Sister Laurel, Whom Does it Hurt? (Reprise)

I am reprising this because it is a post people have looked at a number of times during the course of this week. Since there is apparent interest, I am moving it to the " top of the queue," so to speak. 

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why does it bother you so much if someone who is Catholic wants to live like a hermit and is not consecrated by the Church wants to call themselves a Catholic Hermit? I'm sure some people don't know that the term is a technical one or that canon law applies to the use of the term Catholic in this sort of thing. And so what? Why not let people just do as they wish? Who does it hurt anyway? I think you are hung up on this and need to let it go --- after all, really what does it matter in the grand scheme of things except for those who, like you, seem to be hung up on minutiae? (I'm betting you won't post this question but thanks for answering it if you do!)]]

Thanks for your questions. Almost everything I write about on this blog, whether it has to do with the commitments made by the hermit, the canon(s) governing her life, approaches to writing a Rule of Life, the rights, obligations, and expectations associated with her vocation, the nature and significance of ecclesial vocations like this one, the nature of authentic humanity and the witness value of the hermit's life, the hope she is called to mediate to those who live lives marginalized by chronic illness and disability, the discernment and formation associated with the vocation, or the importance of elders and mentors in her life (and other topics) --- all of this speaks either explicitly or implicitly to the meaning and importance of the much more than technical term Catholic Hermit. That said, some posts will deal with your questions as central to understanding this specific eremitical vocation. These will most often be found under the labels:  ecclesial vocation(s),  silence of solitude as charism,  and rights and obligations of canon 603 vocations (and variations thereof). Since I cannot reprise everything written in the past 14 years of blogging on these topics, I would suggest you read or reread some of those posts.

Let me point out that it may well be that in our country and even in our world today the truth doesn't much matter and individualism is the way of life most value. Similarly, it may well be that liberty has edged out genuine freedom in such a world and generosity been supplanted by a "me first", "win at any cost" philosophy and corresponding set of values. Similarly, our world seems to have forgotten that what some decry as "socialism" today was identified in the New Testament's Acts of the Apostles as the only true shape of  community in the new Family (or Kingdom) of God in Christ.  (cf Acts 2:44-45) Christianity has never truly been the most popular or pervasive way of living in our world --- even when most folks went by the name "Christian"; still, Christianity is built on truth and this truth leads to a responsible freedom marked by generosity and humble (lovingly truthful) service to others. Countercultural as that may be the place which stands right at the point of sharpest conflict with the values of the contemporary world is the life of the canonical (consecrated) hermit.

The hermit's life is both most easily misunderstood and most easily distorted in living. The freedom of the hermit can slide into a selfish libertinism, its individuality can devolve into a "me first" individualism, and its lack of an active apostolic ministry can be mistaken quite easily for selfishness and a refusal to serve others. Those who neither understand the nature of the life, nor the Church's role in ensuring that these distortions do not occur will ask the kinds of questions you pose in your query. They are not the folks I generally write about -- though their ignorance of this calling can be problematical.  Others who are equally ignorant of the distinctions which stand between world and Kingdom of God will valorize their own selfish individualism with the name "hermit" and some of these will, even when initial ignorance has been corrected, insist on calling themselves "Catholic Hermits" despite never having been called by the Church to live this life in her name, and despite being unprepared and sometimes unwilling to accept the rights and obligations incumbent upon someone petitioning the Church for admission to public profession and consecration. It is these I call counterfeit or even fraudulent for they have taken ignorance and raised it to the level of lie.

Whom Does it Hurt?

Whom does it hurt? First of all it hurts the vocation itself. There is no more stark example of the truth of the way God relates to human beings than when a hermit stands face to face with God in the solitude of her cell and praises God for her life, her call to holiness, the challenge to love ever more deeply, and consents to be a witness to a God who desires to be everything for us because (he) values us beyond all imagining. It is even more striking because she says this is true no matter how poor, how broken or wounded, how sinful or shamed, and how seemingly unproductive her life is in a world marked by consumerism and an exaggerated focus on productivity --- a world which very much values the opposite of all of these and considers the hermit to be "nothing" and "a waste of skin". In Christ, the hermit stands before God consenting to be the imago dei she was made to be, entirely transparent to God's truth, beauty, and love and says with her life that this is the common call of every person. Quite a precious witness!

For someone to call themselves a Catholic Hermit when the Church herself has not discerned or admitted her to a public eremitical commitment is to strip away the humble commitment to the truth which is meant to be part of the vocation's foundation and to insert self-definition and self-centeredness in its place. Those who look to this person as an example of the Church's vision of eremitical life may find  that rather than a "Catholic Hermit" they are faced instead with the validation of  many of the same distortions and stereotypes plaguing eremitical life throughout the centuries. 

What they will not find is a person who humbly accepts her poverty before God insofar as this means accepting the vocation to which one is truly called. Lay eremitical life is profoundly meaningful and important in the life of the church; it should be honestly embraced in that way. A secondary result can be that the Church herself (in individual dioceses) will refuse to consider professing diocesan hermits at all; the vocation is a rare one with, relatively speaking, very few authentic examples; fraudulent "hermits" who represent distortions, stereotypes, and caricatures (as well as sometimes being nutcases and liars) unfortunately can serve to cast doubt on the entire vocation leading to dioceses refusing to give those seeking profession any real hearing at all.

Secondly, it hurts those who most need the witness of this specific vocation, namely those who for whatever reason find themselves unable to compete with the world on its own terms: the chronically ill, disabled, and otherwise marginalized who may believe the world's hype that wealth is measured in terms of goods and social status, able-bodiedness, youth, productivity, and so forth.  Hermits say to these people that they are valued beyond all reckoning by a God who knows them inside out. Hermits say to these people that real wealth is measured in terms of love and that one of the most precious symbols of Christianity is that of treasure contained in clay pots, while real strength is perfected and most fully revealed in weakness. To attempt to witness to the truth of the Gospel by living a lie and building it into the foundation of one's eremitical life destroys the capacity of the hermit to witness effectively to these truths. To proclaim the fundamental truth that in Christianity real treasure is contained in clay pots is made impossible if one refuses to be the pot one has been made by the potter to be (a lay hermit, for instance) but claims instead to be something else (e.g., a consecrated Catholic Hermit).

Thirdly, it hurts the one doing the lying or misrepresentation, especially if she actually comes to believe her own lies. In this way her capacity for truth, humility, generosity, and gratitude are all equally injured --- and thus too, her own authenticity as a human being. We cannot image God as we are called if we cannot accept ourselves or the vocation to which he calls us. And finally, it hurts the Church herself who is responsible for all that goes on "in her name" and for commissioning those who live eremitical life in this way.

As part of this injury to the Church, it may hurt anyone who is influenced by the fraudulent "Catholic Hermit" in her lies and misrepresentations. Sometimes this happens because the person follows the directions the counterfeit gives to "become a Catholic Hermit" and then, after spending time following this advice and building hopes on a false dream or pathway to realize their dream, is confronted by one's parish or diocese with the truth of the matter. Terrible damage can be done in this way just as it is done to those who are scandalized by the disedifying example of "hermits" who embody all the worst stereotypes associated with eremitical life, whether canonical or non-canonical. Unfortunately, the individual fraudulent "Catholic Hermit" is ordinarily not held nearly as responsible as the Church is in such cases so the damage or injury can be far-reaching and relatively ungovernable.

Summary:

I am bothered by all of this because I see the value in eremitical life, most particularly as it stands as a witness against the distorted notions of humanity and community so prevalent in today's world. I am bothered by this because I am committed to live this vocation well for the sake of others,  but especially for the sake of God and God's Church who is the steward of this vocation. I care so much because I have come to know how important this vocation is --- especially as a countercultural witness to the nature of authentic human existence and all the things the world puts up as values today. Finally, I care because God has called me to care, and to embody this caring in my own living, witnessing, teaching, mentoring, direction, and prayer. I care because the truth matters and because God and God's Church care even as they commissioned me to do so as well. 

You may consider this a personal "hang up" of mine. That's not a problem and you are free to your opinion, but if you wish me to "let it go," I would note that I am responding to your questions here, and your questions prompt me to think about and even research it further --- not the best way to get me to let go of something! You also used the term minutia, and I would ask you to consider what portions of my response deal with minutia; I don't see anything in all of this that is not significant in many ways for many, many, people and the witness of the Church as a whole. My answer to the question, [[Whom does it hurt?]] would have to be anyone such dishonesty or fraud touches, even if they are not aware of it at the time. The Church is to minister truly and to assist others to live the truth of their deepest selves in Christ. That is made much more difficult when fraud and dishonesty are enacted or purported to be enacted in the name of that same Church. In a world hungry for truth, no one, I would argue, is untouched by this.

Living Solitary Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church

[[Dear Sister Laurel, do you write what you do in the name of the Church? Do other hermits have that authority? When you use the phrase, "in the name of the Church" what do you mean?]]

Hi, and thanks for the question. The answer is simple and very straightforward. No, what I write is my opinion, though I certainly strive to be sure that those opinions are well-informed and accurate in theological, pastoral, and ecclesial terms. Neither I nor any other hermit has the authority to write in the name of the Church unless this authority is specifically granted in the giving of what is called a mandatum. However, what I and other canonical hermits have been given is the authority (and more fundamentally, the obligation) to live solitary eremitical life in the name of the Church. To some extent that implies the authority to explore this vocation, to grow and mature in it, for instance, and even to share what we have come to understand with others, but it does not mean that I, for instance, write or speak in the name of the Church. Of course not.

Remember that c 603 is the universal Church's norm for solitary eremitical life. (Other canons apply to hermits living their vocations within a communal context.) It describes a vision of this form of eremitical life and adds to that the requirement that the c 603 hermit writes her own Rule of life based on her experience, education, and training. The diocesan hermits I know take this vision seriously and (to greater and lesser degrees) share with one another so that day by day we may grow in our embodiment of the vision c 603 represents. I tend to share based upon my own experiences, education, training, etc., on this blog and that means that what I write is a reflection of what I have come to know about this vocation and the way I am called to live it. Still, while what I write may be helpful to some folks (including members of the hierarchy or canonists reflecting on this vocation), it does not mean what I write itself is necessarily normative, authoritative, or done in the name of the Church.

The phrase, "in the name of the Church" comes from the idea that the Church commissions people to act in certain ways on her behalf and thus, with the Church's authority. Just as Kings, for instance, charged ambassadors with tasks to carry out in the King's name in various foreign kingdoms --- meaning where the ambassador spoke or acted according to orders, the King himself spoke --- so too does the Church commission each of us to proclaim the Gospel in ways that are appropriate to our own state of life. In fact, each of our lives is meant to be an embodiment of such a commission. Thus, each of us at baptism assumes the name Catholic. We are Catholics who live our vocations in the name of the Church. Those who are married in the Church are also commissioned to live married life in the name of the Church and to do this faithfully -- a rather important charge or mission! Religious do the same with religious life. And so forth.

The shorthand way of pointing to all of this is to say of someone, [[X is a Catholic nun (or priest), or is part of a Catholic (or Sacramental) marriage.]] I am a Catholic (diocesan) hermit, which is the shorthand way of saying the Church has commissioned me to live this specific vocation in her name. I do this in faithfulness to c 603, its traditional context, and the larger context of eremitical life. Simply to say one is a Catholic is to claim to have been commissioned to live a foundational vocation to discipleship in the Church's name. That commission was associated with our baptism and is renewed at every Mass as we are nourished in our faith and then sent forth as Christ's own disciples. Beyond baptism, however, we may be called to religious life (including semi-eremitical life), consecrated life as solitary hermits or virgins. These are ecclesial vocations which the Church herself directly entrusts to individuals through a second consecration and commissioning to live in the Church's name. Thus, these persons are Catholic hermits, nuns and brothers, and virgins, not merely Catholic AND a nun, brother, etc.

We see something similar when a theologian is given a mandatum by the Church to teach and do theology in the Church's name. In order to do this, a theologian must do their terminal degree at a pontifical institution and be granted the authority to call themselves a Catholic theologian. This authority can be withdrawn by the Church as well, something that once happened to Hans Kung. Note well, however, simply because a theologian cannot call themselves a Catholic theologian, this does not mean that person's theology is not faithfully and exhaustively Catholic. The same is true of non-canonical hermits. While they cannot call themselves Catholic hermits (i.e., because they are not authorized to identify themselves as living a normative (canonical) vocation), this does not necessarily mean the person is not faithfully Catholic. It simply means the Church has not authorized her to live eremitical life in her name.

Given your questions, what might also be clearer to people reading the posts on this blog over the past couple of months is precisely why I might be upset at someone calling themselves a "hybrid hermit" and not taking as seriously as the Church expects, the commission associated with being admitted to profession as a diocesan hermit under c 603. Acceptance of profession under this canon is associated with an acceptance of a commission to live the terms of the canon as faithfully and fully as one can. The vocation is not an excuse for doing active ministry. The central elements of the canon are normative for this life. If one lives a c 603 life honestly, then they will be hermits, not some form of "hybrid hermit" or "hermit monk". Yes, in time, they will grow into this life more and more deeply if they have truly given themselves over to the vocation the canon describes and defines, but they will never be (called to be) something other than a hermit. If one cannot answer this call or accept this commission to live this vocation in a normative way in which both the hermit and c 603 life itself thrive in them, then one will naturally (and rightly) conclude they are not called to this vocation.

[[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 may be only three months away (August 25 or thereabouts) and the Church, as we all know, ordinarily moves at a glacial pace. (It turns out that these vows were for three years and for that reason, would not ordinarily lapse until 2026 at which time a new profession and even a consecration might be attempted unless the church prohibits such a thing.)

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.

Once Again, on the Importance of Charism, Discernment and Formation of C 603 Vocations

Despite the circus-like hoopla over the "coming out party" and revelation of so-called "diocesan hermit" Cole Matson's transgendered status, several really central elements of the story, and thus too, of the vocation which is supposed to be at the heart of the matter, are getting lost in the shouting. The pious justificatory spin and congratulatory backslapping over Matson's "heroic faith" and the apparent coup he and Bishop Stowe have accomplished in the name of "justice" in the church have distracted almost everyone from the main issue in their use of canon 603.

Canon 603 describes a rare and significant vocation that is a gift of God to the church. It deserves better! Not least, it deserves to be represented by someone who has, over long preparatory years, truly discerned such a vocation as their God-given life calling. Similarly, it deserves to be supervised by a bishop who understands and regards such a calling at least sufficiently not to betray and distort it by allowing the canon defining and governing it to be used as a legal loophole to accomplish an agenda the church considers illegitimate. Even were the cause a righteous one, c 603, and the full-time life vocation it defines and governs should not be betrayed in the egregious way Cole Matson and Bishop Stowe have admitted to doing in the Lexington situation. This is not the way we treat divine gifts.

In my life, I identify what c 603 calls, the silence of solitude as the charism of solitary eremitical life. This is so because first of all, I identify solitude with more than physical aloneness (I see it as a "place" of quiet and wholeness where the noise of human woundedness, struggle, and pain have come to rest in the deepest truth of the life, love, and peace of God). It is also so because I identify silence less with a still-essential external silence and more with hesychia or stillness that results when one's life is rightly ordered in terms of one's relationships with God, self, and others; for these reasons, the silence of solitude represents the completion and fullness of life in relationship that occurs when God completes one and she exists in communion with God and God's creation (including one's own deepest and truest self).  This completion and fullness is a gift of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the authentically eremitical life of prayer, stricter separation from the world, silence, and solitude. The word charism reflects this gift quality (gifts = charisma) and provides a unique form of community (covenant) that is absolutely foundational for other more common forms of community.

Generally, as most will know, a religious congregation's charism refers to a unique gift quality their life and ministry represent for both Church and world; this charism is given to the institute as the Holy Spirit acts in conjunction with human beings to meet significant contemporary needs.  In c 603 life, both charism and ministry are defined in terms of being the person that is created in and comes to personify or embody the silence of solitude. You see, when I think of eremitical life and especially that under c 603, assiduous prayer and penance are not unique to it, nor is stricter separation from the world. The Evangelical Counsels are not unique to it either, although all of these elements are gifts of God to the hermit and others in the church. The one central element of c 603 which, it seems to me, orders all other elements towards significant contemporary needs is the silence of solitude.  Always more than the sum of its parts, the silence of solitude takes up all of the other elements of the eremitical life and the hermit herself and transforms these into a new creation who (that) can effectively proclaim the Gospel to every person. 

I see the silence of solitude as a countercultural reality that speaks not only to Religious but to anyone seeking reassurance that the isolation of alienation that so marks and mars our world can be borne creatively and transfigured and transformed in the process.  Eremitical solitude is antithetical to alienation and isolation; it is relational through and through. The silence belonging to this solitude is neither the part-time "peace and quiet" of the dilettante "hermit", nor is it the anguished cry of emptiness of the misanthrope, but a distinct song that rejoices in God's love as that love-in-act completes us as human beings and we come to live in union with God and the whole of God's creation. Eremitical life teaches us that the term "silence of solitude" refers not just to the context in which one lives and grows in this life, but to the human person made whole and holy through the power of the Holy Spirit therein. It refers to what occurs when we are healed of the wounds that cause us to cry out in anguish or withdraw in fear and exhaustion from the struggle to live fully. It is the human being as language event brought to her most perfect and powerful fulfillment in God. All of this belongs to the promise c 603 embodies when its vocation is carefully discerned and faithfully lived. 

Think what it is like to sit quietly with a friend, without strain or competition or the need to prove oneself or be anyone other than the person we are while resting in the presence of that other. That moment of selfhood achieved while at rest in the life and presence of a friend (and, in part made possible by that presence) is one of the silence of solitude. We all recognize such a moment as one in which alienation is overcome, the noisy striving of everyday life is quieted, and the human potential and need for profound relationship is, for the moment, realized. When the hermit rests in and enjoys the company of God in a similar way, when, that is, she becomes God's covenant partner and allows God to be hers in all she is and does, something similar but even greater and more definitive occurs. It is this that I believe c 603 recognizes as the silence of solitude; moreover, it is something every person yearns for and hermits witness to with their lives. Thus, I identify the silence of solitude as the context, goal, and charism of the eremitical life.

Does the fact that my life is charismatic and has a specific charism make a difference for me? Yes, absolutely.  For instance, because I have a sense of the charism of my vocation it means recognizing that my entire life is lived for others even in the absence of active ministry and therefore, that the call to wholeness and holiness in silence and solitude can never be allowed to become or remain a selfish or me-centered reality. It means recognizing and committing to living this vocation well because, as Thomas Merton once said, this life "makes certain claims about nature and grace"; to live it badly is to fail to allow it to witness to the truth of such claims, namely, that whoever we are and in whatever situation or condition, our God delights in and desires to complete us and bring us to fullness of life with and in God himself. 

In the midst of the present situation involving the dishonest use of canon 603, it also means insisting that dioceses and candidates understand this charism so that vocations to c 603 life are perceived as significant and needed vocations, and discernment and formation processes (both initial and ongoing) are undertaken carefully with equally significant rigor. Hermits are those who are called by God in our original and often pervasive brokenness to witness to the truth that only God completes us, only God makes us who we are called to be, only God can transfigure and make us whole in and as what c 603 calls the silence of solitude.

When we forget the charism of this vocation (or any other vocation for that matter), we open the door to professing and consecrating those who can neither live nor witness to others as a c 603 hermit is called to do. I have been convinced for some time that it is in neglecting the charism of this vocation (that is, in forgetting that this vocation has a charism and is essentially charismatic) that we open the door to fraudulent hermits and stopgap vocations that are disedifying, scandalous, and even sacrilegious. Once dioceses identify and commit to honoring the charism of this vocation, they will have a better way of faithfully discerning and aiding in the formation of authentic vocations to eremitical life under c 603. Understanding the gift quality of any vocation helps one to live it well and to commit to growing in this ability for the whole of one's life.

All that said, it is particularly difficult to have this charism and this vocation being hijacked and distorted as a means to notoriety in the service of an ulterior motive! Almost nothing I can think of could betray this vocation more vividly or significantly. 

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. 

Can a Transsexual Person be admitted to Profession and Consecration Under C 603?

[[ Dear Sister, would the church profess or consecrate a transsexual (transgender?) as a diocesan hermit? I don't want to give more details. I just wondered if there are any hard and fast rules about this. Would you encourage a transsexual to seek profession and consecration under c 603? It seems to me that since there is no community, no one would be particularly troubled much less harmed by such an act. Are you aware of any transsexuals who are diocesan hermits? Thanks.]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me begin with some comments about transgender persons and sacraments as a preliminary to answering your questions. This might give you an introductory sense of how seriously the church takes the question of allowing transgendered persons to be professed and consecrated as religious. From all that I have read about the church's stance on transgendered persons in this regard, two considerations are always raised: 1) the honesty or lack of honesty involved (including self-honesty, potential self-deception, or questions of personal transparency), and 2) the possibility of scandal. The person involved must be acting freely, openly, and transparently, and there must be no cause for scandal. Still, there is relatively little out there in writing from the church. In speaking about the sacraments, for instance, the church only speaks of baptism as clearly open to transgendered persons (and some dioceses may still be disputing that). After that, things become even more complicated. Even having a transgendered person serving as a godparent for someone is not without complications. While religious profession and consecration are not sacraments, admission of a transgendered person to these definitive steps of public commitment within religious life raises even more difficult questions that also revolve around the questions of honesty or personal integrity and scandal.****

Consecrated Life: A Call to Foundational Womanliness or Manliness

With consecrated eremitical life, some of these same questions apply whether we are speaking of semi-eremitical life or solitary eremitism under c 603. Remember that the profession of a diocesan hermit is a public commitment with public rights and obligations. This means the whole church has a right to hold certain expectations concerning the one being professed and/or consecrated. The most fundamental of these, no matter whether the person identifies as male or female, has to do with their foundational womanliness or manliness and their fulfillment**. Are they gifting God and the Church with their lives in this way because they (and those discerning with them!) sincerely believe they are being called to human wholeness and holiness (including a recognizable psycho-sexual maturity) in this state of life in Christ or is there something else at play here? Stated another way, are they embracing this life because they (and those discerning with them) feel assured that God's love for them calls and will bring them to psycho-sexual maturity, that is, to the highest expressions of manliness or womanliness one may achieve in this way or not? Will they witness to this foundational task and achievement as well as to the way God's non-gendered and self-sacrificial love makes it both a possibility and reality? 

First and foremost, a vocation to eremitical life is a call to human wholeness and holiness in loving dialogue with God in the silence of solitude. This can occur in the presence of various forms of gender dis-ease or gender dysphoria and other significant limitations. One gives the whole of oneself (including one's dis-ease) in the trust and expectation that God completes and makes one truly and fully alive in Christ with the abundant life promised in the Gospels. In fact, because the hermit gives up the use of so many specific gifts necessary for active ministry, this particular witness seems to me to be the essence of the eremitical call. The God of Jesus Christ is affirmed as the One who loves us just as we are and empowers us to love and live with whatever difficulties our lives include. We suffer with and in Christ in ways that witness to God's power to make sense of even life's worst apparent absurdities. We approach this promised achievement with hope that in giving ourselves totally (including what seems "broken" within us, so too will we find, complete, and transcend ourselves in Christ, and we do this for the sake of others who need and seek the same redemption and fulfillment.

The Church does not Recognize. . .

The church does not recognize that a person's fundamental manliness or womanliness (even as incipient) changes with gender-affirming transition. Moreover, the church identifies this fundamental given as consonant with one's sex at birth. Certainly, dimensions of one's fundamental manliness or womanliness are affected by hormones, genetic manipulation, and surgery, though in Catholic theology, these changed dimensions are not identical to a change in one's fundamental womanliness or manliness, one's foundational sexuality. Despite a person's profound and painful dis-ease with his or her assigned birth sex, that sexual identity remains a gift and a task s/he is meant to realize in psycho-sexual maturity within whatever given limitations or seeming inconsistencies there may be. Assuming no intersex problems cause physician errors in determining sex, the church's current teaching on admitting a suitable candidate*** to profession and consecration is clear: if one is born (or determined to be) female at birth, one must be professed and/or consecrated as a female; if born male, then profession/consecration must be as a male. 

Though this is a dimension of one's vocation most will recognize in terms of the vow to chastity in celibacy, when the church clothes the candidate in religious garb or styles the person Brother or Sister it also reflects this truth. Given the church's own teaching here, how is the church to clothe and address a transgendered person who was originally female for instance? Though fundamentally a woman in the church's eyes, does this person style herself as Brother  X_____ and represent a call to authentic manliness? 

The church sees a profound contradiction here on the most fundamental human level; what one claims (to be) and proclaims at profession conflicts with one's natural sexual identity, and for this reason, the church does not admit someone living as a transgendered person to profession or consecration. To do so would be dishonest and, if the professing bishop allowed the faith community to know about it in an entirely transparent way, it would cause significant scandal. (For that matter, were the bishop admitting a transgendered person to profession and consecration to knowingly withhold this from the faith community participating in the profession I think that too would legitimately cause significant scandal.)

In approaching your questions, I began with the most foundational element or dimension of the hermit's life because it is deeper and more extensive than the changes involved in gender-affirming transitions can change or achieve. It can be argued that the Evangelical Counsels and particularly the vow of chastity in celibacy (consecrated celibacy) can be understood in terms of this foundational identity as well as in other terms that may be more familiar to readers. Chastity in celibacy deals with integrity in relationships and the commitment to love others in the way Christ loved; thus, it also implies being true to one's fundamental manliness or womanliness to carry all of this out. As I understand the church's position, if gender (that is, the subjective experience of sexuality) fails to match one's sexuality (an objective reality not necessarily dependent upon or consonant with one's experience of one's sexuality), and one cannot love oneself as created and called to be, the ability to make a binding vow of chastity becomes problematic. 

Are there Currently Transsexual Diocesan Hermits?

I am not aware of any transgendered persons who have been professed or consecrated as diocesan hermits. I am personally aware of only one transgender person who sought profession under c 603 several years ago. I opposed his admission to profession (he is a trans male), but N.B., I did not do so based on the fact that he was transgendered  per se, but instead because he approached profession as a solitary hermit deceitfully and fraudulently. This person told me he (purportedly along with his bishop) planned on using the canon as a "matter [or way] of [achieving] justice" and was clear he was using the canon as a stopgap way to get publicly professed, something he knew from reading this blog is objectionable. (He claimed to have discerned a call to "public profession" but not to eremitical life; the church does NOT recognize such a call apart from particular forms of religious life which may then require public vows.) There were other issues as well (bishop-shopping for an amenable bishop, an intention to create (or join) a community after consecration, the use of temporary profession to experiment and "gather data" on whether or not this life was a fit at all, among others), and in each of these, some degree of pretense and bad faith were apparent. Thus too, the validity of such a profession would have been questionable at best. (One canonist who was consulted opined the profession/vows would be invalid (cf c 656.4 and On Withholding the Truth), while another suggested sacrilege could also be involved were such a profession attempted.)

As you might surmise, this instance of a proposed profession raises several important questions. The one I want to focus on here has to do with using profession and consecration as a means to take a stand on something one considers unjust in the church, or for any other reason than expressing and embracing a genuine sense of a call to consecrated life (and in this case, to solitary eremitic consecrated life). Canon 603 sometimes seems a simple canon for folks to seek profession under even when they have not discovered or discerned a truly eremitical vocation. Artists or scholars of all sorts might like to do something like this while they write or paint or work on dramatic, cultural, and research projects; sometimes such folks justify the peace and solitude needed for such careers in terms of a too-casually defined "eremitism".  Authentic hermits know that the heart of the eremitic vocation is not writing, other artistic pursuits, or research even when hermits may also do these things. To call these (much less oneself) "eremitical" simply because they require silence and solitude is a distortion of what eremitical life lived in the name of the Church is all about. Still, it is easy to "justify" this kind of distortion of the vocation by asking the question (along with its implied negative answer) that you have raised yourself, "Whom does it hurt?"

As I have written before in Whom does it hurt? (see also Fundamental Questions for a more recent response to the same question), and also On Intervening in Professions, any kind of fraud is harmful, particularly when it concerns an institution that depends on trust and Gospel witness to the truth as well as to what is possible when one lives for, with, in, and from God in the silence of solitude. I simply cannot see any justification in the kinds of deception present in such instances when one is (ostensibly) petitioning to live consecrated eremitical life in the name of the same Church one is essentially thumbing one's nose at in the very same act. That is especially true when other ecclesial communities (including sacramental ones like the Episcopal Church, for example) allow individuals to be publicly professed as solitary religious without concern for sexual identity or a requirement that these religious purposely live genuinely eremitical lives. As you can see, questions of personal integrity, transparency, and the potential for scandal are significant in matters like this. Thus, unless and until church teaching and praxis on this changes (something I do not expect to see), though I might encourage them to explore life as a non-canonical hermit, I would not encourage a person identifying as transsexual to seek profession and/or consecration as a c 603 hermit.

____________________________________________________

Notes:

Please note that language referring to trans persons is fluid and relatively idiosyncratic. For an introductory summary of how various terms are generally defined, please see https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression. Especially helpful is the discussion of the distinction between sexual orientation and gender.

**In Catholic Theology and in this blog essay, sexuality is used to refer to the most foundational call to womanliness or manliness, not merely in terms of superficial social roles and expectations or even in terms of mere biology. It is deeper and more expansive than these while, especially in terms of one's given biology, it remains generally consistent with these. In Catholic theology, the whole person is sexual. There are distinctively manly and womanly ways of understanding, feeling, and acting. Everything we think, or imagine, our motivations and perceptions of or responses to value are conditioned by the fact that we exist either as men or as women. Catholic theology affirms this is true even in the presence of gender dysphoria, and whether or not a person self-identifies as male, female, or some non-binary alternative (transgender, transsexual, mx, zie, or hir) precisely because this manliness or womanliness is deeper and more fundamental than gender identity itself. 

*** As  I understand it, a suitable candidate would need first to "detransition" and then live and discern the vocation just as any other person would do. The same conditions, requirements, time frames, and so forth would have to be met including medical and psychological testing. One would need to go through the usual stages of such a life, particularly concerning the development of a contemplative life that then calls for even greater solitude. There would need to be a special assurance that the candidate was not using c 603 in some ulterior way as a stopgap to profession.

**** The Vatican published a document on the impossibility of allowing transgendered persons to ordination and religious profession/consecration in 2000. I have not seen the paper, but merely a few references to it, because it was put out "sub secretum" and is not accessible to most folks. If anyone has access to a copy of this document, I would like to read it!! Please let me know.

We Do Not First Discern a call to Public Vows: Clarification

[[Sister, what did you mean when you said there's no such thing as a vocation to public vows. Don't you have a vocation to public vows?]]

Thanks for the question. I could definitely have been clearer, but I was trying to limit my description of the situation. Using myself as an example then, I can say I have an eremitical vocation. I needed to discern that first and only after that whether or not I was called to public profession, and even further in what eremitical context? For instance, I lived under private vows for a number of years and then discerned I was called not just to eremitical life, but to solitary eremitical life as an ecclesial vocation and therefore to canonical profession and consecration under c 603. The Church agreed with my own discernment and (eventually) Bishop Vigneron (a new bishop after the retirement of his predecessor) was clear he would not require me to jump through hoops I had already jumped through. After a wait of about a year and couple of months from our initial appointment, Bp Vigneron perpetually professed and consecrated me on 02.Sept. 2007. At that point, I had lived as a hermit for 23 years and was very sure of my vocation, first as a hermit and then, as someone called to live it as a public ecclesial vocation.

So, you see, my vocation includes (public) profession but it is not to (public) profession per se. My vocation is to solitary eremitical life and though in time I chose to seek admission to public vows/profession, I might have discerned it was meant for me to live this calling alone under private vows, or in a laura with significant solitude but supported by other hermits -- with either private or public vows. I might also have discerned a call to semi-eremitical life under public vows. What is clear is the fact that the vocation comes first and the mode of commitment is discerned second. In the situation I was describing the person seeking profession got the cart before the horse. S/he "discerned" s/he was called to make public vows and then looked for a context (including a new diocese) that would accept her where s/he might live those out.  

But of course, that is not the way one reaches the point of making vows. One needs a sense of being called to a specific vocation with a specific charism, and mission, before petitioning for admittance to even temporary profession. One must know oneself as suited and called by God to these before public vows even make sense. Again, with eremitical life one comes to know one's call in at least a general way, and only after (or alongside) this does one consider and prepare for the vows one will need in order to embrace this vocation fully and appropriately. The vows support and shape the vocation; in any case, they are not the vocation itself.

Thus, my complaint was twofold: 1) the person described had not discerned an eremitical call in any context (non-canonical, solitary, laura-based, semi-eremitical in a community of hermits, etc.) --- something which ordinarily takes years, and 2) s/he claimed a vocation to public vows, something that in and of itself, does not actually exist. There is clearly more to this complex story. Even so, the grounds enunciated above are the ones you asked me to explain about so I hope that part of the situation is clearer.

Questions re: Intervening in Cases of Fraudulent or Dishonest Profession

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, since you write about your concern with fraudulent hermits and associated issues, I wondered if you would interfere in an eremitical profession you thought was dishonest or fraudulent. Do you have that right? Have you ever done this?]]

Thanks, you have provided a difficult constellation of questions and also something of a leap from my admitted concern with such things. I will drop the term "interfere" from your first question and replace it with "connect with those responsible" or perhaps, "intervene in some appropriate way" in order to share one's concerns. 

That done, I need to say that any person with genuine knowledge directly impacting the nature and quality (and this can include even the validity) of a public profession has not just the right but the obligation to share that knowledge in an appropriate way. Moreover, bishops and others involved in overseeing such vocations have the obligation to hear and seriously consider these concerns. Public professions involve ecclesial vocations which affect the entire Church. They are also public acts of worship and if there is actual deception or fraud at their heart, such an act of worship can become a serious scandal and that can rise to the level of sacrilege. It can also invalidate the profession being made -- one source of the scandal involved. When we are dealing with Canon 603 professions where the total number of solitary canonical hermits are, relatively speaking, so very few and the vocation is both rare and even more rarely understood --- and also because dioceses are cautious in dealing with the implementation of C 603 anyway --- serious scandal can affect the credibility of the entire vocation. When this happens, genuine vocations to C 603 life are likely to be further prevented from being professed by the Church --- a kind of functional suppression of the solitary consecrated eremitical vocation.

What Steps does one take?

Depending upon the seriousness of the problem and one's own degree or kind of involvement and expertise, one may take a number of steps. The first will be prayer, and prayer will accompany any other steps one takes. If one has a relationship with the one being professed, one will generally contact them first to state one's concerns and allow a clarifying response. One will certainly confer confidentially with those in one's life who understand such concerns and can give feedback on how they would proceed (pastors, spiritual directors, religious in roles of formation or leadership, et al). In very serious cases, especially if any responses one has gotten from the persons involved are unsatisfactory, one might seek the advice of a canon lawyer to be sure one's assessment of seriousness is correct and to see what other steps one may need to consider taking.

Beyond this, one may decide one needs to write the bishop of the diocese in which the profession has taken or is to take place to inform him of one's concerns. Generally speaking, I think this is usually as far as one would take the situation because one trusts that the bishop knows more about the situation than one does oneself. However, sometimes writing the bishop, though usually essential, is insufficient; occasionally one's own knowledge may be greater than the bishop's or the situation is greater than this specific profession per se seems. In such cases, one may also be advised to contact the bishop's Metropolitan and even the US Nuncio as the direct US representative to/of the Vatican.

Being sure of Serious and even Grave Matters:

None of this should ever be done lightly, of course, and one needs to be really sure one understands the situation fully and has a good sense of the nature of the vocation one is concerned about. With c 603 there is a tendency already for some bishops and chanceries to say something like, [[Whom will it hurt?]] when deciding to profess non-hermits under c 603 because they tend not to understand eremitical life more generally, nor the significance of c 603 and what it witnesses to, more specifically. But because such professions do cause harm, including to the person seeking to be professed and assuming public responsibility in law for this vocation despite their not being called in this way by God, it may take someone living the vocation to clarify why such a profession is a mistake. I am not saying that such a profession is necessarily a mistake that rises to the level of scandal and beyond (ordinarily it may be rooted in simple ignorance), but this "whom does it harm?" approach does reflect a somewhat careless attitude about c 603 vocations which can allow for the stopgap use of the canon in much more seriously abusive situations as well.

It is in these more serious situations that I personally would probably contact the folks in authority with my concerns and knowledge. I not only believe I can do this, for several different reasons, but also that I am obligated to do this. The question in such an instance is how do I do this in a way which is most charitable and most educative re: the c 603 vocation --- and that is where the majority of the prayer accompanying the entire discernment process in such a matter comes in. I think one must accept that if one's intervention (letters, consultations, conversations, etc) prevent a profession under c 603 there will be significant pain for the person so affected and too, there will likely be personal pain and anguish for oneself as well. However, there is something larger than the individual proposing to make public vows involved here, namely the well-being of the vocation itself which is a Divine gift and the faith of the assembly/church, and one must accept that as well.

Once Again, "Whom does it Hurt?" 

At the same time, it must be made vividly clear that allowing someone to take on public responsibilities for a vocation they do not have is hardly charitable to them either. Doing so invites the person to live with the senses of failure, mediocrity, and hypocrisy all their days, something which is surely a cause of constant pain and doubt pervading everything they are and do. Eremitical life is not about relaxing day in and day out in some form of extended vacation; it is not entered into so that one may do one's painting or writing or pottery, or even research and scholarship, etc. Eremitical life is about the hard (but also painful and joyful) work of seeking God, being grasped by God, and allowing oneself to be remade in and by God in every moment and mood of one's life --- and doing so in the silence of solitude. Absolutely there will be some space and time for activities like those mentioned as well as some limited ministry in one's parish if one truly feels called to these, but these will, first of all, serve one's vocation to "the silence of solitude", not substitute for it. 

In fact, such activities will have to be relinquished or modified to some extent the moment they distract or detract from one's eremitical vocation of living "with God alone". In other words, even what one might perceive as meaningful and fruitful work contributing to the good of mankind would need to be relinquished if it conflicted with one's call to live with and for "God alone" in eremitical solitude!! Also, because we are all social creatures, most folks are called to personal wholeness and holiness in community, not in the silence of solitude. Very few are called to this (or will even understand it), and for that reason, for most people, such a calling would be dangerous to and destructive of their very personhood, their very selves. It is critical that all discernment of authentic solitary eremitical vocations recognizes this or the result of our professions will be fraudulent, inauthentic, mediocre, unhappy, possibly psychologically unbalanced, and disedifying "hermits" created by their professions to live the terms of c 603. Again, how could this be considered charitable or a truly pastoral decision on the part of a diocesan bishop?

Finally, let me say that someone attempting to be professed for a vocation they do not, in their heart of hearts, truly believe they have from God --- and here I mean the vocation itself, not the profession it allows or requires, the time and space it provides for various activities, as a means to some other end, and so forth, but the vocation itself --- says with their whole lives how little they esteem this vocation, those who truly do have it and frankly, the God who calls people in this way! I have been in contact with several people over the years who sought or considered seeking admission to

profession under c 603 as a means to some other end despite being very clear they did NOT believe God had called them to this. One, who thought s/he was called to "public vows" (there is no such vocation!) was willing to make profession and then live as a hermit "to see if it worked out." If not, s/he claimed s/he would walk away from it and try something else. 

But of course, this demeans the entire idea and nature of profession and certainly, all of the genuine discernment people do before ever being admitted to profession. It was offensive to anyone with a vocation to consecrated life. It was offensive to anyone charged with the ministries of discernment and formation. Moreover, it was offensive to the whole church which believes that God calls people --- recognizably and for God's own purposes --- to true vocations and that the church (hierarchy, representatives, and other leadership) must attend to these calls as seriously as God means them to. We have come a long way from the early days of Canon 603 and reflection on the vocation leaves us with no reason to treat it as a relatively insignificant or otherwise meaningless catch-all. We recognize the vocation is relatively rare, but perhaps too, that it is more meaningful for that very reason. In particular, this means that those in authority must not encourage, much less yield to the temptation to use C 603 as a stopgap means to profession simply because other vocational avenues are not open to a candidate.