Once Again, On Whether Bishop Stowe Believes Cole Matson Has a Vocation

[[Sister Laurel, why would you say that Bishop Stowe seemed not to believe Cole Matson/Brother Christian had any real vocation at all? He professed him as a diocesan hermit! Doesn't that indicate a belief in a vocation?]] 

Thanks for your question. I had hoped this was clear from several different posts, but let me try and explain it a bit better. God calls each of us to do something unique, something only we can do because only we will meet the needs of the situation with the self we are. (God may call many individuals to do a larger work, but in every case, the vocation a person answers is their own individual and unique vocation.) Moreover, God calls each of us to a vocation where we ourselves will be fulfilled in the way God wills for us and in the way the Church and world really need.  This unique call is our vocation.

When Cole Matson convinced himself he was called to public vows rather than to the vocation he had described to me in terms clearly empowered by the Holy Spirit, and when he determined to use c 603 as a means to public profession despite the fact that the Church does not recognize any such vocation, Cole let go of his God-given vocation and substituted something else, and something far less worthy in its place. Tragically, Bishop Stowe colluded in this, and by affirming Cole in a vocation he claimed not to be called to, Bp Stowe seemed to indicate he really didn't care that Cole's true vocation was going unanswered. He may even have demonstrated he believed there was no such true vocation. Of course, Bp Stowe also indicated not only an ignorance of the nature of c 603 vocations, despite having been written about this to some extent by a diocesan hermit,  but he indicated he may not care about these vocations themselves.

When bishop Stowe described why he decided to (attempt to) profess Cole Matson it was a particularly anemic statement in terms of vocation. If you recall, he spoke mostly about what the vocation did not involve (ordination, sacramental ministry). He said, [My willingness to be open to him is because it’s [note the objectifying lack of personal pronoun] a sincere person seeking a way to serve the church,’ Stowe said of Matson. ‘Hermits are a rarely used form of religious life … but they can be either male or female. Because there’s no pursuit of priesthood or engagement in sacramental ministry, and because the hermit is a relatively quiet and secluded type of vocation, I didn’t see any harm in letting him live this vocation.’ . . .]] In other words, [[Whom could it hurt? It's not like s/he was asking to be made a priest! Hermits are tucked away from anything really central in the church, so what difference could it possibly make?]]

While technically true in several ways, all of this manages to misunderstand the nature and significance of the solitary eremitical vocation, the reasons discernment and formation of such vocations require real diligence, knowledge, and focused care, and it misunderstands especially the place they serve in the life of the Church. The idea of professing someone who does not honestly claim to feel called by God to this specific vocation, and who in fact, claims to feel truly called to another vocation entirely, does a disservice to the vocation and the person involved. Especially, eremitical life is not meant as a way of preparing one for the ministry apostolic religious are mainly involved in. For instance, eremitical solitude, in particular, is not about relaxing in one's hermitage or recharging one's spiritual batteries so one may minister elsewhere, like the theatre, where Cole Matson's main energies go for the majority of the day and evening.

The solitude of the hermit is the context of her main work, namely prayer. Moreover, it is an intensely demanding reality, not least because human beings are social creatures and are not ordinarily meant to come to human wholeness in solitude, but also because when this is the nature of one's solitude, it will be about meeting oneself and becoming more and more profoundly truthful with oneself about who one is and is called to be. One will deal with past woundedness, personal sin, frailties, limitations of all sorts, and the way one colludes with untruth and death even in a vocation given over to life and the very Source of Life we call Abba. Sister Jeremy Hall (Silence, Solitude, Simplicity: A Hermit's Love Affair with a Noisy, Crowded, and Complicated World) spoke of the desert as the place of encounter; above all, that means living towards, for, and from one's maturing encounter with God, but at the same time, it means living in light of a continuing encounter with oneself, a coming to terms with all of that, and, an integration of one's whole life in terms of these continuing forms of encounter. It is this integration that we call holiness while growth in this is what we call sanctification (but also humanization and divinization).

Most people have regular avenues of escape or at least significant relief from this kind of intensity of encounter. But not the hermit. Even her recreation serves the quality of her commitment to this paradoxical vocation of encounter. Witness to this encounter, an encounter that is meant to be at the heart of every Christian vocation, is the actual mission of the hermit. Yet, in Bishop Stowe's approach to and description of c 603 life, one would never imagine such an intense process lay at the heart of the vocation. The approval Stowe gave Matson to spend more than two-thirds of his day in the theatre underscores both parties' ignorance of this foundational dynamic of eremitical life; for Bp Stowe, this ignorance points to a failure to perceive Cole Matson as having been called to it as well. (If you don't understand it exists, how can you recognize someone is called to it? More, how can you affirm them in this vocation?) The tragedy of all of this, however, lies not only in the misrepresentation of this vocation (though I admit that tragedy is significant, indeed), but also in the failure involved by not finding (or creating) a more appropriate avenue for Cole to respond to his true vocation, which itself argues that perhaps Bp Stowe doesn't truly believe in Cole Matson's true vocation.

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.

Sister Laurel, was this the Case You Were writing about?

For those wondering if my blog posts on the 6th and 17th of May were about the situation referred to in the following link Cole Matson Diocesan Hermit?, the answer is yes. Both posts (cf. Professing a Transsexual? and Followup Questions) had the situation with Bishop John Stowe and Cole (aka Christian) Matson in mind. I have seen the article strategically announcing Cole's coming out as transgendered; over time I will write further about the situation (including some questionable canonical advice apparently given to Bishop Stowe). 

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective) this matter is now an open church issue and, within the limits of my vocation as well as my theological expertise, I will continue to contribute to any ongoing dialogue, particularly from the perspective of the appropriate and inappropriate uses of canon 603. As always, if readers have other specific questions or comments on diocesan hermit life or on this specific case,  I am more than happy to respond. If you are simply wondering if this was the case I was referring to and have been involved in in one way or another during the last several years, this is your answer. Please, no more emails on that question!

Postscript: By the way, in case folks are wondering, while I am disappointed with and seriously critical of Bishop Stowe regarding this specific situation, I have more generally agreed with his positions and appreciated his courage on some things. I also was touched by his timely and gracious response to my letter of June 2022. Perhaps all of that is another reason besides c 603 itself that the current situation raises such complex and intense feelings for me.