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.

Any Further Take Aways on the Hermit Situation in the Diocese of Lexington KY?

[[Dear Sister, I wondered if you see any lasting lessons in the situation with Cole Matson and the Diocese of Lexington? It's been almost a year since you wrote about this, and I wonder if there is any important takeaway for you? Thanks.]] 

Thanks for your question. Unfortunately, I don't have much more to say about this situation than I did a year ago around Pentecost. My takeaway a year ago was that c 603 can be implemented wisely if the local ordinary recognizes it as a legitimate vocation that is a gift of God to the Church and the larger world. This presupposes that the people discerning the vocation with the candidate and the local ordinary 1) follow the candidate for sufficient time to be sure of their motives, their experience of assiduous prayer in the silence of solitude, and the way God is working in their lives, and 2) that they are not trying to use the canon for some other irrelevant agenda, no matter how important that is to either the bishop or the candidate. 

At the same time, I came away last year with a sense of the way some bishops fail to understand this vocation, or apparently, care much about it in any case. By extension, I came away with the sense that Bishop Stowe did not believe Cole Matson had any real vocation if he could allow him to make profession in a vocation he admitted he knew he didn't have. In his statement to the media Bp Stowe said that Cole was a sincere person who wanted to serve the Church, and it was for that reason that he was admitting Cole to profession under c 603. Bp Stowe also noted that the eremitical vocation is essentially a quiet and secluded vocation, not priesthood or a call involved with Sacramental ministry, so he didn't see where this would do much harm: [[. . . hermits are a rarely used form of religious life. . .but 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.]]

At this point, I have to say what strikes me about Bp Stowe's points here remains what struck me last year. What is missing from this response is any sense of serious discernment or even struggle with the decision Bp Stowe made. Similarly lacking is any sense that Stowe actually values this vocation or sees himself as responsible for it in the way c 605 calls for him to be. One does not admit to public profession someone who feels called to something else merely because they want to serve the Church, no matter how sincere they are. Moreover, one does not imply one is doing so in order to keep the person out of public view, or in order to limit the degree of ecclesial influence or significance they have. I wonder what Bp Stowe's response would have been had Cole Matson actually asked him to ordain him as a matter "of justice"! It seems clear that Bp Stowe's response would have been "No, we can't do that," which begs the logical follow-up question, "Why not? Is something more than sincerity needed for admission to ordination, but not for being a canonical hermit? 

There are correlative questions as well and Bishop Stowe is not the only one responsible for answering these, both doctrinally and pastorally: if one must be male, then is Matson still disallowed? He asked to be professed as "Brother Christian", after all. Mustn't one be male to be identified in that way? If Matson can be Brother Christian, why could he not be ordained as Father Christian? As Matson moves toward perpetual profession and consecration, are sex or gender still issues in this situation? Why or why not? (A vow of chastity in any consecrated vocation necessarily involves an affirmation of one's sex because it calls for a commitment to an exhaustive manliness or womanliness in all one is and does within this state of life. This is one of the reasons we use titles like Brother or Sister for consecrated religious.) Since Bishop Stowe is a Franciscan, I would have expected him to be sensitive to this issue, and not just in regard to ordination.

The questions continue: Must Cole Matson honestly claim to be called by God to this specific vocation? That seems not to be required for c 603 profession in the Diocese of Lexington, and neither does meaningful mutual discernment, though these apply in every other diocese and the whole of the Universal Church in considering professing a c 603 candidate or admitting them to consecration. And finally, if Cole Matson truly wants to serve the Church, then why should he be allowed to seek or be professed (publicly vowed and commissioned by the Church) in an ecclesial vocation whose fullness and integrity God entrusted to the Church and codified in universal law, when Matson claims not to be called to this vocation yet made first vows anyway? How does that serve anyone, much less God, other candidates for c 603 consecration, or the Church to whom this vocation has been entrusted as a gift by God?

None of those questions have been answered by Bishop Stowe over the last year that I have heard, nor, apparently, has the USCCB or DICLSAL come to a public conclusion about all of this. And yet, we may be approaching the time when Cole Matson would ordinarily be admitted to definitive (perpetual or solemn) profession and consecration under c 603.  (Usually, this is three to five years from the date of first vows, so perhaps this is still a year or more off.) I would say it is important for people to understand that Cole's current vows are temporary and were renewed at least once. Cole has not, however, been consecrated. That is reserved for the rite of perpetual profession. My own sense is that consecrating someone as Brother x, if you were not open to ordaining them as Father x because of 1) their sex or 2) an insufficient sense of them having such a vocation, would raise a lot of questions in that person's regard!

Personally, as a c 603 hermit, I was and still am offended by Bishop Stowe's characterizations of the c 603 vocation. He makes it sound like a superficial form of religious life that can serve as a catch-all for those without any religious vocation at all. He also explicitly states that it (assuming he means c 603 itself) is "rarely used" -- an unfortunately utilitarian term (N.B., he does NOT say this is a rare vocation per se)! These are exactly the senses c 603 hermits have been contending with for more than 40 years! And yet, here comes a bishop who is apparently either ignorant of the nature of the vocation, or perhaps more wed to an agenda shared with Cole Matson, using c 603 as a stopgap when the Church has not provided some other way to be professed outside a community. ( Please note, the Episcopal Church allows this kind of arrangement, but not the Roman Catholic Church, which requires that one not simply be a solitary religious (a religious without a congregation or institute), but instead, insists that one truly be a hermit.) 

My own recent experiences of existential solitude and the deep and treacherous journey this can entail make me even clearer that our Church's bishops must listen to the experience of hermits today (as well as through the centuries!) and take real care before professing or consecrating anyone at all as a solitary hermit under c 603. Genuine eremitical life is not for the faint of heart, and I think that is even more true for solitary hermits! If one enters hermitage truly seeking God and (at least putatively) seeking to give one's entire self to God in this vocation, one should be aware of the fact that God will take one up on all of that! Woe to the person committing to such a vocation without truly feeling called to it in the depths of their being! If they are lucky, the least they will suffer from for the rest of their lives is an ongoing sense that they are a hypocrite and a coward, or, perhaps, just a fool! Both the candidate and her bishop should be aware of these things. 

And I think that here is the final thing I came away with last year and have to double down on today, namely, the service the hermit gives the Church, the reason this is an ecclesial vocation, is not found in any external or part-time ministry the hermit may also do. The service the hermit does the Church is to confirm that what she teaches about the gospel is true, namely, that even in the depths of human darkness and sin, God is present, knowable, and at work to bring life, light (meaning), and hope out of it. The hermit will find God in the really extraordinary "ordinary" things of life, AND she will find God in the depths of loneliness, suffering, death, and despair or near-despair as well. 

This journey of assiduous prayer and penance, including both external and existential solitude, is something every authentic hermit commits to make for God's sake, for her own sake, and for the sake of the Church and the veracity and power of her gospel. She does so because God has called her to do so. This profound sense of call is the only thing that could sustain such a life in integrity. Christ's peace is real, but it is not as the world knows or gives it. Instead, it is truly discovered only when one sees the face of God in one's deepest hungers and yearnings. To do this means one will journey to the place within us where those hungers and yearnings and all they promise and call us to become, have their origin and fulfillment in God. One cannot begin such a journey with a lie, much less sustain (or be sustained in) it to its depths. When one builds on sand, eventual tragedy is inevitable.

Thanks for the questions. I guess I had more to say about them than I realized at first!

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.

Eremitical Life, a Vocation Showing the Church her own Heart

[[Dear Sister, because of the recent articles and posts on the Diocese of Lexington, I have been thinking about being a hermit and I know I don't really understand it, but it was hard trying to imagine living as a hermit without truly believing God called me to it! I thought about what I would do with every day, how I would spend my time, what I would do with my gifts, what about relationships, and that kind of thing. I understand that you (hermits) don't do a lot of active ministry but isn't the church all about doing active ministry? Wasn't that what Jesus was about? I guess I am thinking I really wonder if it would be right for me to let go of a sense of being called to active ministry in order to be a hermit. And that leads me to a more general thought that I wonder what hermits really offer the church plus if they aren't really offering the Church something, then how could God call anyone to be a hermit? Does that make sense?]]

Hi, and welcome to this blog then. I think I followed what you are asking. What you were trying to imagine and the difficulty it gave you makes it pretty clear you are called to some other vocation. I think it's terrific though that you gave this some time and really tried to imagine what hermit life is like. Your questions about active ministry are some of the most basic to understanding (or failing to understand) the eremitic life and I think they are really common questions that everyone asks (or at least wonders) about hermits. As you reflect yourself, the Church is very clear about the importance of active ministry and even hermits may do some very limited degree of it. As you are also aware, active ministry is far from the heart of eremitical life and it is important to address why that is the case. I'll try to do that below. Finally, the questions you raise at the end are really critical to understanding who hermits are and why something like c 603 cannot be used as a stopgap just to get professed. I am grateful you let yourself say what you were thinking in this!!

Let me say that I believe it would be terrible for someone to accept an apparent call to be a hermit if God is calling them to something else. First, it would be a betrayal of one's truest self and secondly it would be incredibly ungrateful to the God who calls us to something else; finally, it would fail those who would be touched by us in our true vocation. Each of us has an assortment of significant gifts and talents and in the main what God asks of us is that we use some or even most of these gifts as fully as possible as part of the constellation we know as Selfhood for the sake of the Kingdom. At least that is how things ordinarily go in responding to a Divine vocation. But with hermits the situation is different. Many of our individual gifts will go unused and relatively undeveloped. If we have a vision of what we would like to do with our life drawn around our gifts and talents --- even if that is a particular way we can serve the Church, we will generally have to let that go if we discern a call to eremitical life. And of course, all of that is terribly countercultural and counterintuitive.

At the same time we must look at the central or defining elements of c 603 itself: stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and ask what such a life looks at, what it demands from us. If we are not called to all of this (and even when we are), then it does mean letting go of relationships, time with friends and family, activities, other personal outlets and resources that most folks need to be whole --- for these are all ways to God. Still, we look to God alone and our relationship with God to be the sole source of strength and validation in our lives; everything else must be secondary to this. We understand that there will be a few significant others who assist us in allowing God to truly be the One he wills to be for us and through us, but again, we look to God in a fairly direct (less often mediated) way to complete us and to make us into who he calls us to be. This is the witness a hermit gives. It is meant to be the person a hermit is for others.

In all of this (and of course in its relationship with God) the life is a rich one. One studies, can write, paint, sculpt (etc.) and engage in  cottage industries to support oneself. One will read, pray, do inner work which may involve journaling, and any number of other things that may support and flow from one's prayer. As most readers here know, I teach a bit of Scripture and do spiritual direction which implies study and ongoing inner work as well as limited relationships and a few really good friendships. What one cannot do as a hermit is substitute active ministry for the eremitical life itself. Active ministry will always be limited and at least secondary to one's life in the hermitage. Neither can one treat what is to be a contemplative life of prayer as some sort of stopgap for doing whatever one really feels called to do.

In looking at the central characteristics of c 603 we become aware of other reasons it is a terrible thing for someone to try and live as a hermit without a divine vocation. For instance, it is important to remember that the silence of solitude breaks us down (optimally it does this in a way that breaks us open and makes us vulnerable to the grace of God) and for some persons, extended periods of silence and solitude can be emotionally and psychologically destructive. Thomas Merton used to speak of solitude herself opening the door to someone; it is not a reality one can simply take up on one's own for extended periods without the danger of real psycho-social damage being done to one. Beyond this there is a vast difference between thriving in the silence of solitude and merely tolerating it with distractions, busy-work, and other defensive accommodations. 

The Silence of Solitude, a Transfiguring Reality:

Hermits are precisely those rare individuals, however, who thrive in the silence of solitude, who find that this is the context for a life where they can be rendered entirely transparent to the love of God and where their own incapacities, weaknesses, and limitations can become the stuff of grace. For most people, a life of silence and solitude will be isolating and personally stifling or even crippling, but the silence of solitude is the place an authentic hermit is transfigured into a sacramental reality. That is, again, a rare and little-understood phenomenon. 

Consider in this regard the recent comments of the Bishop of Lexington on c 603 vocations: [[“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.”]]This is a classic, "whom can it hurt?" response which is apparently ignorant (or disbelieving) not only of the nature, charism, and rigors of authentic eremitical life, but also (and this seems very clear to me) it seems to indicate the bishop had no real belief that the person he had attempted to profess in this way had a true vocation of any sort. The degrees of apparent carelessness, culpable ignorance, equivocation, and actual dishonesty in all of this are astounding in one called to be a bishop to whom the Church entrusted the wellbeing of this precise vocation.

On the Relationship of Active Ministry to Prayer:

Your most critical questions regard the significance of the eremitical vocation as opposed to vocations defined in terms of active ministry. First of all, while Jesus' active ministry was significant and apparently full-time for the last year to three years of his life, it is important to remember that those scant months were rooted in his relationship with his Father in the Spirit, a relationship that developed, matured, and deepened over thirty-some years and was constantly a source of prayer during the time of active ministry itself. This is the same relationship between eremitical life per se and the limited active ministry a hermit may be called to in her life. It is supposed to mirror the priority of being over doing that everyone in the Church should make evident in whatever vocation to which they are called.

This priority is precisely one of the things a hermit is called to witness to with a special vividness and clarity. It is one of the ways a hermit serves the church. Yes, the church commissions most people to active ministry in their proclamation of the Gospel, but the hermit is commissioned to make very clear that being in relationship with God is the source and substance of everything else the Church does or says. And, for those who cannot undertake active ministry in any significant way, whether because of chronic illness, disability, or other significant limitations, the hermit says it is the relationship with God that matters more foundationally or fundamentally than anything else. Without it, even our limited active ministry would be empty or worse, self-aggrandizing and self-serving. But when this relationship is truly allowed to come first and to be the exhaustive aim and goal of a human life, there the Incarnation of God is realized (again) in that poor, limited, and even disabled individual. The value and impact of such a generous life can hardly be imagined.

I don't think you should let go of a sense of call to active ministry if that is what you have discerned, particularly to become a hermit. However, if your question is what does a hermit really offer the Church, I think the answer is that the hermit shows the Church her own heart and constantly calls her back to the truth of that. Before missioning, there must be a relationship with God. Beneath any commissioning, there must be that same exhaustive relationship. Beyond commissioning, there will remain one's rootedness in this relationship because this relationship is the source and goal of every authentic human impulse and endeavor. This is precisely what a hermit is called to live and bear witness to. As I have said before, who the hermit is in God is the hermit's ministry. The hermit is the one in whom the priority of being over doing is most starkly illustrated; any dishonesty here (including with oneself) will show itself as starkly. Moreover, it is precisely why the Church will never exist without authentic hermits; she desperately needs those who reveal the Church's own heart to her, and thus too, call her to always be reformed in light of that foundational reality. 

Another look at Ecclesial Vocations and the Refusal of the Church to profess Transgendered Persons

[[Sister Laurel, have you read the following quote? "Matson told OSV News, “We (Bishop Stowe and Matson) both think that it is a matter of justice that LGBT people be considered based on their character and on their actual gifts and their actual love of God and (being) desirous of the church, as opposed to saying (that) this state of being, whether it’s your sexual orientation or gender identity, in itself makes you unfit and uncallable by God.” How would you respond to this idea that a state of being makes one unfit and uncallable? It doesn't sound just to me. How can God be constrained by conclusions drawn by the Church, especially when they rule out a whole class or group of people?]]

Thanks for your questions. Yes, I am familiar with the quotation you cited. I think it is critical to remember that a transgendered state is not a natural state into which one is born. Instead, it is a created state a gender dysphoric person achieves with a variety of decisions and forms of medical intervention in order to minimize one's gender dysphoria or gender discordance. While some moral theologians argue that the pain of the dysphoria may be so agonizing that certain medical interventions would be a moral choice, this conclusion, when applicable in a given case, would still not make the adoption of public vows by the afflicted person possible. You see, dysphoria itself does not make the person incapable of also making public profession or being consecrated. It is acting in particular ways on that dysphoria in an attempt to harmonize one's sex with one's conflicting sense of gender and minimize the dysphoria that makes the person incapable of also making public vows or being consecrated; it seems to me (and I am still thinking about this) that this is true even when the choice for limited gender affirmative intervention is a moral one.

The act of trying to shift one's sex to align with one's experienced gender to the point of undergoing surgical interventions and medical treatments that "mutilate one's body" is part of what the Church generally objects to. The related point the Church makes is that the surgeries and other medical interventions, no matter what else they do to ease the patient's dysphoria, do not change the person's sex --- though they do obscure it, and sometimes make detransitioning impossible. In every case, public vows/professions require the person to affirm their own original sexed condition, to recognize that this is very good and desired by God. Even in the presence of gender dysphoria the person is called to affirm his/her original sexed condition, and then too, to suffer the dysphoria as well as s/he can as part of coming to fullness of existence in one's foundational manliness or womanliness. 

Since medicine cannot change a person's sex but can only approximate such a change, and since the Church holds it is part of any authentic ecclesial vocation to affirm and mature in our original sexed condition, one who acts contrary to these positions to become "transgendered" makes a series of decisions and takes actions that make that person unsuited for public vows. This does not make the person uncallable, but it does limit the ways in which God can call them to public ecclesial vocations. While it may sound outrageous to think that God can be limited (or, more accurately, limits Godself) in this way, it is not. God entrusts certain vocations to the Church herself. Religious life, priesthood, consecrated virginity, consecrated eremitical life, and others yet to be established under c 605 (consecrated widowhood, for instance) are ecclesial vocations, and therefore it is up to the Church to whom they belong as a gift of God to determine how it is a person enters these.

Yes, God calls persons to these vocations, but God does so through the mediation of the Church, not otherwise. This ecclesial character is one of the most significant aspects of these vocations, and one of the most difficult to get candidates to appreciate. It is the aspect that makes it so difficult for individuals to accept when the Church says, "we appreciate you feel called to this vocation, but the Church (religious congregation, bishop, etc) does not agree". If one wants to embrace an ecclesial vocation, then one must accept it is truly ecclesial through and through; this means one must meet the qualifications the Church determines are a necessary dimension of the calling that is the gift she protects and governs. If one cannot or will not meet these conditions, then one cannot presume such a calling. In the case of transgendered persons, if they cannot or will not affirm their original sexed condition as an essential part of responding to such a call, they have acted in ways that make them unsuited and uncallable because some choices are mutually exclusive. Again, this transgendered state is not their original state of being; it is chosen to deal with gender dysphoria.

I don't think any of this suggests the Church does not regard a transgendered person's character, gifts, love of God, and so forth, in discerning one's call to consecrated life. However, yes, it does prioritize everything one brings to the Church in seeking admission to profession and consecration. What it recognizes is that one's sexed condition is the most foundational dimension of one's selfhood, the selfhood one brings in response to such a call. The vows are our threefold commitment to allow God to bring every part of our lives to fulfillment in Him. What the church recognizes is that it is impossible to bring our whole selves to profession and consecration if we have denied (or are still denying) the most foundational dimension of ourselves.

Neither does the Church's refusal to admit one to profession and consecration because one is transgendered equate to a disparagement of (or refusal to honor) one's character, love of God, love of one's neighbors, giftedness, etc. This is simply not the case. More fundamentally, however, it seems to me that the church does indeed ask one if s/he will live one's foundational manliness or womanliness despite the degree of repentance and correlative suffering that will necessarily entail. (I am thinking here of the story of the pearl of great price.) There is no doubt this asks a lot of a transgendered person who wishes to live religious life, but I can't see where it is unjust in the way either Cole Matson or (reportedly) Bishop Stowe think is the case. 

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.

On Initial Formation as a Diocesan Hermit and Some Attributes of a True Novitiate:

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am from the Diocese of Lexington and wanted to write you about Brother Christian Matson. He announced on Facebook: [[I have now completed my period of initial formation and professed public vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience as a diocesan hermit for the Diocese of Lexington, Kentucky. I made first vows in August 2022 for one year, and renewed them in August 2023 for a further period of three years.]] I wondered what it means for her to say she had completed a period of initial formation? What is usual for a diocesan hermit? 

I am asking partly because you said Christian Matson could not have experienced a true novitiate but was really participating in a guestship when she was with the Benedictines in Portsmouth. As you might guess, people here are really divided over Christian's life with us here in Kentucky. I have mainly wondered how she could be working in the theatre and be considered a hermit. A lot of comments have had to do with refusing to be open with the people of Lexington about her sexuality or gender or being allowed by Bishop Stowe to become a hermit at all. Some have made accusations of narcissism.]]

This reference to initial formation seems to be another statement that means whatever Cole wants it to mean. The same is true of novitiate (more about that below). Ordinarily "initial formation" means a period of formation leading to first vows, though it can also mean the period of formation leading from entrance to readiness for perpetual profession. In community, the time from first vows to perpetual vows is also called juniorate because one becomes a brother or sister with the limited rights and obligations of a junior in the community. When this is true, we talk about the period after perpetual profession as a period of ongoing formation. 

With regard to diocesan hermits, the tendency is to speak of the years (and I do mean years) from the time the person begins living as a hermit to the time the chancery admits them to perpetual profession under c 603 as the period of "initial formation." Because there are no set time frames for diocesan hermits (generally speaking, these really don't work very well with this vocation), we tend to mark a variety of experiences and the way these mark us. Especially, we develop the capacity to write a liveable Rule of life through this period.  I have not seen anyone do this in less than 3-5 years, and for most of us ten years is more typical of what we count as a period of "initial formation".

But yes, Cole is different in this apparently. Not only had he never lived as a hermit before making vows, he seems not to have written his own Rule of life and was admitted to first vows without any preparation. (I know because he wrote me that the religious Sister writing his vow of poverty  only understood it from the perspective of cenobitical religious life and Cole wondered if I could help her write it; he also noted there were several other places in the Rule he needed assistance with.) In other words, I don't see how Cole can claim to have finished initial formation as a solitary hermit because I don't see where he ever actually began it. Six to eight weeks before his first scheduled attempt at profession in Lexington (25. August.2022) he was still living in a Camaldolese house in San Luis Obispo garnering information on forming a community of artists. 

Novitiate in Portsmouth Abbey, Rhode Island?

In my comments on Cole not having lived a true novitiate I had a couple of things in mind. The first is the mindset with which one enters a novitiate period, namely, one receives a new name, is clothed with some version of the congregational habit, and essentially adopts a new family. One lets go of the dreams and expectations one had in terms of the world outside the monastery to find God and be found by God here. And one does all of this with the intention of allowing this family to be one's own for the rest of one's life. One commits to loving these Brothers or Sisters and to becoming the person this community needs and God calls one to be. There is a commitment to conversion of self as part of the future of this community in their unique embodiment of religious or monastic life. I think this commitment is especially true in a community like that of Portsmouth since in the Benedictine life one prepares to vow stability in this community for the rest of one's life. Cole, however, entered this period without this kind of commitment. He wanted to learn about creating a community of artists, and I believe he took the classes a novice would take to understand Benedictinism and the nature of the evangelical counsels; still, Cole's period of residence in this community was understood to be temporary without the usual mindset or expectations of a Benedictine novice (or the correlative mindset and expectations of the professed monks). 

The second thing I had in mind was the absence of any sense of vulnerability to the prospect of being sent home at any time due to the conclusion that one was not called to this life or at least to this community. Because Cole did not come here with the sense of giving himself over to a mutual process of discernment or eventually being admitted to simple vows, he really did not have the same stake in things as others in his group or class. I don't mean to suggest that novitiate is a period of overweening anxiety or fear that one will be sent home at any moment, but there is both a subtle and not-so-subtle awareness that one is more than a student in novice-level coursework work and there is more at stake than some academic achievement; as a novice, one knows that while one is deeply respected by the other members of the community, one is not a peer, but truly a novice allowing oneself to be socialized by seniors and taking on this role in all humility and hope. 

For both of these reasons, I believe that Cole never had a true sense of having entered a novitiate. I wonder how this long-guestship was financed as well. If Cole was paying for the privilege of learning in this community and paying for room and board as well, then that too would change the dynamics of the process involved. Communities invest in their novices. Novices are not there paying tuition. They allow and in their own way assist the community to grow precisely as a community, and thus too, they are interdependent upon one another in ways guests will never truly be. Finally, a novitiate is not a matter of romanticized role-playing; it is about living one's life at this time and in this place with these specific brothers and/or sisters in response to a real call by God --- a call that will change one into a monk or nun who prays his/her entire life as an act of worship. Yes, there is newness and the novelty of being called Brother or Sister while donning a habit each day, but again, this is not a matter of role-playing; rather, it is a matter of learning that, contrary to life outside the monastery, one is emphatically NOT role-playing. Instead, one comes to appreciate that this is who God calls one to be --- in all of one's potential, brokenness, weakness, giftedness, creativity, and so forth.

Miscellaneous Questions and the USCCB:

There are probably several questions you have heard and even raised yourself that you might want to get back to me on. Right now, (as of today) it is clear that the Bishops of the USCCB are taking on the situation in Lexington in committee (Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance) and will resolve the situation in a way that is consonant with Catholic teaching regarding transgender life and its ability to embrace consecrated life. (Here Bp Paprocki seemed open to allowing transgender individuals who "detransition" as much as possible and truly wish to discern an eremitical vocation to do so.) I sincerely believe the USCCB will find the professions undertaken in Lexington to be invalid for several reasons. I hope that they will refuse to allow the way they address the situation to influence c 603 life more widely than this. This was the single misapplication of c 603 to an unformed individual with an agenda. Both bishops and canonists who advise them need themselves to be advised on the use of c 603 for solitary hermits; they must come to know that this is a significant vocation with clear and substantive content, charism, and mission! From the little I heard and read, Bishop Paprocki sounded as if he wanted to address the given situation and not go further afield. I sincerely hope that is the case!

On the Church's Distinction Between Gender Dysphoria and Gender Ideology and other Questions

[[Sister, in the article published today in OSV News Diocesan Hermit-Theologian Warned Bishop ‘Transgender Hermit’ Proposal Would ‘Misuse’ Church Law, Cole Matson seemed to believe that the church does not distinguish between gender ideology and gender dysphoria. I don't think the church lumps it all together in this way, does she? And about Cole now saying he is feeling more and more called to solitary eremitical life. How does that work? Will Cole be able to claim he has truly discerned this vocation?]]

Personally, I don't think the church does lump things together in the way Cole Matson seems to believe she does, no. Several weeks ago now I was referred by my director to a moral theologian she values very highly by the name of Rev Gerald Coleman, PSS. This was before the Cole Matson stuff blew up on Pentecost when I was trying to decide my own next steps regarding the situation in Lexington. I never made the connection with Father Coleman because of the rapidly changing situation, but both Sister Marietta and I read Coleman's The Many Faces of Transgender to be sure we could continue our conversations on the same page as well as to provide a knowledgeable intro to Coleman when I did reach out (Marietta  knew him well but I had never read nor met him). 

In that book I would say that Father Coleman captured some moral theologians' careful and orthodox positions on the matter, namely, he was very careful to delineate or distinguish between the reality of gender dysphoria that can, in certain given circumstances be so anquishing as to make gender affirmation interventions of various types a moral option, and the whole gender ideology complex itself. The latter involves the sense that gender is a chosen quality, that individuals may do what they like in this matter,  and may even be considered "gender fluid" --- something which is anathema to the church and her anthropology. It becomes especially abhorent when applied to or encouraged to be adopted by minors and those with either significant psycho-sexual immaturity or an agenda in this area. 

My own opinion is that Cole may have done an injustice to the church's own theological conversations in this matter as well. I don't believe moral theologians fail to draw appropriate distinctions. What I believe the Church desires is for the LGBTQ+ community to do the same so that appropriate compassion may be nurtured and expressed. Cole says he disagrees with gender ideology. Good!! Moreover, in some ways, the church continues to learn, as do we all and that takes time and painful honesty. What she recognizes then is that for some, gender dysphoria is a real and oftentimes acutely painful struggle one needs help to negotiate. This can take therapy --- sometimes long and arduous therapy along, in some instances, with gender affirming medical and surgical procedures. In some instances these interventions can be considered moral according to theologians like Coleman. And of course, such gender dysphoria merits compassion from all of us. What the church does not recognize or condone, however, and what Francis considers "ugly", it seems to me is gender ideology, including the notion of gender fluidity, and the like --- particularly in minors.

Meanwhile, I continue to focus on the fact that Cole Matson and the Diocese of Lexington have committed fraud in attempting the professions they have done, not only because there was deception in claiming at least implicitly that Cole was a biological male and vesting him as a Brother given the right to style himself as "Brother," but more, from my perspective at least, because they are calling him a diocesan hermit when he never truly claimed to feel called to this, did not discern such a vocation in necessary years prior to attempted admission to vows, and has been clear they were using canon 603 as a stopgap because nothing else was available. I have to ask Cole if he really believes his vocation is more real than the hundreds of those whose dioceses turned them away when they wanted to use c 603 as the "only available canon" to become publicly professed despite not feeling called to be a solitary hermit? That is simply the height of arrogance.

Regarding your second question, I don't see how Cole can be believed in this. Consider that Cole has made fraudulent vows pretending to a vocation he does not have. He is being allowed to live it any way he actually wants and define it similarly. And he is being given the public standing (for the moment anyway) he so desperately wanted. Maybe this is too cynical of me, but I want to say, of course he is going to say he feels called to it more and more!!! What else would or could he say?? But, you see, most of us live into a vocation for some years before being admitted to profession and we are not admitted to vows simply so we can experiment with the calling to see if perhaps we might have it! Further, for those of us professed under c 603, we live the solitary eremitical vocation through our doubts or uncertainties, learning over time the hard lessons of assiduous prayer and penance, as well as the tedium that can be associated with letting these shape our lives in God's own way until we are clear not only that this is a Divine calling, but that we also bring something authentic and unique to the church herself as we petition her to admit us to canonical standing in an ecclesial vocation! (Some may never reach this step and either decide or are asked to remain non-canonical solitary hermits.)

The point is one lives the life before one is ever professed and before living eremitical life itself, one comes to live contemplative life --- usually for some years! For instance, I have one c 603 candidate I am currently working with and have been working with for at least three years now. She left her congregation prior to perpetual profession to explore eremitical life, both solitary and semi-eremitical. She is diligent, patient, shows great initiative and faithfulness to God, has sacrificed to set up a beautiful (and beautifully functional) hermitage after living in other less satisfactory places due to need, found appropriate ways to support herself, etc.; she struggles with balance between the elements of her life as every authentic hermit will struggle, and gradually, she has come to prefer the silence of solitude of the true eremite. 

I believe she is truly called to be a diocesan hermit and is prepared to live eremitical vows. Yet, her Archdiocese, despite the ongoing support of one bishop skilled in formation work, will require a still-longer discernment/formation period for several good reasons (mainly having nothing to do with the candidate herself, but with transitions within the diocese). She understands this and continues working toward a deeper and deeper personal embodiment of c 603 in the meantime and she does this for the sake of the church and the vocation itself. Unless her discernment shifts, this seems to be who she is; it is the way one lives such a calling! 

My concern is that cases like these may be dismissed now, or waiting periods extended exorbitantly without admission to profession because of the notoriety, flippancy, and even the deceitful quality of the Lexington Diocese's usage of c 603. I am genuinely hopeful this will not happen in this instance, but in other cases where we have candidates whom a specific diocese does not yet know well, true vocations could be jeopardized. You see, one dimension of a genuine canon 603 vocation is the sense that one is responsible for living and furthering the life of this specific vocational thread in the church. It continues to live on throughout the centuries not only because God calls individuals to it but also because the church entrusts one with living out this specific ecclesial vocation in her name. This simply doesn't happen when selfish motives are allowed to drive professions, and in a calling that is so rare and vulnerable (especially in a world rampant with individualism!) the vocation itself is hurt.

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!