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

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

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

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

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

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

Novitiate in Portsmouth Abbey, Rhode Island?

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Questions and the USCCB:

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