon itself. But it seems to me that apart from this minimum time frame, the multiplication of stages, etc., are simply unhelpful and could give a false sense of progress when the person is no closer to becoming a hermit at all. Jumping through such canonical hoops may simply tell us the person is desperate to be professed publicly and is a good "canonical hoop jumper", but not that they have heard or responded with fidelity to a divine call to desert existence!

On the Church's Distinction Between Gender Dysphoria and Gender Ideology and other Questions

[[Sister, in the article published today in OSV News Diocesan Hermit-Theologian Warned Bishop ‘Transgender Hermit’ Proposal Would ‘Misuse’ Church Law, Cole Matson seemed to believe that the church does not distinguish between gender ideology and gender dysphoria. I don't think the church lumps it all together in this way, does she? And about Cole now saying he is feeling more and more called to solitary eremitical life. How does that work? Will Cole be able to claim he has truly discerned this vocation?]]

Personally, I don't think the church does lump things together in the way Cole Matson seems to believe she does, no. Several weeks ago now I was referred by my director to a moral theologian she values very highly by the name of Rev Gerald Coleman, PSS. This was before the Cole Matson stuff blew up on Pentecost when I was trying to decide my own next steps regarding the situation in Lexington. I never made the connection with Father Coleman because of the rapidly changing situation, but both Sister Marietta and I read Coleman's The Many Faces of Transgender to be sure we could continue our conversations on the same page as well as to provide a knowledgeable intro to Coleman when I did reach out (Marietta  knew him well but I had never read nor met him). 

In that book I would say that Father Coleman captured some moral theologians' careful and orthodox positions on the matter, namely, he was very careful to delineate or distinguish between the reality of gender dysphoria that can, in certain given circumstances be so anquishing as to make gender affirmation interventions of various types a moral option, and the whole gender ideology complex itself. The latter involves the sense that gender is a chosen quality, that individuals may do what they like in this matter,  and may even be considered "gender fluid" --- something which is anathema to the church and her anthropology. It becomes especially abhorent when applied to or encouraged to be adopted by minors and those with either significant psycho-sexual immaturity or an agenda in this area. 

My own opinion is that Cole may have done an injustice to the church's own theological conversations in this matter as well. I don't believe moral theologians fail to draw appropriate distinctions. What I believe the Church desires is for the LGBTQ+ community to do the same so that appropriate compassion may be nurtured and expressed. Cole says he disagrees with gender ideology. Good!! Moreover, in some ways, the church continues to learn, as do we all and that takes time and painful honesty. What she recognizes then is that for some, gender dysphoria is a real and oftentimes acutely painful struggle one needs help to negotiate. This can take therapy --- sometimes long and arduous therapy along, in some instances, with gender affirming medical and surgical procedures. In some instances these interventions can be considered moral according to theologians like Coleman. And of course, such gender dysphoria merits compassion from all of us. What the church does not recognize or condone, however, and what Francis considers "ugly", it seems to me is gender ideology, including the notion of gender fluidity, and the like --- particularly in minors.

Meanwhile, I continue to focus on the fact that Cole Matson and the Diocese of Lexington have committed fraud in attempting the professions they have done, not only because there was deception in claiming at least implicitly that Cole was a biological male and vesting him as a Brother given the right to style himself as "Brother," but more, from my perspective at least, because they are calling him a diocesan hermit when he never truly claimed to feel called to this, did not discern such a vocation in necessary years prior to attempted admission to vows, and has been clear they were using canon 603 as a stopgap because nothing else was available. I have to ask Cole if he really believes his vocation is more real than the hundreds of those whose dioceses turned them away when they wanted to use c 603 as the "only available canon" to become publicly professed despite not feeling called to be a solitary hermit? That is simply the height of arrogance.

Regarding your second question, I don't see how Cole can be believed in this. Consider that Cole has made fraudulent vows pretending to a vocation he does not have. He is being allowed to live it any way he actually wants and define it similarly. And he is being given the public standing (for the moment anyway) he so desperately wanted. Maybe this is too cynical of me, but I want to say, of course he is going to say he feels called to it more and more!!! What else would or could he say?? But, you see, most of us live into a vocation for some years before being admitted to profession and we are not admitted to vows simply so we can experiment with the calling to see if perhaps we might have it! Further, for those of us professed under c 603, we live the solitary eremitical vocation through our doubts or uncertainties, learning over time the hard lessons of assiduous prayer and penance, as well as the tedium that can be associated with letting these shape our lives in God's own way until we are clear not only that this is a Divine calling, but that we also bring something authentic and unique to the church herself as we petition her to admit us to canonical standing in an ecclesial vocation! (Some may never reach this step and either decide or are asked to remain non-canonical solitary hermits.)

The point is one lives the life before one is ever professed and before living eremitical life itself, one comes to live contemplative life --- usually for some years! For instance, I have one c 603 candidate I am currently working with and have been working with for at least three years now. She left her congregation prior to perpetual profession to explore eremitical life, both solitary and semi-eremitical. She is diligent, patient, shows great initiative and faithfulness to God, has sacrificed to set up a beautiful (and beautifully functional) hermitage after living in other less satisfactory places due to need, found appropriate ways to support herself, etc.; she struggles with balance between the elements of her life as every authentic hermit will struggle, and gradually, she has come to prefer the silence of solitude of the true eremite. 

I believe she is truly called to be a diocesan hermit and is prepared to live eremitical vows. Yet, her Archdiocese, despite the ongoing support of one bishop skilled in formation work, will require a still-longer discernment/formation period for several good reasons (mainly having nothing to do with the candidate herself, but with transitions within the diocese). She understands this and continues working toward a deeper and deeper personal embodiment of c 603 in the meantime and she does this for the sake of the church and the vocation itself. Unless her discernment shifts, this seems to be who she is; it is the way one lives such a calling! 

My concern is that cases like these may be dismissed now, or waiting periods extended exorbitantly without admission to profession because of the notoriety, flippancy, and even the deceitful quality of the Lexington Diocese's usage of c 603. I am genuinely hopeful this will not happen in this instance, but in other cases where we have candidates whom a specific diocese does not yet know well, true vocations could be jeopardized. You see, one dimension of a genuine canon 603 vocation is the sense that one is responsible for living and furthering the life of this specific vocational thread in the church. It continues to live on throughout the centuries not only because God calls individuals to it but also because the church entrusts one with living out this specific ecclesial vocation in her name. This simply doesn't happen when selfish motives are allowed to drive professions, and in a calling that is so rare and vulnerable (especially in a world rampant with individualism!) the vocation itself is hurt.

More Questions on the Dishonesties involved in the Cole Matson Situation

[[Dear Sister, you said something about Brother Christian making profession in a church he was also thumbing his nose at. I wonder if you could say more about that what did you mean? Also though, how is it Brother Christian could live in a monastery for a year and not be known as transgender? Didn't they know about his (her) sex? And if they didn't know about his (her) sex, then how could they not? Why did you want to prescind from the issue of Matson's "transgendered status" in what you wrote to Bishop Stowe? It wasn't as though this was a non-issue, was it?]] 

Thanks for the questions. They are timely because I just read an article on the situation in the National Catholic Register which tended to reignite my anger a bit and exacerbated my sense that there was significant deception involved throughout the process Cole has pursued. It also ties into my comment about making profession in a church in a way that meant he would be living consecrated life in her name while thumbing his nose at her in the same act. You see, profession and especially consecration (which is not a person consecrating themselves to God, but God making a sacred person of the one making perpetual vows), require the candidate be in complete agreement with the Church's theology of consecrated life. 

My Main Concern:

My main concern has been with Cole's dishonest use of canon 603 as a stopgap when he does not have a true vocation as a hermit. But it now seems the dishonesty goes deeper and the impersonation is more extensive. You ask about Cole going to live at a monastery without being known as a transgendered person. He went to the monastery for training so he could learn to begin a community for artists. He calls this his novitiate but since he never intended to say there and was not preparing to make vows here, it could not have been a novitiate in the way we ordinarily use the term. More importantly, it turns out that Portsmouth Monastery who vetted Cole in all the normal ways including psych testing and physical reports, reported that as far as they were concerned Cole was a biological male!!! Father Brunner wrote: “Per my previous note, every applicant receives a thorough psychological evaluation from a licensed consultant as well as a detailed and extensive background check from a professional firm used by our lawyer. And of course they must present Baptismal and sacramental records, as well as the results of a physical examination attesting to their health. We are confident this would prevent someone entering our Abbey community who was not genuinely male. We’re not going to comment further except to say Dr. Matson went through the full process and was determined to be a biological male.”

How can this be? The only answer can be that Cole tried to deceive the monastery community and succeeded in doing so. Whenever asked his sex (on any form including psych assessments), he must have replied male. Clearly the monastery was acting in good faith and looking for sound healthy male candidates; they asked Cole to go through the same process, not only to protect themselves, but likely because Cole would get a chance to see what is necessary in creating a community. And despite their hospitality and clear needs and intentions in asking Cole to submit to testing and background checks, Cole was dishonest with them about his transgendered status.  One Benedictine monk said that Cole was an honorable man. I agree Cole has been desperate to become a religious, but in light of the way he came into the Portsmouth community and proposed c 603 to Bishop Stowe, I am no longer clear in my own mind about how honest or honorable he is, and that saddens me immeasurably.

What complicates this is that Bishop Stowe said he wanted Cole to get more training and sent him to a monastic house for this. And Bishop Stowe knew Cole was transgendered and genetically female! While I am sure Bishop Stowe allowed Cole to make his own arrangements, I also believe he probably recommended Cole for the stay. Did he do that without mentioning that Coel was a transitioned FtM trans man? I honestly don't know how to feel about all of this.  What about the others that gave Cole such glowing recommendations? Did they also fail to note his transgendered status?

Why did I prescind from the Issue of transsexuality?

But why did I want to prescind from the transgender issue in my letter to Bishop Stowe except for the connection to Cole's using c 603 as a stopgap to achieve justice in the Church? The answer to that is simple, namely, the important issue for me was the appropriate use of canon 603 for vocations that are both authentic and rare!! Bishop Stowe's comments to the media made it sound as though the canon is not used much and needed wider implementation. The fact of the matter is, however, that c 603 is not used often because the vocation it is designed to recognize and govern in the church is a rare one. People rarely come to the fullness of humanity in the silence of solitude. We are social animals and grow to maturity in our relationships with others. Solitary eremitical life (and all eremitical life, really) is an incredibly poorly known or understood vocation and my sense was that what Cole Matson had done in coming out on Pentecost was to insure that it would never be better understood and even less well appreciated than it has come to be in its 41 years of life in the Church. 

When I wrote Bishop Stowe I pretty much assumed he, like many bishops, did not understand solitary eremitical life or its importance for the faithful. I did not want to do other than to educate him a bit on what the canon established in law and why that was critically important to the Church's efforts to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world. I wanted Bishop Stowe to gain a sense of the charism of the solitary hermit vocation and thus too, to be able to educate others on all of this. Though this was not uppermost in my mind, I also thought it could be that if Cole were led to embrace this vocation honestly, he might come to the degree of inner healing and maturity he really needed to achieve.I said as much to Bishop Stowe in my first letter. 

However, Cole's healing and the impossibility of that occurring if he was allowed to lie his way to profession, were definitely on my mind. Cole was proposing to embrace eremitical life in order to get professed and I knew that eremitical life could lead to immense healing if Cole really did as he proposed to do. Unfortunately, I did not realize he would mainly be praying in the mornings and then spending both the afternoon and evening at the theatre working. Nor did I realize that Bishop Stowe would be allowing this non-eremitical approach to things. My focus here was as it needed to be because even in the USCCB announcements, the Bishops seemed to be focusing on the transgender issue, not on the authentic use of c 603.  

That's about all I have for now. Please get back to me if you have additional questions!