There is zero reason for a hermit declare to the world the hermit's interior struggles and predilection(s).
Seemingly, there is zero reason for a hermit to say most anything publicly.
The Bishop of Lexington appears unconcerned and approving of the hermit, the hermit's condition, and the hermit's publicity so a corporate USSCB response is called for to state the obvious.
One would think that a person who is confused regarding a core component of identity or has committed an act of castration on their body would be grossly irregular for religious life but here we are (again).
Agreed. I'm glad this is finally being addressed by someone but the answer to the question is obvious. It shouldn't take a committee months or years to figure that out.
The question isn't only whether or not the hermit was right to do this. It's also what's to be done with her now that she has, and what's to be done about the bishop.
Canon law *allows* for her dismissal from religious life and requires (I think) her "just punishment", but does not require her dismissal, and the decision regarding how she is to be dealt with is left up to her bishop. Who does not seem interested in doing his job in her regard.
What to do with the bishop is probably more frustrating. I don't think there's anything formal the USCCB can do with him, besides advise, complain and issue public and private fraternal corrections.
It certainly is a multifaceted problem. I just don't see any legitimate way that this situation should end other than her dismissal from religious life, regardless of what canon law says. Canon law doesn't currently address this situation directly, I assume, and I think it's pointless to try to figure out some way to deal with it by trying to find some broad way to interpret this statute or that to apply to what's going on here. It's a completely unprecedented situation that calls for a unique solution using common sense and an appeal to basic Catholic theology. Then canon law can be adjusted or amended as needed to deal with any similar situations that pop up in the future.
For the record though, if I had to guess, Mason will be allowed to continue as a hermit. I predict that the Vatican will eventually step in, even if it's not in the near future, and issue a ruling that while some norm was violated, and Mason was not honest, etc., she'll still be allowed to continue due to some loophole in canon law or another dubious reason.
Though if I am wrong and she is dismissed from religious life, I predict the reason given will not be because of being transgender, or identifying as the gender opposite from her biological sex, or anything to do with sex/gender. It will be because of some other defect in her vows, general dishonest, or some other detail that was neglected.
As for Stowe, you're right that the USCCB can't really do anything as far as I understand. The most they could do is put out a statement criticizing this arrangement, or some guidance that would contradict it, but Stowe would be free to ignore it unless the Vatican stepped in. Maybe the conference could put out a statement criticizing the decision, but I think this is very unlikely too. Most of the criticism will be behind closed doors as most bishops probably wouldn't give their opinion and criticize another bishop freely in public. Maybe some firebrand conservative would issue a statement saying they wouldn't recognize Mason as a hermit, or just criticize the decision in general, but it would be a meaningless gesture since it's not in their jurisdiction.
I am certain that whatever happens with Mason, Stowe will face zero repercussions from the Vatican for allowing this. The most that would happen is that maybe he would be passed over for a promotion in the future, but that's not something that could ever be publicly apparent or proven.
As a general rule, canon law does not allow for removals without a cause covered under canon law, or for punishing people under canons that did not exist until after the offense was committed (the Pope isn't bound by this, but bishops theoretically are). It's nice to have some protection from abuse of authority. Probably the only real option is to punish her under the canon having to do with sins against the sixth commandment, or the one having to do with scandal. I don't think that would a stretch for most hypothetical gender dysphoric hermits. But in this case that would be quite difficult given that her bishop approved her becoming a hermit knowing she had gender dysphoria and past surgery, and approved her going public, having been consulted before hand, meaning she has not been given a warning to cease and desist as is required, but rather the opposite. And he is the one in authority here.
I think you'd actually have to remove the bishop first, and warn her that she must publicly recant or at least present herself as a woman in the future, and wait for her to disobey that a few times, before any canonical punishments could be dispensed in her regard. If Cardinal Burke magically became her bishop tomorrow with free rein to act as he sees fit, I don't think he would summarily dismiss her. Not until she had obstinately persisted despite being given warnings and corrections sufficient to remedy what Stowe did. That's a feature of canon law, not a bug. And who knows, maybe she would see the light, recant, and work her way around to being a good hermit.
I expect you're right about how Stowe/Mason would get handled by the Vatican.
Narcissism would have said something sooner. This is maybe more like activism or whatever is the name for the idea that "I have to *do* something, the future depends on me" which I think must be a common temptation for people called to contemplation or the eremitic life, since it is essentially the noonday devil wearing a different hat. It is "someone is wrong on the internet" (the xkcd cartoon). Still, it is good that we will get some kind of clarity (maybe) on what pigeonholes are available for people who have done things to themselves that they are or are not sorry for. I understand the plight of trying to figure this out: I cannot be a consecrated virgin because I have borne children; I cannot be a nun because I have dependents to support; I would be a very bad hermit and I do not even need to consider whether I would also be a very bad priest or deacon (wholly impossible to be one at all); however I can be a member of a third order. But if I did not hold to all of the teachings of the Church (let's suppose I did not believe in the real presence, or that I believed that polygamy is totally fine between "consenting" adults, or that I was a freemason, or that I believed the Blessed Virgin Mary and St Joseph conceived a child in the usual way and then God made the child divine or any other Christological heresy of your choice) then I would first need to admit that I have to get my act together as a basic ground-floor Catholic before I can become a fancy Catholic, and that there might easily be a strong call to a deeper prayer life even in someone who has some serious changes to make in order to bring their life into conformance (which God knows is hard to do, perhaps *only* possible with a deep and consoling prayer life besides which the world's consolations are a handful of withered leaves.)
You know, I could have guessed that you've read xkcd... :) That noonday devil, aka Bartholomew Cubbins, sure has a lot of hats.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a person with gender dysphoria becoming a hermit. It's probably a bad idea, generally speaking, to take someone with a serious problem relating to people properly and let them isolate themselves from people well beyond the norm. But not necessarily.
I think I remember reading that Cardinal Burke, before he was a cardinal, allowed a woman who had previously had gender dysphoria and was at least stable in identifying and presenting herself as a woman, if not over it nearly or entirely, to start a religious order. It got shut down by other powers that be, I'm not sure why. I'm not sure it's entirely clear when you have your act together as a basic ground-floor Catholic, although it can certainly be obvious in many of the cases that aren't.
> I'm not sure it's entirely clear when you have your act together as a basic ground-floor Catholic
It was described to me as: being a practicing Catholic in full communion with the Church, where "practicing" can be taken as "can you receive the Eucharist with a clear conscience" on the grounds that this is the source and summit, etc. (in this way, it is reduced to a previously solved problem that people, in theory, understand well.) Implicit in this, though (as in so many other things), is the question of whether it is a well-formed conscience... in conversation with someone, getting to know them, it would probably become evident (I really only know about an individual and a community mutually discerning "can we all get along indefinitely (and are you called to this charism)" during a time period measured out for the purpose; discerning a call to eremitical life would have none of that and is outside of my pragmatic understanding.)
You nailed it. Experience with 'alphabet people' for most of my life has led me to the conclusion that narcissism is extremely common in the 'alphabet communities.'
It can be, but there are those who recognize it and try to grow past it. Give folks a few years, and their tone softens. It's also brought up in counseling.
Silence from this so-called "hermit" is all the more warranted because she abandoned it to convey misinformation based on her personal opinion -- namely, that “For me, this is a medical condition, probably a form of intersex condition in which the sexual differentiation of the brain diverges from other markers of sex.” The hermit's false belief that she is a man does not "probably" reflect "a form of intersex condition." Rather, it is a sign of mental illness, in that her mind is out of sync with her body. That lack of mind/body integration deserves compassion and care oriented toward reintegration and wholeness. It does not entitle her to demand that the Catholic Church accommodate her personal preferences under the guise of charity and mercy.
She might be technically correct, in the sexual differentiation of her brain diverging from the rest of her. Brains do a fair amount of their development in puberty based on the sex hormones that are floating around. In children who have suffered sufficiently severe trauma/unresolved trauma, the sex hormones tend not to be properly balanced and the brain can develop more like the opposite sex in response to that. If this is the case for her, obviously her path forward is to deal with the trauma, not to pretend to be a man.
It can be difficult for people to sort out what, when, and why things went wrong with them when it's been that way since approximately puberty. That could be 9 years old.
She is not "technically correct" about her sex, which is determined by her genetic makeup at the moment of conception. Subsequent disordered thinking in a brain that may or may not have been affected by "sex hormones that are floating around" during puberty in no way alters that.
I didn't say she was technically correct about her sex, I said "She might be technically correct, in the sexual differentiation of her brain diverging from the rest of her."
That's a bit like saying it doesn't matter if a person is enraged, they still shouldn't kill people. On the one hand, yes, obviously. On the other hand, we generally class that as 2nd degree murder rather than first, because it goes to culpability. And on the third hand, if you want to fix the problem, or to convince people of what the problem is so that they will be willing and able to fix it, it can be extremely helpful (sometimes necessary) to know what that underlying problem is, where the lie is coming from.
There's probably a few libraries of books on the spiritual life written by Saints and others, about how to overcome temptation, where temptation springs from, how to throw truth back at the devil's lies, how to order and moderate the passions, etc. There's a reason we have those, and it does not relate to entertainment or to increasing the demand for ink. As a general rule, we are supposed to progress spiritually, not maintain the same imperfections from childhood until death, and give our Master the talent we buried in the ground, safe, but not invested.
The hermit displays narcissism.
There is zero reason for a hermit declare to the world the hermit's interior struggles and predilection(s).
Seemingly, there is zero reason for a hermit to say most anything publicly.
The Bishop of Lexington appears unconcerned and approving of the hermit, the hermit's condition, and the hermit's publicity so a corporate USSCB response is called for to state the obvious.
One would think that a person who is confused regarding a core component of identity or has committed an act of castration on their body would be grossly irregular for religious life but here we are (again).
Agreed. I'm glad this is finally being addressed by someone but the answer to the question is obvious. It shouldn't take a committee months or years to figure that out.
Well, this IS the Catholic Church we're talking about here...
The question isn't only whether or not the hermit was right to do this. It's also what's to be done with her now that she has, and what's to be done about the bishop.
Canon law *allows* for her dismissal from religious life and requires (I think) her "just punishment", but does not require her dismissal, and the decision regarding how she is to be dealt with is left up to her bishop. Who does not seem interested in doing his job in her regard.
What to do with the bishop is probably more frustrating. I don't think there's anything formal the USCCB can do with him, besides advise, complain and issue public and private fraternal corrections.
It certainly is a multifaceted problem. I just don't see any legitimate way that this situation should end other than her dismissal from religious life, regardless of what canon law says. Canon law doesn't currently address this situation directly, I assume, and I think it's pointless to try to figure out some way to deal with it by trying to find some broad way to interpret this statute or that to apply to what's going on here. It's a completely unprecedented situation that calls for a unique solution using common sense and an appeal to basic Catholic theology. Then canon law can be adjusted or amended as needed to deal with any similar situations that pop up in the future.
For the record though, if I had to guess, Mason will be allowed to continue as a hermit. I predict that the Vatican will eventually step in, even if it's not in the near future, and issue a ruling that while some norm was violated, and Mason was not honest, etc., she'll still be allowed to continue due to some loophole in canon law or another dubious reason.
Though if I am wrong and she is dismissed from religious life, I predict the reason given will not be because of being transgender, or identifying as the gender opposite from her biological sex, or anything to do with sex/gender. It will be because of some other defect in her vows, general dishonest, or some other detail that was neglected.
As for Stowe, you're right that the USCCB can't really do anything as far as I understand. The most they could do is put out a statement criticizing this arrangement, or some guidance that would contradict it, but Stowe would be free to ignore it unless the Vatican stepped in. Maybe the conference could put out a statement criticizing the decision, but I think this is very unlikely too. Most of the criticism will be behind closed doors as most bishops probably wouldn't give their opinion and criticize another bishop freely in public. Maybe some firebrand conservative would issue a statement saying they wouldn't recognize Mason as a hermit, or just criticize the decision in general, but it would be a meaningless gesture since it's not in their jurisdiction.
I am certain that whatever happens with Mason, Stowe will face zero repercussions from the Vatican for allowing this. The most that would happen is that maybe he would be passed over for a promotion in the future, but that's not something that could ever be publicly apparent or proven.
As a general rule, canon law does not allow for removals without a cause covered under canon law, or for punishing people under canons that did not exist until after the offense was committed (the Pope isn't bound by this, but bishops theoretically are). It's nice to have some protection from abuse of authority. Probably the only real option is to punish her under the canon having to do with sins against the sixth commandment, or the one having to do with scandal. I don't think that would a stretch for most hypothetical gender dysphoric hermits. But in this case that would be quite difficult given that her bishop approved her becoming a hermit knowing she had gender dysphoria and past surgery, and approved her going public, having been consulted before hand, meaning she has not been given a warning to cease and desist as is required, but rather the opposite. And he is the one in authority here.
I think you'd actually have to remove the bishop first, and warn her that she must publicly recant or at least present herself as a woman in the future, and wait for her to disobey that a few times, before any canonical punishments could be dispensed in her regard. If Cardinal Burke magically became her bishop tomorrow with free rein to act as he sees fit, I don't think he would summarily dismiss her. Not until she had obstinately persisted despite being given warnings and corrections sufficient to remedy what Stowe did. That's a feature of canon law, not a bug. And who knows, maybe she would see the light, recant, and work her way around to being a good hermit.
I expect you're right about how Stowe/Mason would get handled by the Vatican.
> The hermit displays narcissism.
Narcissism would have said something sooner. This is maybe more like activism or whatever is the name for the idea that "I have to *do* something, the future depends on me" which I think must be a common temptation for people called to contemplation or the eremitic life, since it is essentially the noonday devil wearing a different hat. It is "someone is wrong on the internet" (the xkcd cartoon). Still, it is good that we will get some kind of clarity (maybe) on what pigeonholes are available for people who have done things to themselves that they are or are not sorry for. I understand the plight of trying to figure this out: I cannot be a consecrated virgin because I have borne children; I cannot be a nun because I have dependents to support; I would be a very bad hermit and I do not even need to consider whether I would also be a very bad priest or deacon (wholly impossible to be one at all); however I can be a member of a third order. But if I did not hold to all of the teachings of the Church (let's suppose I did not believe in the real presence, or that I believed that polygamy is totally fine between "consenting" adults, or that I was a freemason, or that I believed the Blessed Virgin Mary and St Joseph conceived a child in the usual way and then God made the child divine or any other Christological heresy of your choice) then I would first need to admit that I have to get my act together as a basic ground-floor Catholic before I can become a fancy Catholic, and that there might easily be a strong call to a deeper prayer life even in someone who has some serious changes to make in order to bring their life into conformance (which God knows is hard to do, perhaps *only* possible with a deep and consoling prayer life besides which the world's consolations are a handful of withered leaves.)
You know, I could have guessed that you've read xkcd... :) That noonday devil, aka Bartholomew Cubbins, sure has a lot of hats.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a person with gender dysphoria becoming a hermit. It's probably a bad idea, generally speaking, to take someone with a serious problem relating to people properly and let them isolate themselves from people well beyond the norm. But not necessarily.
I think I remember reading that Cardinal Burke, before he was a cardinal, allowed a woman who had previously had gender dysphoria and was at least stable in identifying and presenting herself as a woman, if not over it nearly or entirely, to start a religious order. It got shut down by other powers that be, I'm not sure why. I'm not sure it's entirely clear when you have your act together as a basic ground-floor Catholic, although it can certainly be obvious in many of the cases that aren't.
> I'm not sure it's entirely clear when you have your act together as a basic ground-floor Catholic
It was described to me as: being a practicing Catholic in full communion with the Church, where "practicing" can be taken as "can you receive the Eucharist with a clear conscience" on the grounds that this is the source and summit, etc. (in this way, it is reduced to a previously solved problem that people, in theory, understand well.) Implicit in this, though (as in so many other things), is the question of whether it is a well-formed conscience... in conversation with someone, getting to know them, it would probably become evident (I really only know about an individual and a community mutually discerning "can we all get along indefinitely (and are you called to this charism)" during a time period measured out for the purpose; discerning a call to eremitical life would have none of that and is outside of my pragmatic understanding.)
Julian Greene. In Religion Sister Julie Greene. For the story. Google "Bishop Takes Queen," a local paper in LA Crosse WI covered it.
You nailed it. Experience with 'alphabet people' for most of my life has led me to the conclusion that narcissism is extremely common in the 'alphabet communities.'
It can be, but there are those who recognize it and try to grow past it. Give folks a few years, and their tone softens. It's also brought up in counseling.
Silence from this so-called "hermit" is all the more warranted because she abandoned it to convey misinformation based on her personal opinion -- namely, that “For me, this is a medical condition, probably a form of intersex condition in which the sexual differentiation of the brain diverges from other markers of sex.” The hermit's false belief that she is a man does not "probably" reflect "a form of intersex condition." Rather, it is a sign of mental illness, in that her mind is out of sync with her body. That lack of mind/body integration deserves compassion and care oriented toward reintegration and wholeness. It does not entitle her to demand that the Catholic Church accommodate her personal preferences under the guise of charity and mercy.
She might be technically correct, in the sexual differentiation of her brain diverging from the rest of her. Brains do a fair amount of their development in puberty based on the sex hormones that are floating around. In children who have suffered sufficiently severe trauma/unresolved trauma, the sex hormones tend not to be properly balanced and the brain can develop more like the opposite sex in response to that. If this is the case for her, obviously her path forward is to deal with the trauma, not to pretend to be a man.
It can be difficult for people to sort out what, when, and why things went wrong with them when it's been that way since approximately puberty. That could be 9 years old.
She is not "technically correct" about her sex, which is determined by her genetic makeup at the moment of conception. Subsequent disordered thinking in a brain that may or may not have been affected by "sex hormones that are floating around" during puberty in no way alters that.
I didn't say she was technically correct about her sex, I said "She might be technically correct, in the sexual differentiation of her brain diverging from the rest of her."
Whether or not there is "sexual differentiation of her brain diverging from the rest of her" is of no moment.
That's a bit like saying it doesn't matter if a person is enraged, they still shouldn't kill people. On the one hand, yes, obviously. On the other hand, we generally class that as 2nd degree murder rather than first, because it goes to culpability. And on the third hand, if you want to fix the problem, or to convince people of what the problem is so that they will be willing and able to fix it, it can be extremely helpful (sometimes necessary) to know what that underlying problem is, where the lie is coming from.
There's probably a few libraries of books on the spiritual life written by Saints and others, about how to overcome temptation, where temptation springs from, how to throw truth back at the devil's lies, how to order and moderate the passions, etc. There's a reason we have those, and it does not relate to entertainment or to increasing the demand for ink. As a general rule, we are supposed to progress spiritually, not maintain the same imperfections from childhood until death, and give our Master the talent we buried in the ground, safe, but not invested.