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!

[[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.

Reprise of 2014 Post, "Fraudulent Catholic Hermits: Is it a Big Problem?"

Ten years ago tomorrow (25.May.2014) I posted the following article. Because of recent events in the Diocese of Lexington, it is particularly timely. Two points in this post are especially critical; they tie in with other posts I have put up this week. First, eremitical life is about letting go of any impersonation we may be living, and secondly, eremitical life itself, and not the various forms of apostolic ministry that might sometimes flow from it in the very limited ways they legitimately can, is an important gift lived for the salvation of others. In other words, the hermit says that life lived alone with God is itself the gift or charism of eremitical life, and the gift that our world, and especially those who are marginalized in any way, needs desperately. 

[[Hi Sister Laurel, is the problem of fraudulent hermits a big one? Do many people claim to be Catholic hermits when they are not? I am asking because you have written recently about the normative character of c 603 vocations and some who pretend to be Catholic hermits. Was the Church concerned with frauds and people like that when they decided to create this canon?]] 

No, on the whole this is not really a huge problem, or at least it was not a problem when I first started the process of becoming a diocesan hermit. I don't think it is that much of a problem even now though I do hear (or know firsthand) of cases here and there of folks who pull on a habit (or the gaunt visage and behavior of a  supposed "mystic"), don the title "Catholic hermit" and then turn up on the doorstep of a parish expecting to be recognized and known in this way. There was also a website a couple of years ago using the names of legitimate (canonical) diocesan hermits to get money through PayPal without the knowledge of these same diocesan hermits. Part of the problem is that the authentic vocation is so rare and little understood in absolute terms that a handful of counterfeits or frauds can have a greater impact relatively speaking. Those disedifying and fraudulent cases aside, however, the origins of the canon are actually pretty inspiring and had nothing to do with frauds or counterfeits. To reprise that here:

About a dozen monks, long solemnly professed, had grown in their vocations to a call to solitude (traditionally this is considered the summit of monastic life); unfortunately, their monasteries did not have anything in their own proper law that accommodated such a calling. Their constitutions and Rule were geared to community life and though this also meant a significant degree of solitude, it did NOT mean eremitical solitude. Consequently, these monks had to either give up their sense that they were called to eremitical life or they had to leave their monastic vows, be secularized, and try to live as hermits apart from their monastic lives and vows. Eventually, about a dozen of these hermits came together under the leadership of Dom Jacques Winandy and the aegis of Bishop Remi De Roo in British Columbia (he became their "Bishop Protector"); this gave him time to come to know the contemporary eremitical vocation and to esteem it and these hermits rather highly.

When Vatican II was in session Bishop de Roo, one of the youngest Bishops present, gave a written intervention asking that the hermit life be recognized in law as a state of perfection and the possibility of public profession and consecration for contemporary hermits made a reality. The grounds provided in Bishop Remi's intervention were all positive and today reflect part of the informal vision the Church has of this vocation. (You will find them listed in this post, Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation.) Nothing happened directly at the Council (even Perfectae Caritatis did not mention hermits), but VII did require the revision of the Code of Canon Law in order to accommodate the spirit embraced by the Council as well as other substantive changes it made necessary; when this revised code eventually came out in October of 1983 it included c. 603 which defined the Church's vision of eremitical life generally and, for the first time ever in universal law, provided a legal framework for the public profession and consecration of those hermits who desired and felt called to live an ecclesial eremitical vocation.

So you see, the Church was asked at the highest level by a Bishop with significant experience with about a dozen hermits living in a laura in British Columbia to codify this life so that it: 1) was formally recognized as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and 2) so that others seeking to live such a life would not have the significant difficulties that these original dozen hermits did because there was no provision in either Canon Law nor in their congregations' proper laws [for hermit life].

The majority of diocesan hermits (i.e., hermits professed in the hands of a diocesan Bishop) have tended to have a background in religious life; it is only in the past years that more individuals without such formation and background have sought to become diocesan hermits. This has left a bit of a hole in terms of writing about the vocation; it has meant not only that the nuts and bolts issues of writing a Rule of life, intimately understanding the nature of the vows, and learning to pray in all the ways religious routinely pray, have needed to be discussed somewhere publicly; it has also meant that the problems of the meaning and significance of the terms, "ecclesial vocation", "Catholic hermit," etc. as well as basic approaches to discernment, formation, the central elements of the canon, and so forth, have needed to be clarified for lay persons, some diocesan hermits, and even for those chanceries without much experience of this vocation.

My Own Interest in the Ecclesiality of the C 603 vocation:

I have been interested in all of these issues since I decided to pursue admittance to canon 603 profession --- now about 30 [40] years ago ---  and as I grow in this vocation, in my appreciation of it and of the wisdom and beauty of the canon which governs it, my interest remains --- but for rather different reasons. It took me 23 years to work out for myself many of the issues mentioned in the above paragraph; now I am able to give back to the larger Church community in ways that I sincerely hope allow others to more fully understand and esteem this vocation. Most important is what I have said over the past few days (and the past several years!!): this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world. In particular, it can witness to the fact that the isolation and marginality so many people experience today can be redeemed by one's relationship with God, just as it stands as a prophetic witness against the individualism, narcissism, and addictions (especially to media and to remote, packaged, and soundbite-approaches to reality and relationships) which almost completely define the world around us today. However, frauds, counterfeits, and curmudgeons can get in the way of or detract from this witness --- not least because, unless they are simply ignorant, they are generally mired in pretense and self-centeredness that makes the vocation incredible.

One of the least spoken of non-negotiable elements of canon 603 is that this is a life lived for the praise of God and the sake and indeed, the salvation of others. The usual focus in most discussions and in discernment as well tends to be on the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world, as well as on the content of the vows, but I have not heard many talking about or centering attention on the phrase, "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." However, this element very clearly signals that this vocation is not a selfish one and is not meant only for the well-being of the hermit. It also, I believe, is integral to the notion that this is an ecclesial vocation with defined rights and obligations lived in dialogue with the contemporary situation.  

To say this vocation has a normative shape and definition is also to say that not everything called eremitism in human history glorifies God. Further, calling attention to the fact that this is a normative or ecclesial vocation is just the flip side of pointing out that this is a gift of the Holy Spirit meant for the well-being of all who come to know it (as well as those who do not). I am keen that diocesan hermits embrace this element of their lives fully --- and certainly I also desire that chanceries understand that the discernment of vocations cannot occur adequately unless the charism of the vocation is truly understood and esteemed. The ecclesial nature of the vocation is part of this charism as is the prophetic witness I spoke of earlier. By far this is the larger issue driving my writing about the normative and ecclesial nature of this vocation or continuing to point out the significance of canonical standing than the existence of a few counterfeit "Catholic hermits".

 Letting Go of Impersonation: the Real Issue for all of us

As I consider this then, I suppose the problem of frauds (or counterfeits) is certainly more real than when I first sought admission to profession under canon 603 (the canon was brand new then and few knew about it), but for most of us diocesan hermits the real issue is our own integrity in living this life and allowing the Church to discern and celebrate other instances of it rather than dealing with the sorry pretense and insecurity which seems to drive some to claim titles to which they have no right. What serious debate takes place does so on this level, not on more trivial ones. The question of fraud is an important one for the hermit both personally and ecclesially because as Thomas Merton reminds us all: [[The . . .hermit has as his first duty, to live happily without affectation in his solitude. He owes this not only to himself but to his community [by extension diocesan hermits would say parish, diocese, or Church] that has gone so far as to give him a chance to live it out. . . . this is the chief obligation of the . . .hermit because, as I said above, it can restore to others their faith in certain latent possibilities of nature and of grace.]] (Emphasis added,  Contemplation in a World of Action, p. 242)

In any case, as Thomas Merton also knew very well, some of those who are frauds (and I am emphatically NOT speaking here of lay (non-canonical) hermits who identify themselves as non-canonical) might well embrace true solitude in the midst of their pretense; if they do, if they find they have a true eremitical vocation, it will only be by discovering themselves getting rid of any pretense or impersonation as well as finding their craziness or eccentricity dropping away. After all, as Merton also noted, one cannot ultimately remain crazy in the desert (that is, in the absence of others and presence of God in solitude) for it takes other people to make and allow us to be crazy. He writes: [[To be really mad you need other people. When you are by yourself you soon get tired of your craziness. It is too exhausting. It does not fit in with the eminent sanity of trees, birds, water, sky. You have to shut up and go about the business of living. The silence of the woods forces you to make a decision which the tensions and artificialities of society help you to evade forever. Do you want to be yourself or don't you?]] (Idem, 245, emphasis added)

You see, the simple truth which makes the existence of fraudulent hermits not only intriguing but also tremendously sad and ironic -- and which is also the universal truth we all must discover for ourselves -- is that alone with God we find and embrace our true selves. Through, with, and in God we find ourselves made true and fulfilled as persons. If we must continue in our pretense or various forms of impersonation then something is seriously askew with our solitude and therefore too, with our relationship with God (and vice versa).

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.

Canon 603 Hermits and Rejection of Vatican II

[[Dear Sister, are the majority of Catholic Hermits progressive or liberal rather than Traditionalist? You consider yourself progressive or liberal don't you? Is it possible to reject Vatican II and be a canonical solitary hermit today? I was thinking that maybe the c 603 hermit vocation would be perfect for someone who doesn't accept Vatican II but does not want to leave the Church. Or would this be another example of what you have called "stopgap vocations"? In your opinion should the Church be professing hermits who  reject Vatican II?]]

Thanks for your questions. I must admit I am curious as to why you are asking them; what raised them for you? But in any case let me give them a shot. Labels like liberal and progressive are not always helpful I don't think. I don't know what they actually mean a lot of the time. I thought of myself as progressive or liberal when I was a student. Later though I came to see myself as essentially conservative --- conservative in a way I consider genuinely healthy.

What I mean by this is I hold onto the core truth, try to understand it more and more fully, and then try to apply it in ways which lead to new life, growth, maturity, etc. Since God is both "always the same" and the source of continuing newness and surprise I think this is the only way to go. Moreover, as a hermit, there is no doubt that I am part of a really ancient vocation whose roots are spiritually conservative but which is also incredibly prophetic and open to the newness which that leads to. When the roots are deep and lasting newness is not a problem. That said, I don't know whether most c 603 hermits are progressive, etc. Only occasionally do I hear of hermits whose conservatism veers from healthiness into a dystrophic traditionalism. On the other hand, those whose eremitism is not profoundly conservative in the sense I have described are unlikely to last as hermits unless and until they develop the roots healthy conservatism and the truly prophetic require.

Before I answer your questions about eremitical life and Vatican II let me point you to a video of a hermit professed according to c 603 in the post-conciliar revised Code of Canon Law. Though a bit long it tells the story of the first contemporary solitary hermit in Ireland. Unfortunately  Sister Irene Gibson rejects Vatican II and the post-conciliar Church utterly.  Her conservatism has become a less healthy traditionalism. From what I can see from this video she and I disagree on almost everything theological except the fact that vocations are not a call issued and answered only once, but something we must respond to daily. Sister Irene believes this is because human beings are sinful and would fall away from their vocations otherwise. I accept that as a secondary reason but contend the primary reason is that God is a dynamic reality calling us at every moment and we are called to be responsive individuals whose "yes" is offered again and again.

I suspect Sister Irene's eremitical vows have since been dispensed because she really is entirely opposed to the contemporary Roman Catholic Church and exists in schism with it; she now lives with a Tridentine community of Sisters so far as I know, but nonetheless, I respect her and would say she was a true hermit with a true vocation to the silence of solitude. Whether she should ever have been professed as a canon 603 hermit is another question entirely. Her life says very clearly that God alone is sufficient and I admit I am quite impressed with her integrity and courage as someone living an intense solitude without even the support of her local (or national) Church for many years.

In the following video I think that despite the dislike with which she refers to the Roman Curia (" the bureaucrats in Rome"), her complete hatred for what Vatican II wrought, and a theology that, in my opinion, fails to do justice to either history or the God of Jesus Christ --- something that causes a distorted focus on sin rather than on the God of mercy --- there is a gentleness, a degree of humility, and real love for the people with whom Sister Irene interacts and for whom she prays. It is this capacity for humility, love, and compassion which grows in solitude along with a capacity for silent suffering that, I think, attests to the authenticity of Sister's eremitical vocation. The seriousness, reverence, and core of deep sadness and grief which informs a life which is truly loving only underscores this authenticity in my mind.



As for your questions regarding Vatican II and solitary eremitical life per se, I do not think it is possible to be a solitary hermit according to the Revised Code of Canon Law if one rejects Vatican II. First of all the very Code which allows for solitary hermits in universal law for the first time in the history of the Church is a result of Vatican II and the reforms achieved and envisioned there. It seems ironic in the extreme to me, not to mention inconsistent and more than a little self-serving and even potentially hypocritical to seek (or allow) profession under such a canon when one no longer believes in the Church whose life it reflects. Remember that canon 603 describes a life lived in the heart of the Church, a very specifically ecclesial vocation lived under the supervision of a Bishop of the contemporary (that is, post-conciliar) Church. It makes little sense to profess and consecrate someone within a Church they believe is a betrayal of 2000 years of ecclesial history. How, after all can they meet sacramental obligations? How can they vow obedience to God in the hands of a legitimate superior whose authority they reject? I think you see the problem.

While at first glance this may seem to be a "perfect solution" for someone who, as you say, "rejects Vatican II but does not want to leave the Church," in reality they have already left the Church --- for the Ecumenical Council is the highest expression of the Church's authority at work. Although I have never applied the term stopgap in this sense (I ordinarily mean something is stopgap if it provides a pseudo solution which plugs a hole in canon law for those who cannot be professed in any other way or who wish to circumvent canonical procedures already in place), I think you might be right in applying this term here.

The bottom line in this situation is that this is an entirely inadequate and imprudent "solution" to the problem of someone who rejects Vatican II but whom we might want to "keep" within the Church in some sense. (If the person is struggling with aspects of the Church, as, for instance the desert Mothers and Fathers struggled with them while perhaps living a prophetic life within the Church, I think this is a different matter. It seems to me that Sister Irene might well have been in such a position when she was first professed.) One cannot be a "Catholic (c 603) Hermit" while at the same time rejecting the very Church in whose name one is professed, consecrated, and called to live the eremitical life. No true vocation allows for such disingenuousness; after all we are called by the God who is Truth to witness to Him and the Good News of his Christ Event.

Sister Irene's situation may be more extreme than others but it helps underscore the ecclesial nature of the c 603 or diocesan eremitical vocation. I believe she was professed under c 603 in good faith and it is possible that she was professed before she had the experiences she describes regarding both Vatican II, the Greek Orthodox Mass, and her insight into the supposed nature of the post-conciliar Church. (Despite c 603 postdating VII by almost 20 years, I say this because the timeline of these events is not entirely clear to me from her comments.) Even so, whatever the timeline, at some point she essentially "left" the post-conciliar Roman Catholic Church (and later she left it in every sense for the Tridentine Church and religious life there).

If she was already professed, her vows under canon 603 would likely have been dispensed; if she made her profession only after coming to see the Church as she does, it would have been determined to be invalid. It is not so much that the Church should not be professing folks who have rejected Vatican II, though this is certainly true, but rather, that she really cannot do so validly because these persons have, in their heart of hearts --- as well as in terms of ecclesial worship and doctrine --- left the Church themselves, and simply cannot be thought of as living their lives in (much less as part of) her very heart.

On Full-time Work and Terminology for Hermits

Dear Sister, I have included two quotes from Therese Iver's article on full time work for hermits in Full time Work for Hermits? In the first one I wondered if she means vows become invalid if a person starts working full time in case of need or if this only applies if the person is working full time when professed? Have there ever been cases where such vows were considered invalid? [[It is actually an abuse of the canon to profess individuals with employment outside the hermitage that isn’t done in solitude.   Further, because the canon must be followed in its entirety for a person to be a canonical hermit, either the vows are invalid in the case of a full-time worker in a normal job that isn’t done in strict solitude or the vow of obedience is being violated.]]

I have not spoken to Therese in regard to the article you cited but it seems clear she means that vows would be invalid if made while a person was working full time outside the hermitage and doing so in a non-solitary job. Validity is a matter of the patency of vows when made. Otherwise, as Therese says, the vows would be valid but, should circumstances change and the person begin working full time in a highly social job, she would then be violating her Rule (assuming it is adequately detailed in this regard) and her vow of obedience. I don't know if there have been cases where vows were determined to be invalid but there have definitely been cases where individuals working full time in highly social jobs at the time of  their profession were still professed under canon 603.

Those vows, I sincerely believe, should have been determined to be invalid. (I say that because it seems obvious to me that they should never have been allowed to have been made in the first place given the work situations and the lack of true eremitical experience that existed. Dioceses do not generally allow persons to make invalid vows, (or eremitical vows in these circumstances) nor should they.) Exceptions have occurred and they have raised serious questions among dioceses, diocesan hermits, and those who are interested in canon 603 vocations. Two of these are from the Archdiocese of Boston; another involves a hermit working full time as a social worker while a fourth involves a hermit canonist working for her diocese. The usual question is "How can one live an eremitical life and also work fulltime outside the hermitage?" Corollaries include, "How well-conceived is canon 603?" "Isn't it merely created for stopgap or fall back vocations to religious life?" and "What kinds of formation are required when a person can work full time and treat a contemplative prayer life in the silence of solitude as secondary?"

Since I believe c 603 is well-conceived --- though demanding in what it expects of candidates' and chanceries' knowledge of desert spirituality --- and since I believe there are real eremitical vocations out there, I also believe it is critical that dioceses do not "settle" in professing those who treat eremitical life as a "metaphor" or as analogous to the Anglican canon 14.3 on "solitary religious" and treat hermits as though they are individuals who simply live alone and take a desert day once a week or so! In one of the cases noted it is unclear whether the person's vows were ever declared invalid but both she and her Archdiocese still refer to her eremitical profession (referred to by date) as the basis for her communal life (she has begun a new community) while dropping any mention of canon 603. In any case, significant questions regarding this apparent bit of legal or linguistic sleight of hand are thus also cropping up amongst hermits and canonists. Since this person no longer lives an eremitical life under the Rule she submitted for perpetual profession, it seems her vows have ceased to be valid or binding on the basis of a significant material change in the circumstances involved.

Appropriate Accommodations for Emergency Circumstances?

What does sometimes happen is that a hermit will need to work temporarily while waiting for some kind of assistance to be settled on (like SSI  or disability for instance). This will usually be part-time work at best because the hermit cannot do more than this (after all, a life of assiduous prayer and penance and the silence of solitude is a full time work in and of itself; add to this the fact of disability and one ordinarily is simply unable to work full time). In cases, however, where the hermit works outside the hermitage full time this must truly be an entirely temporary situation  and she must be working with her superiors to be sure she maintains her Rule as best she can. This is still embraced in profession as the defining and governing document of her life; it expresses the shape of her commitment to canon 603 in particular. I would argue there are better ways to deal with such a situation and that, at the very least, a diocese should set a time limit on the period involved. If, in the case of a hermit waiting for SSI or something similar, the assistance is truly expected to come eventually, then perhaps the diocese DOES need to consider helping the hermit out financially until this occurs. Whether the hermit pays the diocese back or not once the award is granted is a separate question. In any case, a time limit would be important in signaling that this situation is contrary to the life of canon 603 and neither can nor will be allowed to continue indefinitely.

If a hermit needs to change from working within the hermitage (as noted above, this cannot be full time work since the life itself would not allow it) to working full time outside it (especially in a highly social job) on something other than a clearly temporary basis, then the diocese should seriously consider whether it needs to dispense this hermit's vows or grant a decree of exclaustration or something similar for a period of time. After all, such a hermit would no longer be living the terms of the canon or her own Rule; she would be violating her profession commitment if not the vows themselves (remember profession is the commitment of the whole person within a state of life; vows are the ordinary way this is expressed). In such a situation something like exclaustration (a good temporary solution I think) or dispensation might well be the only prudent and honest solution open to the diocese.

Again, this is a difficult situation because customarily dioceses do not support hermits in any material way while the canon obliges to religious poverty; even so they have every right to expect a hermit to be living the terms of the Canon and to be doing so in ways which are clear to others looking on. One thing Therese Ivers suggests is that the ability to support oneself is a kind of acid test today for the presence of a c 603 vocation. Personally I would not go quite that far because I think in the later years of a hermit's life dioceses may need to consider assisting them in material ways simply so they can remain in situations of some clear solitude. Still, for admission to perpetual profession and for the foreseeable future of a hermit's life, I think the capacity to support oneself in some way is an absolute requirement of canon 603 vocations.

On the Terminology Semi-Eremitical:

[[My second question has to do with Carthusians as semi-hermits. Ms Ivers writes:  [[What can we learn about the “silence of solitude” when analyzing the lives of the Carthusians?  That if they consider themselves semi-hermits because they get together daily once or twice for prayer/Mass and have recreation together once a week, how does a person with a full time job as a parish finance manager or a social worker fit the description of living as a hermit?]] I have never heard them referred to in this way. Are they really only "semi-hermits"? Does the Church use the language of "full hermits" and "half hermits"?]]

Personally, though I completely agree with Therese's point about the importance of "the silence of solitude" in c 603 life and understand why she underscored it in this way, I think this "semi-hermit" usage is an overstatement and possibly a too-literal misrepresentation of the real meaning of the term semi-eremitical. Carthusian monks are hermits in the fullest sense of the word. They are not monks who also highly value solitude, but hermits who also value and need community because of their commitment to eremitical solitude. As I understand it, the term semi-eremite refers more to the context in which a hermit lives his or her solitary life, that is, within a community than it does to the hermit him/herself.

The communal context protects the hermit's solitude, provides for the hermit's sustenance, clothing, medical care, etc,  allows for communal liturgy which also protects the hermits' stricter separation and silence of solitude, and ensures his clear ecclesial identity and sensibilities. Thus the context is semi-eremitical but the life is fully eremitical. Canon 603 hermits, on the other hand, are solitary hermits. Both terms are important; neither is redundant. Canon 603 hermits too are fully hermits but the context for their lives is solitary. They do not belong to an institute of consecrated life, they are self-supporting and must shop for themselves, maintain their own physical solitude in all the ways that is required, and do so without the support of "lay" sisters or "conversae" as the Carthusians have. They live out their ecclesial commitment within the context of a diocese and parish but despite the stability this provides (and I am not speaking here of monastic stability per se) it does not rise to the level of stability provided in a religious community or monastery.

While it is true that Carthusian hermits attend Office and Mass together daily and c 603 hermits attend Mass perhaps once a day in their parish and generally pray Office alone, it would be a mistake. I think, to refer c 603 hermits as (full) "hermits" and Carthusians as semi or "half-hermits". Similarly it would be a mistake to think of solitary hermits under c 603 as "semi-hermits" because they attend parish liturgies while reserving the term hermit or "full-hermit" for those who, for instance, live more isolated lives --- sometimes as self-dedicated but living without real ecclesial identity or involvement. Therese Ivers was rightly underscoring the importance of the silence of solitude for canon 603 hermits. The term "the silence of solitude" is a Carthusian term so the connection to this tradition for c 603 hermits is a significant one. Even so, semi-eremite generally refers to a hermit who depends on professed membership in a community to protect his/her solitude and allow for a truly contemplative life while solitary hermit generally refers to a hermit who is entirely self-supporting and lives a desert existence alone.

Eremitical life occurs along a spectrum of involvement in ecclesial life. Generally today there are three main points along this continuum: solitary eremitical life, semi-eremitical life or eremitical life lived within a community context, and reclusion (which always requires communal support of some sort but is bereft of direct social or communal involvement). What differs in each of these is the degree of separation from others, the degree of physical solitude involved. Still,  all of these folks are hermits in the fullest sense of the word. The Church does not use terms like full-hermits or half-hermits. One is a hermit or one is not. There are no part time hermits, no married hermits, and no dilettantes. How one negotiates the necessary and intrinsic ecclesial dimension of the vocation and protects one's call to prayer in solitude may differ one from another but all of these vocations are eremitical in the fullest sense of the term so long as they live out the non-negotiable elements which define all authentic eremitical life.