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 mired 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 likely 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.