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 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. 

Neither does the Church's refusal to admit one to profession and consecration because one is transgendered equate to a disparagement of one's character, love of God, love of one's neighbors, giftedness, etc. This is simply not the case. But, 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 absolutely 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 say 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 insure that it would never be better understood and 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 other 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 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. 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!                                                                

On Hybrid Hermits and the Relation of Active Ministry to the Rest of One's Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, you do some active ministry so I am wondering what is the difference in Cole Matson's case and your own? Doesn't c 603 allow for any apostolic activity? If Cole Matson is betraying c 603 by her involvement in the theatre ministry he has why aren't you betraying eremitical life in the same way?]]

This is such a great set of questions!! Thank you very much for asking!! I hope I can articulate what is really a vast distinction! In a conversation I had the day before yesterday, someone described Cole as having said he was a "hybrid hermit"; they wondered what I thought about that and my response was that the term is a falsehood, it's like saying something is a "half-truth". I learned in studying theology that there was no such thing as a half-truth; either something was true or the falsehood involved would vitiate the whole. That is true in this case too. While the church does recognize semi-eremitical life, this does not refer to folks who are semi-eremites, but instead to hermits who live eremitical life within communal contexts like the Carthusians, or the Sisters of Bethlehem for instance. They are truly hermits, not half or semi or hybrid hermits, but the real deal who live their lives within a specialized communal context that protects and fosters their eremitism --- rather like my parish has done for me, especially under my former pastor!

When I first became a hermit I remember talking with my spiritual director pretty regularly about the tension between active ministry and my life in the hermitage. For a long time I was convinced I would battle this apparent conflict the whole of my eremitical life. At one point I came to a sense that it was a "tension" I would never get past,  that perhaps it was built into the vocation or something.

Except I did get past it!! Eventually I came to a place where the tension I expected to see and feel was gone. And, I only recognized that as I looked back over where I had been until that time. So what had changed? Well, over the years I worked through a lot of the roots of my own self-questioning and self-doubt. Also, it was during this time that I really became the contemplative I had thought perhaps I was called to be, and more, that I really became a hermit who could, if I discerned this was the right thing to do, rightly seek ecclesial standing under c 603. But this meant that I was also the hermit who, if I discerned that it contributed to my eremitical life or to the witness I was called to in that, could play in an orchestra one evening a week, or write a blog, or teach a Scripture class each term or each year. It was not a matter of balancing the contemplative and active dimensions of my life so that if I lived x amount of contemplative "stuff" in my life, I could or should add y amount of active ministry. It was a matter of BEING a contemplative and BEING a hermit and then being true to that in the various ways God did/does that. What I discovered, of course was that being who one is called to be leads to one being able to do incredible, unimagined things.

Sometimes we compartmentalize things, there's a contemplative eremitical side to one's life and there's an active or apostolic side to it. But this is a false dichotomy and if it is true for a "hermit", that "hermit" is not (yet) really a hermit. What must happen is that one must discover a call to eremitical life and commit to that as fully as one can. This means letting go of active ministry to whatever degree one can until one does whatever active ministry one does because one is a hermit and that active ministry actually contributes to one's eremitism. You see, c 603 and solitary eremitical life is not merely a superficial or canonical means to church approval so that I can do the active ministry I really feel called to do. Instead, the activity I undertake is part of the fruit of my eremitical vocation. I do the things I do in terms of limited active ministry because eremitical life itself calls me to do it. I do it because I AM a hermit and am committed to growing as a hermit, not because standing under c 603 gives me some justification for doing what other religious do and what is truly necessary ministerially. No, my primary ministry is to be a hermit! (cf On the Importance of Charism) It took long years to understand what that actually means, long years before I could see or embrace that as my vocation!!

I was once asked by a candidate for c 603 profession how I made time for the hermit things in my life and the non hermit things. The question confused me so I asked what the non-hermit things were he was thinking about. He explained about washing the dishes, doing the laundry, scrubbing the toilet, grocery shopping and the like as "non-hermit" things, while prayer, lectio, etc were seen as "hermit things". What I tried to explain was that if and insofar as one was a hermit these were all hermit things embued with the grace of eremitical life and one's life with God alone. There was no dichotomy in my life between hermit things and non-hermit things. I think that is the first step in understanding what is so wrong or false with Cole's characterization of himself as a hybrid hermit. The fact that he had to figure out a new term for himself says to me he understands what he is living is inauthentic and not truly eremitical. (That said, I should note that were he, at this very early point in his exploration, to stay in and pray all day, he might still not be ready for profession as a c 603 hermit and certainly not for consecration. But back to the main point...)

Sister Kathleen Littrell SHF

Once one has discerned the vocation one is called to and determined it is eremitic, one may also discover God calling one to do some forms of limited ministry. (So, for me, spiritual direction, writing, teaching, and accompanying candidates.) What should be clear, however, is that these very activities call one back to eremitical solitude and live from that same solitude. In other words, they presuppose the one doing them IS a hermit!! I remember a comment made a number of years ago by Sister Kathy Littrell, SHF, who noted to a reporter that not everyone needed to be a Sister to do the active ministry she did, but she needed to be a Sister to do it. My point is similar. Not everyone needs to be a hermit to write, teach, accompany others, etc., but I need to be a hermit to do these things with the uniqueness and integrity God has called me to in everything! In all that I do, I do it as a hermit, not because the Church identifies me as a hermit under c 603, but because it really IS who I AM as a person and as a Catholic. My ministry serves my vocation, it isn't added onto that, nor does it conflict with or even stand in tension with that.

Excursus: 

 One final question in all of this, though you have not asked it, has to do with self-support. I will add it here because it can be a red herring or otherwise lead people (including bishops and c 603 candidates) astray. It is a challenging and neuralgic question for many who would like to be hermits as well as for many of us who are hermits, namely, how does one support oneself if one is to live as a hermit? Is Cole's involvement in theatre work really incompatible with or is it actually necessary for him to live as a hermit? This is the general answer I gave 14 years ago, Diocesan Hermits and Full-time Work. I still hold this position. I believe, however, that it is becoming more critical that ways to support hermits with ecclesial vocations need to be found by the Church, particularly for those of us who are getting older and may be unable to support ourselves in the ways we have done for the first fifteen to twenty years of our canonical eremitical lives. Still, it has always been true that bishops refused to profess hermits who needed to work full-time and those who needed to work outside the hermitage. This is part and parcel of the history of c 603 and it ought not be overturned easily, if at all.

Back to the Questions: A conclusion re Cole Matson

Because Cole Matson is not a hermit, does not feel called to be a hermit (as of 6 weeks prior to his first vows), but does feel called to work in the theatre and on behalf of artists, it is not surprising he spends all afternoon and evening in the local theatre. I sincerely believe --- and have shared this with Cole in some detail via email in 2022 --- that I believe this is where his truest vocation lies. If he and the Holy Spirit can bring Cole's dream of a community of and for artists to life I would praise God and celebrate with Cole for truly following his heart! When that day comes, IF it comes, God will indeed be glorified. It will be a unique gift to the Church and to artists. 

Unfortunately, as it stands now his "pray-in-the-morning-go-out-in-the-afternoon-and-evenings" picture of his days is not even remotely eremitical. It will never be eremitical because he is trying to use eremitism as an excuse for something else, not as its foundation. To expect that to lead to authentic eremitism would be like expecting a gardener to grow healthy, edible, vegetables while watering them with gasoline. Nor is it valid for him to call himself a hybrid hermit. And all of that is on Bishop Stowe, not on Cole. Again, this characterization sounds to me like a clear indication Cole knows he can't honestly claim to be a hermit. His use of the term hermit monk is the same. Being precedes doing in eremitical life (as it tends to in every authentic field or form of life). Once he really IS a hermit (though not a diocesan hermit!) I would think that even limited work in and on behalf of the theatre could be possible and legitimate! 

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!

[[I earnestly desire to respond to the gift of vocation to the eremitical life . . .]]

Hi Sister Laurel,  I wondered what happens next to Brother Christian? What happens with her vows? What could the Church do since the Bishop has professed her? From the articles I read involving Bishop Stowe's and Cole's responses they seem to be waiting for push back from the Vatican. What does that mean?

Thanks for your questions. In part, I would ask your questions this way: What happens next since Cole Matson has attempted temporary public vows in 2022 and renewed that attempt last year? And my answer is that, in some ways your guess is as good as mine. The situation is unprecedented and some determinations regarding the appropriateness and even the validity of Cole's profession need to occur. For instance, there is a significant question regarding whether, canonically speaking, any profession actually occurred, and thus too, whether the vows made are even valid. (The former CDF published a document in 2000 that concluded transsexuals could not enter religious life, so that must be considered. At the same time the issues I have raised regarding the misuse of c 603 must be considered.) In any case, one thing I think we all must remember, however, is that these vows were temporary and will lapse. That means that this August, if the renewal was for one year, either Cole and Bishop Stowe will attempt to renew them or they will attempt not only to profess Cole perpetually but to (have God) consecrate him in a very public ceremony. I personally believe this is the reason Cole came out now. Next steps are only three months away (August 25 or thereabouts) and the Church, as we all know, ordinarily moves at a glacial pace.

What can or will the Church do? As a diocesan hermit, I truly don't know. Here are some ideas though. 

• 1) Perhaps the simplest option (in light of the Dicastery's 2000 document on transsexuals) is to forbid Bp Stowe to profess Cole again and require he let the vows lapse (if they were ever truly binding in the first place). Bp Stowe could admit that Cole has not truly (yet?) discerned this vocation, remove him from the Diocesan directory (probably a good idea in any case), and let him continue with his non-canonical community for artists. Bp Stowe could proceed from there. 
• 2) Less simple, but also possible is to declare Cole's vows invalid due to fraud or dishonesty re what Cole felt called to when he made his profession and again forbid a repetition of such an action. 
• 3) Alternately, the church (or Bishop Stowe himself) could do what one Bishop did in Australia about 15 years ago when he was hoodwinked into professing someone on false grounds under c 603, and declare that these eremitical vows are private in nature, not public; let Cole continue to live private vows, keep him in the Diocesan directory whether as a quasi-hermit or not, and change his designation (the Lexington directory allows individuals with private vows to be listed), because Cole would not be and could not be listed as a Diocesan Hermit.

If the Church cannot or is unwilling to take any of these steps or fails to address the transgender issue in regard to admission to vows (again, if and only if we prescind from the 2000 document of the DDF which disallows admission of transsexuals to religious life), and if Bp Stowe continues to insist Cole should be publicly professed and consecrated as a solitary hermit under c 603, then 

• 4) allow that profession to take place, but only after a suitable discernment and formation period has taken place in genuine eremitical silence and solitude. Usually, this period occurs before any vows are made, but it would still need to mean a period of either no or carefully limited involvement in theatre or other work outside the hermitage (at least three to five years as Matson lived this discernment and formative desert experience and a commitment to a clearly eremitical life); limitations would need to be required thereafter as well, just as they are for all c 603 hermits. During the initial 3-5-year period, Cole would need to find ways to work from his hermitage and pay for his own living arrangements. (If he remains at Mt Tabor Monastery, Cole would still need to be responsible for all his own expenses: rent, food (or room and board), insurance, medical expenses, etc.) 

Finally, (again setting aside the transgender issue for now) it would mean that for there to eventually be a legitimate and credible perpetual profession, Cole would need to write his own liveable and genuinely eremitical Rule of Life that includes the affirmation required by the church as part of my own vow formula at perpetual profession, namely:

 [[I earnestly desire to respond to the gift of vocation to the eremitical life and freely follow the inspiration of grace to a hidden apostolic fruitfulness in a life of prayerful contemplation as a solitary hermit.]] 

As things stand now, there are a number of elements in this affirmation that I believe Cole not only cannot affirm but that he has explicitly contradicted or even rejected in statements made to me just weeks before attempting first vows, as well as to media representatives in the years and months preceding those vows. But, assuming Mr. Matson has truly discovered an eremitical vocation in the past year or year and a half, the Church could easily require this same affirmation to be added to whatever vow formula Cole writes. Since Mr. Matson has said publicly in the recent past that he does not feel called to eremitical life but to community and even more narrowly, to public vows per se (meaning he believes he is called to assume a public position or achieve public standing from which he might continue his own agenda) I believe such an affirmation is even more imperative than it might be for any other diocesan hermit.

While I recognize Cole's yearning in all of this, sympathize with his desires and empathize with his profound disappointments over the years, what the Church does moving forward will likely have to have more to do with Bishop Stowe and his actions in all of this than with Cole directly. Continuing to put the transgender issue aside for the moment because my concern is with c 603 and the life it defines, it would have been immensely easier and more honest, I think, had Bishop Stowe required of Cole the same thing the church demands of every candidate for c 603 profession. Had he done this the case for Cole's profession would have been much stronger, even with Cole revealing his transgendered status. No matter who they are, male or female, the one making profession under c 603 must have truly discerned and been formed in an eremitical vocation. (This is not the same as visiting monastic communities here and there, even for extended periods.) 

To give one's life to Christ in a religious or monastic community comes only after significant testing of one's capacity and fit for that and is vastly different than an extended "come and see" visit. To then leave such a community after years of solemn vows because of an overwhelming call to solitude is wrenching. Yet that is the context out of which c 603 was born. In any case, candidates for c 603 profession need to be contemplatives who, over some years of supervision and mentoring if available (not the same as spiritual direction), have discovered a yearning for greater solitude than they were (or would be) able to live in community life. Finally, they must have been prepared to make vows including chastity in celibacy and obedience! All of this takes time and supervised formation in the silence of solitude --- none of which, so far as I can tell, Cole ever received. 

Ultimately, this is Bishop Stowe's responsibility to make right. If he can't do that, I honestly don't know what steps the larger Church will take next.

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

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

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

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

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.