Are Vows Possible for a Transgendered Person?

[[Hi Sister O'Neal, Your suggested solution to the situation in the Diocese of Lexington was interesting, but if Matson were to become a non-canonical hermit, what happens to her vows? Would she make private vows? I am wondering about this because of the piece you wrote back in the beginning of May and the relationship of vows to a foundational manliness or womanliness. Wouldn't private vows require the same commitment to a foundational manliness or womanliness as public vows? I suppose I am also asking if someone living as a transgendered person could ever make a vow of chastity in celibacy. I think suggesting non-canonical eremitical life as a solution to many of the problems that are associated with the current situation in Lexington is a good idea, but what about the vows themselves? Particularly what about a vow of chastity in celibacy?]]

Wow! You're reflections on the situation are impressive! Thanks for sharing them here!!! This is almost where things began back on May 6th!! First of all, I agree that even a private vow of chastity in celibacy might not be possible for someone living an openly transgendered life. I believe that such a vow could only make sense if one had detransitioned to whatever degree was possible and committed to living their original or foundational womanliness or manliness. A vow of chastity is a vow to love as fully as God calls us to do and to do so in light of our foundational sexuality. To make a vow of chastity in celibacy is to make a vow to love fully coupled with a commitment to a discipline pursued in the service of increasing one's capacity for such love. We renounce genital activity in all of its forms in order to love others as God loves. And yes, we do this as men or women relating to others in light of our foundational sex.

I think all of this is true whether or not the vows are public or private.  The vow of chastity in celibacy (or consecrated celibacy) is never merely a vow to avoid sexual activity. It is always a vow to love as fully as one is called by God to love --- though without the exclusivity (or specific fruitfulness) of married love. Were Cole Matson to wish to make a private vow in this regard he would need to spell out exactly what he is promising to God, but I agree it could not, without "repentance" (which would necessarily imply detransitioning to whatever extent possible), be called a vow of chastity or chastity in celibacy. Of course, living as a non-canonical hermit would not require such a vow at all. 

The church would raise questions about the possibility of any or all of the vows, both the classical triad (poverty, chastity, and obedience) and those of Benedictine life (stability, conversatio, and obedience) for someone who is transgendered and committed to staying transgendered --- though stability might well be one anyone including one who is transgendered and committed to remaining so might make. One of the difficulties in making vows with built-in limitations, however, is that ordinarily vows are made in order to give one's whole self in a way which opens one to a Divine grace that can produce unimaginable fruit with the potential of one's life. Vows are a kind of blank check, a way of giving one's whole self to God to do with in whatever way and to whatever degree God wills.  In the situation in Lexington I don't think Cole is open to being female (or accepts that he is fundamentally female) and, as the Church understands these commitments and you yourself note, that is a problem in making vows of any sort.

Because private vows are truly a private matter, I believe they could be part of a solution to the situation in Lexington depending upon what was being vowed. They would be non-canonical or "non-normative" in the way the Church understands such things. But here too, c 603 might have something to offer the diocese of Lexington as they consider crafting a solution to the situation they are currently struggling with. C 603 allows a person being professed under the canon to make their commitment with vows or some other form of sacred bond. We are used to using vows at such professions, but other forms of sacred bonds are possible. Cole Matson (and others in a similar position) could well decide to embrace non-canonical eremitical life and use another form of sacred bond to make his/her commitment. That might actually be the best solution.

Thanks for your questions, I might not have pursued this line of thought otherwise, though you are correct that it flows from what I wrote on 06 May. If you want to raise the question of the other vows, feel free to do that.

[[Hi Sister, I wanted to follow up given what you wrote [above]. Could Cole Matson use c 603 and the option of "other sacred bonds" if she wanted to become a consecrated hermit? Matson would avoid making vows and be the hermit she feels called to be.]]

Wow, that was fast. I will append this to the older post if you don't mind. No, the problem with Cole's use of c 603 is that it is more than an official (canonical) way to become a Religious. It refers implicitly to the solitary eremitical vocation and allows for one's consecration by God as this consecration is mediated by the Church in the hands of the local Bishop. Were Cole to leave the Roman Catholic Church and embrace the Episcopal faith community, then he could embrace a solitary life without the definitions or strictures of canon 603. The Episcopal Church has solitaries that do not need to be hermits. They are seen as solitary religious and need not embrace the central elements of c 603 as a Roman Catholic would need to do. (Note that all of these are not just important elements of the life, but they are definitive elements, which are meant to be lived in ways that actually define one's life as a solitary hermit. 

• stricter separation from the world, 
• assiduous prayer and penance, 
• the silence of solitude, 
• the Evangelical Counsels (embraced by vow or other sacred bonds), 
• a Rule of Life one writes for oneself, 
• and lives for the glory of God and the salvation of others, 
• all under the supervision of the person's local ordinary.

But if Cole decides to pursue eremitical life within the Roman Catholic Church,  he will need to do it apart from C 603, and frankly, apart from consecrated life itself. As noted several times, and also by the Bishops at the recent USCCB meeting, the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the ability of a transgendered person to make a vow of consecrated celibacy nor to become a consecrated person in any other vocation. 

It does not change things if an individual bishop differs on this. This is the Universal Church's stance on transgendered persons and consecrated life. Canon 603 is part of universal church law and normative for all persons living consecrated solitary eremitical life. A significant question remains as to whether or not Cole Matson has discerned a genuine eremitical vocation during the two years he has lived as "Brother Christian Matson" in the Diocese of Lexington. The answer to that will require more time and continuing discernment. Additional questions can be raised about a transgendered person's ability to live vows of either poverty or obedience as well.

Mr Toad's Wild Ride

 [[Dear Sister Laurel, I think "joyful hermit" is challenging what you have written about Catholic Hermits in her recent post on becoming a Catholic hermit. But she has the following in her post and I am left confused by it: [[I have written about this process previously, but the basics may be found in The Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Institutes of the Church.  I am posting the requirements which are also, for those in the United States, on the website of the United States Council of Bishops.]] What are the Institutes of the Church? For that matter, what is the United States Council of Bishops? My biggest questions, however are why doesn't joyful hermit mention Canon Law and why does she call canon 603 a "recent proviso"?]] (cf: catholic hermit/how-to-become-catholic-hermit)

Well, Ms McClure is entirely free to challenge what I have written. I have a public blog and that means folks may disagree. At the same time she will recognize that her similarly public challenge  may raise questions and require a response. Personally the way she has argued, and continued to argue over the years makes me think of Mr Toad's attempts to drive a car. Ultimately it could be disastrous for herself, for the solitary consecrated eremitical vocation, and for any who pin their vocational hopes on her mistake-riddled position.

So, regarding your questions --- and let me make it clear that a number of people have raised the same significant questions with regard to this poster over the past years, some of them badly misled and disappointed in the process of following what she has written about becoming a Catholic Hermit ---  first of all, there is no such thing as the Institutes of the [Catholic] Church if by this one means a set of norms or guidelines called "institutes". They do not exist. As I understand it, once upon a time the author of the blog you referenced misread canon 603 and instead of citing it properly as [[Besides institutes of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitical or anchoritic life (Praeter vitae consecratae instituta)]] --- which means, "besides societies (Orders, Congregations, or communities) of consecrated life in canon 603 the Church recognizes solitary eremitical or anchoritic life" --- Ms McClure wrote instead, [[ In addition to THE institutes of consecrated life. . .]] and from there decided this referred to a set of norms besides (and apparently equal to and older than) those of canon law (or at least canon 603). 

Pretty much it has all been downhill from there and joyful has built an entire theory of how things work with regard to the Church's theology of consecrated life based on this misquote and a couple of other misinterpretations of paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In some ways this misquote drove the other misunderstandings.  In others it was a central piece of an ever-deepening and misleading feedback loop. Amazing what havoc the mistaken addition of a definite article can wreak!

Meanwhile, the implications of Ms McClure's misquote is the truth that while the rest of the Church recognizes the Code of Canon Law as the Church's universal law, Ms McClure (joyful hermit) apparently truly believes there is another code or set of norms which is equal to or has priority over canon law and which is called the "Institutes of the [Catholic] Church". This is the reason she can call canon 603 a "recent proviso" (meaning a conditional reality attached to something else) rather than regarding it as the law of the Church with regard to solitary consecrated Catholic Hermits. She gives priority to the supposed but fictional "Institutes" and treats the 1983 canon 603 as an alternative or conditional reality added to these. It also seems that she means these Institutes which are suppposedly written earlier than canon 603 is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was not published until 1994. Thus, she writes:

[[Canon Law 603, while more recent, is a viable, additional provision to the institutes of the Church per consecrated, eremitic life, for the Catholic man or woman discerning and/or called by God to the consecrated life of the Church as an eremitic.  For some bishops and hermits, it may be a preferred provision for various reasons, not mentioned here.]]  (Emboldening added)

But in this Ms McClure is ignoring or otherwise disregarding both the entire history of canon 603 and its significance and uniqueness. Namely, there is NO OTHER Canon on eremitical life in the Church's universal law regulating or establishing. There was none in the 1917 Code. Hermits were not mentioned. C 603 is entirely new and came from the work of Church Fathers who at Vatican II decried the lack of such legislation regarding the eremitical vocation. Consecrated vocations to solitary eremitical life MUST be consecrated according to canon 603; there is NO OTHER option in the Roman Catholic Church. If Ms McClure or other readers take(s) nothing else from this post she or they need to remember the CCC was written and published 11 years AFTER THE Revised Code of Canon Law; it CANNOT be "The Institutes" c 603 was supposedly written "in addition to" nor is the 1983 c 603 a "more recent" "additional proviso" to the 1994 Catechism paragraphs on the consecrated life.

Because Ms McClure reads the CCC in the way she does and believes it is some other normative source of law, she can and does disregard Canon Law and treats canon 603 as something some Bishops may simply prefer to something else. (Except for preferring that people make entirely private commitments in the lay state, for instance, and refusing to consecrate solitary hermits under c 603 at all, there is no option here. Bishops can't prefer some other way of consecrating solitary hermits because there isn't any other way; for Pope, Bishops, and everyone else in the Church c 603 is simply the law with regard to consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic church).

Too, because her entire position is built on the quicksand of her original misquote ("THE Institutes") and on a reading of paragraphs 920-921 of the CCC which wrests them from their essential literary, historical, ecclesial, and theological contexts Ms McClure's arguments lack cogency and her positions are groundless distortions of the truth; they cut the heart out of the vocation as ecclesial and in its place substitute an extreme  individualism --- the very antithesis of what the Church calls eremitical solitude. To then treat the CCC as though it has the legislative force of  the Code of Canon Law or is part of an entirely fictional "Institutes of the [Catholic] Church" which pre-date the revised Code is to have gone off the rails altogether --- just as Mr Toad did. My real concern is that she will lead others into the same individualistic ditch she has driven herself. When that happens the pain associated with being taken in in this way and then disabused of their delusion by pastors, chancery personnel, and even other parishioners would be likely to be significant no matter how tactfully done.

 Summary:

Ms McClure's posts on c 603 raise the following questions which, unless they can be adequately answered, point to the incoherence of her position.

1) Why does she translate c 603.1 as "In addition to THE institutes of consecrated life" rather than as "Besides institutes of consecrated life" (meaning besides societies of consecrated life) as given in the official English translation and in the original Latin?

2) If she continues to insist on the definite article in her translation I wonder why that is. Also what are these other "institutes" she refers to if not societies of consecrated life? Are they the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

3) Especially, does she mean these "institutes" are the CCC paragraphs 914-933 on consecrated life? I ask because this is the only other source she cites and she seems to give priority to it.

4) But if this is so then how can she speak of a 1983 canon which pre-dates these 1994 paragraphs as a "more recent" or an "additional proviso"? Canon 603 is 11 years older than the paragraphs of the CCC on consecrated life or par 920-921 on consecrated eremitical life and has historical as well as legislative or normative priority.

5) Since the 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated with the promulgation of the 1983 Revised Code and since it did not refer to eremitical life in any case Ms McClure (aka Joyful Hermit, The Complete Hermit, Catholic Hermit, cannot mean this earlier Code represents these "institutes" can she?

Postscript: There is no US Council of Bishops. We have the USCCB, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. That is the only organization I believe Ms McClure can be referring to.

More on Bonds, Impediments to New Bonds, and the Catechism vs Canon Law

 [[Dear Sister, you haven't said much about impediments to consecrated life, but it seems to me that private vows, which can be taken by anyone at any time cannot initiate the person into consecrated life automatically. What would happen if a person had been married, divorced, and never granted an anullment but then made private vows as a hermit? They would not be allowed to make a canonical profession because of the prior marriage; it would stand as an impediment wouldn't it?]]

Yes, if the marriage was valid and occurred between two baptized Christians, then you are right; you make a really good point which, as you say, I have not discussed much. Namely, admission to the consecrated state of life requires a certain freedom from other obligations or bonds. For instance c 645.1  notes that, "Before they are admitted to the novitiate, candidates [in an institute of consecrated life] must show proof of baptism, confirmation, and free status." Thus, ipso facto, it is true that one needs such proof prior to actual profession despite the fact this is not listed in the requirements for profession. While candidates for c 603 profession may have been married and divorced they must still fulfill the requirement of proof of free status before being admitted to profession, whether temporary or perpetual. This is in accordance with c 645.1 despite the fact the hermit is not entering an institute of consecrated life.

One of the reasons the Church does her own due diligence in this matter and secures baptismal certificates, etc, is not only to make sure a person is truly a Catholic, but to make sure there are no bonds which would constitute impediments to the establishment of the bonds of consecrated life or the related assumption of canonical rights and obligations. You see, when one is baptized, other sacraments of initiation, sacramental marriages, professions, consecrations, dispensations from public commitments, ordinations, divorce decrees and decrees of nullity, etc are added to the same register. (A record of these is sent to one's baptismal Church and these are added to one's baptismal record. They are also recorded on the back of any copies of certificates which are later sent to authorities requesting these, say prior to profession, etc. --- or to the individual requesting one).

But if one has been validly married, divorced, and never been granted a decree of nullity, for instance, they are not considered free to enter the consecrated state of life any more than they are considered free to marry again. The marriage bond between two baptized Christians serves as an impediment because, despite civil divorce, in terms of the Church's theology, the marital bond established in the exchange of vows still exists unless a decree of nullity establishes this is not the case. (c.1085) It makes no sense for the Church to teach that her own theology, canonical structures, procedures, and safeguards regarding public states of life in the Church can be circumvented merely by the making of an entirely private vow or vows. Thus, while one blogger insists that paragraph 920-921's location in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the major heading "The Consecrated Life" allows her to argue that she is a consecrated hermit despite her lack of canonical standing as such, you can see that, hypothetically speaking, had she been married and divorced without benefit of a decree of nullity, for instance, she would actually not even be free to enter the consecrated state of life. If she then made private vows despite a lack of decree of nullity (which she is free to do),  they would be entirely valid but they would not initiate her into consecrated life --- even if they were capable of doing so otherwise (which they are not).  

I am not particularly knowledgeable about other impediments to consecration under c 603 besides insufficient age, except that one cannot have been professed in an institute of consecrated/religious life without also having those vows either expired if temporary or dispensed in any case. (Some religious become c 603 hermits after obtaining an indult of exclaustration and then of departure which end (or take effect) on the day of their profession under c 603. (They cannot ALSO profess under canon 603 because they are already bound in law to other legitimate superiors, other proper law than their own Rule, etc.) They are thus freed of one bond while another is created simultaneously.) This would not have been possible prior to canon 603 which is why the dozen monks who came under the protection of Bishop Remi de Roo were required to be laicized and secularized.

In any case, any person at any time can make private vows of many sorts including those of poverty, chastity, and obedience (the meaningfulness and prudence of obedience is another question), but one can never argue these initiate the person into the consecrated state. The Church insists that initiation into the consecrated state occurs canonically which therefore requires the candidate be 'vetted' so to speak; this is meant to ensure one is truly free to enter the consecrated (state of) life as well as allowing a subsequent process of discernment concluding that one is truly called to do so. If one is not, then the bond supposedly being established in profession and consecration as well as the grace necessary for living the life will never be realized or received. The profession and consecration would be invalid. In any case one claiming to be consecrated while still bound  in some way by the former definitive commitment of marriage would be living a life of pretense --- hardly edifying for the People of God!

Perhaps if I tweaked the other poster's argument a bit it would make things clearer. Let's say a person is happily married and desires to make private vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience (all baptised persons are to live some version of these evangelical counsels though most do so without additional vows) --- something, as you also note, they are free to do at any time. When they do this, would they also become initiated into consecrated life? Why not?  Yet one blogger continues to argue that  private vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience mean a person leaves the married state or that these private vows obviate the need for a decree of nullity. They may well be incompatible with one's married state depending on how they are conceived but private vows simply do not work this way. Private vows (that is, any vow not received by the Church "in the hands" of a legitimate superior acting in the name of the Church)  neither initiate one into the consecrated state of life nor do they cause a person to leave it or any other state of life.

Paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The placement of cc 920-921 under the major heading "The Consecrated Life" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is and remains problematical unless we 1) realize the CCC is not binding in legislative ways (it is not a code of laws though it may describe these) and does not circumvent nor have priority over canon law in such matters; any confusion is clarified by Canon Law which DOES have the authoritative say in these matters, 2) unless we begin to treat these paragraphs as though they don't apply to hermits in the lay state at all (which would be something of a pity), and 3) unless we understand that these paragraphs do not fit precisely ONLY under the major heading "The Consecrated Life" and thus suffer from some of the ambiguities which affect the rest of this section of the CCC as outlined by JMR Tillard, OP, in his chapter on this in the Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "The Church".

It actually would not have made editorial sense for the CCC to place the identical summary paragraphs on the characteristics of eremitical life in both a section on the laity or lay vocation and one on the consecrated life, much less once again in a section on clergy. Yet canon 603 was new and groundbreaking introducing a new form of consecrated life; it thus made sense to locate these paragraphs under the heading "The Consecrated Life" while allowing them to be edifying to hermits in any appropriate state of life. Again, what remains the case is that who belongs to consecrated life and how they are initiated into it are  matters for Canon Law to clarify since it has the legislative priority over the CCC's pedagogical role. When a legal argument is put forward based on a reading of the Catechism but that argument flies in the face of canonical distinctions and requirements in this matter, that argument must fall. As I have noted here before, and recently as well, for the hermit in the consecrated state (a legal or canonical as well as Divinely instituted  and ecclesially mediated state of life!) the Catechism's paragraphs on the eremitical life are descriptive and edifying. They are not unimportant but again, they are not prescriptive or legislative in the way Canon Law is.

Postscript: A reminder on how decrees of nullity work and do not work.  Recently I heard someone remark something about whether or not her "divorce [had been] nullified by the Church". But this is not the way a decree of nullity works. Decrees of nullity declare publicly and officially that there was no true marriage bond established in the first place. They do not nullify precisely, particularly not a divorce (a civil rather than ecclesiastical reality), so much as they decree that the bond was found to be null or void and therefore, that one is free to enter into other definitive commitments --- like those of religious profession and initiation into the consecrated state, ordination, or marriage itself.

When one applies for a decree of nullity (far from being nullified a civil divorce is first required) the Church through a marriage tribunal weighs all the evidence submitted; one canon lawyer works as "defender of the bond" and thus presents (or at least argues) all of the reasons a true bond can be said to have existed and not be declared null (if the marriage between two Christians is valid the bond is presumed to have existed and still exist; the reasons to declare the bond null must be compelling). The other side is also presented and the tribunal comes to a conclusion. In some cases a decree of nullity is granted and in others the sacramental marriage bond is held to stand in spite of civil divorce.

The Meaning of "Other Sacred Bonds" in Canon 603

[[Dear Sister Laurel, What sort of "other sacred bonds" are there - other than vows - to express a "definitive dedication of self." I don't remember you ever using this phrase before, and I think others might also be interested in hearing you elaborate upon that.]]

LOL! A good reason I haven't said much about this sort of obscure part of canon 603 is that I haven't been able to find out much about it myself! I have only heard of one diocese using this option or at least inquiring about it from a canonist I know, and unfortunately, she didn't go into detail on that (we were discussing something else really). What I do understand it to mean, however, is that in some way one dedicates oneself definitively to live an eremitical life according to c 603, and thus to do so in a publicly (legally) responsible way ("in the name of the Church"), and this dedication is accepted in the name of the Church by the local ordinary. Once this occurs a bond exists, in fact, a sacred bond which is public in character --- just as when two persons consent to marriage during a marriage rite a bond is established then and there.

In the Catholic theology of marriage the existence of this bond does not depend upon the quality of the relationship; it is the result of the exchange of consent to marry (I take you, etc); it is an example of what is called "performative language where something, in this case a bond, comes to be in the very speaking of the words. Thus, in regard to c 603, it seems to me that one might promise to live one's Rule with fidelity and integrity, for instance, and to do so under the direction of legitimate superiors for the rest of one's life. If such a promise is made in the hands of a legitimate superior a sacred bond then exists. Some sort of oath ("I swear here before all. . . that I . . .") may be acceptable here too. (In the case of a c. 603 commitment to live a Rule with fidelity and integrity, the hermit and diocese would need to be very clear the constitutive elements of the canon were adequately understood and reflected in the text of the Rule itself. Thus, the evangelical counsels and what they call for in concrete terms would need to be clearly articulated.) In either of these cases, the person is not making vows of the evangelical counsels to God, but they are giving themselves entirely to God in the eremitical life in the name of the Church, and they are being initiated into the consecrated state of life --- which means this is a profession in the canonical sense.

This is part of the reason Sandra Schneiders, IHM, as you may well know, distinguishes between profession and vows per se.(cf., Schneiders, Selling All,  "Commitment and Profession" pp. 78-116). It is also one of the reasons I focus on the canonical relationships that obtain in profession. Profession of any sort creates new bonds and/or new relationships in law. It is also the reason I ordinarily distinguish between the meanings of "witnessing vows" and "receiving vows". The first creates no real bond between the one making the vows and the one witnessing them (assuming s/he is only witnessing); the second creates a true, and even sacred bond between these persons (say, a hermit and her Bishop/diocese and the larger Church, for instance) and those others the person receiving the vows represents (the Universal Church, the diocese, and the Bishop's successors in this case). When we speak of profession leading to initiation into a "stable state of life" we are speaking, at least partly, of these significant and enduring bonds and relationships and the structure and law that regulates, governs, and supports them.

As you also well know, in associateship with the IHM's or congregations like the Sisters of the Holy Family associate members promise or covenant certain things and the congregation receives and adds their own consent to this covenant. Vows are not made here, nor is there initiation into a new state of life (profession), but the bonds are undoubtedly sacred. In oblature with the Benedictines or Camaldolese, etc, there is an exchange of promises or consent. In this case these are not vows to God either, nor do they constitute profession in the canonical sense, but they are sacred bonds nonetheless. My own diocese  (Oakland) simply decided we would be using vows and I was honestly not prepared for --- nor would I have really desired --- using anything else. But given the fact that my Rule was given a Bishop's Declaration of Approval with the explicit hope that this would prove beneficial for the living of the eremitical life as part of all of this (this Rule became legally (i.e., canonically) as well as morally binding on me on the day of my profession), I can see now where I might instead have made my commitment in terms of "living this Rule" and dedicating my entire self to God in this way. In any case, perhaps any canonist reading here will contact me and correct any errors I have made in this but I think this is  the gist of what the authors of canon 603 were expressing when they referred to vows or "other sacred bonds."

By the way, thanks very much for the question. It has been exciting for me to put into words what I do understand in regard to all this. The paragraph on the distinction Sister Sandra draws in Selling All and the place of the establishment of enduring or stable bonds and relationships in a state of life may be a bit tangential to your question itself but it helped pull some old threads together for me in a new way. I might not have done this if you had not pushed me to reflect on the meaning of "other sacred bonds" in canon 603. Again, thanks for the question.

Postscript: I heard from a canon lawyer and permanent deacon who studied Canon Law at Catholic University with a canonist in my own diocese; he reads what I write on Canon 603. While he was not clear how the phrase "other sacred bonds" applies to hermits (something I found reassuring given how little I have found written on it), he did write the following: [[. . .Your commentaries on canonical issues are always good to read. . . . This language is used in the 83 code to describe what members of secular institutes or societies of apostolic life make in lieu of the vows taken in a religious institute. How it applies to a hermit I am clueless!]] He also suggested I check canons 711 and 731 which do use this language while noting the language [[was the subject of a number of research projects/dissertations at various canon law faculties over the years.  Gerry Quinn, JCL, St Louis, MO]] (Since I am emphatically NOT a canonist by either education or training, I am assuming (I hope accurately) that Deacon Quinn was not saying reading my blog on canonical issues [with c 603] was good for the comic relief it might sometimes provide him! In any case, I am really pleased he chose to add to this conversation and pleased as well to be able to consult him, et al. on other questions!)