On Bishop Stowe's Comments to his Diocese and Media: Looking at the Damage done to c 603 Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel,  Bishop Stowe wrote about "Bro Christian's" request to make her a hermit: “My willingness to be open to him is because it’s a sincere person seeking a way to serve the church,” and then too, “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.” What hit me about this was the way Bishop Stowe focuses on all the things the hermit is not, not what a hermit is. He seems to be saying since "Bro Christian" won't be running into many people and because they won't be depending on her for valid sacraments and such, no one needs to worry. I find this incredibly insulting to hermits like you who write so passionately and inspirationally about eremitical life. May I ask you how you felt or what you thought when you read this comment from the bishop? Surely this can't be typical of the level of understanding you get from bishops!

Sister, I don't know if you have time for this question as well, but seems to me that another problem in all of this are the unacceptable motives held by both "Brother Christian" and her Bishop. Is it common for people to approach their dioceses for admission to vows with such dishonest motives? How does a diocese uncover these if you know?]]

LOL! Well, if you have paid attention to the amount of writing I have done this last week on this and related topics you may have an inkling of how the comment made me feel. I was angry. I still am. I also agree with you that it is insulting to the vocation at hand to give such an obviously feeble reason for professing someone. If Bishop Stowe's own community were to profess someone on the strength of those words, Franciscans around the world would be offended, even outraged. I suppose I am not entirely surprised by Bp Stowe's decision re Cole, but I am disappointed with his deliberate shortsightedness and studiously adopted ignorance regarding the c 603 vocation. 

You see, As I think I noted earlier this week, I wrote him at some length in June, 2022 and spoke not only of the nature of canon 603 and solitary eremitical life (especially its redemptive capacity and potential for healing a person's deep woundedness and emptiness when approached honestly), but also the problems with Cole's motivations (being called to public vows per se, not to a calling that required public vows), his true sense of vocation (community, particularly a community of artists, not eremitical life), and the drawbacks of proceeding with vows and the people who would be harmed by such a "profession." I wrote about who would be harmed by this profession (including Cole!!) and the c 603 vocation more generally. Thus, when I read what he told reporters (and apparently the people of the Diocese of Lexington), I felt affronted not only by the "well he's not asking to become a priest" dimension of the comments, but by what seemed to me to be careful and deliberate disingenuousness.

It is very disappointing to have this done at the expense of the solitary eremitical vocation, the appropriate implementation of c 603 itself, as well as at the expense of all genuine diocesan hermits who seek to have the Catholic world understand our hidden vocation and benefit from its witness -- especially when that costly act occurs at the hands of a bishop and an apparently unschooled (in c 603) canonist he apparently depends on. I was personally struck as well by Bp Stowe's comment that Cole had lived in ways that were "consistent with" this vocation. Here I would merely note that the education, spiritual formation, etc., of many of those I know or direct has "been consistent with" this vocation; of these, I am the only one who would honestly claim to be called by God to be a solitary hermit. Stowe's misleading comment on this is a very careful (not to say weaselly) form of speech and a far cry from an observation that Cole is or clearly seems to be called to such a vocation. Bishop Stowe knows that neither of those statements are true ones and so he equivocates.

When I wrote various versions or applications of Whom Could it Hurt? over the past several years, I didn't really imagine an appropriate degree of potential betrayal or damage a single Bishop could do. After a mere 41 years of careful, patient, persistent, and quiet establishment of this vocation within the church so that the Church might truly see and be edified by its silent but potent witness especially to those who have nothing and no one but God, the diocese of Lexington has come shouting and careening through the scene with a badly conceived agenda of "trans justice"; in so doing they have destroyed the fragile foundation created in a few decades by 100's of solitary hermits glorifying God in their aloneness with Him despite the more common skepticism and lack of understanding of the larger church regarding the hermit vocation. This vocation has a significant and powerful, if also subtle, witness value, and what is so sad is that in many many people's minds (including many bishops), Bishop Stowe and Cole Matson have likely managed to undercut that as well.

What I know now is that because the term "Diocesan Hermit" has become inextricably linked not only to Cole Matson and the hypocritical motives Bishop Stowe accepted, I am afraid every diocese in the country and even the world will now be dealing with folks who would like to be professed on the same vacuous basis Bishop Stowe used to profess (or attempt to profess) Cole Matson. Much more importantly, however, I fear that even those of us whose vocations are genuine and whose discernment and formation has been substantial and appropriate will be looked at skeptically --- as though our motives are as self-centered and deceptive as Cole Matson's. And again, I believe that dioceses that don't want to deal with the challenge of implementing c 603 prudently and honestly who have not yet had the privilege of dealing with a genuine c 603 hermit and their unique charism, or those who once deemed c 603 to be about "fallback" vocations alone, will simply stop professing anyone at all under this canon. "Diocesan hermit" is now a term to which Cole Matson and Bishop Stowe himself may have done almost irreparable damage, so I also feel incredibly sad! On the other hand, I am part of a living tradition in which c 603 is a fragile but hope-filled thread and we authentic diocesan hermits will persevere.

You also ask if this is typical of the knowledge of the c 603 vocation bishops demonstrate? Well, it was partly because I don't expect bishops to understand Canon 603 except in terms of canon law that I wrote him as I did. Even so, I expect bishops to allow themselves to be educated by someone with greater knowledge of something so rare, fragile, and vulnerable as c 603. For instance, I am writing a guidebook for dioceses on Canon 603 which provides a process of discernment and formation based on the c603 requirement that the hermit write her own Rule. It is to be used with a small team of chancery personnel, a c603 hermit consultant, and a candidate for profession under c 603. The candidate gains the experience and knowledge necessary to write a liveable Rule while the diocesan personnel discern and assist in the formation of a genuine eremitical vocation. Dioceses often are unsure how to proceed in discernment and formation of these specific vocations, so yes, generally speaking, there is a need for education here. But typical of bishops' knowledge of c 603? I certainly hope not!

I think at this point I have written about all I can write about this topic. It's been a heck of a week!! Thanks for your questions and comments; I do appreciate them and will return to your question regarding motives in another post! It ties in well with this one so give me another day or so!