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 stay 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 ensure that it would never be better understood and also that it would be 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 much more 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 (or at least a non-canonical eremitical) 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, that is, really embraced eremitical life itself. 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!                                                                

Followup Questions: On Professing and/or Consecrating Transgendered Persons to Consecrated Life

[[Sister Laurel, you said you opposed the proposed profession of a transsexual. You also said you did it for reasons apart from the person's sexual identity. What you outlined was a pattern of fraud, duplicity, and dishonesty. That raises several questions for me: 1) was there a profession; if not, why is it an issue? 2) is it possible that the bishop does not (or did not) know the person seeking profession was and is a transsexual? What I was thinking was that if it were me I might keep it quiet and maybe play dumb. I know you don't like the question, "Who could it hurt?" but if the person lives as a hermit and doesn't publicize that they are transsexual, maybe they could remain a good hermit without bothering anyone. Maybe that was what the bishop involved was thinking.

3) In what way did you oppose the profession? I can't see you picketing outside the cathedral on the day of profession (just kidding) so what do you mean?! I was also uncertain why you said one does not make vows to gain more data. 4) Aren't temporary vows made while one is still discerning a vocation? Shouldn't they be made exactly to gain more data? I think my last question is a what if question. 5) If you discover there has been a profession, now, several years after you opposed this, what will you do? 6) Do you feel the same way you did when you first opposed the profession? 7) Isn't it possible the person you described has discerned a real eremitical vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions; I've added numbers and divided things into two paragraphs for readability. I have also opted to use feminine pronouns throughout (except for bishops) because that is the form I ordinarily use in my blog pieces; the alternatives open to me are way too clumsy and unreadable. Also, any initials used in this piece were chosen at random. (I picked a couple of scrabble tiles for this!) Finally, while the church's position on professing and consecrating transgendered persons is fundamental to the situation prompting your questions and at least implicit throughout this post, except concerning the idea of using profession under c 603 to achieve justice in the church (one must ask for whom?!), I mainly prescind from a direct discussion of the issue itself here.

The background: 

 Yes, I outlined a pattern of fraud, and dishonesty in the use/abuse of canon 603 and the vows/profession being planned or proposed. I should also have noted I found a kind of desperation and glibness that set this person up both to manipulate and to be used herself. You see, the person seeking profession and I had spoken of the options open to her during a serious correspondence in 2019, as well as about various peoples' opinions that the church's teaching on the profession of transsexuals was going to change. She had been given a great deal of false encouragement regarding potential changes in church teaching and I thought this did her a distinct disservice in its clear lack of candor or realism. 

When she and I began to correspond again in 2022, she had spent extended time as a guest in a couple of monasteries and/or congregations. In one case, when the bishop of the diocese in which the congregation was located became aware of the situation, they were required to make her leave. C____ described this as personally devastating. Though not an actual member of the Order she had been allowed to wear the habit and having to divest herself of this was something that hurt her very deeply. Once out of her guestship (she could never have truly experienced a novitiate) with the congregation, she continued to style herself as a religious and to introduce herself with the usual formal title along with a new religious name in public and correspondence.

As noted above, C___ suffered from several experiences involving the unreasonable raising and (unfortunately) necessary subsequent dashing of hopes and expectations during just these few years; this may have exacerbated an (increasing?) resistance to accepting the truth of what the church herself (not just this or that priest or religious) was saying to her regarding her ability to enter consecrated life. It was my impression that, at least partly because some within the church raised her expectations unreasonably, C___ continued in her efforts to find a way to make public vows. Eventually, she located and moved to a diocese with an amenable bishop and enlisted him to assist in accomplishing C___'s will. 

The Questions:

So, with this added background, let me give your questions a shot! 1) Has there been a profession? The answer to that is apparently yes, though I don't know the details of it and only learned of it this week (in part because of a directory listing C___, and in part because of a spate of visitors from the area of C___ chancery, residence, cathedral, etc). The diocese involved has not publicized it in any way except to list C___ in their directory as a diocesan hermit apparently living on a local monastery's grounds. Remember that even with temporary vows, diocesan hermits have been entrusted with a public ecclesial vocation with specific rights and obligations. Remember that this also means that people from this diocese and parish (and indeed, from the entire church) have a right to certain expectations regarding c 603 and this candidate, not least, that the profession was seriously, honestly, and conscientiously discerned as God's chosen way to wholeness and holiness for this person, as well as that the brother/sister professed exemplifies a commitment to chaste love in their foundational manliness or womanliness, (cf. Professing a Transsexual?) the capacity for profound obedience to God, to God's church, and faithfulness to and regard for her teaching --- particularly regarding consecrated life. In the situation at hand, I think there are doubts about each of these points.

Was the Bishop Knowledgeable?

The bishop knew of C___'s transgendered status. C___ said she had been entirely open with him in this and that the two of them were looking at profession under c 603 as a matter of justice in the church. I also mentioned it when I wrote the bishop as well as that I would prescind from the issue of sexuality and focus on the misuse and abuse of canon 603 itself except where C___ raised the issue herself. I was advised by a second canonist to write not only C___'s bishop, but the metropolitan and Nuncio to the Vatican as well with a summary of the issues this proposed profession would raise. I did that, so yes, C___'s FtM transsexual status was known. I also wrote C___ directly and reminded her of what she had written during our original correspondence or published in interviews around the same time. In that C___'s very real Spirit-breathed vocation was evident; she would have to give that up if she chose to pursue profession under c 603 and live solitary eremitical life faithfully in all of its depth and dimensions. She would also need to find that eremitical life itself involved a personal fulfillment that was deeper and richer than the more apparent vocation she would be required to give up if she continued to vows under c 603. And ordinarily, she would need to explore and gain a true sense of this before admission to vows.

You see, whether temporary or perpetual, vows imply the gift of the whole person, body, soul, and spirit to God. We make vows not to do initial experimentation and discernment, but rather, because in the process of discernment --- sometimes over long years, both the candidate or novice and those discerning with her have come to reasonable clarity that this is indeed the way God is calling the person to human wholeness and holiness. Yes, temporary vows allow for further discernment, particularly as one moves into a new situation with new expectations and responsibilities. But one makes temporary vows with the same sureness one makes perpetual vows, giving the whole of oneself without reservation or reserve. More importantly in this situation, one does not admit another person to vows without the sense that this is God's call they are answering, and more, that they are answering that call appropriately. To do otherwise is to indicate one does not regard this person's growth and sanctification (God's making them whole and true) as an authentic human being. Yes, post-profession, of course, there will be continuing exploration of the vocation for the candidate, but it will be an exploration of one's deepest self and the depths of the vocation in which one is professed and made transparent to God and God's love!!

Unfortunately, none of this comports with C___'s own account of her dicernment, nor were the reasons she gave for seeking profession under c 603 an adequate reason to make vows of any sort. After noting that "Frankly, I still feel called to community" and "I hope I will be given brothers" maybe even returning to the community I lived with. . . C___ explained it this way: [[The available position [i.e.,  the only canonical "slot"] that feels closest to the identity I have discovered within myself is that of hermit. . ..I don't know yet if that position will lead to the discovery of a new vocation [i.e., I don't know if profession under this canon will lead to the discovery that God is truly calling me to be a hermit], but I can't know until I have begun to explore from it. In the meantime we are going to experiment for a year and see how the exploration goes. If exploring from the position of a hermit does not work, then very well -- we have gained that data and can reorient. If it does ring true, then we will have gained that data. we're constantly checking in with each other, discerning, reassessing, and trying - together - to find the next right step.]] 

Again, all of this kind of experimentation and exploration needs to take place before profession, and a lot of it before a candidate even knocks on the chancery door to petition for admittance to a mutual discernment process and eventual vows and consecration. No one is ever admitted to profession until and unless everyone involved in the discernment and formation process agrees this is God's call. Why should C____ require what no one else is ever given to discern an eremitical vocation? Most candidates instinctively (or quickly come to) understand and accept that they must explore eremitical life as a non-canonical hermit long before seeking admission to public profession. Many bishops and chancery staff, especially those with a background in formation, are even more keenly aware of this! Most seekers also recognize they might be wrong in what they have discerned and may need to humbly discern anew. 

But not in this case! After all, what C___ sought was not the ecclesial recognition and commissioning of a long or even a newly-sensed eremitical vocation but public ecclesial standing itself with the freedom to continue her artistic activity (what I believe was and likely is her real vocation) outside the hermitage and lobby for "justice". C___ was honest that she was settling for public standing within the best canonical slot she could find (likely because no monastic communities, nor their necessary discernment processes are involved directly though this was what she truly desired and is still aspiring to). But settling in this way is not discerning, and making even a temporary profession in these terms is not a canon 603 profession. It uses c 603 as a stopgap to living a fiction and compounds that with an invalid and potentially sacrilegious act. Even more, C___'s bishop, though a religious whom I wrote prior to the profession with detailed summaries of these and additional concerns, was knowingly complicit in this. This is what disturbs me most about the situation. 

Could this Person Discern a True Vocation to Eremitical Life?

Yes, though I think it is unlikely, it is not entirely inconceivable that C___ will one day discover a true vocation to solitary eremitical life, but not before living it consciously, authentically, and faithfully for some years. There are recognizable and sometimes overlapping stages to this vocation; one moves through a process of becoming a person of prayer, to learning to pray contemplatively, to another stage of becoming a contemplative, and then to a stage involved in discerning the presence and meaning of deeper and more extensive desires and needs for silence and solitude; additionally one needs to discover that one is fulfilled by God as a man or woman precisely as a hermit in the silence of solitude. Even after all of this one will still need to discover which eremitical context is best for living this life authentically and well. Will it be non-canonical eremitical life or canonical? Part of a community or solitary? It is typical (and usually necessary) for those becoming diocesan hermits to have lived in the silence of solitude for some years before approaching their chanceries with their petition to be professed and allowed to live eremitical life as it is normatively understood. 

Because this vocation "belongs to the church" before it belongs to any individual, once one has approached her diocese, she will engage in a mutual discernment process with a small team from the chancery; this team may also include a c. 603 hermit consultant or other experts to assist with discernment and formation. Once admitted to this process, and as an integral part of the process, the candidate herself will take time to write a liveable Rule based in her own lived experience and reflecting the non-negotiable elements of c 603. This Rule, throughout the entire process of writing, can (and I sincerely hope will) become the basis for conversations with and contributing to an inspired discernment and other assessments by the formation team. C 603 requires significant experience in a solitary eremitical setting; it is this experience coupled with an understanding of the terms of Canon 603 that makes potential diocesan hermits capable of writing their own Rule or professing the Evangelical Counsels required by the canon. 

It was telling then, that C___, just a month and a half before the proposed profession, could not articulate for her own Rule of Life the way she understood and lived Evangelical poverty. Though honest about not having discerned an eremitical vocation, she actually asked me to help the Sister writing her Rule with an appropriate vow of poverty. (N.B., C____ noted that the Sister doing the work was not familiar with living poverty in an eremitical sense under c 603. Unfortunately, neither was C___ though she proposed to make a vow binding in conscience and law in just six weeks or so!) In such a case, precisely because the vocation belongs to the church before it belongs to any individual, the bishop and diocesan staff are responsible for understanding and regarding the vocation itself; they must do so sufficiently to at least try to prevent such inadequate discernment and formation.

As a bit of an excursus, let me note that besides the ability to write a liveable Rule, one of the things I personally look for when discerning with someone regarding their call to eremitical life is the experience and fruits of a redemptive experience integrally tied to this specific context. This may come slowly over time in a pattern of smaller "highs" and lows, or surprise one with a more abrupt and pronounced inbreaking of God's powerful love. In whichever way this occurs, if we are to conclude someone is truly called to solitary eremitical life, that person must have met Christ within the hermitage context and have been brought to a degree of wholeness and holiness they have truly found nowhere else, in no other life context. One's life itself must then proclaim the freedom and compassion of the Gospel lived in the silence of solitude. I admit I cannot see how this can happen when everything is built on a series of lies (including those one has either wittingly or unwittingly told oneself) and has been conditioned by a foundational agenda shrouded in secrecy. Eremitical hiddenness is not rooted in dishonesty, fraud, hypocrisy, bad faith, or secrecy. Instead, it is the result of having one's personal truth bound up in an ineffable intimacy with the deepest Mystery we can know and be known by. It is from this place of intimacy that the most profound truth of ourselves becomes both transparent to the God who dwells within us and entirely visible to those who know us.

Next Steps and the real and potential disservice done to others: 

Your fifth question is the most difficult one. What more can I do? What more am I called to do, if anything? There is no doubt the fact of the profession makes the situation more problematic than when I answered the questions in the last post on all of this. I became aware of the profession unexpectedly. As a result, my feelings in the matter have intensified and become more complex, particularly those concerning the bishop responsible here.  For that reason, I will continue to pray about everything and likely ask for assistance in considering what is necessary and possible. That can include conversations with canon lawyers, the USCCB (members and committees), and even representatives of DICLSAL. At the very least the situation requires clarification regarding the validity of vows already made. You see, from my perspective, this profession has done a serious disservice not only to the person admitted to profession dishonestly, but to the vocation itself, and to the People of God who should be able to trust the seriousness, faithfulness, and honesty with which bishops are called to approach implementing canons like ##603-605. 

I believe it could also become a significant disservice to other members of the diocese in question who may also be admitted to c 603 profession (or other forms of consecration like that of c 604) while trusting the church has done a really competent discernment. (The fact that the church discerns this vocation with us can be particularly reassuring in times of struggle and self-doubt. Usually, this allows one to persevere despite difficulties. But what happens when the diocese shows it is truly careless in dealing with questions of discernment and formation of vocations?) Similarly, it could do a disservice to others who find themselves turned away from admission to profession and/or consecration even though they have the same qualifications (or lack thereof) as C___. And consider if bishop-shopping for an amenable bishop is permitted in something like this for one person without the vocation, then what of others with similar "medical history", avocations, desire just to get professed, and ability to relocate at will? How far will the solitary hermit vocation be stretched and distorted to accommodate these persons in the name of some agenda-driven "justice" before it ceases to have any real meaning at all? The situation raises many questions; these are but a few of them.

Summary:

For the present, in this specific situation, here is where things stand. A Catholic Bishop and one who sought him out --- now identified as Bishop John Stowe and Cole Matson--- acted fraudulently and without regard for the 603 eremitic vocation itself, for its true nature and charism (gift quality), or for those who might be either directly or indirectly affected by this act to accomplish an agenda the church herself regards as illegitimate. Fraud was done to achieve "justice," though at the expense of diocesan credibility and more, at least possible damage to the vocation itself. Thus, again, I see it as a very serious matter with the potential for significant destructive fallout. Though I never thought I would find myself saying this, I would almost rather see bishops refusing to implement c 603 for anyone at all than indulging in this kind of travesty.

___________________________________________

Postscript 5/21/2024 In light of the events on Pentecost, I have added the appropriate names to the summary in this post.