Consecrated Virginity Question

[the171]

Can a consecrated virgin work in a diocese other than her own? Like if a CV is under Bishop A, can she move to Bishop B's diocese for a job? I hope this is coherent.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

I don't think so. My understanding is she makes the vow of obedience to her bishop. Maybe with her bishops permission, but I think the norm would be to stay in the diocese she is consecrated in. I highly recommend this blog. This is a consecrated virgin from the NYC diocese. She is so level headed, orthodox, and sharp. She is studying in Rome at the moment.

 

http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/p/what-is-consecrated-virgin.html

 

 

[Chiquitunga]

she's on PM too :like: Sponsa-Christi

[To Jesus Through Mary]

How funny! I didn't know that!

[Nunsense]

Theres Ivers is also a consecrated virgin and canon lawyer and in her blog she will answer questions, plus she has a forum as well. Yo9u have to become a member though (register) to read or post.

 

http://doihaveavocation.com/blog/

[Sponsa-Christi]

It’s a little embarrassing to post on a thread where someone has complemented you! (Thanks, TJTM, for the kind words!)

 

To put in my two cents…

 

First of all, whenever you talk about consecrated virgins, you have to keep in mind that there are very, very few clear authoritative directives from the magisterium about how this vocation is to be lived out concretely. E.g., there is only ONE canon in the entire Code of Canon Law that deals with CV’s.

 

Because of this, a lot of questions don’t have absolutely clear-cut, black-and-white answers right now. In many cases, the only practical way you can answer some questions is by prayerful discernment of educated, thoughtful opinions.

 

That being said, my own strong belief on this particular question is that ordinarily, an aspiring consecrated virgin should seek consecration in the diocese where she intends to spend the rest of her life; and that after she is consecrated, she should not move permanently out of her home diocese without a very serious reason.

 

As I see it, a strong connection with a particular Church is an essential part of the “charism” of consecrated virgins living in the world. (Even when I’m in Rome, I offer prayers and sacrifices for my archdiocese every day.) For consecrated virgins, our diocese is like our spiritual family, and being rooted in one specific diocese allows you to realize your call to spiritual motherhood in a deeper way than you would be able to if you were truly unattached.

 

(Plus, approaching the question from the other direction, I don’t think it would be spirituality healthy for any consecrated person to be without at least some kind of commitment or accountability to at least some sort of visible Christian community or authority figure—i.e., while of course the Lord is the one to whom we ultimately answer, in this life we also need to have a relationship with some tangible aspect of His Church. Otherwise, my thought is that we would run the risk of becoming modern-day gyrovagues.)

 

This is what the Holy Father has to say about consecrated virgins and their relationship to their dioceses:

 

“Dearest friends, your vocation is deeply rooted in the particular Church to which you belong: it is your Bishops’ task to recognize the charism of virginity in you, to consecrate you and, possibly, to encourage you on your way, in order to teach you fear of the Lord, as they commitment themselves to do during the solemn liturgy of consecration. From the sphere of the Diocese with its traditions, its Saints, its values, its limits and its problems you broaden your horizons to the universal Church, sharing above all in her liturgical prayer, which is also entrusted to you so that “the praise of our heavenly Father be always on your lips; pray without ceasing,”. In this way your prayerful “I” will gradually be enlarged, until there is no longer anything except a great “we” in the prayer.”

 

[Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080515_ordo-virginum_en.html]

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Thank you for the information, sponsa-christi! :)

 

If I may ask, how many CVs are there in the USA? Is there normally a CV in each diocese, or is it such a unique calling that there are few of you?

[OnlySunshine]

The more I learn about the vocation of a Consecrated Virgin, the more I find myself intrigued.  It is a beautiful, but rare, vocation.  :)

[BarbTherese]

The more I learn about the vocation of a Consecrated Virgin, the more I find myself intrigued.  It is a beautiful, but rare, vocation.  :)

 

................ :like2:

[Sponsa-Christi]

Thank you for the information, sponsa-christi! :)

 

If I may ask, how many CVs are there in the USA? Is there normally a CV in each diocese, or is it such a unique calling that there are few of you?

 

Merry Christmas, everyone!

 

The U.S. Association of Consecrated Virgins estimates that there are about 215 consecrated virgins in the United States, and about 3,000 worldwide. The webpage with their numbers is here: http://consecratedvirgins.org/whoarewe

 

However, this is really only an estimate, since there are no official statistics kept on consecrated virgins yet. And the statistical situation is somewhat complicated by the fact that, early on after the revised Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity was first promulgated, some women were consecrated without anyone making any formal record of their commitment.

 

In the United States, I believe there are some dioceses that don’t have any consecrated virgins. Many dioceses have one or two, but other diocese have 10+ (I think Chicago and Boston are the dioceses that have the most).

 

But in any case, right now consecrated virginity is still a comparatively rare vocation. In my case, I’m the only consecrated virgin that most of my friends and classmates have ever met!

[Chiquitunga]

Another question if you have the chance ... do you happen to know some of the dioceses where the bishop allows CVs to have the Blessed Sacrament in their homes? I believe this is the case with Boston (I remember a video somewhere online with a Boston CV who had this) but I know it is not the case in Chicago, although one of them is hoping for it I know. What about NYC? 

 

Thanks in advance! God bless & Merry Christmas!

 

p.s. also something I read once on your blog that I found very neat/interesting and perhaps many do not know this ... some bishops require CVs to wear some type of a veil, like the Bishop of the Diocese of Peoria, IL. Do you know others by chance that also require this? Here's the post, http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2010/10/dress-code-for-consecrated-virgins.html  I love everything you have to say there too! It's basically how I dress as someone discerning religious life also :like:

 

 

edit to add: what about Diocesan Hermits and having a chapel with the Blessed Sacrament in their homes too?

Edited December 26, 2012 by Chiquitunga

[abrideofChrist]

Short response to OPs questions.

 

First, [mod]First, abride, please don't use full real life names without permission of said person.  Thanks! -BG [/mod] =- Sponsa Christi - is very much in the minority when it comes to questions like yours.  In communicating with several CV canonists around the world plus Cardinal Burke, plus others of repute, I have come to realize that hers is an extreme position favoring a nun-like existence for CVs living in the world.  While she is correct in saying that the magisterium has not ruled on several practical questions (like veils, moving from diocese to diocese, etc.), she should also realize as a budding canon lawyer that the Rite itself leaves it up to the individual Bishop as to the parameters of the CVs living arrangements.  Also, as my canonists remind me, a private individual cannot put false obligations where none are imposed by the (canon or liturgical) law.  She wishes to be more rigorous than the law.  If her personal spirituality calls for it, that's for her and for her spiritual director to follow, not the rest of the CVs.

 

That being said, there is no obligation for a CV to remain in the diocese in which she is consecrated.  None.  Unless of course, there is a contractual agreement of some kind (employment, diocesan, or whatever).  I personally know several CVs who have moved or will move.  Why?  Because they have reasons to move and because there is nothing that says one must stay in one's current diocese.  One is always free of course to stay within one's own diocese... for any sentimental or pious reason... but one is equally free to leave.  Think about it.  If religious are free to move because of their mission, why shouldn't CVs be free to move if they feel their Spouse wants them to?

 

CVs generally do not give out the locations of dioceses that allow for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in their homes.  It could lead to people "diocese shopping" and it can also be something which is so attractive that a person may erroneously "discern" it is her vocation simply because she desires to have the Bl. Sacrament in her home.

 

As for veils- yes, some dioceses ask for the CVs to wear them at Mass.  I was at a CV gathering not too long ago, and one of the CVs told me she was unhappy about how only some of the CVs were wearing veils at Mass in her area.  It turns out that apparently the bishop she was consecrated under must have had that as a requirement and that some of the "younger" CVs were not asked to wear a veil.  So even in the same diocese, there can be a variety of requirements.  I recently asked a canonist CV friend if she wore veils and she responded that she didn't usually, and gave some reasons why she refused to do so on a regular basis.  Now, all that being said, there are some CVs who do wear a habit/veil of sorts.  They are usually older vocations and wear it with the permission of their bishop because they were known as Sister so and so from such and such a congregation for so long that their bishop felt it was important to allow them to continue to wear distinctive garb.

 

P.S.  "Younger" in the above context refers to number of years one has been consecrated rather than chronological age.

Edited November 4, 2013 by BG45

[Chiquitunga]

Praised be Jesus Christ! Thank you, abrideofchrist, for that informative answer! It is good to have your perspective here too. 

 

Sponsa-Christi is very clear that this is her personal belief/opinion here and I've noticed that written clearly on her blog too. But again, yes, it is very good to have another perspective too and to be reminded of this .. eg. that she has no obligation to remain within a particular diocese.

 

Also, thank you very much for your reply regarding the Blessed Sacrament and different dioceses. You are indeed very right! It would lead to "diocese shopping" I am sure and it definitely is something very attractive!

 

Here's the post, http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2010/10/dress-code-for-consecrated-virgins.html  I love everything you have to say there too! It's basically how I dress as someone discerning religious life also :like:

 

Just wanted to say here though, I definitely do not mean to say here though that these two states (a CV and a lay woman discerning RL, in private vows or not) are similar. It is definitely much more important for a publicly consecrated CV to adhere to a strict dress code like this. Just thought I'd clarify. But again, I love everything you have written there.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Chiquitunga

[abrideofChrist]

Praised be Jesus Christ! Thank you, abrideofchrist, for that informative answer! It is good to have your perspective here too. 

 

Sponsa-Christi is very clear that this is her personal belief/opinion here and I've noticed that written clearly on her blog too. But again, yes, it is very good to have another perspective too and to be reminded of this .. eg. that she has no obligation to remain within a particular diocese.

 

Also, thank you very much for your reply regarding the Blessed Sacrament and different dioceses. You are indeed very right! It would lead to "diocese shopping" I am sure and it definitely is something very attractive!

 

 

Just wanted to say here though, I definitely do not mean to say here though that these two states (a CV and a lay woman discerning RL, in private vows or not) are similar. It is definitely much more important for a publicly consecrated CV to adhere to a strict dress code like this. Just thought I'd clarify. But again, I love everything you have written there.

 

The public insignia of a CV living in the world is her ring.  The public insignia of a married man or a married woman is a ring.  The ring shows that the person has entered another public vocation.  That is why it is GIVEN and not just put on.  Human spouses put the other's ring on.  The Bishop puts the ring on the CVs finger as the representative of her Divine Spouse.  There was a dress code and there was a habit of sorts in the previous Rites of Consecration.  They were deliberately dropped by the Fathers who put out the current 1970 Rite.  They were innovative and re-expanded it to two forms, thereby re-admitting women in the world to the consecration.  If the Fathers had felt a habit or the dark dress was appropriate, they would have retained it in the 1970 Rite for Women Living in the World.  They didn't.  They dropped it.  The veil given in antiquity to virgins was unsurprisingly a bridal veil (at the time a "flame" color).  And unsurprisingly, they wore it for the ceremony but not in everyday life (they did wear a veil daily because wearing a veil happened to be a custom of well bred women at the time). 

A historical novel set in the early Christian Church written by a cardinal in the late 1800s has the consecrated virgins wearing white for a specified number of days and then returning to their respective every day clothing (upper patrician attire, slave garb, etc.).  One can hardly accuse the good cardinal of wishing to strip the CVs of a habit or "distinctive garb" as a result of a post Vatican II mentality. 

Rather than put a strict dress code upon CVs, I feel it is far better to give prudent instruction on modesty to candidates and let them live as the brides of Christ in the manner befitting their station in life.  Modesty is a virtue and prudence governs its manifestation.  Let the virgins be prudent, and forget about constructing more rules for them.

Speaking of rules, this is precisely why only spiritually mature women should be consecrated.  One should look at the relatively few rules given to diocesan priests and ponder on why that is so.  One reason is that these secular priests are supposed to be mature and know how to grow spiritually, physically, mentally, and apostolically OUTSIDE the seminary!  There is no "rule of life".  Yes, they are given a priestly garb, but remember that they wore lay clothes for most centuries!

Edited December 28, 2012 by abrideofChrist

[God's Beloved]

"First, Jenna Cooper =- Sponsa Christi - is very much in the minority when it comes to questions like yours.  In communicating with several CV canonists around the world plus Cardinal Burke, plus others of repute, I have come to realize that hers is an extreme position favoring a nun-like existence for CVs living in the world.  While she is correct in saying that the magisterium has not ruled on several practical questions (like veils, moving from diocese to diocese, etc.), she should also realize as a budding canon lawyer that the Rite itself leaves it up to the individual Bishop as to the parameters of the CVs living arrangements.  Also, as my canonists remind me, a private individual cannot put false obligations where none are imposed by the (canon or liturgical) law.  She wishes to be more rigorous than the law.  If her personal spirituality calls for it, that's for her and for her spiritual director to follow, not the rest of the CVs. "

 

Hello !  I've just registered on this site and into some trial and error  regarding HOW to  pick up a quote and reply to it. So please forgive me if there is an accident !

 

Personally  I don't think Jenna  is in the minority. Various reasons for saying this. The number of followers on her site , the references to her site  , appreciation by catholics of all walks of life  around the world ,  does seem to indicate something of the Sensus Fidelium on  her  perspective of the vocation of CV. Putting myself in her shoes--I don't think hers is a nun-like or regimented approach. If one reads without  coloured glasses , one can  appreciate  her  views  as rather mature for her age and also perhaps applicable to  many  CVs  in their 20s and 30s. I shall write more on this later. The 200 CVs in USA might be a minority when compared to the perspecive of non-english speaking / all CVs around the world.

 

The statistics collected  during International pilgrimage of CV in Rome 4 yrs ago mentions around 3000 CVs around the world. This number has surely increased since then.  USA is only  1 of the English speaking countries. A google search  leads immediately to the site of USACV  and  many people around the world  seem to be taking the material posted on  the American site as authoritative  for the whole world. I think USACV should put a statement  on the site that   it is THEIR  perspective  of CV and not binding on  other countries . I'm saying this because CV is not understood around the world. The  USACV approach may not be suitable for the Asian/ African cultures/dioceses  . No- i'm not saying that CVs should dress in habits or  have a  convent like community/ lifestyle. But it becomes almost impossible to be innovative/  inculturate on other continents when  the clergy and religious land on the USACV site  and take the perspective as Rule of Law. The implications are horrible in a context where religious life  is flourishing. 

 

Canon law does not allow any particular country to subtly put obligaton on CVs around  the world  to live  the vocation according to their Post-Religious-life context. I shall write more after this gets posted. I don't mean to offend anyone. This is just my personal perspective.

 

 

http://ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.in/

 

 

The ideas expressed in the posts are my own and based on prayer and searching for the truth . We need to reflect on them with discernment and possibly with sharing of opinions , healthy debate if necessary. This will help to refine the ideas and conform them to God’s will in the ongoing search.

 

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

It seems like all the conversations about consecrated virgins have providentially erupted while I’m on Christmas break! I’m glad that it gives the chance to join in.

 

A few points in response to abrideofChrist:

 

1. First of all, with regards to the question of changing dioceses, I don’t think you can compare consecrated virgins and apostolic religious Sisters. Although apostolic Sisters can move around quite a bit, they ordinarily remain members of the same religious community. I think that a consecrated virgin moving permanently out of her home diocese would be more like a Sister who decided to transfer to a different congregation.

 

2. Speaking for myself, one of the very first things I learned in my Canon Law program is that, as tremendously important as the Church’s legal system is, it’s not the totality of Christian life. Canon law reflects, protects, and supports the truths of our faith—it doesn’t determine them. Additionally, the law is a living reality that can grow and adapt with the Church’s deepening understanding of certain theological realities.

 

Applying this principle to our discussion on consecrated virginity, I think it’s good to remember that consecrated virginity as a vocation and charism does have an objective nature (even if not everyone agrees on what precisely this nature is), which the law merely follows. For example, consecrated virgins need to be literal virgins not because the law arbitrarily says so, but because virginity is an essential aspect of this charism. The law only reflects and safeguards this essential reality.

 

Likewise, I don’t think that the law’s silence on a particular point can be used as a definitive argument (even if it might lend strong support to a particular interpretation).

 

I.e., while the law doesn’t say anything specific about whether or not CVs should ordinarily live out their consecrated lives in their home dioceses (although I do think this is the logical implication of a lot of things which the Rite does say specifically), this silence does not automatically mean—and most certainly does not definitely determine—that a strong connection to one particular local Church isn’t an important element in the vocation of a consecrated virgin.

 

3. It is true that right now consecrated virgins don’t have a strict legal obligation to remain in their home dioceses. But I think it might still be possible to suggest that consecrated virgins could still have something akin to, or have some level of, moral obligation. At the very least, it’s completely legitimate to argue that this kind of stability is what is most fitting and appropriate to the vocation of consecrated virginity.

 

The current Code of Canon Law tends to take kind of a “bare bones” approach when it comes to consecrated life, preferring to exhort and recommend rather than to make absolute commands, and leaving lots of “room” for the Holy Spirit, local needs and traditions, and the proper law of institutes. In other words, the Church’s universal law by itself is not intended as a step-by-step blueprint for holiness.

 

Because of this, acting in accord with Canon Law is merely a basic starting point. Especially for consecrated virgins, who at the present time have so few concrete directives, I don’t think we can live a truly fervent consecrated life or be an effective evangelical witness if we only hold ourselves responsible for observing the mere letter of the law.

 

4. I’m obviously not a part of the magisterium, so I can’t really put “false obligations” upon other people, even if I wanted to. (I can’t even force people to read my blog! ;) )

 

However, I think I’m totally within my rights to prayerful study and discern what it means on a concrete level to live out the charism of consecrated virginity most fully, to express my conclusions to other people, and to do whatever I can to help encourage a more fervent and radical commitment among those who are called to this vocation (which of course includes myself).

[abrideofChrist]

It seems like all the conversations about consecrated virgins have providentially erupted while I’m on Christmas break! I’m glad that it gives the chance to join in.

 

A few points in response to abrideofChrist:

 

1. First of all, with regards to the question of changing dioceses, I don’t think you can compare consecrated virgins and apostolic religious Sisters. Although apostolic Sisters can move around quite a bit, they ordinarily remain members of the same religious community. I think that a consecrated virgin moving permanently out of her home diocese would be more like a Sister who decided to transfer to a different congregation.

 

2. Speaking for myself, one of the very first things I learned in my Canon Law program is that, as tremendously important as the Church’s legal system is, it’s not the totality of Christian life. Canon law reflects, protects, and supports the truths of our faith—it doesn’t determine them. Additionally, the law is a living reality that can grow and adapt with the Church’s deepening understanding of certain theological realities.

 

Applying this principle to our discussion on consecrated virginity, I think it’s good to remember that consecrated virginity as a vocation and charism does have an objective nature (even if not everyone agrees on what precisely this nature is), which the law merely follows. For example, consecrated virgins need to be literal virgins not because the law arbitrarily says so, but because virginity is an essential aspect of this charism. The law only reflects and safeguards this essential reality.

 

Likewise, I don’t think that the law’s silence on a particular point can be used as a definitive argument (even if it might lend strong support to a particular interpretation).

 

I.e., while the law doesn’t say anything specific about whether or not CVs should ordinarily live out their consecrated lives in their home dioceses (although I do think this is the logical implication of a lot of things which the Rite does say specifically), this silence does not automatically mean—and most certainly does not definitely determine—that a strong connection to one particular local Church isn’t an important element in the vocation of a consecrated virgin.

 

3. It is true that right now consecrated virgins don’t have a strict legal obligation to remain in their home dioceses. But I think it might still be possible to suggest that consecrated virgins could still have something akin to, or have some level of, moral obligation. At the very least, it’s completely legitimate to argue that this kind of stability is what is most fitting and appropriate to the vocation of consecrated virginity.

 

The current Code of Canon Law tends to take kind of a “bare bones” approach when it comes to consecrated life, preferring to exhort and recommend rather than to make absolute commands, and leaving lots of “room” for the Holy Spirit, local needs and traditions, and the proper law of institutes. In other words, the Church’s universal law by itself is not intended as a step-by-step blueprint for holiness.

 

Because of this, acting in accord with Canon Law is merely a basic starting point. Especially for consecrated virgins, who at the present time have so few concrete directives, I don’t think we can live a truly fervent consecrated life or be an effective evangelical witness if we only hold ourselves responsible for observing the mere letter of the law.

 

4. I’m obviously not a part of the magisterium, so I can’t really put “false obligations” upon other people, even if I wanted to. (I can’t even force people to read my blog!  ;) )

 

However, I think I’m totally within my rights to prayerful study and discern what it means on a concrete level to live out the charism of consecrated virginity most fully, to express my conclusions to other people, and to do whatever I can to help encourage a more fervent and radical commitment among those who are called to this vocation (which of course includes myself).

 

Sponsa Christi, I do not want to turn this into a debate.  I would like to point out for the benefit of those who are following this conversation that 4 canonist CVs, degreed theologians, and Cardinal Burke (cf. USACV materials) disagree with your views.  Many of these experts have actually read materials in more than one language on the vocation.  Other CVs have read and disagreed with your writings but told me they didn't think other people would take your writings seriously, so why bother respond?  You are totally within your rights (along with your bishop) to prayerfully discern how you personally are going to live your vocation most fully and express your conclusions to other people, but to claim that your personal ideals are a more fervent (radical is not always synonymous with more fervent) commitment is not a given.  Harder is not always better.  Further, as others reading this thread may realize, you have not specifically responded to what I said about the revision of the Rite.  The biggest argument against the Church's intention for CVs to have "distinctive" garb is the simple fact that the Fathers dropped the distinctive garb from the Rite quite deliberately (since it was already in the Rite they were revising) for virgins living in the world.  If the Church so greatly desires this separation from the world, why would She drop the most public sign of such separation?  You say that we need to read authoritative texts to know more about the vocation.  To my mind, the change from one authoritative text (the previous Rite) to the new Rite is quite telling of the Church's position on distinctive garb.

 

And you're right.  You cannot compare consecrated virgins to religious sisters.  CVs have the charism of the Universal Church herself.  Hence should be free to follow the Lamb wherever He calleth- include mission territories.  If you wanted to be consistent, you could make the same arguments you do for lay married people to stay in their home diocese (read the texts describing membership in the local and universal Church for all the faithful) and never move.  Lastly, if movement has been granted to Bishops, why not CVs?  Bishops were "wedded" to the local Church in primitive theology.  But CVs are wedded to the King of the World. 

Edited December 30, 2012 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

"First, Jenna Cooper =- Sponsa Christi - is very much in the minority when it comes to questions like yours.  In communicating with several CV canonists around the world plus Cardinal Burke, plus others of repute, I have come to realize that hers is an extreme position favoring a nun-like existence for CVs living in the world.  While she is correct in saying that the magisterium has not ruled on several practical questions (like veils, moving from diocese to diocese, etc.), she should also realize as a budding canon lawyer that the Rite itself leaves it up to the individual Bishop as to the parameters of the CVs living arrangements.  Also, as my canonists remind me, a private individual cannot put false obligations where none are imposed by the (canon or liturgical) law.  She wishes to be more rigorous than the law.  If her personal spirituality calls for it, that's for her and for her spiritual director to follow, not the rest of the CVs. "

 

Hello !  I've just registered on this site and into some trial and error  regarding HOW to  pick up a quote and reply to it. So please forgive me if there is an accident !

 

Personally  I don't think Jenna  is in the minority. Various reasons for saying this. The number of followers on her site , the references to her site  , appreciation by catholics of all walks of life  around the world ,  does seem to indicate something of the Sensus Fidelium on  her  perspective of the vocation of CV. Putting myself in her shoes--I don't think hers is a nun-like or regimented approach. If one reads without  coloured glasses , one can  appreciate  her  views  as rather mature for her age and also perhaps applicable to  many  CVs  in their 20s and 30s. I shall write more on this later. The 200 CVs in USA might be a minority when compared to the perspecive of non-english speaking / all CVs around the world.

 

My reason for disagreeing is that 500 virgins gathered in Rome in 2008 and a good number in 1995.  They happened to be in the majority.  In a photo I have that a French speaking CV sent me of the 2008 convocation in Rome, of the 500 present, a handful wore habits.  I was told these sisters with habits were religious sisters who had received the Consecration.  500 is a significant portion of the estimated 2000-3000 total CVs.  If you read the numbers of CVs and read their literature, the biggest concentration happens to be in Paris, where there are at least 600.  Interestingly enough, they don't appear to share your views or that of Sponsa Christi.  Ditto for the Italians. The last time I checked, they had over 100 in one city alone and they were very clear in their non-quasi religious life vocation.  The Spanish speaking CVs for the most part do not wear a habit as part of their daily life and if you look at their pictures (and those of other nationalities) you will notice that a very significant number wear slacks.  Did you go to the 2008 international gathering of CVs?  If you didn't, did you listen to the first hand accounts of the participants? I would say that the Sensus Fidelium is really with these hundreds of CVs rather than two virgin English speaking bloggers (you and Sponsa Christi).

 

The statistics collected  during International pilgrimage of CV in Rome 4 yrs ago mentions around 3000 CVs around the world. This number has surely increased since then.  USA is only  1 of the English speaking countries. A google search  leads immediately to the site of USACV  and  many people around the world  seem to be taking the material posted on  the American site as authoritative  for the whole world. I think USACV should put a statement  on the site that   it is THEIR  perspective  of CV and not binding on  other countries . I'm saying this because CV is not understood around the world. The  USACV approach may not be suitable for the Asian/ African cultures/dioceses  . No- i'm not saying that CVs should dress in habits or  have a  convent like community/ lifestyle. But it becomes almost impossible to be innovative/  inculturate on other continents when  the clergy and religious land on the USACV site  and take the perspective as Rule of Law. The implications are horrible in a context where religious life  is flourishing. 

 

Canon law does not allow any particular country to subtly put obligaton on CVs around  the world  to live  the vocation according to their Post-Religious-life context. I shall write more after this gets posted. I don't mean to offend anyone. This is just my personal perspective.

 

You appear both here and in your blog to be under the impression that the USACV and most CVs around the world are post-religious life or in other words, ex-sisters.  The fact is that for most CVs, it is their first vocation.  This is why the reports at the 2008 Convocation indicated that the average age for CVs is dropping fast.  70+ year olds were consecrated at first because these virgins were finally able to be admitted to their vocation.  Certainly, there were some who left religious life and became CVs.  But, the majority of CVs are first vocation CVs.  I suspect that most 20 and 30 year olds who are seriously questioning whether to agree with Sponsa Christi on the whole "distinctive garb" idea are English speakers (particularly Americans) who question any consecrated life form that does not mandate habits.  If you listen closely to the vocation stories of many members of secular institutes, you will find a lot of them had disdain for secular institutes and CVs and other forms because they don't wear habits.  Only when they started to understand the vocation to consecrated secularity or to consecrated virginity did they realize that habits were not and are not appropriate. What I am saying about habits applies to a lot of other things which you and SC have a radical stance on. 

http://ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.in/

 

 

The ideas expressed in the posts are my own and based on prayer and searching for the truth . We need to reflect on them with discernment and possibly with sharing of opinions , healthy debate if necessary. This will help to refine the ideas and conform them to God’s will in the ongoing search.

 

We are all basing these things on prayer and a search for the truth. 

[God's Beloved]

Dear abrideofChrist ,

 

This thread is not primarily discussing about "distinctive garb " .

 

In my response to you  I was discussing your interpretation of Jenna's writings in GENERAL.  I wrote ,"No- i'm not saying that CVs should dress in habits or  have a  convent like community/ lifestyle. But it becomes almost impossible to be innovative/  inculturate on other continents when  the clergy and religious land on the USACV site  and take the perspective as Rule of Law. The implications are horrible in a context where religious life  is flourishing." Read my own position regarding garb http://ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.in/2011/08/diocesan-spirituality-and-dress-of.html

 

It is true that most members of the Order of Consecrated Virgins are in Western countries. Very few in Asia and Africa. Hence  even if Cardinal Burke and CV canonists / theologians with  a Western mindset  discuss , it may not indicate the practicality in  other parts of the world , the younger churches who are developing  their own inter-culturated theology. Think of St. Tekakwitha !!!

 

The CVs who attended the gatherings in Rome  I guess were from the upper strata of society unless their trip was sponsored. So you really have no idea how the poorer CVs live. A creamy layer of CVs from around the world  may not  determine the Sensus Fidelium of the Church as a Whole!  The Holy Spirit does not depend on power positions, educational qualifications etc.  God often speaks through simple, uneducated, poor, marginalised persons like Mother Mary. In His eyes maybe all of us theologians speak nonsense.

 

Please take these discussions in a sporting spirit ! I admire you as a person and have some idea  of the context from which your thinking emerges.

 

Regarding the actual thread of this post ,  I think according to  official ecclesiology , the Universal Church is present in the Local Church and the Local Church is present in the Universal Church.  Every human being needs to be rooted. Youth in today's world need a point of reference/sense of belonging even more . Yes , the ideal portrait of a CV is one who is rooted in her home diocese but is 'Sent' by  God  to move beyond its limits spiritually or physically  to be an Evangelizer wherever He may desire. But the Ideal is not always the Reality. Many CVs  do not receive the desired encouragement and support to live their vocation or promote it freely in their home-diocese and  have to take the bitter decision to move elsewhere. Its okay to do so for the Greater glory of God and ones own happiness.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2012 by God's Beloved

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa Christi, I do not want to turn this into a debate. I would like to point out for the benefit of those who are following this conversation that 4 canonist CVs, degreed theologians, and Cardinal Burke (cf. USACV materials) disagree with your views. Many of these experts have actually read materials in more than one language on the vocation. Other CVs have read and disagreed with your writings but told me they didn't think other people would take your writings seriously, so why bother respond? You are totally within your rights (along with your bishop) to prayerfully discern how you personally are going to live your vocation most fully and express your conclusions to other people, but to claim that your personal ideals are a more fervent (radical is not always synonymous with more fervent) commitment is not a given. Harder is not always better. Further, as others reading this thread may realize, you have not specifically responded to what I said about the revision of the Rite. The biggest argument against the Church's intention for CVs to have "distinctive" garb is the simple fact that the Fathers dropped the distinctive garb from the Rite quite deliberately (since it was already in the Rite they were revising) for virgins living in the world. If the Church so greatly desires this separation from the world, why would She drop the most public sign of such separation? You say that we need to read authoritative texts to know more about the vocation. To my mind, the change from one authoritative text (the previous Rite) to the new Rite is quite telling of the Church's position on distinctive garb.

 

And you're right. You cannot compare consecrated virgins to religious sisters. CVs have the charism of the Universal Church herself. Hence should be free to follow the Lamb wherever He calleth- include mission territories. If you wanted to be consistent, you could make the same arguments you do for lay married people to stay in their home diocese (read the texts describing membership in the local and universal Church for all the faithful) and never move. Lastly, if movement has been granted to Bishops, why not CVs? Bishops were "wedded" to the local Church in primitive theology. But CVs are wedded to the King of the World.

 

 

A few more points in response to abrideofChrist:

 

1. I myself also have talked with a number of canonists and theologians who have been supportive of my interpretation of canon 604. (And I also have personally have read materials on consecrated virgins in more than one language.) But even so, we need to keep in mind that just because a number of qualified experts state professional opinions agreeing or disagreeing with someone’s point of view on consecrated virgins, this does not automatically make that view right or wrong.

 

2. Naturally, I do believe that my understanding of how consecrated virgins should live out their vocation is objectively a more fervent one—otherwise, I wouldn’t be trying to live this way, much less spending so much time trying to explain it! But at the same time, I’ve never intended any of my writings to be a personal judgment on other consecrated virgins, including those who disagree with me.

 

While I believe that those who would argue that consecrated virgins are called a more secular lifestyle are objectively wrong, I respect consecrated virgins who choose to live this way insofar as they are sincerely following their consciences (and I’m very aware of the possibility that many of these CVs might be altogether much holier than I am).

 

3. I also didn’t think this thread was really about what consecrated virgins should wear. But since you mentioned it again…I don’t think that the mere fact that the giving of the habit was not retained in either version of the post-Vatican II Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity necessarily means that the Council Fathers believed consecrated virgins should never wear any kind of distinctive garb. (For example, one reason for this could be that they dropped the giving of the habit because they had the contemplative nuns in mind—that is, since nuns only receive virginal consecration during or after their solemn profession, it’s very likely that they would have already received the habit several years earlier.)

 

On the other hand, it’s at least as notable that the giving of the veil was retained, even for women living in the world. I know many people interpret this to mean that a consecrated virgin wears a veil for the ceremony only (or else only on other very special occasions). But the Rite and the law themselves don’t actually say this; once again, the magisterium is silent when it comes to how often or in what contexts CVs can or should wear veils in their daily lives. Because of this, right now I think it would be perfectly legitimate for a bishop to allow or even require the CVs in his diocese to wear a veil as part of their every-day attire.

 

I agree with you that that the most important thing for CVs to keep in mind when deciding how to dress is modesty (and, I would also add, simplicity). But ultimately, modesty is an abstract principle that needs to find a concrete expression if it’s going to be anything meaningful. My point in writing the post on a “dress code” wasn’t so much to outline a strict set of rules as much as it was to discuss what modesty and simplicity in dress might look like on a practical level for consecrated virgins.

 

4. I don’t actually think that consecrated virgins should be physically separated from the world in the same way as cloistered nuns, or even apostolic religious, are. But I do believe that consecrated virgins should live in a spirit of radical detachment from the things of this world. To me, this is the only thing that makes sense in light of a consecrated virgin’s explicitly stated call to be an eschatological witness—that it, a witness to the passing nature of this world, to the immanence of Christ’s second coming, and to the surpassing value of eternal things and of the life of the world to come.

 

5. In the question of whether consecrated virgins should ordinarily remain in the diocese where they were consecrated, I also don’t think it’s appropriate to compare CVs to married laypeople. Yes, marriage is a public state of life, but it’s not consecrated life.

 

Consecrated life by its very nature implies a deeper connection with, and more obligations towards, the institutional Church. If consecrated virgins, who are unattached to any institute or association, were also truly unattached to a local Church, then I think this would be an anomaly in the Church’s entire experience of consecrated life.

 

And while consecrated virgins, as brides of Christ, do share the vocation of the universal Church, I think this concept is distinct from the questions regarding the nature of a consecrated virgin’s relationship to the Church as a visible institution.

 

Nevertheless, of course consecrated virgins—like all the faithful—have a relationship with the universal Church. However, I think that the way that consecrated virgins ordinarily relate to the universal Church is through the Church on a diocesan level.

 

Similarly, it gets tricky when we try to make direct comparisons between consecrated virgins and bishops in discussions of this issue. The theology of bishops being “married” to their dioceses is complex and nuanced, and not all of it is readily applicable to consecrated virgins. But with that being said, it’s worth noting that while modern bishops are often transferred from one diocese to another, this is always done for serious reasons, and it’s at the Pope’s discretion (not the individual bishop’s).

Edited December 31, 2012 by Sponsa-Christi