Follow-up Questions on the Bishop's Responsibilities in Regard to c 603 Professions

[[Dear Sister, what I hear in your response on the situation in Lexington is that your concern is mainly with the bishop of Lexington. Isn't a fraudulent use of c 603 the responsibility of the candidate seeking admission to profession? When you say that Cole Matson made first vows even though she didn’t believe she was called to this vocation, I am confused. She claims to be a diocesan hermit, doesn’t she? Can one make vows or profession without really believing one has this vocation? How is that possible? I have an acquaintance in my parish who is trying to become a diocesan hermit. She said our impression that he wanted to be sure my ‘friend’ is really a hermit before he agree bishop is the final authority in these matters, but that he cannot just do whatever he wants. I got that he wants to be sure she is a hermit before he admits her to profession.]]

Thanks for your questions.  Part of what you are confused by with the situation in Lexington, KY, I think, is built into the situation itself by both Bishop and Matson. At the same time, I agree with your friend’s observation on the Bishop’s role in the matter of professing people under c 603. While a candidate is responsible for discerning this vocation in good faith, something Cole failed to do in this case, the Bishop has the final say as well as the responsibility for discerning such vocations, and protecting and nurturing them as part of the Church's eremitical tradition. This means 1) he cannot and must not profess someone who doesn’t truly believe they have such a vocation, and 2) he must do all that is necessary to understand, appreciate, and help candidates discern and secure the necessary formation required by a genuine eremitic vocation. (He may, of course,  delegate other chancery personnel to help with this.)

In all of this, one thing should be clear. The bishop serves the Church and her own patrimony, including canonical vocations God has entrusted to the Church. With all this in mind, your question, “How is this possible?” is an important one. I have never before heard of a situation where a bishop has admitted someone to profession (an act that is larger than just the making of vows) when s/he claims to know she is called to something else. Had the Bishop truly determined Cole had some kind of new vocation to consecrated life requiring public profession, he could have tried to profess Cole under c 605 which is dedicated to new forms of consecrated life, but this would also have required the agreement of the Vatican, so I think it is understandable why he did not chose to do this. Instead, he used c 603, giving the really poorly-considered grounds for professing Cole under c 603 posted here recently and last year.

What this required was an abdication of the bishop’s responsibility to protect and nurture c 603 vocations themselves. It also led to the inability to have faith in the adequacy of the discernment process of any other professions under c 603 that might take place in this specific diocese. That especially includes any further attempts at making a canonical profession made by Matson in the future. As I noted last year, even if Cole were to say he has “discovered” a genuine eremitical vocation before making such a commitment, it would be very difficult to trust his "discernment" or believe his motivations were valid this time around. Still, the primary responsibility with regard to this vocation falls to Bp John Stowe and secondarily to any canonist giving the bishop advice on the use of the canon in Cole's regard. Bishop Stowe was entrusted with this specific vocation as belonging to the Church, as well as with being the last (though not the only) word in assessing candidates’ discernment processes. It is also the bishop's job to determine, more generally, what is best for the diocese in terms of such a vocation. Because c 603 is an ecclesial vocation, admission to profession should be a sign that the candidate understands her place in building and representing the heart of the Church, and expressing with her life the Church’s theology of consecrated life.

I am glad to hear what your friend said about her own bishop. It is reassuring to hear that that is the minimum criterion he must see in order to admit one to profession and eventually, to perpetual profession and consecration. Last year, a friend of mine said something very perceptive, viz, “Sure one can be a male or a female [under c 603], but one still needs to be a hermit!!” I would add that that implies as well, 1) that one is already a contemplative, 2) that one has lived the vows (or the values associated with these) for some period of time before seeking to be canonically professed, 3) that one has discerned a need for even greater solitude than one required as a non-eremitical contemplative, and 4) that one has a way of supporting oneself that does not require time away from the hermitage and/or can be done in solitude.

What we are left with in the Diocese of Lexington is the injudicious and even fraudulent use of c 603. I am sure it is confusing and problematic for members of the diocese. Until the USCCB and DICLSAL weigh in to clarify matters, I cannot personally accept that the profession was valid, and I suspect I am not alone in this, particularly once Cole made his Pentecost revelation last year. I am sure some people will accept him as Brother Christian because it seems the charitable thing to do; I, however, believe it is uncharitable and cannot do it. While I expect Cole to be the hermit he claims to be called to be, at the same time, since he has been clear this is not his vocation, I don't see how he can live the vocation he has claimed as his own for the time being. It is not an easy vocation, and I believe it would be impossible to live without a strong divinely-rooted sense that God is calling one to this life. 

Beyond the questions of Matson's "hermithood" and the validity of his vows, I find that I still cannot accept that Cole is "Brother Christian". Of course, Cole is my brother/sister in Christ, but at the same time, it remains Church teaching (and medical opinion) that despite any radical medical interventions]', Cole remains a female.**  If, after having truly discerned a c 603 vocation, Cole really chose to be professed and make the vow of celibacy appropriate to that profession, it should have been as Sister (C___), and even then, only after renouncing the transgender changes made medically to whatever extent that was really possible. I cannot see any other way forward. This means that if Bishop Stowe attempts to perpetually profess and consecrate Cole as Brother Christian in this vocation in the near future, for example, it will exacerbate the questions of validity and even sacrilege, as well as concerns that the Bishop's own agenda was allowed to overwhelm his ability to discern c 603 vocations and fulfill his office in regard to such vocations. It is also likely to create difficulties for other dioceses as similar candidates without an eremitical vocation seek to be professed in this way based on the precedent now set by the Diocese of Lexington. Unfortunately, no one (USCCB, DICLSAL) has acted on this, or, at the very least, clarified the Church's teaching on all of this.

As I noted last year, the situation with Bp John Stowe and Cole Matson impacts the c 603 vocation as such. It is, in some ways, both an ancient and a quite new vocation, and for these reasons it is also both vital and fragile. The really serious content, charism, and mission of the eremitical vocation is difficult for most people to perceive or understand, even without examples of "hermits" who are not called to the same journey, or who have been deceptive about the nature and content of their vocation and vows. Many c 603 hermits with chronic illnesses or disabilities faced accusations, or at least strong suspicion, that this was really just a stopgap "vocation" with little true content or reason for being. The usual "suggestion" was that these persons could not live in community, so they used c 603 as a way to get professed. While this was not generally true, the possibility haunted candidates with disabilities, even when they were relatively sure of the authenticity of their vocation and their faithfulness to it. 

Some others were refused admission to profession and consecration simply because the diocese involved did not want to take a chance on harming the vocation by professing someone who was chronically ill, never mind the fact that illness is a desert situation which can open one to a profound seeking of God --- the very essence of the vocation! After 41+ years, most diocesan hermits had shown the Church that this suspicion was unfounded. And then, in one act of mind-boggling ignorance, arrogance, and blindness, the Diocese of Lexington did exactly the thing we were all trying (quietly, patiently, in whatever ways were appropriate) to demonstrate was not true of c 603 vocations! Bp Stowe admitted to using c 603 to profess someone who had admitted he did not have this vocation, but who was claiming it as a stopgap way to get himself publicly vowed and in a habit "for the sake of justice" for the transgender community. After all, despite being informed about this concern of "stopgap" vocations, Bp Stowe reasoned, it was a "little-used" canon that could be utilized by both men and women, so who could it hurt? The canonist he consulted apparently provided little more than this on the vocation itself. Several people, then, contributed to what was a stunningly insensitive and irresponsible act, and it apparently continues today, without any real ecclesiastical resolution. 

** As you may know (from your use of feminine pronouns for Cole Matson), one's sex does not change, even with radical medical interventions to shape and conform normal characteristics of gender. This is what both medicine and the Church's theology of the human person and their sexuality currently teach. I don't see this changing.