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.
If the result of chemical or physical interventions is to draw closer to Jesus, then why is it "immoral?" I would think that the end does justify the means, if one needs to argue that way.
Whatever happened to the Sermon on the Mount, "If your hand is your undoing, cut it off. Better to enter the Kingdom of Heaven maimed than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna..."
Do what you have to do to be saved. Having Gender Dysphoria is a miserable way to live a life.
Ends do not justify means. I don't know why people sometimes think that they do. He prophesied truly who said "better that one man die" but it was a prophesy, not a justification; it was still a terrible sin to condemn an innocent man to death even though by the Cross we are saved.
Point taken. I was thinking along the lines of the definition of "gravely disordered," loosely defined as that which a thought, act, or consequence takes one further from Jesus, where the consequence would be a future event. In other words, if it turns out that one is closer to Jesus as a consequence, then how can it be gravely disordered?
> the definition of "gravely disordered," loosely defined
We need to go back to the meanings of words. To be ordered has a meaning. Things are ordered towards an end. E.g. food has a purpose (to nourish us). To be disordered means something has upset that order. E.g. someone invents Olean or NutraSweet (replacements for fat or sugar) so that people can eat something without being nourished, or, banquet organizers in the ancient world provide feathers and a basin so that people can eat and then eject the food. The food is no longer achieving its end, which is not "to taste good" but rather to fill us and nourish us. Our desire to eat food that tastes good, far beyond what we need to eat, and to not get fat while doing that, is a disordered desire. Our desire to eat food is ordered towards keeping us alive and healthy (I don't know if you've ever known someone who does not feel hunger but only feels weak and eventually collapses from not eating if he forgets to eat, but I knew a guy like that and it makes a person appreciate hunger more. He did at least enjoy eating when food was in front of him. Or sometimes a person loses their sense of smell and then it's hard to enjoy food.)
When we talk about homosexual desires being disordered, sexual desires are ordered towards an end. When we talk about whether it is okay to remove body parts and put on different body parts, those body parts are ordered towards an end; breasts nourish children; wombs too; other parts (not to get into "underpants areas") produce and convey what a man contributes to the conception of a child. A body part is ordered towards an end (eyes see, ears hear). But we want what we do not have, and do not want what we have. It is helpful to read Abandonment to Divine Providence because the author points out that God is present to us in this moment, in things as they are now; it is His will that right now I feel like it's humid (too humid), or I hear someone in the other room talking (too much); I could draw closer to God by buying tickets to fly overseas to a pilgrimage site but actually I could recognize how close He is to me right here, in this humidity, in this background noise, in my messy situation in life and the duties I have that I feel overwhelmed by and so I write comments instead (alas) but even when I do what I ought not to do, Jesus is there too, calling me closer to Him, not because it was good to do what I ought not to do but because He never gives up, like a rickroll.
Your example of disorder - one desiring to eat too much without consequences is helpful. I wish I could find the def'n I used for "grave disorder" as being that which pulls us further from God's love, but I can't find it. I don't mean to be smart when I question the purpose of breasts being for nourishment, and then remember at least one well-endowed nun. I also like your note that you knew someone who didn't have a normal hunger reflex. People have all sorts of imperfections, and it seems like some are tolerated, and others are answered with condemnation.
I used to not have a particularly good hunger reflex. I'd get hungry, but generally not for more than 20 minutes or so, and if the food had not been acquired and eaten by then, I didn't want it anymore. On some occasions I wanted to not have it.
I ate anyway, albeit probably less than I should have, because food is required for nourishment, and for not keeling over later (makes other people irritable eventually), and also for not getting depressed and many other helpful things. Poor and incorrect signaling from my body did not put me in a small category of special people who don't need to eat. It put me in a large category of people whose bodies or minds lie to them in some way or other (a.k.a. everyone). If we are seeking to remain in God's love, we need to listen to what His natural law says about what we are and how we can behave in a properly ordered fashion - most particularly in those things that contradict our feelings.
I think it goes without saying that I would never have gotten a proper hunger back had I not obeyed the principles of nourishment even when I didn't have the desire for it. The call for LGBT folks to live chastely and present as their correct sex might not fix their disorder by itself, but it is necessary to keep themselves healthy enough to heal eventually.
That was a reference to John 15: "“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love." This does not contradict Wisdom 10: "But thou art merciful to all, for thou canst do all things, and thou dost overlook men’s sins, that they may repent. For thou lovest all things that exist, and hast loathing for none of the things which thou hast made, for thou wouldst not have made anything if thou hadst hated it." I think "remain in my love" is a reference to maintaining our love for God (somewhat more delicate than His love for us), remaining in proper relationship with God, i.e., a state of grace as a baseline, and after that, neverending further in and further up.
I don't think you have to be perfectly healed to let your light shine. At least I hope not, for largely selfish reasons. I think you need to be in a state of grace to have light, since Christ is our light. In St. Justin Martyr's time, Baptism was even called Illumination. It's perfectly possible to be in a state of grace and have gender dysphoria. Such a person would be considerably better off than a person without gender dysphoria who is not in a state of grace.
Nobody is healed without repenting of their sins, forgiving the sins of others, accepting the suffering God has permitted to them, and rejecting the lies of the world, the flesh, and the devil. "It's the job that's never started as takes the longest to finish." as Sam's Gaffer used to say.
It doesn't contradict anything I said before, or anything Bridget said. God's love keeps us in existence. If we aren't receiving and returning it by the time we die, it will not get us into heaven. Remaining in His love and obeying His commands is essential, regardless of what we find easier or more natural.
Breasts are an interesting case. If someone has elective surgery on her breasts (to change their size, because they are giving her a backache or because a different size would, in someone's opinion, look better), sometimes she is unable to nurse a baby well afterwards because sufficient care was not taken to put things back together in a way that works, and either no one had mentioned this possibility (after all, a person can buy formula, which multiple generations have been told is just as good or better) or else it did not seem as important to her at the time.
Your post is the product of reasoning backward from whatever thing a troubled person wants (in this case, someone with gender dysphoria), distorting Church teaching to accommodate it.
The product of "chemical or physical interventions" is never a drawing closer to Jesus, since the person undergoing such mutilations is rejecting how they were born (their body as created, and the nature of original sin) to indulge a false mental construct (their sexual "identity").
Gender dysphoria doesn't end after self-mutilation known as "gender affirming care," as shown by the high rate of suicide among afflicted people and the growing number of "detransitioners."
"Do what you have to do to be saved." Except what you don't want to do, such as living with the body you were given, right?
Better to mutilate genitals than to continually mutilate the mind with anguish, self hatred and directly more immoral thoughts and subsequent actions.
I disagree that Gender Dysphoria continues. There are detransitioners, sure, but I think you're just reading articles from people who draw conclusions that are more palatable.
I know one detransitioner who sho shouldn't have started, one who did for economic reasons, but then transitioned when ready, and many others who don't regret it.
"Better to mutilate genitals...." Think about that. Gender dysphoria and its attendant struggles comes from mental or physical malady (which we are directed to bear as a cross in our lives) or temptation (due to original sin and demonic influence). Your "alternative" take is that we should just reconfigure our bodies to conform with our mental, physical or spiritual maladies, as if that will make everything go away.
Even if the sufferer doesn't acknowledge their error they're still in error, and still suffering (as with any sin) because of their failure to live correctly.
Bearing the cross starts to sound like "pray away the gay."
And if one cannot, even after prayer and suffering, then this sounds like the faith-healer's accusation, "well, you just didn't pray hard enough."
That's not really my "alternative" take. Gender Dysphoria is like a misalignment between body and mind. What if we could (but we currently can't) alter the mind to treat the dysphoria. Wouldn't that be mutilating a perfectly good mind? Would that also be an error? If one chooses to follow Jesus then, is that still an error? How would it be an error?
Hypotheticals about breakthrough drugs aside, I don't think "pray away the gay" is in any way similar to "bearing one's cross", except that both ask for God's merciful intervention in one's life. The former, as a form of deliverance from an affliction, the latter, as a form of aid in persevering with an affliction. But you seem to disagree with both options, which tells me that your actual objection is to the characterization of anything on the LGBT spectrum as "disordered".
That belief, of course, is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Either one can change one's belief, out of faithful submission to Church teaching; repudiate their faith entirely; attempt to change the Faith (as Fr. James Martin, SJ seeks to do); or just live contrary to the Faith while claiming that everyone else is wrong. Some combination of the last two seems be your preference.
The problem, then, is that you are more attached to your viewpoint on human sexuality than you are to the teachings of Holy Mother Church; you either overvalue the first or undervalue the second.
I don't disagree with those two options. But on the surface, it sounds like the answer to the ask is "No," at least to the first one. Perhaps training in Discernment could be valuable. But I don't see the Church teaching that: only heavy-handed condemnations.
I also disagree that my viewpoint on human sexuality is right and everyone else is wrong. I've commented to another here that I believe I have experienced a grace in that regard.
Gender dysphoria is not the only condition where people desire to mutilate their own bodies, but as far as I know it's the only one where "conventional" treatment is to go through with the mutilation and to insist that everyone surrounding the sick person enables it for that person's own peace of mind. We don't tell this to people who wish to be amputees, blind themselves, etc. We don't tell anorexics to just keep starving themselves because if they think they're fat, they must be. We try to resolve the thing in their brain that's telling them to break what isn't broken.
My understanding is that one of the major breakthroughs with any mental illness is when the sick person realizes they can think and feel things that are not real. It is an unfortunate reality that not every mentally ill person will reach that point. But enabling a person in their delusions is not helping them but making them sicker, even if they think they are happier. (This is not to speak to specific crisis situations where maybe a person needs to be talked literally down off a ledge, or to say it's fine to be cruel in how one wields the truth.)
The treatment better known as "conversion therapy" is rejected by the medical practices, more people are damaged by it, and it mostly doesn't work. Psychotherapy is a step in treatment, and it may help some, and also serves to eliminate delusional or addictive underpinnings.
I'll ask what is "mental illness?"That's an easy term to throw around, oftentimes used as a weapon.
Your characterization of enabling delusions would be incorrect. Treatment is to relieve the effects of the dysphoria, which are very damaging.
So-called "conversion therapy" is rejected by medical organizations for the same reason that "gender affirming care" is approved by them, or why the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from the diagnostic and statistical manual back in the 1970s - a combination of internal politics and moral cowardice, not because of scientific evidence or consensus.
Terminology aside, the former has hurt people, and the latter, the term IMO doesn't fully describe the treatment; its initial purpose is to discern what might not be a treatable dysphoric condition. It's meant to make the best of a difficult situation; that is almost by definition not an ideology.
Since societies still vilify people with "mental illness," removing conditions from the DSM would be a good move, particularly outside the Church. Do you think the Church is devoid of internal politics?
Laurie, I’ve really appreciated following your thought process through this thread. I’m asking many of the same questions, but sometimes coming to different answers.
It’s because I have a lot of compassion for anyone who feels like they’re in the wrong body that I resist the idea of trying to correct that medically. Penguin Mom’s example of people with anorexia is exactly where I was in my prayer about this, and your question about the definition of mental illness is also important. I know that conversion therapy has often proved ineffectual or even destructive, but I wonder if that can be attributed more to the newness of the treatment and the mixed motives of some practitioners than to its basic idea.
If a person with gender dysphoria was sitting by the roadside begging, or reaching to grasp the hem of Jesus’ garment, or being lowered through the roof by her friends, what do you envision Jesus doing, based on his previous actions and teachings? Would it be to alter their body to better accommodate the “demon” that tormented them, or to drive out that demon?
I know there are many people who have medically transitioned who report relief, and I can’t dismiss their experience. But don’t we need to keep watching the hands of the Master?
It's a little harsh to consider dysphoria as a "demon." But I think you hit on why conversion therapy doesn't work. The treatment angle is that the patient is "sinful" and the sin needs to be driven out, be it a demon or other fallen entity.
This doesn't work well in the medical practices.
Further, it would be interesting to see such an afflicted, vexed, or even possessed person participate in Mass!
I have not done a good job describing the discomfort associated with dysphoria. It's not just some lament, "Oh, how I long to look like her," or "If I only had a beard..." It wouldn't be pleasant or appropriate sharing people's stories here. It it far more intense than I can describe here.
But when others talk about others' suffering, what is it? Cancer? Huntington's Disease? Alzheimer's? Muscular Dystrophy?
If there's some treatment, people usually try to take it, unless it's an end-stage disease. There is a treatment path for dysphoria that can work for some.
Cleft Palate? Vitiligo? Did God want you to live your life that way? Let's just stitch that. People cover it up. Or not.
But your brain doesn't line up with your gonads? Tough toenails. Live with it. Or get out of here! We don't want you. You're sick. There's talk about blessing same-sex relationships. But you trans people? Suck it up and deal with it.
Every single person has a cross. Some are heavier, some are lighter. I wager lots of devout Catholics have lived in 'miserable ways' and offered up that suffering for conversion of sinners and for the poor souls.
Yes, Every day you must deny yourself and take up your cross. This is a crushing cross to bear, and the consequences can be devastating.
Usually, when those who suffer and are offering that suffering for sinners, someone knows about it. Those who suppress sexual or gender discomfort don't have good outcomes.
What's "sexual or gender discomfort"? Does that include being uncomfortable with chastity? Celibacy? With not being able to have sex with children? I'm sure all these things cause discomfort for some people, and yet your rule applies to them as well, right? Because why wouldn't it? It'd be hypocritical for you to refuse!
"Doing whatever feels good or right for you" is a terrible philosophy, even when disguised as compassion. Be honest, your position is self-serving.
I appreciate your reply. I think you are relying heavily on generalizations and assumptions (how do you know people who offer up suffering broadcast it, especially when it’s more beneficial not to). I also think you are not allowing for graces to bear our crosses. To paraphrase our Lord, with man this is impossible but with God all things are possible. There are heavy burdens that aren’t sexually related that people quietly bear every second of every day, by the grace of God.
Well, this took a fair bit of growth in my faith, but I do have a grace that pretty much took away one of those crosses. It is inappropriate for me to discuss here, however, but I did discuss it with the Pastor.
I agree that the list of irregularities, as applied to candidates for the priesthood, would rule out a transgender hermit.
Firstly, possibly, on grounds of heresy - stubbornly denying Church teaching on gender. But, given the very specific conditions for someone to be judged a heretic, you might have canon lawyers and theologians arguing for ever.
Secondly, if she has mutilated herself.
Thirdly, on grounds of mental illness. Which again might have various professionals arguing for ever.
But I am not surprised that we "need" some sort of formal consideration to decide this question, which affects a microscopic minority. Any ugly problem in England? Form a Royal Commission to report in X years at eyewatering expense. By which time you have moved on or retired.
=====================
1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:
1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;
2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;
3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;
4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;
5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;
6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty
=====================
You can be a de facto hermit without diocesan approval. But then you cannot present yourself as a Catholic hermit. At least according to the guidance of Sioux Falls diocese.
As an associated point, looking at this utterly bizarre article on Franciscan "hermits", where a small team of "hermits" is divided into "mothers" and "sons"......Is there some serious gender confusion going on here? Who is going to be Martha or Mary?
The language of mother's and sons comes directly from St. Francis, from his rule for hermitages which is quoted in its entirety. The division is between those are spending the time entirely in contemplative prayer and silence (sons) and those who also maintain the hermitage and make sure there's food (mother's). You can see the Martha,/Mary analogy there.
The point being that St. Francis himself used these terms in his "Rule for Hermitages."
Two of the four hermits are to stay at the hermitage to pray, provide and make a home for the two friars who are active in preaching.
The terms have nothing to do with gender.
Francis could have called the "providers" after St. Mary of Bethany and the preachers that went from the heritage after St. Martha of Bethany. He didn't and chose the terms "mothers" and "sons."
Grammatical mistakes do not negate Eric's points. Grammar is important but unless it makes a statement unintelligible I think most of us can accept the truth of a statement with possible grammatical errors.
Thank you for clarifying that. I used to be a copy editor for an award-winning arts journal. I left off reading this thread after your apostrophe comment and spent the rest of the afternoon reflecting on all of the great ideas and insights I would have missed out on if I'd dismissed them because of nonstandard punctuation, spelling or grammar.
You're very kind. As a former editor, I expect you're also disappointed by the rampant "apostrophe abuse". For me it's kind of like tattooing. There may be a variety of explanations for the existence of practice and practitioner, but I unashamedly reserve the right to dislike the former, and (barring additional information), to view the latter with deep skepticism.
No wonder that some of the homosexual community hail St Francis as one of their own. It fits in with that story of how he introduced himself to the Pope as a "poor woman".
Yep, I said something similar. Transgender identity is always tied to a large exposure to external media. The fact that a “hermit” would still be engaging excessively with the internet and other persons is utterly contrary to the state of life demanded by the Eremitic Vocation.
The hermit posted about making the vow of obedience, but there is no demonstrated obedience either to Natural Law or the ordinary fundamental expected demands of the eremitical life.
If a man marries a woman, and then continues to go out to dinner one-on-one with other women, he is not obedient to his vows. If he’s continually chatting online with other women, he’s not obedient to his vows. If he comes out as transgender and starts identifying as a woman, he is not obedient to his vows.
The hermit we are talking about is someone who started out as a little baby girl and has been identifying as a man for a long time. If the hermit started identifying as a woman (not, after all that has happened, a conventionally pretty one; we would all have to be kind and understanding) that would be a miracle for which we could all thank God.
If you read the reporting on this, they didn't chose the vocation of hermit because this person wanted to be a hermit. They chose the vocation of hermit because the vocation is 1) explicitly open to both sexes and 2) doesn't require admission to a sex-specific religious order. In other words, becoming a hermit was all about finding a loophole, not a deeply-felt calling to the life of a hermit.
“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,” Matson wrote. —This is utterly absurd given the biology of human development. It is an insult to people who actually have disorders of sexual development to make such a claim. And for +Stowe to praise this person’s “integrity” shows a grave lack in his understanding of the word.
Yes, that wording stood out to me too and struck me as weaselly, frankly. I don't doubt that that kind of language is often invoked to offer a veneer of reality for people who are mentally ill (every biological marker says female, but this person "feels" male so it's obviously the same as people who have discrepancies in their chromosomes or physiology.)
Bishops don't seem willing, with a few exceptions, to say what is true. It's probably an erroneous manifestation of the "no anathemas" 2nd Vatican council approach, as noted elsewhere.
I understand the posts all focused on the most outlandish of topics that the Bishops are looking at but how about the fact that there are less than two thirds of the membership in attendance! That is a bigger issue from my vantage point!
Someone pointed this out in another comments section but it is the season of ordinations in many diocese right now which I think might be more an issue than resting up for Indianapolis. ADW had deacons last weekend and priests (16! Squee! ) tomorrow.
Although I guess it’s also not that far a flight? But also Cardinal Gregory is quite elderly? 🤷🏽♀️
I thought hermits were supposed to be in isolation, and it seems prayer and meditation on the Gospels should be in order. She definitely now seems to want to be recognised. Maybe a convent would be a better fix. In isolation, of course. Narcissism doesn't seems to be a proper way for a hermit to fulfill their purpose. I don't believe this person should have been allowed to take vows under false pretences.
What happened to cherishing the body God gave you? This hermit doesn’t sound legit. What’s he doing on Facebook ? Maybe he’s friends with Fr. James Martin the Jesuit who twists and turns Church teaching
Based on what I've read on this story so far, I get the impression that only a select few knew that Mason was actually a woman before she was allowed to become a hermit. But Bishop Stowe was certainly someone who knew beforehand and still allowed this to happen, so even if Mason flew under the radar for awhile there were still some people who knew and kept it quiet.
I suspect Stowe kept it quiet so he could go ahead with Mason's vows without any interference and it was sort of an "ask forgiveness rather than permission" thing. He may also be taking a gamble that the Vatican will either eventually issue a ruling in his favor (which as outrageous as it sounds is possible in today's Church) or do nothing, which is probably the more likely possibility. Whatever his exact plans were, this decision was certainly at least partially made to further an agenda given the dishonesty coming from numerous people involved in the situation.
Catholic Answers dot com developed an AI priest named Father Justin who is answering matters of theology and who may have accidentally listened to a confession or two, but the USCCB is going to fuss about a human with a soul. All ethics and morals, issues, stereotypes, and fears aside, the diocesan hermit is a human being with a soul. We, wherever we stand on issues of gender reassignment, must not forget that this person and others are people beloved by God.
"Father" Justin, as an AI priest, is not eligible for being defrocked, or any other canonical penalties that the diocesan ordinary or national conference of bishops could dish out for sacrilegiously hearing Confessions without faculties. Canon law only applies to Baptized human Catholics over the age of 14 (or maybe it was 16). Not to months-old, unbaptized and therefore non-Catholic, non-human AI. Mortal sin, alas, only applies to those who have free will, although it seems like the AI probably had sufficient knowledge.
In keeping with the typical Catholic compassion for repentent sinners, after complaining loudly and at length, when Catholic Answers took the AI down and acknowledged their mistake, we forgave them. They have not attempted any more AI clergy. We try to stay out of the business of beating a repentant and reformed horse.
Waiting and praying for Bishop Stowe and and Ms. Mason to do similarly.
Thank you ALT. According to a story posted just yesterday by CNN, Catholic Answers has reinstated “Father Justin” and the story is complete with a demonstration. So again, I stand by my concern. We worry a great deal about fake or improper priests and religious. But I’m extremely worried about AI impersonating a priest and possibly creating alternative non-doctrinal, non-dogmatic theology. I stand by my initial statement that when humans are involved, mercy ought be the leading decider. When technology takes the place of the office of a priest, I think it a matter of great concern. It’s a formative issue. It’s an issue of priestly identity. And it’s an issue of depersonalizing the Gospel.
You might need to take CNN with a much larger grain of salt.
Catholic Answers has no Father Justin. They have Virtual Apologist Justin. As with real apologists, there are problems with him giving wrong answers. There's also a longstanding problem with real priests creating non-doctrinal, non-dogmatic theology, so.. I'm not a fan of AI, but every possible objection I can come up with applies to AI in general, not to the particular use of it.
Charity is the leading decider. It is the central virtue that contains all the others, outlasts all the others, and produces all the others. There's a difficulty with all virtues, of chasing after its false look-a-like (e.g., thinking you are being just when you're really being harsh, thinking you're being merciful when you're really being lax). There's also the opposite difficulty, misconstruing an actual virtue as its false look-a-like.
I agree that humans can be in error in theology and often are. And I agree that AI may be useful in some applications. But should AI be personified by a faith? I am not heartened that Father Justin is now an AI lay apologist. There are hundreds of real lay apologists who worked hard to earn their degrees.
As to mercy being too lax, I suppose the proposition is that mercy should be earned, and I guess that is why I originally posted on this story. A lot has been written here that I’m not sure would be said directly to Bishop Stowe or Diocesan Hermit Mason. My concern is that we treat people with acknowledgement of ours and their souls with the gift of the life in mind.
Mercy and justice are two sides of the same coin. Justice is giving oneself and others their due, mercy is giving oneself and others what is needed or beneficial. I think St. Augustine described God's justice and mercy as "Thou receivest over and above, that Thou mayest owe, and who has aught that is not Thine?" There's no earning in mercy, but if a person refuses to accept necessary and beneficial things, they remain in their unfortunate state. So there are some practical requirements on us to receive mercy, even though there are no requirements to be offered mercy. My main concern with Mason is that her own shepherd seems to be refusing to offer her this mercy.
I don't think the virtual justin is attempting to personify a faith, any more than an actual Catholic person does. Not sure what you mean by this.
Catholic Answers employs a large number of those lay apologists. They say they don't have enough to answer all the questions that come to them. We have a problem in the Church with having a lot more people who need to learn, then we have people who can teach. It necessitates a somewhat impersonal approach: we can't all get tutored by the priest. AI has a lot of pitfalls and is not a complete solution, but it is halfway decent at adjusting to inputs to get you to the answer you need. I hope it provides further reading links to Magisterial documents and articles and books by apologists.
> the diocesan hermit is a human being with a soul.
Yes. We ought to have always in our memory "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" (this evening I had to witness someone chastise my son for being too loud toward the end of Mass, and this crushed my son's spirits (I am sure they would not have done it if they knew it would hurt him), since he had been unusually well behaved the rest of the time and had made a real effort. But three other people, who have seen him around before, came over afterwards to say kind things to him, and when we got home I got out the parable of the sheep and the goats to explain to him that, when someone welcomes strange (or frankly odd) people, or noisy babies (Mass with audible babies is his favorite kind of liturgy), someday Jesus will say to them "I was a stranger and you welcomed me", and they will say "when, Lord?" and he will say "when you did it to these you did it to me." Do I still have a duty to bring up my son to understand the faith and to behave as well as he can: yes. But this must always be done with love and with the recognition of Jesus in the "distressing disguise" of the poor.
I had to brush up on canon law for Diocesan Hermits. They are to be self-supporting and they may take on the practices of a monastic rule (such as Benedictine) as their guide. But also, in the case of a hermit that belongs to a monastery, a Benedictine or Cistercian Hermit also works writing books or leading retreats, etc. In the Cistercian monastic life no gifts are accepted, so no hermit could take alms. But in this case this is a diocesan consecrated hermit, and this hermit lives a Benedictine prayer life but is not a monk of any monastery. As a Diocesan Hermit, the expectation is self-support.
Wait … it looks like the hermit is biologically female, but also intersex (I won’t spell out what that means) and raised as a boy. Perhaps things are not as simple as they seem, and this really is a case of a transgender person living chastely, wishing to show other people with gender dysphoria a genuine way forward. All under the obedience of his bishop.
When I first read the headline “transgender hermit,” I felt a little spark of joy. I imagined a person who was wrestling with a difficult problem, who had found within the church a place to rest and flourish. But as I read further, that didn’t really seem to be the case.
OSV provides a lot more background on this story, including an intervention that was attempted by another hermit who is also a systematic theologian, and who had corresponded with both the bishop and this candidate. What seemed evident from the emails that they had exchanged was that becoming a hermit was not Matson’s vocation. The actual goal was and is monastic community.
So it does seem sneaky to enter religious life this way, and self-centered to then proclaim it—rationalizing that it will give hope to others who suffer in a similar way. Our church has a long way to go in learning how to express love to people who are LGBT. But it’s hard to see how promoting the message to “go your own way and the church will follow” is going to get us there.
The Christian Mattson situation is interesting. I think the idea of her living as a hermit is a good idea in theory in terms of her vocation, but I think how she and Bishop Stowe handled it is problematic.
And what do you do in a situation where someone has taken cross-sex hormones and had surgery to look and sound like someone of the opposite sex? Clearly that person has a vocation.
I mean we know that we can’t say that that person is a person of the opposite sex of their actual sex, but what would prudence dictate in that situation? It’s an interesting question.
I think the Church needs to do a better job of supporting our brothers and sisters in Christ who experience same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria. There is a good apostolate called Eden Invitation here in the Twin Cities that has the approval and full support of Archbishop Hebda that I would urge people on here to refer those who know who fall into one of those groups, especially priests, teachers, and those who work in parishes.
The Church’s teachings on human sexuality and the human person are correct, but I think we as the laity need to do a much better job than we currently are helping our same-sex attracted and/or gender dysphoric brothers and sisters in Christ, especially those who are trying their best to live what the Church teaches. They often get caught up in the crossfire of the culture wars, and they need our friendship and our prayers.
I’m not same-sex attracted or gender dysphoric myself, but I have dear friends who are, and those are definitely crosses that we can and should help them carry through prayers, friendship, or both.
Too often, in practice, these brothers and sisters of ours get treated like lepers, and that’s wrong.
Well said. I am going to pause here and pray. Who knows how many of my casual acquaintances are suffering and soldiering on? - it is not the sort of thing I would be able to tell by looking at someone.
Yeah. There was a guy who was a couple years older than me in college and even after we both graduated, we were in the same Catholic young adults group together and he was one of the co-leaders. He was really on fire for Christ and Holy Mother Church. But then a few years later, he left the Church, became a Unitarian, and was looking for a boyfriend, and I was both shocked and saddened by that. And I did a lot of soul searching after that happened. I didn’t know he was same-sex attracted.
If he had told that that he was, I would have supported him 100% and I know from personal experience that being a single, celibate layperson in the Catholic Church is hard for anyone, but even harder when you add the additional challenge of same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria on top of that, and that friendship is especially vital for those of us of any sexual orientation who are single, celibate laypeople.
But yeah, I remember feeling defeated and heartbroken when I found out, asking in my heart “what did he need that we didn’t give him in the Church.” I haven’t heard from him for many years. I still pray for him and I hope someday, somehow Jesus and Mary will draw him back to the Church.
Anyway, I share that experience just to say that, even some of the people in the same Catholic circles we frequent may be really hurting or struggling inside with something. Now obviously Jesus and Mary and the saints can help them in ways we can’t, but Jesus also uses us, to borrow a metaphor from St. Theresa of Calcutta, as “pencils in His hand.” We May be the instrument chosen to radiate Jesus’ love and mercy and healing to someone really struggling and/or to help them carry a cross that they have to carry in life.
There’s a good exercise, similar to the Examen, that I’d recommend: take a few minutes before you go to bed to reflect and pray about your day, remember those moments when you radiated Christ to others, and remember those moments when you could have done so, but didn’t, and learn from both those failures and those moments of grace.
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.
What could possibly be wrong with calling a woman brother?
Bp Stowe doesn't espouse a religion of light but rather one of darkness where the truth cannot be be seen.
Not a bit confusing. Rewrite?
If the result of chemical or physical interventions is to draw closer to Jesus, then why is it "immoral?" I would think that the end does justify the means, if one needs to argue that way.
Whatever happened to the Sermon on the Mount, "If your hand is your undoing, cut it off. Better to enter the Kingdom of Heaven maimed than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna..."
Do what you have to do to be saved. Having Gender Dysphoria is a miserable way to live a life.
Ends do not justify means. I don't know why people sometimes think that they do. He prophesied truly who said "better that one man die" but it was a prophesy, not a justification; it was still a terrible sin to condemn an innocent man to death even though by the Cross we are saved.
Point taken. I was thinking along the lines of the definition of "gravely disordered," loosely defined as that which a thought, act, or consequence takes one further from Jesus, where the consequence would be a future event. In other words, if it turns out that one is closer to Jesus as a consequence, then how can it be gravely disordered?
> the definition of "gravely disordered," loosely defined
We need to go back to the meanings of words. To be ordered has a meaning. Things are ordered towards an end. E.g. food has a purpose (to nourish us). To be disordered means something has upset that order. E.g. someone invents Olean or NutraSweet (replacements for fat or sugar) so that people can eat something without being nourished, or, banquet organizers in the ancient world provide feathers and a basin so that people can eat and then eject the food. The food is no longer achieving its end, which is not "to taste good" but rather to fill us and nourish us. Our desire to eat food that tastes good, far beyond what we need to eat, and to not get fat while doing that, is a disordered desire. Our desire to eat food is ordered towards keeping us alive and healthy (I don't know if you've ever known someone who does not feel hunger but only feels weak and eventually collapses from not eating if he forgets to eat, but I knew a guy like that and it makes a person appreciate hunger more. He did at least enjoy eating when food was in front of him. Or sometimes a person loses their sense of smell and then it's hard to enjoy food.)
When we talk about homosexual desires being disordered, sexual desires are ordered towards an end. When we talk about whether it is okay to remove body parts and put on different body parts, those body parts are ordered towards an end; breasts nourish children; wombs too; other parts (not to get into "underpants areas") produce and convey what a man contributes to the conception of a child. A body part is ordered towards an end (eyes see, ears hear). But we want what we do not have, and do not want what we have. It is helpful to read Abandonment to Divine Providence because the author points out that God is present to us in this moment, in things as they are now; it is His will that right now I feel like it's humid (too humid), or I hear someone in the other room talking (too much); I could draw closer to God by buying tickets to fly overseas to a pilgrimage site but actually I could recognize how close He is to me right here, in this humidity, in this background noise, in my messy situation in life and the duties I have that I feel overwhelmed by and so I write comments instead (alas) but even when I do what I ought not to do, Jesus is there too, calling me closer to Him, not because it was good to do what I ought not to do but because He never gives up, like a rickroll.
This helps, Bridget - but I'm still at work, so I'd like to read with the care you put into this.
Your example of disorder - one desiring to eat too much without consequences is helpful. I wish I could find the def'n I used for "grave disorder" as being that which pulls us further from God's love, but I can't find it. I don't mean to be smart when I question the purpose of breasts being for nourishment, and then remember at least one well-endowed nun. I also like your note that you knew someone who didn't have a normal hunger reflex. People have all sorts of imperfections, and it seems like some are tolerated, and others are answered with condemnation.
I used to not have a particularly good hunger reflex. I'd get hungry, but generally not for more than 20 minutes or so, and if the food had not been acquired and eaten by then, I didn't want it anymore. On some occasions I wanted to not have it.
I ate anyway, albeit probably less than I should have, because food is required for nourishment, and for not keeling over later (makes other people irritable eventually), and also for not getting depressed and many other helpful things. Poor and incorrect signaling from my body did not put me in a small category of special people who don't need to eat. It put me in a large category of people whose bodies or minds lie to them in some way or other (a.k.a. everyone). If we are seeking to remain in God's love, we need to listen to what His natural law says about what we are and how we can behave in a properly ordered fashion - most particularly in those things that contradict our feelings.
I think it goes without saying that I would never have gotten a proper hunger back had I not obeyed the principles of nourishment even when I didn't have the desire for it. The call for LGBT folks to live chastely and present as their correct sex might not fix their disorder by itself, but it is necessary to keep themselves healthy enough to heal eventually.
God's love is only for those who live in a properly ordered fashion. Gotcha. Glad you're not holding the keys.
And "healing eventually." How long is eventually? A year? A decade? Senior citizens transition. A long time to keep your light under a bushel basket.
That was a reference to John 15: "“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love." This does not contradict Wisdom 10: "But thou art merciful to all, for thou canst do all things, and thou dost overlook men’s sins, that they may repent. For thou lovest all things that exist, and hast loathing for none of the things which thou hast made, for thou wouldst not have made anything if thou hadst hated it." I think "remain in my love" is a reference to maintaining our love for God (somewhat more delicate than His love for us), remaining in proper relationship with God, i.e., a state of grace as a baseline, and after that, neverending further in and further up.
I don't think you have to be perfectly healed to let your light shine. At least I hope not, for largely selfish reasons. I think you need to be in a state of grace to have light, since Christ is our light. In St. Justin Martyr's time, Baptism was even called Illumination. It's perfectly possible to be in a state of grace and have gender dysphoria. Such a person would be considerably better off than a person without gender dysphoria who is not in a state of grace.
Nobody is healed without repenting of their sins, forgiving the sins of others, accepting the suffering God has permitted to them, and rejecting the lies of the world, the flesh, and the devil. "It's the job that's never started as takes the longest to finish." as Sam's Gaffer used to say.
Well said!
Thank you!
It doesn't contradict anything I said before, or anything Bridget said. God's love keeps us in existence. If we aren't receiving and returning it by the time we die, it will not get us into heaven. Remaining in His love and obeying His commands is essential, regardless of what we find easier or more natural.
Breasts are an interesting case. If someone has elective surgery on her breasts (to change their size, because they are giving her a backache or because a different size would, in someone's opinion, look better), sometimes she is unable to nurse a baby well afterwards because sufficient care was not taken to put things back together in a way that works, and either no one had mentioned this possibility (after all, a person can buy formula, which multiple generations have been told is just as good or better) or else it did not seem as important to her at the time.
There must be precedents for hermits who went crazy. This is just a variation, no matter what the world thinks.
Your post is the product of reasoning backward from whatever thing a troubled person wants (in this case, someone with gender dysphoria), distorting Church teaching to accommodate it.
The product of "chemical or physical interventions" is never a drawing closer to Jesus, since the person undergoing such mutilations is rejecting how they were born (their body as created, and the nature of original sin) to indulge a false mental construct (their sexual "identity").
Gender dysphoria doesn't end after self-mutilation known as "gender affirming care," as shown by the high rate of suicide among afflicted people and the growing number of "detransitioners."
"Do what you have to do to be saved." Except what you don't want to do, such as living with the body you were given, right?
Better to mutilate genitals than to continually mutilate the mind with anguish, self hatred and directly more immoral thoughts and subsequent actions.
I disagree that Gender Dysphoria continues. There are detransitioners, sure, but I think you're just reading articles from people who draw conclusions that are more palatable.
I know one detransitioner who sho shouldn't have started, one who did for economic reasons, but then transitioned when ready, and many others who don't regret it.
"Better to mutilate genitals...." Think about that. Gender dysphoria and its attendant struggles comes from mental or physical malady (which we are directed to bear as a cross in our lives) or temptation (due to original sin and demonic influence). Your "alternative" take is that we should just reconfigure our bodies to conform with our mental, physical or spiritual maladies, as if that will make everything go away.
Even if the sufferer doesn't acknowledge their error they're still in error, and still suffering (as with any sin) because of their failure to live correctly.
Bearing the cross starts to sound like "pray away the gay."
And if one cannot, even after prayer and suffering, then this sounds like the faith-healer's accusation, "well, you just didn't pray hard enough."
That's not really my "alternative" take. Gender Dysphoria is like a misalignment between body and mind. What if we could (but we currently can't) alter the mind to treat the dysphoria. Wouldn't that be mutilating a perfectly good mind? Would that also be an error? If one chooses to follow Jesus then, is that still an error? How would it be an error?
Hypotheticals about breakthrough drugs aside, I don't think "pray away the gay" is in any way similar to "bearing one's cross", except that both ask for God's merciful intervention in one's life. The former, as a form of deliverance from an affliction, the latter, as a form of aid in persevering with an affliction. But you seem to disagree with both options, which tells me that your actual objection is to the characterization of anything on the LGBT spectrum as "disordered".
That belief, of course, is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Either one can change one's belief, out of faithful submission to Church teaching; repudiate their faith entirely; attempt to change the Faith (as Fr. James Martin, SJ seeks to do); or just live contrary to the Faith while claiming that everyone else is wrong. Some combination of the last two seems be your preference.
The problem, then, is that you are more attached to your viewpoint on human sexuality than you are to the teachings of Holy Mother Church; you either overvalue the first or undervalue the second.
I'm praying for you, please pray for me.
I don't disagree with those two options. But on the surface, it sounds like the answer to the ask is "No," at least to the first one. Perhaps training in Discernment could be valuable. But I don't see the Church teaching that: only heavy-handed condemnations.
I also disagree that my viewpoint on human sexuality is right and everyone else is wrong. I've commented to another here that I believe I have experienced a grace in that regard.
Of course I'll pray for you!
Gender dysphoria is not the only condition where people desire to mutilate their own bodies, but as far as I know it's the only one where "conventional" treatment is to go through with the mutilation and to insist that everyone surrounding the sick person enables it for that person's own peace of mind. We don't tell this to people who wish to be amputees, blind themselves, etc. We don't tell anorexics to just keep starving themselves because if they think they're fat, they must be. We try to resolve the thing in their brain that's telling them to break what isn't broken.
My understanding is that one of the major breakthroughs with any mental illness is when the sick person realizes they can think and feel things that are not real. It is an unfortunate reality that not every mentally ill person will reach that point. But enabling a person in their delusions is not helping them but making them sicker, even if they think they are happier. (This is not to speak to specific crisis situations where maybe a person needs to be talked literally down off a ledge, or to say it's fine to be cruel in how one wields the truth.)
The treatment better known as "conversion therapy" is rejected by the medical practices, more people are damaged by it, and it mostly doesn't work. Psychotherapy is a step in treatment, and it may help some, and also serves to eliminate delusional or addictive underpinnings.
I'll ask what is "mental illness?"That's an easy term to throw around, oftentimes used as a weapon.
Your characterization of enabling delusions would be incorrect. Treatment is to relieve the effects of the dysphoria, which are very damaging.
So-called "conversion therapy" is rejected by medical organizations for the same reason that "gender affirming care" is approved by them, or why the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from the diagnostic and statistical manual back in the 1970s - a combination of internal politics and moral cowardice, not because of scientific evidence or consensus.
Terminology aside, the former has hurt people, and the latter, the term IMO doesn't fully describe the treatment; its initial purpose is to discern what might not be a treatable dysphoric condition. It's meant to make the best of a difficult situation; that is almost by definition not an ideology.
Since societies still vilify people with "mental illness," removing conditions from the DSM would be a good move, particularly outside the Church. Do you think the Church is devoid of internal politics?
Laurie, I’ve really appreciated following your thought process through this thread. I’m asking many of the same questions, but sometimes coming to different answers.
It’s because I have a lot of compassion for anyone who feels like they’re in the wrong body that I resist the idea of trying to correct that medically. Penguin Mom’s example of people with anorexia is exactly where I was in my prayer about this, and your question about the definition of mental illness is also important. I know that conversion therapy has often proved ineffectual or even destructive, but I wonder if that can be attributed more to the newness of the treatment and the mixed motives of some practitioners than to its basic idea.
If a person with gender dysphoria was sitting by the roadside begging, or reaching to grasp the hem of Jesus’ garment, or being lowered through the roof by her friends, what do you envision Jesus doing, based on his previous actions and teachings? Would it be to alter their body to better accommodate the “demon” that tormented them, or to drive out that demon?
I know there are many people who have medically transitioned who report relief, and I can’t dismiss their experience. But don’t we need to keep watching the hands of the Master?
It's a little harsh to consider dysphoria as a "demon." But I think you hit on why conversion therapy doesn't work. The treatment angle is that the patient is "sinful" and the sin needs to be driven out, be it a demon or other fallen entity.
This doesn't work well in the medical practices.
Further, it would be interesting to see such an afflicted, vexed, or even possessed person participate in Mass!
I have not done a good job describing the discomfort associated with dysphoria. It's not just some lament, "Oh, how I long to look like her," or "If I only had a beard..." It wouldn't be pleasant or appropriate sharing people's stories here. It it far more intense than I can describe here.
But when others talk about others' suffering, what is it? Cancer? Huntington's Disease? Alzheimer's? Muscular Dystrophy?
If there's some treatment, people usually try to take it, unless it's an end-stage disease. There is a treatment path for dysphoria that can work for some.
Cleft Palate? Vitiligo? Did God want you to live your life that way? Let's just stitch that. People cover it up. Or not.
But your brain doesn't line up with your gonads? Tough toenails. Live with it. Or get out of here! We don't want you. You're sick. There's talk about blessing same-sex relationships. But you trans people? Suck it up and deal with it.
Every single person has a cross. Some are heavier, some are lighter. I wager lots of devout Catholics have lived in 'miserable ways' and offered up that suffering for conversion of sinners and for the poor souls.
Yes, Every day you must deny yourself and take up your cross. This is a crushing cross to bear, and the consequences can be devastating.
Usually, when those who suffer and are offering that suffering for sinners, someone knows about it. Those who suppress sexual or gender discomfort don't have good outcomes.
What's "sexual or gender discomfort"? Does that include being uncomfortable with chastity? Celibacy? With not being able to have sex with children? I'm sure all these things cause discomfort for some people, and yet your rule applies to them as well, right? Because why wouldn't it? It'd be hypocritical for you to refuse!
"Doing whatever feels good or right for you" is a terrible philosophy, even when disguised as compassion. Be honest, your position is self-serving.
Good question. How do we treat pedophilia? I don't know.
We treat child molestation as it should be, as a crime.
There is a treatment path for dysphoria, and it doesn't always include chemistry of cutlery. It's not perfect, and not pleasant, but it is effective.
I appreciate your reply. I think you are relying heavily on generalizations and assumptions (how do you know people who offer up suffering broadcast it, especially when it’s more beneficial not to). I also think you are not allowing for graces to bear our crosses. To paraphrase our Lord, with man this is impossible but with God all things are possible. There are heavy burdens that aren’t sexually related that people quietly bear every second of every day, by the grace of God.
Well, this took a fair bit of growth in my faith, but I do have a grace that pretty much took away one of those crosses. It is inappropriate for me to discuss here, however, but I did discuss it with the Pastor.
I agree that the list of irregularities, as applied to candidates for the priesthood, would rule out a transgender hermit.
Firstly, possibly, on grounds of heresy - stubbornly denying Church teaching on gender. But, given the very specific conditions for someone to be judged a heretic, you might have canon lawyers and theologians arguing for ever.
Secondly, if she has mutilated herself.
Thirdly, on grounds of mental illness. Which again might have various professionals arguing for ever.
But I am not surprised that we "need" some sort of formal consideration to decide this question, which affects a microscopic minority. Any ugly problem in England? Form a Royal Commission to report in X years at eyewatering expense. By which time you have moved on or retired.
=====================
1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:
1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;
2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;
3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;
4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;
5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;
6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty
=====================
You can be a de facto hermit without diocesan approval. But then you cannot present yourself as a Catholic hermit. At least according to the guidance of Sioux Falls diocese.
https://www.sfcatholic.org/vocations/diocesan-hermits/
As an associated point, looking at this utterly bizarre article on Franciscan "hermits", where a small team of "hermits" is divided into "mothers" and "sons"......Is there some serious gender confusion going on here? Who is going to be Martha or Mary?
https://www.catholicireland.net/the-franciscan-hermit-recluse-in-an-open-wind/#:~:text=Rule%20for%20the%20hermitages,%2C'%20or%20one%20at%20least.
The language of mother's and sons comes directly from St. Francis, from his rule for hermitages which is quoted in its entirety. The division is between those are spending the time entirely in contemplative prayer and silence (sons) and those who also maintain the hermitage and make sure there's food (mother's). You can see the Martha,/Mary analogy there.
I can't take your comment seriously when you use an apostrophe to designate plural.
But besides that, what's your point?
The point being that St. Francis himself used these terms in his "Rule for Hermitages."
Two of the four hermits are to stay at the hermitage to pray, provide and make a home for the two friars who are active in preaching.
The terms have nothing to do with gender.
Francis could have called the "providers" after St. Mary of Bethany and the preachers that went from the heritage after St. Martha of Bethany. He didn't and chose the terms "mothers" and "sons."
Grammatical mistakes do not negate Eric's points. Grammar is important but unless it makes a statement unintelligible I think most of us can accept the truth of a statement with possible grammatical errors.
I agree, including with your last passage - the grammar comment was my attempt at humor, which my wife frequently points out is not my strong suit.
Thank you for clarifying that. I used to be a copy editor for an award-winning arts journal. I left off reading this thread after your apostrophe comment and spent the rest of the afternoon reflecting on all of the great ideas and insights I would have missed out on if I'd dismissed them because of nonstandard punctuation, spelling or grammar.
You're very kind. As a former editor, I expect you're also disappointed by the rampant "apostrophe abuse". For me it's kind of like tattooing. There may be a variety of explanations for the existence of practice and practitioner, but I unashamedly reserve the right to dislike the former, and (barring additional information), to view the latter with deep skepticism.
No wonder that some of the homosexual community hail St Francis as one of their own. It fits in with that story of how he introduced himself to the Pope as a "poor woman".
"a diocesan hermit of the Lexington diocese posted on Facebook"
Well that doesn't sound very hermity.
This is the bit the struck me the most...
Next we will have the cloistered influencer nun.
Then, a live twitter feed from the conclave.
Yep, I said something similar. Transgender identity is always tied to a large exposure to external media. The fact that a “hermit” would still be engaging excessively with the internet and other persons is utterly contrary to the state of life demanded by the Eremitic Vocation.
The hermit posted about making the vow of obedience, but there is no demonstrated obedience either to Natural Law or the ordinary fundamental expected demands of the eremitical life.
If a man marries a woman, and then continues to go out to dinner one-on-one with other women, he is not obedient to his vows. If he’s continually chatting online with other women, he’s not obedient to his vows. If he comes out as transgender and starts identifying as a woman, he is not obedient to his vows.
> and starts identifying as a woman
The hermit we are talking about is someone who started out as a little baby girl and has been identifying as a man for a long time. If the hermit started identifying as a woman (not, after all that has happened, a conventionally pretty one; we would all have to be kind and understanding) that would be a miracle for which we could all thank God.
I was referring to my analogy of the married man.
Ah, that makes sense, thanks.
If you read the reporting on this, they didn't chose the vocation of hermit because this person wanted to be a hermit. They chose the vocation of hermit because the vocation is 1) explicitly open to both sexes and 2) doesn't require admission to a sex-specific religious order. In other words, becoming a hermit was all about finding a loophole, not a deeply-felt calling to the life of a hermit.
*she
Indeed it doesn't! Hermity is my new fave word! Also, how does the hermit get internet in a cave?
“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,” Matson wrote. —This is utterly absurd given the biology of human development. It is an insult to people who actually have disorders of sexual development to make such a claim. And for +Stowe to praise this person’s “integrity” shows a grave lack in his understanding of the word.
Yes, that wording stood out to me too and struck me as weaselly, frankly. I don't doubt that that kind of language is often invoked to offer a veneer of reality for people who are mentally ill (every biological marker says female, but this person "feels" male so it's obviously the same as people who have discrepancies in their chromosomes or physiology.)
Bishops don't seem willing, with a few exceptions, to say what is true. It's probably an erroneous manifestation of the "no anathemas" 2nd Vatican council approach, as noted elsewhere.
I understand the posts all focused on the most outlandish of topics that the Bishops are looking at but how about the fact that there are less than two thirds of the membership in attendance! That is a bigger issue from my vantage point!
Someone pointed this out in another comments section but it is the season of ordinations in many diocese right now which I think might be more an issue than resting up for Indianapolis. ADW had deacons last weekend and priests (16! Squee! ) tomorrow.
Although I guess it’s also not that far a flight? But also Cardinal Gregory is quite elderly? 🤷🏽♀️
I thought hermits were supposed to be in isolation, and it seems prayer and meditation on the Gospels should be in order. She definitely now seems to want to be recognised. Maybe a convent would be a better fix. In isolation, of course. Narcissism doesn't seems to be a proper way for a hermit to fulfill their purpose. I don't believe this person should have been allowed to take vows under false pretences.
What happened to cherishing the body God gave you? This hermit doesn’t sound legit. What’s he doing on Facebook ? Maybe he’s friends with Fr. James Martin the Jesuit who twists and turns Church teaching
Didn't anyone do a background check on Matson within the Catholic Church prior to admittance?
Also I find it curious that Matson waited so long to let the Catholic church know.
Based on what I've read on this story so far, I get the impression that only a select few knew that Mason was actually a woman before she was allowed to become a hermit. But Bishop Stowe was certainly someone who knew beforehand and still allowed this to happen, so even if Mason flew under the radar for awhile there were still some people who knew and kept it quiet.
I suspect Stowe kept it quiet so he could go ahead with Mason's vows without any interference and it was sort of an "ask forgiveness rather than permission" thing. He may also be taking a gamble that the Vatican will either eventually issue a ruling in his favor (which as outrageous as it sounds is possible in today's Church) or do nothing, which is probably the more likely possibility. Whatever his exact plans were, this decision was certainly at least partially made to further an agenda given the dishonesty coming from numerous people involved in the situation.
Catholic Answers dot com developed an AI priest named Father Justin who is answering matters of theology and who may have accidentally listened to a confession or two, but the USCCB is going to fuss about a human with a soul. All ethics and morals, issues, stereotypes, and fears aside, the diocesan hermit is a human being with a soul. We, wherever we stand on issues of gender reassignment, must not forget that this person and others are people beloved by God.
"Father" Justin, as an AI priest, is not eligible for being defrocked, or any other canonical penalties that the diocesan ordinary or national conference of bishops could dish out for sacrilegiously hearing Confessions without faculties. Canon law only applies to Baptized human Catholics over the age of 14 (or maybe it was 16). Not to months-old, unbaptized and therefore non-Catholic, non-human AI. Mortal sin, alas, only applies to those who have free will, although it seems like the AI probably had sufficient knowledge.
In keeping with the typical Catholic compassion for repentent sinners, after complaining loudly and at length, when Catholic Answers took the AI down and acknowledged their mistake, we forgave them. They have not attempted any more AI clergy. We try to stay out of the business of beating a repentant and reformed horse.
Waiting and praying for Bishop Stowe and and Ms. Mason to do similarly.
Thank you ALT. According to a story posted just yesterday by CNN, Catholic Answers has reinstated “Father Justin” and the story is complete with a demonstration. So again, I stand by my concern. We worry a great deal about fake or improper priests and religious. But I’m extremely worried about AI impersonating a priest and possibly creating alternative non-doctrinal, non-dogmatic theology. I stand by my initial statement that when humans are involved, mercy ought be the leading decider. When technology takes the place of the office of a priest, I think it a matter of great concern. It’s a formative issue. It’s an issue of priestly identity. And it’s an issue of depersonalizing the Gospel.
You might need to take CNN with a much larger grain of salt.
Catholic Answers has no Father Justin. They have Virtual Apologist Justin. As with real apologists, there are problems with him giving wrong answers. There's also a longstanding problem with real priests creating non-doctrinal, non-dogmatic theology, so.. I'm not a fan of AI, but every possible objection I can come up with applies to AI in general, not to the particular use of it.
Charity is the leading decider. It is the central virtue that contains all the others, outlasts all the others, and produces all the others. There's a difficulty with all virtues, of chasing after its false look-a-like (e.g., thinking you are being just when you're really being harsh, thinking you're being merciful when you're really being lax). There's also the opposite difficulty, misconstruing an actual virtue as its false look-a-like.
I agree that humans can be in error in theology and often are. And I agree that AI may be useful in some applications. But should AI be personified by a faith? I am not heartened that Father Justin is now an AI lay apologist. There are hundreds of real lay apologists who worked hard to earn their degrees.
As to mercy being too lax, I suppose the proposition is that mercy should be earned, and I guess that is why I originally posted on this story. A lot has been written here that I’m not sure would be said directly to Bishop Stowe or Diocesan Hermit Mason. My concern is that we treat people with acknowledgement of ours and their souls with the gift of the life in mind.
Mercy and justice are two sides of the same coin. Justice is giving oneself and others their due, mercy is giving oneself and others what is needed or beneficial. I think St. Augustine described God's justice and mercy as "Thou receivest over and above, that Thou mayest owe, and who has aught that is not Thine?" There's no earning in mercy, but if a person refuses to accept necessary and beneficial things, they remain in their unfortunate state. So there are some practical requirements on us to receive mercy, even though there are no requirements to be offered mercy. My main concern with Mason is that her own shepherd seems to be refusing to offer her this mercy.
I don't think the virtual justin is attempting to personify a faith, any more than an actual Catholic person does. Not sure what you mean by this.
Catholic Answers employs a large number of those lay apologists. They say they don't have enough to answer all the questions that come to them. We have a problem in the Church with having a lot more people who need to learn, then we have people who can teach. It necessitates a somewhat impersonal approach: we can't all get tutored by the priest. AI has a lot of pitfalls and is not a complete solution, but it is halfway decent at adjusting to inputs to get you to the answer you need. I hope it provides further reading links to Magisterial documents and articles and books by apologists.
> the diocesan hermit is a human being with a soul.
Yes. We ought to have always in our memory "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" (this evening I had to witness someone chastise my son for being too loud toward the end of Mass, and this crushed my son's spirits (I am sure they would not have done it if they knew it would hurt him), since he had been unusually well behaved the rest of the time and had made a real effort. But three other people, who have seen him around before, came over afterwards to say kind things to him, and when we got home I got out the parable of the sheep and the goats to explain to him that, when someone welcomes strange (or frankly odd) people, or noisy babies (Mass with audible babies is his favorite kind of liturgy), someday Jesus will say to them "I was a stranger and you welcomed me", and they will say "when, Lord?" and he will say "when you did it to these you did it to me." Do I still have a duty to bring up my son to understand the faith and to behave as well as he can: yes. But this must always be done with love and with the recognition of Jesus in the "distressing disguise" of the poor.
Why is He/She working a secular job? Hermits are supposed to ask for alms.
I had to brush up on canon law for Diocesan Hermits. They are to be self-supporting and they may take on the practices of a monastic rule (such as Benedictine) as their guide. But also, in the case of a hermit that belongs to a monastery, a Benedictine or Cistercian Hermit also works writing books or leading retreats, etc. In the Cistercian monastic life no gifts are accepted, so no hermit could take alms. But in this case this is a diocesan consecrated hermit, and this hermit lives a Benedictine prayer life but is not a monk of any monastery. As a Diocesan Hermit, the expectation is self-support.
Wait … it looks like the hermit is biologically female, but also intersex (I won’t spell out what that means) and raised as a boy. Perhaps things are not as simple as they seem, and this really is a case of a transgender person living chastely, wishing to show other people with gender dysphoria a genuine way forward. All under the obedience of his bishop.
When I first read the headline “transgender hermit,” I felt a little spark of joy. I imagined a person who was wrestling with a difficult problem, who had found within the church a place to rest and flourish. But as I read further, that didn’t really seem to be the case.
OSV provides a lot more background on this story, including an intervention that was attempted by another hermit who is also a systematic theologian, and who had corresponded with both the bishop and this candidate. What seemed evident from the emails that they had exchanged was that becoming a hermit was not Matson’s vocation. The actual goal was and is monastic community.
So it does seem sneaky to enter religious life this way, and self-centered to then proclaim it—rationalizing that it will give hope to others who suffer in a similar way. Our church has a long way to go in learning how to express love to people who are LGBT. But it’s hard to see how promoting the message to “go your own way and the church will follow” is going to get us there.
The Christian Mattson situation is interesting. I think the idea of her living as a hermit is a good idea in theory in terms of her vocation, but I think how she and Bishop Stowe handled it is problematic.
And what do you do in a situation where someone has taken cross-sex hormones and had surgery to look and sound like someone of the opposite sex? Clearly that person has a vocation.
I mean we know that we can’t say that that person is a person of the opposite sex of their actual sex, but what would prudence dictate in that situation? It’s an interesting question.
I think the Church needs to do a better job of supporting our brothers and sisters in Christ who experience same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria. There is a good apostolate called Eden Invitation here in the Twin Cities that has the approval and full support of Archbishop Hebda that I would urge people on here to refer those who know who fall into one of those groups, especially priests, teachers, and those who work in parishes.
The Church’s teachings on human sexuality and the human person are correct, but I think we as the laity need to do a much better job than we currently are helping our same-sex attracted and/or gender dysphoric brothers and sisters in Christ, especially those who are trying their best to live what the Church teaches. They often get caught up in the crossfire of the culture wars, and they need our friendship and our prayers.
I’m not same-sex attracted or gender dysphoric myself, but I have dear friends who are, and those are definitely crosses that we can and should help them carry through prayers, friendship, or both.
Too often, in practice, these brothers and sisters of ours get treated like lepers, and that’s wrong.
Well said. I am going to pause here and pray. Who knows how many of my casual acquaintances are suffering and soldiering on? - it is not the sort of thing I would be able to tell by looking at someone.
Yeah. There was a guy who was a couple years older than me in college and even after we both graduated, we were in the same Catholic young adults group together and he was one of the co-leaders. He was really on fire for Christ and Holy Mother Church. But then a few years later, he left the Church, became a Unitarian, and was looking for a boyfriend, and I was both shocked and saddened by that. And I did a lot of soul searching after that happened. I didn’t know he was same-sex attracted.
If he had told that that he was, I would have supported him 100% and I know from personal experience that being a single, celibate layperson in the Catholic Church is hard for anyone, but even harder when you add the additional challenge of same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria on top of that, and that friendship is especially vital for those of us of any sexual orientation who are single, celibate laypeople.
But yeah, I remember feeling defeated and heartbroken when I found out, asking in my heart “what did he need that we didn’t give him in the Church.” I haven’t heard from him for many years. I still pray for him and I hope someday, somehow Jesus and Mary will draw him back to the Church.
Anyway, I share that experience just to say that, even some of the people in the same Catholic circles we frequent may be really hurting or struggling inside with something. Now obviously Jesus and Mary and the saints can help them in ways we can’t, but Jesus also uses us, to borrow a metaphor from St. Theresa of Calcutta, as “pencils in His hand.” We May be the instrument chosen to radiate Jesus’ love and mercy and healing to someone really struggling and/or to help them carry a cross that they have to carry in life.
There’s a good exercise, similar to the Examen, that I’d recommend: take a few minutes before you go to bed to reflect and pray about your day, remember those moments when you radiated Christ to others, and remember those moments when you could have done so, but didn’t, and learn from both those failures and those moments of grace.