Hiddenness at the Service of Mystery (Reprise)

One of the things I did [last year] that was more than a bit out of the ordinary was to watch the coronation of King Charles III, and I want to repost it because of the recent focus on hiddenness serving the revelation of Mystery. I had seen the coronation of  Queen Elizabeth II when I was just shy of 4 yo and it was a memorable occasion viewed on a small black and white TV. It may even have contributed to my response to Catholic liturgy when I was in my teens. In any case, I knew I wanted to watch this coronation even though it meant losing most of a night's sleep to do so. I am not sorry I did. And, while it was all beautifully done and moving (the 3&1/2-year-old still inside me seemed gobsmacked at the COLOR and the horses!!!), one moment especially stood out, not only because it differed from the coronation of Charle's Mother, or because the symbolism was incredibly well-done, but because it was the holiest moment of the coronation per se. 

In 1953 when it came time for Queen Elizabeth II to be anointed, a large gold canopy was moved over her and people stood looking away from her. TV cameras were somehow blocked from any real view of what was happening and I remember trying to see under the canopy and being puzzled by it all. The Queen had been divested of all of her regal finery and was wearing a (relatively) simple white dress. But then came this great canopy and the commentators were talking (more softly I seemed to remember) about something I could neither see nor understand. What I did register somewhere deep within myself was the gravity of the moment, especially as steps were taken to shield the queen, and what was happening to her, from view --- even in the midst of a great throng of interested and supportive people.

Move forward 70 years. Charles III is similarly stripped down to his pants and a simple white shirt. The royal finery is folded and carried away for the moment. Members of the household guard carry in three large decorated screens, the poles which will hold them in place, and assemble them around the King with an opening toward the high altar. There is no canopy, but the King is hidden even more entirely than his Mother had been. As a really nice touch, the household guards face away from the screens except for those holding the poles in place. All have their eyes averted, looking down at the ground. In the midst of this huge cathedral, innumerable digital cameras, people hungry to see every last detail, thousands of guests, and millions of onlookers via media, the Royal family and the Church of England have managed to say clearly, [[Here at the heart of our monarchy is something hidden and inviolable, something incontestably intimate and sacred, something dynamic, living, that --- through the mediation of the church --- occurs between God and the monarch him or herself.]]

It was striking to me that the most profound and profoundly mysterious moment of the coronation was marked by hiddenness. At this moment when the King was anointed, it was hiddenness that was the most powerfully articulate expression of and witness to Mystery. In a ritual enveloped by layers and layers of pomp and color, history and tradition, ritual and symbolism, here was a moment in which an individual temporarily enclosed and shielded from the eyes of others, went into the hiddenness of his own heart and, despite the presence of priests, soldiers, family, and the nations of the world, was alone with his God, seeking and consenting to allow God to do what only God could do, namely, to consecrate him for service to God, his Church, and his people. All of the pomp and pageantry paled for me in comparison to Charles in his simple pants and plain white shirt assenting to being enclosed in the hiddenness of this sacred-making moment. That was underscored for me when I learned that Charles had asked for greater hiddenness than the canopy had allowed his Mother and others in the past.

There are numerous reasons for embracing some degree of hiddenness. They can be good or bad, desirable or undesirable, worthy or unworthy of us. Hermits choose a life of relative hiddenness which serves in significant ways as a witness to Mystery at the heart of life. They choose, not hiddenness as an end in itself, but Mystery and participation in Mystery. They choose hiddenness indirectly because, as was true for Charles III, this is a privileged context for meeting the living God and letting ourselves be vulnerable to him. Today, I am particularly grateful to have seen this value chosen and celebrated by Charles III for the sake of an encounter with the living God. Charles put hiddenness at the service of a moment of ineffable intimacy with Mystery which pomp and ceremony needed to be made to serve. It was liturgy very well done indeed!

Subtle Distinctions in Evaluating Canon 603: A Hiddenness that serves Revelation and Should be Celebrated

[[Sister, I read someone online who claimed she was "upset about the trajectory of the hermit vocation increasingly to the historic and traditional hermit path and way of life being demeaned and essentially replaced by a 1983 canon law that has already proven faulty in the basic conception of public vows in public Mass and public reception and public announcement and public proclamation of the diocese hermit." ]] Why would she be upset, and in what way has canon 603 proven faulty?]]

I think you should probably ask the person who said this to explain what she meant. I don't know anyone who considers canon 603 faulty if by that we mean it needs to be scrapped because it establishes solitary eremitism as a public (ecclesial, consecrated) vocation. Implementing it is challenging (discernment is an art!) and the church must take care in learning to do so appropriately. Some canonists consider it deficient because it doesn't spell out time frames and similar requirements. Still, my own take on the matter is that they have yet to look at either the 1) individuality of the canon or 2) the content of the vocation and the canon that governs it themselves. 

An example of what I mean is represented by the canonist who advised the Bishop of Lexington in the Matson case. When asked about using c 603 to profess Cole he pointed out certain legalities: it could be used for males or females; it was lived in relative quietude and remoteness, etc. What he did not apparently consider were the substantive elements central to the canon, the character of the vows and what they called for from the one professed, the history of the canon, or the reason the canon required the candidate to write his/her own Rule and what this entails. In other words, his focus was on only the most superficial realities associated with c 603 to provide a legal loophole; he seemed unaware and careless of the very heart of the vocation outlined in that canon.

On the Perspectives Necessary to Truly Understand this Canon:

Once one begins to look at the canon from theological and pastoral perspectives appropriate to vocations rather than from one dominated by law or legalism in search of a loophole, the canon itself does not look deficient in any way. Paradoxically, it may require supplementation to help chanceries see its scope and depths and implement it wisely, but this is because of the canon's richness and completeness, not because of any deficiency. Discerning such vocations will be demanding and challenging, but not because the canon lacks anything. Rather it is because the solitary eremitical vocation being described is focused, intense, and particularly rare, countercultural, and counterintuitive.  What needs pointing out quite often is the fact that canon 603 is at least as much surprising vision and invitation as it is a norm. Hence the way canonists suggest "completing it" often misses the point and even prevents the canon's intelligent (and in this I mean authentically Christian) implementation.

I have already written that canon 603 was meant to raise eremitical life in the church to a new dignity precisely to honor it. cf., C 603 Paradigm for All Hermits. It seems to me that the person you are quoting misunderstands the nature of the term public and sees it in terms of notoriety or something that transgresses the hiddenness of the vocation. That's a shame because in my experience it doesn't really do that. "Public" here has to do with public rights and obligations assumed by the c 603 hermit and entrusted to her by the church. These rights and obligations give the whole church the right to hold certain expectations of these hermits and of the vocation itself. Since the vocation is given by God and entrusted to the care of the Church, and since the hermit witnesses to the very heart of the church that is prayer in the silence of solitude --- a vocation in which every Christian shares --- it is important and completely appropriate that this vocation was raised to a state of perfection or form of consecrated life. It does not replace anything. Instead, it serves all eremitical life, whether non-canonical, solitary canonical, or semi-eremitical as a guide to the essential elements of such a life. Similarly, while it establishes and recognizes some eremitical life as normative, it also affirms the value of all genuine eremitical life.

On Celebrating Professions and Consecrations Publicly at Mass:

Yes, eremitical life is essentially hidden, but it is important that the existence of eremitical life in the church is known and celebrated just as we do with all other gifts of God. Thus, our professions and consecrations are celebrated during Mass --- the most solemn and paradigmatically communal setting we know for the most solemn and communal acts in our lives. Nothing about this demeans the eremitical vocation nor does it detract from its hiddenness. Instead it points to the nature of this hiddenness, namely hiddenness in Christ the Incarnate One of God. During Mass we find the deepest mystery of God's Incarnation both hidden and revealed under the species of bread and wine, in the person of the presider and the assembly, and also, of course, in the proclaimed Word of God. Revelation is shot through with hiddenness and in such celebrations, eremitical hiddenness becomes known for its inextricable connection to divine humility (hiddenness) and glorification (revelation). How appropriate then, that a vocation given to the whole faith community and defined in terms of the revelation of the hidden heart of the church be celebrated during such a liturgy!

In the situation in Lexington, one grace we could point to is that it allows significant attention and reflection on c 603 vocations and the appropriate and inappropriate uses of the canon by a much wider audience than usually discusses or opines on such things. Meanwhile, one of the criticisms made by Catholics reading about the story for the first time, was that the Diocese of Lexington had kept the professions attempted by Bishop Stowe and Cole Matson secret when they were meant to be public matters. These commentators were exactly right in this; they knew the importance of public witness and celebration as well as the betrayal secrecy constitutes. 

I believe what was done in Lexington dishonored the vocation in its hiddenness particularly, and it dishonored all those whose own lives are marked by relative obscurity and humbleness and would benefit from the vocation's witness. This is the flip side of the paradox outlined above where hiddenness is intimately linked with revelation and public celebration underscores the normal silence and solitude of the vocation. In this case, however, secrecy was actually a betrayal of the vocation's hiddenness. After all, what the Church proclaims in her public celebrations of eremitical vocations is not the supposed secrecy or anonymity of such lives, but rather, the profound Mystery that is both revealed in and lies hidden at their heart.

Remain in your Cell and your Cell will teach you Everything

[[ Sister O'Neal, what seems particularly unfair to me in the situation you have described over the last weeks, is the fact that Cole Matson is able to use this vocation to do the kind of active ministry he really feels called to while other hermits have had to relinquish such forms of ministry so that they could live c 603 life as the Church called them to do. . . .]]

I agree with you. Hermits often have to relinquish some very special gifts in order to live c 603 in a normative and edifying way. Limited ministry is possible, but the degree to which Matson's own life is given over to this is not simply unusual, it is an unprecedented violation of the spirit and letter of the canon. Most bishops would not permit it and would not profess someone under c 603 if they indicated this degree and type of active ministry was essential to being who they really are. Matson has been clear in conversations we have had that the work he does and will continue doing in theatre is essential to being the person he is. As I told him in 2022, if that is the case, then he needs to understand that faithfully living c 603 would require he relinquish certain gifts he considers essential to being himself. Of course, I fully expected Bp Stowe would not use the canon in a frudulent way in this and would act to protect the integrity of the vocation it defines.

There is a serious degree of injustice being perpetrated in the Lexington situation. Canon 603 hermits truly embracing this specific call will continue to struggle with the question of limited ministry vs contemplative life in hermitage, knowing full well that Cole's gifts, while undoubted, are no more real or significant than the gifts they are being called to relinquish. Others will have to live with the fact that their own bishops have interpreted c 603 appropriately and refused them admittance to profession under c 603 because they must work outside the hermitage --- even though that work takes the form of the lonely cleaning of office buildings in the middle of the night. Still others will come to doubt the importance of the eremitical vocation itself because it does not depend on active ministry in the way most things in the church do; these folks may well determine they cannot persevere or that they need to find a different bishop to profess them --- the need to do active ministry seeming to be too great. While some of these candidates or novice hermits may be correct that they are not called to eremitical life, others may be misled by the situation in Lexington and, as a result, may never be able to entrust themselves to the life of c 603 as fully as it requires to be uniquely fruitful.

We hermits live our lives in the silence of solitude for the sake of others, and that includes for the sake of other hermits also being challenged by the countercultural nature of the vocation and the great need for active ministry in every part of  our church and society. We support one another, most often in our hiddenness, but also directly as we meet by ZOOM or correspond with one another regarding this vocation with which the church has entrusted us. In the past 7-8 weeks I have heard from several diocesan hermits sharing their own feelings about the situation in Lexington. There was a general sense of pain expressed; diocesan hermit Rachel Denton said it this way.

[[The hurt is that c603 is taken so lightly. An administrative tool to “ratify” those of a religious inclination who are not suitable for community living. C603 when it is explored and lived-in-deeply is a wondrous expression of the eremitical life. It is unreasonable to expect bishops and other clerics to understand this fully as they have never lived it – I still don’t understand it fully myself! – But I would hope that they would refer to the experiences of those who have lived it, at length, when they are thinking to wield its authority.

Rachel continues:

An eremitical vocation is a very particular thing (though lived very differently by individuals). It is about a compelling need, an unabated longing, to find God in the silence of solitude. It is not about wanting (or being able) to live a solitary life; it is not about enjoying a bit of peace and quiet; it is not about living in remote and lonely places (though it could be all those things – God redeems everything!). It is about looking for God, and realising the only place to look is in this place, and finding, in your searching and solitude, that the whole world is here in this place with you.]] Rachel Denton, Er Dio (Diocese of Hallam, UK) Emphasis added.

But, you see, growth in the ability to perceive what Sister Rachel is referring to here takes time and commitment to life in the silence of solitude. Her perspective on this is precisely the perspective of someone living this vocation faithfully over long years. Her correlative commitment to creating community from the hermitage has been similarly formed and informed. What she has affirmed strongly echoes the classic desert wisdom, [[Dwell (or remain) in your cell and your cell will teach you everything!!]] That affirmation is the essence and gift of the eremitical vocation to the rest of the Church. It is something those entrusted with this vocation are called to live and proclaim with fidelity even (or especially) when it means relinquishing other God-given gifts and greater active ministry.

Living Solitary Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Diocese of Lexington and the Setting of Problematic Precedents Under c 603

[[Dear Sister, you wrote: "I have to ask Cole [Matson] if he really believes his vocation is more real than the hundreds of those whose dioceses turned them away when they wanted to use c 603 as the "only available canon" to become publicly professed despite not feeling called to be a solitary hermit? That is simply the height of arrogance." I haven't heard anyone else raise this question. Have there really been hundreds of persons turned away from dioceses who were seeking admission to profession under c 603? Why is it so many people are turned away? Has Bishop Stowe turned others away? Will he feel compelled to profess anyone who comes to him with this petition? It seems to me that Bishop Stowe kind of cut the heart out of the c 603 vocation.]]

Thanks for your questions. Several of them I really can't answer (I can't read minds, including that of Bishop Stowe) but here is what I know. Yes, there have been hundreds and hundreds of persons turned away from profession under c 603 throughout the country and many times more than that throughout the world. In my own diocese, I know from a meeting with the Vicar for Religious about 10 years after my consecration (meeting was @2017) that they had seen a steady stream of people seeking to be professed in this way during this time. The estimation was an average of 1/month for a period of @10 years. So, in my diocese alone at least 120 persons besides myself had sought profession under c 603 through 2017. If we extend that for the next 7 years, that's another @84 persons which is @204 persons in a single diocese in the US. What Father Robert Herbst (OFM Conv) said at the time was that none of those had gotten as far as I had. That means that the diocese did, in fact, give some serious time in discernment to some of them depending on the case. 

There are 176 dioceses in the US. If even only half of these received a similar number of persons seeking profession under c 603 in the diocese of Oakland, that would still be a huge number of people seeking profession. If we divide that number into half again in the interests of conservatism, that is still almost 10,000 persons (though I personally find this number hard to believe). Let's divide this by 50% (simply because I really do find it difficult to believe!!). Also, we must recognize that some dioceses and regions do not entertain petitions for c 603 profession so if we divide the number in half yet again to account for these, we still come up with 2,500 persons petitioning their dioceses over four decades in the USA alone. Of this number, only a fraction might be thought to have a genuine eremitical life; many of the others sought to use the canon as a stopgap way to get themselves professed and consecrated and were rightly refused admission to profession.

Since there are only about 100-150 diocesan hermits (fewer than 1 per diocese) in the US, it is clear that most candidates (@ 24 out of 25) do not make it very far towards perpetual profession and consecration. Still, we believe that the majority of these 100-150 persons are living authentic eremitical lives and a significant number of those turned away by their dioceses truly believed they had genuine vocations to solitary eremitical life. We can put that last number at several thousand. So, yes, even if we minimize the numbers in every way possible we are still looking at a rare vocation where hundreds and hundreds have been turned away from admission to profession and eventual consecration.

Why People are Turned away from Profession and Consecration under c 603

People are turned away from canonical profession for many reasons. Sometimes dioceses have a sense the person cannot really live this vocation in an exemplary way; sometimes the person cannot support themselves adequately without working outside the hermitage. Sometimes physical and mental illness have suggested dioceses ought not profess the person --- and sometimes these conclusions were sound. (At other times they demonstrated a faulty sense of the solitary eremitical vocation or the desert context illness can provide.) 

Candidates have been refused because their spirituality is unsound, because they don't have sufficient background in (practical) theology, prayer, or eremitical and monastic life which means they either don't understand what they are asking, or will not be able to live it fruitfully in a healthy way. Some candidates are refused because they are grieving some significant loss, have just left religious life for reasons other than feeling called to solitude, and so forth. These persons still need to transition to life outside marriage or religious life in community before seeking to be professed in a new vocation. (Sometimes bishops may underestimate the degree of transition between life in community and solitary eremitical life. In my experience, it is as significant as moving from secular life to solitary eremitical life.) And as noted, a number of dioceses refuse to implement c 603 (or c 604) simply because they believe these are stopgap or fallback vocations.

While I cannot answer the question about others being turned away from profession under c 603 in the diocese of Lexington in the past, and while I don't know what Bp Stowe will feel compelled to do in the future, the question of genuine discernment and formation of such vocations are a burning question for every diocese, but particularly now for the diocese of Lexington. One of the things that comes up again and again with candidates is the question of precedents. For instance, a candidate may want permission to reserve Eucharist before being admitted to profession, much less to consecration. But this would set a precedent for others seeking admission to profession in this and other dioceses we can argue we ought not establish. Thus, ordinarily, dioceses ask candidates to wait until they are admitted to perpetual profession for this permission (not least because life in cell/hermitage without reserved Eucharist is typical of eremitical life through the centuries, and also because the hermit needs to be able to clearly discern and affirm the presence of Christ in all of the ways Christ is present in the hermitage, particularly in the Word of God). The precedents now set in the Diocese of Lexington are significant. They include:

• Professing a transgendered person because they are transgendered and (in light of a continuing church position on this issue) have not been able to enter religious life before this.
• allowing reservation of Eucharist despite not having been consecrated nor even having discerned this vocation,
• allowing c 603 to be used in a stopgap way as a framework for non-eremitical vocations and then calling them "hybrid hermits" or "diocesan monks" or some such vacuous designation.
• entertaining agendas (rather than vocations) as a sufficient reason to admit to an ecclesial vocation.
• Calling a biological woman "Brother" and clothing her in a male habit.
• Allowing (or providing) a so-called diocesan hermit a place to reside on monastery grounds. (While this is something a candidate or diocesan hermit can arrange for themselves, it usually happens only after the person has lived eremitical life for some years and has a longstanding relationship with the monastery. In any case, this establishes a precedent for candidates to c 603 life and others might be allowed to expect similar living arrangements being made available.)
• Allowing a so-called diocesan hermit to work both afternoons and evenings outside the hermitage in a highly social job. (One also assumes the diocese has approved a Rule of Life that established this as "eremitical".)
• Allowing a candidate's profession without a history of living eremitical life in any capacity and in ways that make genuine discernment and formation with diocesan personnel and mentors unnecessary. 
• (A corollary to this is allowing someone being professed to have someone else write their Rule, or at least significant parts of their Rule for them because they don't have the experience to be able to do it themselves.) The ability to write a liveable Rule requires one to have the experience, education, and training that allows such a significant piece of writing. Assistance in this is important, even indispensable, but this does not mean the Rule can be written in part or in whole by someone else, particularly a non-hermit.
• Professing someone who can afford extended stays in monasteries to get some exposure to religious life. (Most candidates will not have this ability. On the other hand, if the diocese paid the expenses of such stays, it sets the precedent that the diocese will do so for every candidate for profession under c 603 with insufficient background to live eremitical life.) In either case, a precedent has been established that needs to be made available to other candidates for c 603 profession at various points along their journey.
• Professing someone whose life contradicts what the church considers normative for consecrated life and so too, is attempting to live this contradiction "in the Church's name". (A vow of obedience becomes doubtful, at best, in such a situation.)
• Professing a person who rejects her biological sex, and letting her make a vow of chastity in celibacy --- a vow promising to live her vocation to authentic womanliness as fully and exhaustively as a chaste woman can and should do despite an inability and unwillingness to live such a vow is a potentially disastrous precedent. It implies a change in the church's theology of the vows or, at the very least, a faulty understanding of the nature of chastity in celibacy.

Questions Raised by Such Precedents:

Each of these precedents in the Diocese of Lexington raises questions there and in other dioceses. But concerning the Diocese of Lexington, the question raised at the bottom is this: Who may not expect to be professed as a c 603 hermit in the Diocese of Lexington if they seek it? What is a good enough reason to deny profession to anyone seeking that under this canon? As you have affirmed yourself, Bp Stowe's actions with regard to Cole Matson did indeed cut the heart out of the vocation. It can now be said that in the Diocese of Lexington (and as they thus at least implicitly recommend to every other local church), one does not even need to be a hermit to be professed and consecrated as a hermit. Anyone wanting to be professed, any person saying they have always desired to become a religious and claims they were "unjustly" refused (whatever this means), can now approach the Diocese of Lexington and ask them to profess them with the same justification that Cole Matson did. 

Meanwhile, the defining characteristics of c 603 may be dismissed as mere "guidelines" rather than defining characteristics if they are not simply jettisoned altogether. Beyond this, Bishop Stowe might reasonably be approached by anyone with a normal prayer life for permission to reserve Eucharist in their own homes. He might now be asked to give permission for anyone wishing to wear a habit or to style themselves as Brother x or Sister y and expect others to to recognize them as such. All they have to promise, it seems, is that they have always desired this but were turned away in the past (or in other dioceses), and that has been terribly painful. If someone else can write them a Rule of life, then even better.

As I have written before, when most of us c 603 hermits approach our dioceses to profess and consecrate us under this canon, it is after we have lived solitary eremitical life for at least several years (many of us have lived it at least a decade or two before our diocese will admit us to profession). We recognize that canonical standing entrusts us with additional rights and obligations beyond those of baptism, and also, at least some of us understand that we return to the Church with something special, even unique, that we gained in the silence of solitude and give the Church in return. In other words, we recognize that God has been working in our lives in a special way in the silence of solitude, that God transfigures our lives in this way, and because of that, we seek to live eremitical life in the name of the Church. This makes us able and ready to proclaim the Good News of the God of Jesus Christ, and again, it is only possible because we embraced eremitical life honestly and exhaustively looking to it and the God who is its author to make an ultimate kind of sense of our lives. So what happens to that witness in light of the Cole Matson situation? It has certainly been threatened and definitely will be lost if Bishop Stowe's precedents are treated as valid or allowed to become commonly practiced by other bishops and dioceses.

The wilderness Call to Life: Creating the Heart of a Hermit (Reprise)

I first posted this in 2017 when I was doing some intense inner work with my director. Every once in a while I need to touch back into this post (and especially The Summons itself) for my own strengthening and renewal. This month has been that kind of month and today is that kind of day. The past weeks have seen a lot of conversation on the nature of the eremitical vocation. Some took place on this blog. Others took place with journalists and several involved my Sister hermits from the US, the UK, and France as well -- as we each shared and marveled over what it means to be called by God to be diocesan hermits. I am posting this again in gratitude to them for their love, support, and sharing --- especially for the reminder of what an adventure into Mystery this vocation promises and requires; for all who have participated in the conversations here this past month or two. Thank you!

                                        *************************

Well, my apologies for not getting a post up for this video. It took me places I hadn't planned on and I am still processing it; "Will you go where you don't know and never be the same," was certainly an apt line in this song!. That was especially true regarding my prayer over the past week and a half or so. I have been living with a "new" definition of prayer I came to because of a Communion service I did for our daily Mass community during a time when our pastor had to be away. That service included our sixth grade class from St Perpetua's school.  The Gospel was from Luke and the pericope involved both began and ended with Jesus' prayer; whether referring to Jesus coming from the synagogue or going off alone to pray at the end of a day of active ministry, both implicitly and explicitly Luke portrays Jesus as a man of prayer. Moreover, according to Luke Jesus' ministry, his active and effective love for others focused on in the middle portion of the text was empowered by prayer and leads to prayer. Allowing God (Love-in-act) to be God in us invariably gives birth to, empowers, and shapes an impulse to go out to others. Because of this I came to think of prayer as a matter of  "allowing ourselves to be loved from the inside out"!

Now of itself that experience was not new to me of course. It is the reason I (or most anyone I know) sit in quiet prayer and give myself to God. I know that God desires to love me, God desires to be God for and with me, and I desire to allow God to do that and to be and do whatever flows from that.. But this last week the description, "Letting God love us from the inside out" as a definition for prayer was new, a more succinct way of thinking about the dynamic of prayer and ministry together, especially as prayer empowers ministry. Then on Sunday we sang "The Summons" which touched me and pulled everything together. While using this song both for meditation and in my usual practice of quiet prayer I became far more vividly  aware of God loving me from the inside out throughout the whole of my life. We sometimes hear that when a person faces death their entire life flashes before them. Well, the combination of contemplative prayer, meditation on "The Summons", and personal work for direction led me to experience something similar. For the first time, in series of images drawn from my entire life during each prayer period, I saw clearly how God had worked through my WHOLE life to create the heart of a hermit. The experience was repeated at each prayer period over a number of days; it was an amazing time of healing and integration empowering a fresh sense of my vocation.

Ordinarily I sit in quiet prayer for about an hour or so at a time a couple of times a day  ---  once at 4:00 am and again in the early evening. But last week the work I had been doing with my director coupled with my response to the song at Mass triggered an urgent hunger for quiet prayer in the mid-afternoon.  I responded by sitting for about two hours and then,  after a brief stretch and cup of tea, etc.,  I sat again for meditation, sometimes using headphones and listening to lines from "The Summons" in a repeating loop for about another hour and a half. (In using the headphones I would really only "hear" and be moved by one or two lines at a time while the rest of the song either went mainly "unheard." or I stopped the playback). Each line that struck me with fresh application and emotion during these times reminded me of various events in my life from very young childhood onwards in the aforementioned series of images. In response I began to cry both long, freely, and deeply --- sometimes in some sadness and grief, but mainly in joy and profound gratitude for the way I saw that God had been working in my life. And so it continued over a period of several days through a number of  longer-than-usual prayer periods. It was far and away one of the most powerful and graced experiences I have ever had.

What I experienced  in all of this and eventually came to see clearly was indication after indication that throughout the whole of my life God not only has called me by name to be but that he called me to be a hermit (or maybe I should say that at each point God prepared me in very specific and clearly identifiable ways to receive and live this call). He has created possibilities for me to follow him in Christ even when I was unaware there were such possibilities --- and even when I was consciously unaware of the God who was their source and ground! He has called me to allow myself to be loved unceasingly and without limit so that I could serve him and his people as one who truly knew (solitary) love --- even, and perhaps especially when it came to me in profound physical solitude and emotional isolation. As God does with each of us, He loved me from the inside out and fitted me for discipleship and ministry --- though, of course, in my case he fitted me for the very unlikely and unusual discipleship and ministry of a diocesan hermit. From a tangle of many beautiful but also sometimes seemingly inapt threads, ugly snags, and tightly formed and apparently fruitless knots, God has constantly and lovingly woven a grace-filled tapestry celebrating the solitary vocation to life and love --- and God continues to do so, if only I will continue to consent and commit myself in faith.

The summons John Ball wrote about in his song comes to us each and all in many ways but primarily it is an inner reality, something that calls us from our deepest core and, as we make innumerable choices for life, forms us into God's very own "members" who will love, touch and serve others: Will we "come and follow him"? Will we "go where we do not know and never be the same"? Will we "let his love be shown and his name (i.e., his powerful presence) be known"? Will we "let his life be grown in us and we in him"? This summons and these questions are what concerned Jesus, a man (as Hebrews affirms so clearly) like us in all things, a man of prayer who (as the author of Luke-Acts affirmed) grew in grace and stature. It is what empowered him to respond so exhaustively to the One he called "Abba" in an entirely unique way; it is what allowed him to become the unique mediator and Minister of God's love so that when people looked at Jesus they saw not only the face of authentic humanity but the very face of God and when they were touched by Jesus' humanity they were touched by the very hands and breath of God.

This summons, these questions must be what concern and empower us as well. They must shake and console, challenge and transform us so that we are able to love beyond what we believed was even remotely possible. This is what we are called to; it is the long, joyful, tear-stained and life-forming process we must embrace and let embrace us. Whether we are thinking of Luke or of Hebrews, this is what it means to be people of prayer, people who are truly imago Christi as Christ is singularly imago Dei, people who are loved from the inside out.

Ecclesial Vocations: On the Importance of Honest Mutual Discernment in Times of Doubt

[[Without entering into the vocation with the right motive, Sister Laurel warned “the most profound healing of past trauma, rejection, and any correlative search for identity and value” that can come from the hermit’s solitude with God would not be possible for Matson. She warned Bishop Stowe that the ramifications of permitting Matson to become a diocesan hermit without proper discernment could be significant, especially for hermits in the midst of their own vocational doubt. “If the church’s own discernment of the truth of this vocation is driven by anything other than the most rigorous honesty of perception and judgment, the entire vocation can be undermined just when the hermit’s own life is most vulnerable to redemption and transfiguration,” she wrote. “The result can be disastrous.”

Sister, I wondered if you would clarify what you were reported to have said in this passage from the article in OSV. I didn't understand the reference to doubt.]]

Thanks for asking. Yes, what I was speaking about was those times in every hermit's life when we wonder if we have really heard God's call in petitioning or responding to become a hermit. The vocation is so countercultural, and in many ways so counterintuitive and there are so many more obvious ways to do good, to show others the love of God, or (it seems) to become more fully and generously human, that we can come to doubt we have rightly heard and responded to God's call. Because the vocation is an ecclesial one and because this means the Church must also discern this vocation before she entrusts us with it or permits us to live it in the name of the Church, it becomes terribly important that we are able to trust those who have discerned the vocation with us. If, as we have been looking at during the last few weeks, the church (meaning bishops, Vicars for Religious, mentors in the formation process, etc.,), does not do an honest and rigorous discernment, then during these periods of doubt we have no way to rest in the church's decision to profess and consecrate us.

Beyond this, when we move through the doubt and find the faith to trust in the church's mutual discernment, we also move more deeply into the truth of our vocation, and this means we are more able to open ourselves (or be vulnerable) to the redemptive presence of God. At the heart of every vocation is a redemptive experience where God comes to and takes us to Godself in our doubt and emptiness, our brokenness, woundedness, and unrealized potential, and assures us of our inestimable value as he brings us to greater fullness, wholeness, and holiness. This experience comes to us within a God-given vocation. To know one has this vocation is to know God has entrusted one with a very unusual and real place in his own story. It is to be loved beyond knowing and to come to regard ourselves as a precious and unique representative of a specific vocational path. Paradoxically, being able to rest confidently in the church's honest and knowledgeable discernment makes possible this radical vulnerability and the redemption that can follow. Still, the journey of this particular path is a journey we can only make in radical vulnerability and that cannot happen when the journey begins with the kinds of lies, deception, and egregious self-will present in the Lexington situation. 

From the perspective of our need for the church's mutual discernment, it must be underscored that the situation in Lexington resulted from the betrayal of the local church's responsibility regarding canon 603 (and Cole Matson as well). Despite the candidate's candid admission that what he sought was public profession without having discerned a call to solitary eremitical life and likely being called instead to community life, he was allowed to attempt profession as a solitary hermit. The minister of profession commented he didn't see whom it would hurt, which is a far cry from affirming a sense of a divine call. He acted carelessly and without regard to the vocation itself, its history, or those who might truly be called to it. Moreover, he implicitly says in this way, that he does not believe Cole Matson has any kind of genuine vocation in the Church and can live with this kind of hypocrisy rather than in genuine joy. I find that distinctly uncharitable. 

Meanwhile, while C. Matson, for instance, might never have to depend on the honesty and rigor of the church's discernment concerning his eremitical life (he already knows he is not called to this precise vocation and that he used c 603 in a stopgap way), others in the diocese down the line who might truly be called to this vocation (or others!) might want and need to assure themselves that the diocese has a history of honesty, sensitivity, and understanding in their discernment of certain ecclesial vocations.

On Objective Superiority of Vocations: Why Would God Call us to an "Objectively lower" State of Life??

Hi Sr. Laurel - I am really struggling to understand something. Let’s say there are two people who are both attracted to religious life and have the capacity to live it out, with nothing preventing them from doing it. They are attracted to each other, but also to religious life. And yet, God reveals to them that He wills them to marry each other instead. What are some reasons why that might happen? I am having trouble understanding/accepting why God would will someone to an objectively lower state of life. Wouldn’t they have been better off in religious life? Is it possible for marriage to be holier than religious/consecrated life somehow? And if so, how?]]

These are great questions. The key lies in thinking about the reasons some theologians and the church have used the term "objective superiority" about certain states. While folks sometimes still throw around the idea that some vocations are higher or lower than others I think it is important that we let go of such notions. They are too easily misunderstood as "more or less worthy" and things like that. If there is one thing Vatican II tried to get across and make sure the church expressed in the whole of her life it is the idea that every person is called to holiness and we cannot suggest that some vocations lead to holiness while others do not.

That said, what theologians have recognized is that some states of life seem to put the call to holiness at the forefront and they build into themselves or have built into them all the things that objectively contribute to such a call. Scripture, the Sacraments, a focus on prayer and loving others as God loves, some degree of separation from the values and institutions that seem to militate against sanctity (or a life with, in, and for God), all of these are built into the very fabric of some vocations. They define such vocations. These calls are pursued with a special focus on holiness and implicating God into the whole of this world. Other calls seem to do all of this less directly or even in a less focused way. Spirituality seems to be compartmentalized and other concerns seem to predominate. The distinction between these two types of vocations seem to me to be what theologians have referred to as objectively superior vs those that are not.

Think of it this way one child is born into a family of wealth and privilege while one is not. Both children are well-loved but the first child is also well-fed, clothed, housed, educated, catechized, and given many privileges the second child simply has insufficient or even no access to. We might well say that the first child has been called into an objectively superior state of life because everything necessary to grow into a healthy, creative, loving, and productive human being is built into their home life. When theologians speak of one vocation being objectively superior to another this is what they are speaking of. One vocation has all the things along with the vision and focus necessary to lead one to genuine holiness while others do not (or at least seem not to).

Note well, that objective superiority does not necessarily imply the subjective superiority of those called to such vocations, nor even that such a vocation is the best context for everyone called to achieve real sanctity. The second child in our example may well thrive in ways the first does not precisely because she will respond to the need to strive for resources or be more attentive to the inklings of grace in a given situation than the first child. While the second child may never be wealthy in all the ways the first child is, she may well grow into a better more loving human being.

This may provide a way of approaching your question about marriage vs religious life. Yes, it is absolutely possible for marriage to be a better means to holiness than consecrated life would allow for. Remember that marriage is a Sacrament and is meant to reveal the way human beings love one another and bring one another to union with God. Consecrated life is not a Sacrament and has never been raised to that dignity. Granted, the married couple must build into their lives all of those things religious life tends to take for granted (so to speak) and that is really difficult when struggling to raise a family, educate them, give them all they need to become whole and holy human beings. There is nothing easy in that and the degree of self-sacrifice and generosity involved is truly heroic --- but it is certainly possible. Families may be poor, but they cannot make vows of poverty because they must raise children and give them all the resources they need to grow and mature. Which is harder to achieve? Which requires the help of the Holy Spirit more to maintain a healthy focus? Each is difficult in its own way and where once I might have said marriage, I now say I really don't think we can say. The term öbjectively superior" does not allow this kind of comparison or competition. It simply calls for gratitude!

Still, in either case, the question facing the persons you described will need to be where do I feel most deeply and truly called? Which of these vocations will allow me to be most fully myself, to love most fully and effectively? I doubt anyone ever determines their true vocation by measuring it in terms of objective superiority, for instance. We measure vocations in terms of the humanity they make possible for ourselves and others and this necessarily means too, the ways and degrees to which they reveal God in our world. (Remember that reveal does not only mean to make known, but also to make real.) When we respond to a vocational call we implicitly do so in a way that is optimal in these terms --- it is the best choice for us as responsible and responsive human beings who are called to wholeness and holiness, just as it is the best choice for those whom we will touch because of this vocation --- and therefore, it is the best choice for glorifying God with our lives. Unless the vocation we discern allows and even empowers this in Christ, it really doesn't matter whether in some other sense it is considered objectively superior or not.

The use of the term higher is more problematic (though it is a logical correlate of calling some vocations higher, the church never uses the term lower of vocations). In general, I think it is a term we ought to drop because it is too misleading to be used fruitfully. It pushes us to compare the incomparable, and measure God's love for or valuing of us vs God's love for and valuing of others. It makes it hard to avoid doing these things and that is disastrous for genuine spiritual life. Still, if people choose to use it, it should probably be used in the sense of objectively superior as we have described it in the example above. My preference is to object to it, to point out that every vocation is a call to holiness and every vocation should be given the infinite esteem it merits as a divine call. ALL vocations are calls to a share in God's own life and union with God. They are each and all shares in the building of God's Kingdom. Every vocation lived well glorifies God and makes God (and so too, eternity) real in space and time. Terms like higher and lower simply make no sense in light of these facts.

Eremitical Life, a Vocation Showing the Church her own Heart

[[Dear Sister, because of the recent articles and posts on the Diocese of Lexington, I have been thinking about being a hermit and I know I don't really understand it, but it was hard trying to imagine living as a hermit without truly believing God called me to it! I thought about what I would do with every day, how I would spend my time, what I would do with my gifts, what about relationships, and that kind of thing. I understand that you (hermits) don't do a lot of active ministry but isn't the church all about doing active ministry? Wasn't that what Jesus was about? I guess I am thinking I really wonder if it would be right for me to let go of a sense of being called to active ministry in order to be a hermit. And that leads me to a more general thought that I wonder what hermits really offer the church plus if they aren't really offering the Church something, then how could God call anyone to be a hermit? Does that make sense?]]

Hi, and welcome to this blog then. I think I followed what you are asking. What you were trying to imagine and the difficulty it gave you makes it pretty clear you are called to some other vocation. I think it's terrific though that you gave this some time and really tried to imagine what hermit life is like. Your questions about active ministry are some of the most basic to understanding (or failing to understand) the eremitic life and I think they are really common questions that everyone asks (or at least wonders) about hermits. As you reflect yourself, the Church is very clear about the importance of active ministry and even hermits may do some very limited degree of it. As you are also aware, active ministry is far from the heart of eremitical life and it is important to address why that is the case. I'll try to do that below. Finally, the questions you raise at the end are really critical to understanding who hermits are and why something like c 603 cannot be used as a stopgap just to get professed. I am grateful you let yourself say what you were thinking in this!!

Let me say that I believe it would be terrible for someone to accept an apparent call to be a hermit if God is calling them to something else. First, it would be a betrayal of one's truest self and secondly it would be incredibly ungrateful to the God who calls us to something else; finally, it would fail those who would be touched by us in our true vocation. Each of us has an assortment of significant gifts and talents and in the main what God asks of us is that we use some or even most of these gifts as fully as possible as part of the constellation we know as Selfhood for the sake of the Kingdom. At least that is how things ordinarily go in responding to a Divine vocation. But with hermits the situation is different. Many of our individual gifts will go unused and relatively undeveloped. If we have a vision of what we would like to do with our life drawn around our gifts and talents --- even if that is a particular way we can serve the Church, we will generally have to let that go if we discern a call to eremitical life. And of course, all of that is terribly countercultural and counterintuitive.

At the same time we must look at the central or defining elements of c 603 itself: stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and ask what such a life looks at, what it demands from us. If we are not called to all of this (and even when we are), then it does mean letting go of relationships, time with friends and family, activities, other personal outlets and resources that most folks need to be whole --- for these are all ways to God. Still, we look to God alone and our relationship with God to be the sole source of strength and validation in our lives; everything else must be secondary to this. We understand that there will be a few significant others who assist us in allowing God to truly be the One he wills to be for us and through us, but again, we look to God in a fairly direct (less often mediated) way to complete us and to make us into who he calls us to be. This is the witness a hermit gives. It is meant to be the person a hermit is for others.

In all of this (and of course in its relationship with God) the life is a rich one. One studies, can write, paint, sculpt (etc.) and engage in  cottage industries to support oneself. One will read, pray, do inner work which may involve journaling, and any number of other things that may support and flow from one's prayer. As most readers here know, I teach a bit of Scripture and do spiritual direction which implies study and ongoing inner work as well as limited relationships and a few really good friendships. What one cannot do as a hermit is substitute active ministry for the eremitical life itself. Active ministry will always be limited and at least secondary to one's life in the hermitage. Neither can one treat what is to be a contemplative life of prayer as some sort of stopgap for doing whatever one really feels called to do.

In looking at the central characteristics of c 603 we become aware of other reasons it is a terrible thing for someone to try and live as a hermit without a divine vocation. For instance, it is important to remember that the silence of solitude breaks us down (optimally it does this in a way that breaks us open and makes us vulnerable to the grace of God) and for some persons, extended periods of silence and solitude can be emotionally and psychologically destructive. Thomas Merton used to speak of solitude herself opening the door to someone; it is not a reality one can simply take up on one's own for extended periods without the danger of real psycho-social damage being done to one. Beyond this there is a vast difference between thriving in the silence of solitude and merely tolerating it with distractions, busy-work, and other defensive accommodations. 

The Silence of Solitude, a Transfiguring Reality:

Hermits are precisely those rare individuals, however, who thrive in the silence of solitude, who find that this is the context for a life where they can be rendered entirely transparent to the love of God and where their own incapacities, weaknesses, and limitations can become the stuff of grace. For most people, a life of silence and solitude will be isolating and personally stifling or even crippling, but the silence of solitude is the place an authentic hermit is transfigured into a sacramental reality. That is, again, a rare and little-understood phenomenon. 

Consider in this regard the recent comments of the Bishop of Lexington on c 603 vocations: [[“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.”]]This is a classic, "whom can it hurt?" response which is apparently ignorant (or disbelieving) not only of the nature, charism, and rigors of authentic eremitical life, but also (and this seems very clear to me) it seems to indicate the bishop had no real belief that the person he had attempted to profess in this way had a true vocation of any sort. The degrees of apparent carelessness, culpable ignorance, equivocation, and actual dishonesty in all of this are astounding in one called to be a bishop to whom the Church entrusted the wellbeing of this precise vocation.

On the Relationship of Active Ministry to Prayer:

Your most critical questions regard the significance of the eremitical vocation as opposed to vocations defined in terms of active ministry. First of all, while Jesus' active ministry was significant and apparently full-time for the last year to three years of his life, it is important to remember that those scant months were rooted in his relationship with his Father in the Spirit, a relationship that developed, matured, and deepened over thirty-some years and was constantly a source of prayer during the time of active ministry itself. This is the same relationship between eremitical life per se and the limited active ministry a hermit may be called to in her life. It is supposed to mirror the priority of being over doing that everyone in the Church should make evident in whatever vocation to which they are called.

This priority is precisely one of the things a hermit is called to witness to with a special vividness and clarity. It is one of the ways a hermit serves the church. Yes, the church commissions most people to active ministry in their proclamation of the Gospel, but the hermit is commissioned to make very clear that being in relationship with God is the source and substance of everything else the Church does or says. And, for those who cannot undertake active ministry in any significant way, whether because of chronic illness, disability, or other significant limitations, the hermit says it is the relationship with God that matters more foundationally or fundamentally than anything else. Without it, even our limited active ministry would be empty or worse, self-aggrandizing and self-serving. But when this relationship is truly allowed to come first and to be the exhaustive aim and goal of a human life, there the Incarnation of God is realized (again) in that poor, limited, and even disabled individual. The value and impact of such a generous life can hardly be imagined.

I don't think you should let go of a sense of call to active ministry if that is what you have discerned, particularly to become a hermit. However, if your question is what does a hermit really offer the Church, I think the answer is that the hermit shows the Church her own heart and constantly calls her back to the truth of that. Before missioning, there must be a relationship with God. Beneath any commissioning, there must be that same exhaustive relationship. Beyond commissioning, there will remain one's rootedness in this relationship because this relationship is the source and goal of every authentic human impulse and endeavor. This is precisely what a hermit is called to live and bear witness to. As I have said before, who the hermit is in God is the hermit's ministry. The hermit is the one in whom the priority of being over doing is most starkly illustrated; any dishonesty here (including with oneself) will show itself as starkly. Moreover, it is precisely why the Church will never exist without authentic hermits; she desperately needs those who reveal the Church's own heart to her, and thus too, call her to always be reformed in light of that foundational reality. 

Another look at Ecclesial Vocations and the Refusal of the Church to profess Transgendered Persons

[[Sister Laurel, have you read the following quote? "Matson told OSV News, “We (Bishop Stowe and Matson) both think that it is a matter of justice that LGBT people be considered based on their character and on their actual gifts and their actual love of God and (being) desirous of the church, as opposed to saying (that) this state of being, whether it’s your sexual orientation or gender identity, in itself makes you unfit and uncallable by God.” How would you respond to this idea that a state of being makes one unfit and uncallable? It doesn't sound just to me. How can God be constrained by conclusions drawn by the Church, especially when they rule out a whole class or group of people?]]

Thanks for your questions. Yes, I am familiar with the quotation you cited. I think it is critical to remember that a transgendered state is not a natural state into which one is born. Instead, it is a created state a gender dysphoric person achieves with a variety of decisions and forms of medical intervention in order to minimize one's gender dysphoria or gender discordance. While some moral theologians argue that the pain of the dysphoria may be so agonizing that certain medical interventions would be a moral choice, this conclusion, when applicable in a given case, would still not make the adoption of public vows by the afflicted person possible. You see, dysphoria itself does not make the person incapable of also making public profession or being consecrated. It is acting in particular ways on that dysphoria in an attempt to harmonize one's sex with one's conflicting sense of gender and minimize the dysphoria that makes the person incapable of also making public vows or being consecrated; it seems to me (and I am still thinking about this) that this is true even when the choice for limited gender affirmative intervention is a moral one.

The act of trying to shift one's sex to align with one's experienced gender to the point of undergoing surgical interventions and medical treatments that "mutilate one's body" is part of what the Church generally objects to. The related point the Church makes is that the surgeries and other medical interventions, no matter what else they do to ease the patient's dysphoria, do not change the person's sex --- though they do obscure it, and sometimes make detransitioning impossible. In every case, public vows/professions require the person to affirm their own original sexed condition, to recognize that this is very good and desired by God. Even in the presence of gender dysphoria the person is called to affirm his/her original sexed condition, and then too, to suffer the dysphoria as well as s/he can as part of coming to fullness of existence in one's foundational manliness or womanliness. 

Since medicine cannot change a person's sex but can only approximate such a change, and since the Church holds it is part of any authentic ecclesial vocation to affirm and mature in our original sexed condition, one who acts contrary to these positions to become "transgendered" makes a series of decisions and takes actions that make that person unsuited for public vows. This does not make the person uncallable, but it does limit the ways in which God can call them to public ecclesial vocations. While it may sound outrageous to think that God can be limited (or, more accurately, limits Godself) in this way, it is not. God entrusts certain vocations to the Church herself. Religious life, priesthood, consecrated virginity, consecrated eremitical life, and others yet to be established under c 605 (consecrated widowhood, for instance) are ecclesial vocations, and therefore it is up to the Church to whom they belong as a gift of God to determine how it is a person enters these.

Yes, God calls persons to these vocations, but God does so through the mediation of the Church, not otherwise. This ecclesial character is one of the most significant aspects of these vocations, and one of the most difficult to get candidates to appreciate. It is the aspect that makes it so difficult for individuals to accept when the Church says, "we appreciate you feel called to this vocation, but the Church (religious congregation, bishop, etc) does not agree". If one wants to embrace an ecclesial vocation, then one must accept it is truly ecclesial through and through; this means one must meet the qualifications the Church determines are a necessary dimension of the calling that is the gift she protects and governs. If one cannot or will not meet these conditions, then one cannot presume such a calling. In the case of transgendered persons, if they cannot or will not affirm their original sexed condition as an essential part of responding to such a call, they have acted in ways that make them unsuited and uncallable because some choices are mutually exclusive. Again, this transgendered state is not their original state of being; it is chosen to deal with gender dysphoria.

I don't think any of this suggests the Church does not regard a transgendered person's character, gifts, love of God, and so forth, in discerning one's call to consecrated life. However, yes, it does prioritize everything one brings to the Church in seeking admission to profession and consecration. What it recognizes is that one's sexed condition is the most foundational dimension of one's selfhood, the selfhood one brings in response to such a call. The vows are our threefold commitment to allow God to bring every part of our lives to fulfillment in Him. What the church recognizes is that it is impossible to bring our whole selves to profession and consecration if we have denied (or are still denying) the most foundational dimension of ourselves.

Neither does the Church's refusal to admit one to profession and consecration because one is transgendered equate to a disparagement of (or refusal to honor) one's character, love of God, love of one's neighbors, giftedness, etc. This is simply not the case. More fundamentally, however, it seems to me that the church does indeed ask one if s/he will live one's foundational manliness or womanliness despite the degree of repentance and correlative suffering that will necessarily entail. (I am thinking here of the story of the pearl of great price.) There is no doubt this asks a lot of a transgendered person who wishes to live religious life, but I can't see where it is unjust in the way either Cole Matson or (reportedly) Bishop Stowe think is the case.