Follow-up Questions on the Bishop's Responsibilities in Regard to c 603 Professions

[[Dear Sister, what I hear in your response on the situation in Lexington is that your concern is mainly with the bishop of Lexington. Isn't a fraudulent use of c 603 the responsibility of the candidate seeking admission to profession? When you say that Cole Matson made first vows even though she didn’t believe she was called to this vocation, I am confused. She claims to be a diocesan hermit, doesn’t she? Can one make vows or profession without really believing one has this vocation? How is that possible? I have an acquaintance in my parish who is trying to become a diocesan hermit. She said our impression that he wanted to be sure my ‘friend’ is really a hermit before he agree bishop is the final authority in these matters, but that he cannot just do whatever he wants. I got that he wants to be sure she is a hermit before he admits her to profession.]]

Thanks for your questions.  Part of what you are confused by with the situation in Lexington, KY, I think, is built into the situation itself by both Bishop and Matson. At the same time, I agree with your friend’s observation on the Bishop’s role in the matter of professing people under c 603. While a candidate is responsible for discerning this vocation in good faith, something Cole failed to do in this case, the Bishop has the final say as well as the responsibility for discerning such vocations, and protecting and nurturing them as part of the Church's eremitical tradition. This means 1) he cannot and must not profess someone who doesn’t truly believe they have such a vocation, and 2) he must do all that is necessary to understand, appreciate, and help candidates discern and secure the necessary formation required by a genuine eremitic vocation. (He may, of course,  delegate other chancery personnel to help with this.)

In all of this, one thing should be clear. The bishop serves the Church and her own patrimony, including canonical vocations God has entrusted to the Church. With all this in mind, your question, “How is this possible?” is an important one. I have never before heard of a situation where a bishop has admitted someone to profession (an act that is larger than just the making of vows) when s/he claims to know she is called to something else. Had the Bishop truly determined Cole had some kind of new vocation to consecrated life requiring public profession, he could have tried to profess Cole under c 605 which is dedicated to new forms of consecrated life, but this would also have required the agreement of the Vatican, so I think it is understandable why he did not chose to do this. Instead, he used c 603, giving the really poorly-considered grounds for professing Cole under c 603 posted here recently and last year.

What this required was an abdication of the bishop’s responsibility to protect and nurture c 603 vocations themselves. It also led to the inability to have faith in the adequacy of the discernment process of any other professions under c 603 that might take place in this specific diocese. That especially includes any further attempts at making a canonical profession made by Matson in the future. As I noted last year, even if Cole were to say he has “discovered” a genuine eremitical vocation before making such a commitment, it would be very difficult to trust his "discernment" or believe his motivations were valid this time around. Still, the primary responsibility with regard to this vocation falls to Bp John Stowe and secondarily to any canonist giving the bishop advice on the use of the canon in Cole's regard. Bishop Stowe was entrusted with this specific vocation as belonging to the Church, as well as with being the last (though not the only) word in assessing candidates’ discernment processes. It is also the bishop's job to determine, more generally, what is best for the diocese in terms of such a vocation. Because c 603 is an ecclesial vocation, admission to profession should be a sign that the candidate understands her place in building and representing the heart of the Church, and expressing with her life the Church’s theology of consecrated life.

I am glad to hear what your friend said about her own bishop. It is reassuring to hear that that is the minimum criterion he must see in order to admit one to profession and eventually, to perpetual profession and consecration. Last year, a friend of mine said something very perceptive, viz, “Sure one can be a male or a female [under c 603], but one still needs to be a hermit!!” I would add that that implies as well, 1) that one is already a contemplative, 2) that one has lived the vows (or the values associated with these) for some period of time before seeking to be canonically professed, 3) that one has discerned a need for even greater solitude than one required as a non-eremitical contemplative, and 4) that one has a way of supporting oneself that does not require time away from the hermitage and/or can be done in solitude.

What we are left with in the Diocese of Lexington is the injudicious and even fraudulent use of c 603. I am sure it is confusing and problematic for members of the diocese. Until the USCCB and DICLSAL weigh in to clarify matters, I cannot personally accept that the profession was valid, and I suspect I am not alone in this, particularly once Cole made his Pentecost revelation last year. I am sure some people will accept him as Brother Christian because it seems the charitable thing to do; I, however, believe it is uncharitable and cannot do it. While I expect Cole to be the hermit he claims to be called to be, at the same time, since he has been clear this is not his vocation, I don't see how he can live the vocation he has claimed as his own for the time being. It is not an easy vocation, and I believe it would be impossible to live without a strong divinely-rooted sense that God is calling one to this life. 

Beyond the questions of Matson's "hermithood" and the validity of his vows, I find that I still cannot accept that Cole is "Brother Christian". Of course, Cole is my brother/sister in Christ, but at the same time, it remains Church teaching (and medical opinion) that despite any radical medical interventions]', Cole remains a female.**  If, after having truly discerned a c 603 vocation, Cole really chose to be professed and make the vow of celibacy appropriate to that profession, it should have been as Sister (C___), and even then, only after renouncing the transgender changes made medically to whatever extent that was really possible. I cannot see any other way forward. This means that if Bishop Stowe attempts to perpetually profess and consecrate Cole as Brother Christian in this vocation in the near future, for example, it will exacerbate the questions of validity and even sacrilege, as well as concerns that the Bishop's own agenda was allowed to overwhelm his ability to discern c 603 vocations and fulfill his office in regard to such vocations. It is also likely to create difficulties for other dioceses as similar candidates without an eremitical vocation seek to be professed in this way based on the precedent now set by the Diocese of Lexington. Unfortunately, no one (USCCB, DICLSAL) has acted on this, or, at the very least, clarified the Church's teaching on all of this.

As I noted last year, the situation with Bp John Stowe and Cole Matson impacts the c 603 vocation as such. It is, in some ways, both an ancient and a quite new vocation, and for these reasons it is also both vital and fragile. The really serious content, charism, and mission of the eremitical vocation is difficult for most people to perceive or understand, even without examples of "hermits" who are not called to the same journey, or who have been deceptive about the nature and content of their vocation and vows. Many c 603 hermits with chronic illnesses or disabilities faced accusations, or at least strong suspicion, that this was really just a stopgap "vocation" with little true content or reason for being. The usual "suggestion" was that these persons could not live in community, so they used c 603 as a way to get professed. While this was not generally true, the possibility haunted candidates with disabilities, even when they were relatively sure of the authenticity of their vocation and their faithfulness to it. 

Some others were refused admission to profession and consecration simply because the diocese involved did not want to take a chance on harming the vocation by professing someone who was chronically ill, never mind the fact that illness is a desert situation which can open one to a profound seeking of God --- the very essence of the vocation! After 41+ years, most diocesan hermits had shown the Church that this suspicion was unfounded. And then, in one act of mind-boggling ignorance, arrogance, and blindness, the Diocese of Lexington did exactly the thing we were all trying (quietly, patiently, in whatever ways were appropriate) to demonstrate was not true of c 603 vocations! Bp Stowe admitted to using c 603 to profess someone who had admitted he did not have this vocation, but who was claiming it as a stopgap way to get himself publicly vowed and in a habit "for the sake of justice" for the transgender community. After all, despite being informed about this concern of "stopgap" vocations, Bp Stowe reasoned, it was a "little-used" canon that could be utilized by both men and women, so who could it hurt? The canonist he consulted apparently provided little more than this on the vocation itself. Several people, then, contributed to what was a stunningly insensitive and irresponsible act, and it apparently continues today, without any real ecclesiastical resolution. 

** As you may know (from your use of feminine pronouns for Cole Matson), one's sex does not change, even with radical medical interventions to shape and conform normal characteristics of gender. This is what both medicine and the Church's theology of the human person and their sexuality currently teach. I don't see this changing.

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.

On Bishop Stowe's Comments to his Diocese and Media: Looking at the Potential 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!