Hello! I have a question and I thought this would be a great place to ask it! I am doing a talk at a girl's retreat in a few days and part of it is about vocations. I have all of it covered except for the part about consecrated virgins. I really don't know much about them, what kind of vows they take (or if they even take any), how they live on a day-to-day basis, if they wear any special clothing, etc... So really, just any basic information about consecrated virgins would be awesome. Thanks so much for your help!

God bless+
Becky

Hi Becky,

There is a great website with a lot of resources --- Consecrated Virgins

The ones I know wear wedding rings. Other than that they just dress modestly.

here also is a site with a one or 2 page outline and a nice comparison chart
http://www.vocations.ca/How_do_i_become/Co...son/virgins.php

A good help is the Q&A-Site here:
http://www.consecratedvirgins.org/q-a/qa.html

If you have special questions, please feel free to write a PM - my consecration is planned for summer 2008 (according to my age (I was too young when I started the time of discernment, just 18 ) I´ve been preparing to receive the consecration for quite a long time - 9 years now... ). But the CoV resembles the solemn profession - and you don´t make solemn profession after the first year at convent...



(Sorry about my English - I´m from Germany... )

i have just read the link things about this and was wondering if anyone could tell me what the following means;
'lived in public or open violation of chastity'


thankyou

It is a difficult thing in today´s world, I really know...

I asked my bishop exactly the same question. And he said (in my own words now):
Well, you have to be a virgin. There's no doubt about it! But where doubt continues to exist because you had several rendezvous with boys/men and all the other people or friends who saw you together might have the strong suspicion that there had been more than just an "ordinary" friendship, I can´t administer the consecration of virgins! It would be a hypocrisy to say: "I´m a consecrated virgin" and on the other hand arouse suspicion because of your past... you have to ask yourself: Have I ever been truly with my life and my relationship to HIM? Or have I ever been some kind "stumbling block" for other people to think other things about me? Can I exclude all possibility of doubt?
Did I /Do I give an example with my life, an example that testifies my promise? You don´t "become" a virgin during the rite of consecration - you ARE a virgin and you are consecrated as a virgin!

So far my bishop...

I hope this helps to understand -

So if you have a vocation to that life, and you make a mistake, there's not chance of you ever being consecrated? That's it? Not chance of living your vocation? You're a write-off because of your past?

This is different than Holy Orders.

I´m not very good in English - but I try to find the right words...
The point is: You can only be consecrated, if you never gave in and had sexual intercourse. If you are a consecrated virgin, you will say to Jesus: "THIS belongs to you and I am not going to do this because of you - I never did it! You find in Rev 19:7 "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." The marriage of the lamb is what we are waiting for - we believe that we don´t miss anything here on earth if we don´t have sexual intercourses with men.

The church approves the vocation by the consecration of virgins. But church can´t approve anything that does not exist! A "virgin" is a woman who never gave her self sexually to a man. You can´t lie about this. It is one of the first questions a woman is asked whenever she comes to the bishop: "Are you a virgin? Have you never given yourself totally to a man? You know, this is reserved for HIM!"

The American CV´s have an explanation on their Homepage (http://www.consecratedvirgins.org/cv/whatcv.html):

And I very much like the last Question on their Q&A-Site (http://www.consecratedvirgins.org/q-a/qa-d.html):

So it really must be perpetual virginity: Before and of course after the actual consecration...

I have to add a special case:
If you lost your virginity because you wanted it (e.g. you wanted/planned to have sexual intercourse with a man), there is no possibility to ever receive the consecration of virgins - because you can´t offer HIM what you don´t have, what you already gave another man, what you (well, somehow!) "lost".
In the very special and sad case, when a woman had been ravished (is this the right English word?)/violated so that she didn´t loose her virginity deliberately, the bishop has the possibility to administer the consecration - because she didn´t deliberately give her inner self, the most precious thing she as a female has, to a man, because she - in this very special case! - kept her virginity for HIM!
Well, the bishop´s alsways free - he doesn´t have to do it! It is his own decision! It would be somehow strange, if a women has a child (after being ravished) and receives the consecration of virgins. I know a woman in Germany - same case! The bishop told her that he just couldn´t administer the consecration of virgins... because he said: "What will the people think if you have a child but you claim to be a virgin! Of course you are a virgin (understood as a woman who never gave herself to a man deliberately!), but it will be do difficult to understand and to explain!"
This woman has made a private vow of chastity now.

You wrote:

What would you say to a woman who claims to have the vocation to be a priest?
Vocation needs "materia" and "forma", just like sacraments (+ intention)/sacramentals. The materia of this special sacramental is a virgin, not a woman, who made this special mistake. She is no "valid" matter fos this.
You can compare this to Can. 1024: "A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly."
A woman who has never given herself to a man deliberately (= virgin) alone receives the consecration of virgins.

remember its about Consecrated VIRGINITY, not Consecration to the Lord in general...
cant be Consecrated publicly a Virgin if ..well, you aren't one!
pax!

Well, this is what I already tried to say...

Only two weeks to wait -
my bishop will administer the consecration of virgins on Sat 26th... I´m am very excited and somehow confused (about the fact that time flies - I have been knowing the date für three months now... and now it is only two weeks away!!!!!), but really really happy!!!!!
I´ve been waiting for such a long time...

Please pray for me...

SaviorsChild,
Ave Maria.

Thank you for the information in this thread. It sounds like you have been preparing for this for many years, and it is truly your heart's desire. I don't mean to go too far off-topic, but may I ask, what compelled you to choose to be a consecrated virgin (living in the world) rather than consecrated under a rule of life in a community? If you are not comfortable answering this question, I understand (it is none of my business).

Blessings.

Hello again...

Of course I can answer this question!
Well, it was not MY choice - if it had been my decision, I would have entered a cloistered convent - but it was HIS will, not mine. HE just showed me that the life as a consecrated virgin is what he planned for me. And I could not resist HIM and HIS decision - because HE was stronger...

You know, I have been going to daily mass for almost 15 years now - I pray the full LOTH and rosary every day - and it was my bridegroom, who made this possible - and HE guided me to this spiritual way of life.
And whenever I may receive holy communion, whenever I open my breviary, I just have the confidence that this is HIS will: to live my life as HIS bride - as a consecrated virgin in the world...

Somebody might ask: How can you be sure that this is Gods will?
I can only answer: I´m as sure as I could ever be...
Blessings!

I do not think it can be said more succintly than that. As Sister Amelia Hueller said, "A woman knows when she is in love." There is nothing surer than the love of the Beloved.

Thank you for your response.

Blessings.

Herzlichen Glückwunsch !

Isn't it wonderful that this ancient form of Consecration has been restored?

There's a great blog by a future Consecrated Virgin: Sponsa Christi

She actually goes into the issue of Consecrated Virgins wearing special clothing. Its very interesting. The post is here . Apparently its okay to wear a veil and even use the title "Sister," its just up to the bishop who does the consecration to grant permission.

Danke - ich warte schon lange sehnsüchtig, auch wenn die Weihe nicht das Ziel, sondern die "Mitte" des Lebens ist, aber es ist halt schon ein großes Ereignis für mich...

Thank you - I´v been longing for it for quite a long time. Although I know that the actual consecration is not some kind of a "goal", but "center" of life, it is a great thing for myself...

Thank you for the link. I found the blog quite informative. In terms of wearing special clothing, it seems to make perfect sense that a consecrated virgin should do so, if she is called to be a light of Christ in the world. The same might be said of 3rd order Franciscans and Oblates.

I also found it interesting that a consecrated virgin can house the Blessed Sacrament in her home, and if so, is expected to have Mass said there periodically. What a great honor, and profound responsibility.

Blessings.

Please pray for me - only 11 (eleven!!!!!) days to wait!!!

It's a beautiful vocation, I've read a lot about it

+J.M.J.+
May God bless you continually on this journey! May Mother Mary continually guide you to Her Son.

+Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever!

Before I say anything that might be read as critical, let me congratulate all on this site and thread who are considering this life, who are in it, or who are preparing for it. May God bless you, protect you and keep you ever safe.

This subject has been discussed on other forums as well as this one. I often find myself amazed and saddened, too, when I see such focus on the physical aspects of this calling. I find it very demeaning and distressing to come across such interest in one's physical state. Holy Mother Church, over and over again, has revealed Herself to be place of sanctuary and safety. I know for certain that had a young woman who had not yet fully converted (and my dear ones, this takes a long time) had made a mistake (and yes, it would have been a mistake for someone would only do certain things out of pain, error, misunderstanding, etc.) and then had been fully and completed educated, or had fully repented, received Absolution, finished penance, she would be considered no more tattered, ruined or "less-than" someone else who had never been in that original circumstance to begin with.

I personally know women whom have received this Rite and were not physically intact (to be blunt) in the manner in which has been discussed. However, their calling came after the event, so to speak, and they were properly formed and educated to their calling and place in life. And today, they proudly reign and speak of their role, and they live their vocation fully.

None of us are in the position to tell another one what is possible or impossible, for in God's Hands and Eyes, all is possible. In Faith, all is possible, and the Holy Spirit does not whisper an invitation to someone without knowing if it is possible. When I read posts such as the ones that were bandied about above; with hard and fast rules, I can't help but think of the one that turns away...sad. Much of what had been discussed and presented as fact/truth/black and white rules are in fact between a woman and her confessor, and then, her Bishop.

I am sure of this, because as I said, I have seen this hurdle jumped. Personally. As for married women, who publicly received the Sacrament of Marriage, they are eligible for the Consecration of Widows, should they find themselves in this situation after the loss of their husbands, and an entirely different story. I speak today only of women never married.

Our Lord's Heart is a Heart of Mercy. Always.

Dear TradMom,
Out of curiosity, can you provide Church documents supporting your position rather than personal experience?

Blessings.

+Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever!

As I pointed out, this is truly a matter between a woman and her Bishop.

I am not a Canon Lawyer, and the women that I know who are Consecrated Virgins are in a position to speak of their journey, should you find yourself in a similiar situation and need advice. If so, please PM me privately and I will give you their information.

However, I can direct you to the following from this website:

http://www.consecratedvirgins.org/cv/whatcv.html

The question is asked "who can be consecrated," and the answer given:

Who can be consecrated?

A woman living in the world who has never married or lived in open violation of chastity, and who by age, prudence, and good character is deemed suitable for dedicating herself to a life of chastity in the service of the Church and of her neighbor may petition her bishop to receive the Consecration. She must be admitted to this Consecration by her local Bishop; it is he who determines the conditions under which the candidate is to undertake a life of perpetual virginity lived in the world. Usually, a woman who aspires to the Consecration works with a spiritual director and has lived a private promise of perpetual virginity for some years before seeking the Consecration of a Virgin.

Note the beginning sentence..."lived in open violation of chastity" is very different than one who has privately erred. Note also that it is "he" (the Bishop) who determines the conditions...

This website is very good and should be a good resource for you as you discern your Vocation.

God bless you.

TradMom

Then olease read further:
http://www.consecratedvirgins.org/q-a/qa-d.html


That is the point.

When the consecrations had their gathering in Rome just about two months ago,
it was made definately clear that a consecration administered to a woman who is not a "virgin" in the sense discussed above is not valid.

Well, you don´t BECOME a virgin at the time you are consecrated, you ARE a virgin -

There are so many different ways to God - but this special door closes when you don´t have the necessary conditions...
But another door will open - because God will show you another way!

Sorry, double post...

TradMom,
As far as I know, there is no historical precedent to your position. Have not all consecrated virgins in the history of the Church been physical virgins? It seems to me that just because a bishop has consecrated a non-virgin to the order of virgins within the past 40 years, does not necessarily make it a licit act, if the action is in conflict with the tradition of the Church.

I might similarly ask, if the term "virgin" does not mean virgin in a physical sense, then would not the Church choose more accurate terminology? (such as "celibates") The Church is very precise in her choice of words, is she not?

CATECHISM 923
"Virgins who, committed to the holy plan of following Christ more closely, are consecrated to God by the diocesan bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are betrothed mystically to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church." 464 By this solemn rite (Consecratio virginum), the virgin is "constituted . . . a sacred person, a transcendent sign of the Church's love for Christ, and an eschatological image of this heavenly Bride of Christ and of the life to come."

If I may point out; the Catholic Church places a strong emphasis on the physical, in addition to the spiritual. This should not be demeaning or distressing. Without bread, there would be no Eucharist. Without water, there would be no Baptism. Similarly, it can be said that without physical virginity, there cannot be consecrated virginity.

Perhaps what you speak of is a "spiritual virginity" of sorts, in which a person can lead such a chaste life so as to become a virgin once again. In this sense, I do agree with you completely. However, one must make a distinction between this state of virginity, and the state required by church law to consecration.



If I may note one last thing; the rules imposed by the Church are not meant to demean a person; it does not make a person "less-than" another. Rather, they exist because they reflect a reality. The fact that women cannot become priests does not lessen their dignity. The fact that priests cannot marry does not lessen their dignity. Similarly, the fact that non-virgins cannot be consecrated (at least not licitly, from what I understand) to the order of consecrated virgins does not lessen their dignity either.

Blessings.

That´s it!

Praised be Jesus Christ! Now and Forever!

I will finish my contribution to this thread with this post. I do not believe Holy Mother Church EVER presents Herself in a position to demean, degrade or make Her children feel "less-than." However, sadly, it is evident that people within the Church do so.

Yes, the Church in Her wisdom and in Her MERCY, in imitiation of Jesus Christ, have indeed consecrated women as virgins, who were not virgins in the physical sense, and this was not done in an illicit manner as was suggested above. I would also suggest that those who are pondering this ONE aspect of this ancient rite do further research.

Why this particular aspect of the vocation is so interesting to certain people, especially men, I do not know, but unfortunately, to me, it borders on voyeurism and an unsavory concentration on someone's physical being, as well as their past. Frankly, it is none of our business, and again, is between the woman and her Bishop.

If a woman was raped, or repeatedly molested, or enslaved - and later, through the Mercy and Touch of God, finds herself able to GIVE of herself totally to the Church, would she be refused? No. Do some more research and you will find that this very circumstance has been covered in the rubrics of the Rite. Furthermore, you will find, that many women have lost their physical virginity as a result of abuse including physical, mental and emotional - not to mention spiritual; and according to the current (and past) teachings of the Church, this does not invalidate a woman's ability to offer herself wholly to the Church.

I would use Elizabeth Smart as an example for this topic. She was forced into behavior that under normal circumstances she would not have ever considered; according to some of the posts above, this would render her an unsuitable candidate. However, the Church has the ability to look beyond the black and white facts and in doing so, sees the entire person. Elizabeth Smart is an extreme example, yet, we as a people know that women suffer abuse - of varied and myriad kinds - every single day.

Those who focus only on the physical aspect of this vocation seem to approach the very topic from a perspective that we, again, as a Church do not employ. This mode of thinking would be considered "doctrine over person," (Robert J. Lifton) which is something our Church does not practice.

As I said above, this will be my final contribution to this thread. If anyone who has a legitimate reason for needing further information, and would be helped by resource information so they (or a friend) can pursue this vocation; I would be happy to share my resources.

I hope this thread has not discouraged those who feel called to this life as a Consecrated Virgin, and you will indeed speak to your Confessor/Spiritual Director as well as your Bishop.

In Him,
TradMom

I agree with TradMom, though you didn't really say it like this. This topic has become creepy. I don't know why it's even being discussed like this. Moderators?

Nicely said! If a young woman unfortunately lost her virginity (by her own will), then made her penance of course, and then found out about Consecrated Virgins, perhaps it should be said that maybe this isn't her vocation.



How?

Please, have a look here:
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1334660

Here´s the text:


The point is your free will... If something terrible happened, it would still be possible to receive the consecration...

This is what I just said - in this terrible case it would still be possible to receive the consecration because it didn´t happen because she wanted it!

By the way: Do you believe that Mary, Mother of Christ, was a virgin?

It may be the same point with the priestly vocation: Not every man who lives in celibacy can be a priest. If you feel this or that is your vocation and church doesn´t take you... what will you say?
There are bishops who don´t want to administer the consecration of virgins. They are free. They don´t have to. But it still doesn´t mean that those "rejected" women are "less worthy" or something...
You would have to move to another diocese if you wanted to receive the consecration in this case...

Again: This way of life is just ONE possible way! There are so many other ways possible for a women if she wants to follow Christ! And none of those ways is "better" - they are just different! That´s it!

Where did you get this from? Could you state a concrete case?
Have you ever talked with a bishop who has consecrated virgins in his diocese?

And again this post:

It's creepy in that we are sitting around discussing whether or not a woman is PHYSICALLY a virgin and what the circumstances are surrounding that issue.
My diocese does not allow CV's, so I can't ask my Bishop anything about it. What about women who enter religious life, specifically cloistered, and are not virgins? Many of them receive the Rite of Consecration as Virgins. This is a very personal subject. And yes, I do find it creepy that a man would be so interested in this.

I know a convent - Benedictines - where the (young) women who enter "choose" between the consecration of virgins (when they have solemn profession) and - if they can´t receive the consecration because they had sexual contact with men before - the so called "Monastische Weihe " - I don´t know what the English Equivalent is (coud be something like "monastic consecration") . Here is the Homepage of this convent:
http://www.abtei-st-hildegard.de/archiv/te...cidaBericht.php
It takes place in the profession mass - unfortunately this part of the homepage is not translated into English...

On this page here I found an explanation:
http://www.benedictinesjc.org/Lexicon.html
Have a look:


I also found this PDF_Text: http://www.op.org.au/texts/gy_sol_vows.pdf

Who's the man?

The Abbey of Regina Laudis held a beautiful consecration of Virgins sometime in the middle 90's. I was present for it, and they consecrated nine women. (The nine women had already been solemnly professed as Nuns.)

I know they had retained the ancient Rite of Consecration and followed it exactly. I would recommend that if anybody is really interested in the rules/rubrics/specifics of this Rite, they would be an excellent and very valuable resource. At the time, I spoke to one of the Nuns who had received the Rite, and I remember two things she told me - one was that the Rite was a Sacramental (which up until that point, I had only heard of sacramentals as being "items or things" - such as holy water, Rosaries, etc.) and the other was that it had origins in the Benedictine Order.

Needless to say, since that time, I have done a lot of reading and research and with the grace of God, have been able to find myself much better educated. There is a lot more information out there today, and with the internet, things are much easier to find and process.

To the poster who referenced the Abbey of St. Hildegard's website, I do not speak German, but I do know there is a Rite of Consecration for Widows. Perhaps this is what you are referring to when you mentioned another option. Also, as a means of correction, and in charity, that particular Abbey does not discriminate in regards to age, and accepts women who would not be considered "young" by American standards.

That being said, I cannot help but agree with some of the above posts. This is a very intimate subject. Discussing this in such an open forum, makes one wonder. And by that, I mean, at point does one determine one's purity? Is there a list of activities that immediately invalidates one for this Rite? What about a woman who has been sexually intimate with another woman? She remains a "virgin" per se, so is she fine? What about the woman who did "everything....but?" Is she okay? What about the woman who was unchurched and uneducated and then found her to way through conversion to the Holy Roman Catholic Church? And where does the Holy Sacrament of Confession come in? And finally, how do we find ourselves in a position to determine for another what is or what isn't? This is a very, very juvenile approach to life and yes, does seem to reduce all matters to a black and white mentality, or as was better said, "Doctrine Over Person."

It does seem somewhat salacious and sordid to be so interested in the physical state of another's hymen. I do believe, as was said above, that these matters are best left to the acting Spiritual Director/Confessor and/or Bishop, Cardinal, Abbot, Abbess, whomever. Unfortunately, some of these posts have indeed put forth a tone of "too bad for you..." and can do nothing else but leave a reader feeling "less-than." Hiding behind documents, rules and rubrics of this particular Rite doesn't make a difference ("I'M not saying this....look at this paragraph!"); for as someone yet again above me pointed out, it is none of our business.

It is not up to any of us to announce to another that she is not eligible for this Vocation because of a physical condition. That is private and should be discussed only within the context of a serious spiritual formation program; and even then, news of one's ineligibility would be delivered with the utmost care and pastoral concern, by someone in a position to do so. Not a poster on this thread who is reading and then analyzing the texts literally.

Here is the address in the event anybody would like to contact the Abbey of Regina Laudis for specific information:

Abbey of Regina Laudis, 273 Flander Road
Bethlehem, Connecticut, 06751

They do not accept emails, but they do have a lovely website as well: abbeyofreginalaudis.com

Finally, there is an American woman at the Abbey of St. Hildegard named Sister Benedicta. She is very kind and recently (within the last ten years) professed. I have had a very productive correspodence with her over the years, and I would encourage any Americans who have an interest in Benedictine life and/or the history of the order in particular - in regards to Europe - to contact her via their website.

Pax.

Praxedes.

The moderators agree that there has not been anything inappropriate about the general discussion in this thread. The discussion has been about the requirements of receiving the consecration, not about the personal lives of others. So we ask that everyone please stay on topic. If you have any personal objections to the discussion in this thread, please report it to the moderators, rather than discuss it here. Also, please keep the discussion general, and do not go into detail about mature subjects. Thank you.

Excellent post, Praxedes. Thank you.

I remember reading somewhere that it used to be more common for cloistered nuns to receive this ancient rite of consecration, but not anymore. The only ones I've heard of that still do are the Carthusian Nuns. That's interesting, some Benedictine Nuns do too. Does anyone know of any others?

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/morimond/c...se/virgins.html

"It does seem somewhat salacious and sordid to be so interested in the physical state of another's hymen. I do believe, as was said above, that these matters are best left to the acting Spiritual Director/Confessor and/or Bishop, Cardinal, Abbot, Abbess, whomever. "

Thanks to Praexedes and TradMom for their comments that the emphasis on the bodily and physical aspect of the requirement makes them wary (my interpretation of their reactions).

The fixation on this one aspect reminds me somewhat of young women I have encountered as a nurse who are still "virgins" in some physically technical sense but whose range of willing behaviors has included everything but coitus. Both approaches reflect a "letter of the law" approach to the situation rather than the spirit of the law. I would attribute both to a stage of thinking in spiritual development that is very concrete, and not particularly helpful in care and compassion.

I disagree with the nature of the thread. The moderators said that "the discussion has been about the requirements of receiving the consecration, not about the personal lives of others," and it has. I don't see a fixation on this one aspect. The question was asked "does a woman have to be physically a virgin?" The question was answered by the poster who has been preparing for this consecration for the last nine years, the answer was, that yes, for the consecration to be valid, one must be a virgin, or at least not have willingly given that virginity away at another time. Then someone came and said, "well I don't think that is true." And then the original poster came back and said, "But it is true. It is what the Church has said." The reason the original topic has went into this is because posters cannot come to an agreement about the requirements to receive the consecration; I hardly think it has to do with some sick, fetish or desire others have about wanting to talk about "imaginary discerners" having or not having their virginity. I think both sides just desire for the truth to be said about the subject of the requirements of the consecration.

I cannot receive ordination as a priest because I am a woman. No one would say that I was being made to feel degraded or "less then" because I am a woman and someone has said the truth that I cannot receive ordination. Just as, if someone has lost their virginity by will they should not feel "less than" because they cannot receive consecration as a virgin. They can become a sister or a nun, if it be God's will. They can still give themselves to Christ in a very awesome way and become a saint. I don't see how the discussion about is virginity a requirement or not has been made out to be something sick and creepy that we shouldn't talk about or that will make people feel less than others.

I wrote to a moderator this morning but have not received a reply. Is there a moderator who will take a PM from me? I realize the moderator I picked to PM this morning may not be coming onto the forum every day.

Also, I think that some of the issue here might be that there is a considerable amount of disagreement and/or different interpretations out there in the "real world". For instance in speaking about this topic with a priest this evening, he informed me that one of his parishioners recently received the consecration with the full knowledge and approval a Cardinal Archbishop well known and respected as a conservative......he knows this because he participated in the consecration ceremony at the parish church where he is the pastor.....the woman has children.

If the Bishops don't agree....and certainly they don't seem to, I don't think we ought to take it upon ourselves to say what "is" or "isn't" a proper interpretation of the Canon.

Pax

Dear Margaret Clare,

The Carthusians go "all out!"

The only surviving relic of the ordination of deaconesses in the West seems to be the delivery by the Bishopof a stole and maniple to Carthusian nuns in the ceremony of their profession. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

I was also at the Regina Laudis consecration (Praxedes...maybe we met?). I was in discernment with them for quite a while and learned much. Praxedes is right, they are an excellent resource of information. That was the only time I have ever witnessed a Consecration in such a manner. I believe their nuns were consecrated by Abbot Serna, with permission from their Bishop. I could be wrong, though. At that time, I had a "holding nun," and she was very, very good about explaining the entire process and what happened, and how they prepared for it.

This subject has always been interesting to me, and other than other Benedictine (and the Carthusians) communities, I have yet to find an Order that consecrates women in this manner. However, many communities will say that their nuns are consecrated as virgins at the time of solemn profession, and though I have attended many professions, the consecration does not in any match what I saw at Regina Laudis.

I have not had the privilege of witnessing an individual Consecration by a Bishop.

Perpetualove

TotusTuusMaria,

Unfortunately, the lines are not quite as clear as we would like to think, and it is my opinion, and obviously I am not alone, that the discussion has taken a turn. As others have pointed out, most recently gloriagurl, the Bishops have indeed taken different positions on this topic. It is not as cut and dried as "women cannot be priests." The criticisms have nothing to do with the Church, as it were, but with the focus on the physical aspect, which is an intimate and private matter, one which needs to be discussed thoroughly with one's spiritual director and then, the Bishop. Exceptions are made to the general rule, for a variety of reasons, and again, that is a private matter. It does seem sordid to discuss who is fit - based on a physical situation - when in fact it is not up to us to decide, as gloriagurl pointed out. Many communities have rules about who they will consider as suitable candidates and then find themselves making an exception. The same goes for the Church. Priests do it at the parish level all the time, and decisions are often made out of pastoral care rather than a strident adherence to the "rules." TradMom was right in pointing out the Merciful nature of our Church, for She does make exceptions for women who are lacking physically. My concern, and again, I think I shared this with some of the posters, is that anybody reading this thread would feel not able to go forward in the event they read into this that they are not suitable. On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable with a man's interest in this topic since this particular vocation has nothing to do with men and a woman's physical purity cannot possibly be of any legitimate interest to a man, unless he is in a position of directing someone spiritually. If that is the case, than I certainly hope he is exposed to better resources than the individual opinions of Phatmassers.
Finally, we are in a position today of being more open and verbal about our histories, in particular abuse and mental health. The Church has been very, very clear about not excluding a woman should she not be a virgin because of abuse, and this is an important point - and one that took a long time to come to the surface in this thread.
Gloriagurl, Praxedes, Graciela and TradMom all expressed my own feelings and thoughts much better than I am in a position to do. For that, I thank them....and I am glad that you were able to present your thoughts and feelings in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
Perpetualove