Consecrated Virginity Question

[Laurie]

Laurie, you're absolutely spot on.  There are no obligations where none are promulgated.  There are no obligations even if someone thinks that they are implied when such pseudo obligations restrict the rights of the people.   In the case of CVs, the natural law right to relocate is restricted if you follow Sponsa Christi's viewpoint.  However, there is no positive, promulgated law by competent authority (the Pope) that imposes this restriction of movement upon the virgin.  Therefore, there is no corresponding obligation.  Therefore, there is no moral obligation whatsoever to remain in the same diocese if no such agreement has not been made previously with the CV's consecrating bishop.

 

Reminder:  A moral obligation means that one will sin if one does not obey it.  Sponsa Christi does not have the authority to create a sin out of thin air because she thinks it is more appropriate for CVs to stay in their home dioceses.

 

Thank you, abrideofchrist, I'm glad you appreciated my post. I don't often have time to be online so I'm glad to have been able to share in your exchanges today.

[Laurie]

We can all do extra things and grow in the love of God.  But we absolutely cannot tell people that we must do this or must avoid that as a moral obligation when these are not obligatory. 

Yes, and I think we have to be crystal clear about the difference between a moral obligation that flows from X law versus the myriad of counsels that are all legitimate ways of fulfilling an obligation. For example, a CV is morally obligated to serve the Church. The various ways in which she could do that (and, given her own situation, all of them will not be equal) are counsels regarding how she can meet that obligation. But I can't take a counsel I myself prefer, assume it is self-evident for all as the best way, and set it forth as equal to the obligation itself.

[abrideofChrist]

Yes, and I think we have to be crystal clear about the difference between a moral obligation that flows from X law versus the myriad of counsels that are all legitimate ways of fulfilling an obligation. For example, a CV is morally obligated to serve the Church. The various ways in which she could do that (and, given her own situation, all of them will not be equal) are counsels regarding how she can meet that obligation. But I can't take a counsel I myself prefer, assume it is self-evident for all as the best way, and set it forth as equal to the obligation itself.

 

To build upon this.  The historic reason why the vow of stability (vow to remain in one abbey) was incorporated into monastic life was because there was a percentage of wandering monks who basically just did their own thing and hopped from one abbey to another.  When monastic life is built on communal interdependence and communal sanctification, the individualistic path these itinerants were following was against the crosses and specific structure of monastic life.  The implicit argument Sponsa Christi is making is that CVs who are not sticking to one diocese are not being faithful to the structure of "diocesan consecrated life".  The Church has not defined consecrated virginity to be diocesan centric.

 

Now, a huge amount of scandal kicked up when a bunch of guys decided to create mendicant orders.  Why?  Because the faithful were conditioned to thinking that it was essential to religious life to have stability (location in one place).  Instead, here were the Dominicans and Franciscans and Carmelites and others running around all over the place.  The concept of the religious family being overarching and place as having minor import was gradually imbibed and eventually people were able to accept the idea of consecrated religious moving about to respond to the needs of the religious family and to the different locations they happened to live in.

 

The Order of Virgins is unique in that a virgin is automatically by the law itself, attached to the diocese she resides in.  If she changes her residence, her new bishop becomes the bishop she reports to.  To my mind, this solves both problems of the "wandering monks syndrome" (she is under the direct care of someone, and of the Church's acknowledgement that there can be a need for consecrated people to travel or relocate to distant lands, transversing dioceses or even continents.  In both modes (staying/stability or relocating/mission work), the virgin or religious is fulfilling the obligation of working out her path of salvation in fear and trembling.  But since she has made no vows, a consecrated virgin may find that for her, the Lord is guiding her to remain in her diocese whereas another may discern that the Lord is calling her to the harvest of souls somewhere else.  Both are good counsels.  But which one is better is going to be subjectively different for each virgin.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

To build upon this.  The historic reason why the vow of stability (vow to remain in one abbey) was incorporated into monastic life was because there was a percentage of wandering monks who basically just did their own thing and hopped from one abbey to another.  When monastic life is built on communal interdependence and communal sanctification, the individualistic path these itinerants were following was against the crosses and specific structure of monastic life.  The implicit argument Sponsa Christi is making is that CVs who are not sticking to one diocese are not being faithful to the structure of "diocesan consecrated life".  The Church has not defined consecrated virginity to be diocesan centric.

 

 

I mean this respectfully, but I do think that without at least some level or degree of stability, modern consecrated virgins are in serious danger of becoming like modern-day gyrovauges, with all the spiritual dangers this entails.

 

Even the mendicant Orders and apostolic religious communities have a kind of stability among their members, in that they ordinarily remain in the same community throughout their consecrated lives. Also, even married lay people are called to a form of stability, in that they can't change spouses or families at whim.

 

It's true that consecrated virgins are married to Jesus and not the diocese, but the the diocese provides the practical context in which we can express our love and commitment to Jesus. Since we can't see Jesus in the same way that His disciples saw Him when He walked the earth, if we make direct contact with Him in prayer our ONLY point of reference for living our vocations faithfully, we run the risk of deluding ourselves or simply "hearing what we want to hear" in prayer (and this is true no matter how mature we are in the spiritual life--this is why all the great spiritual writers and doctors of the Church emphasize the importance of submitting our discernment to the authority of the visible institution of the Church.)

 

And while the Church hasn’t specified exactly what the diocesan character of consecrated virginity means on a practical level, there are instances where the Church does acknowledge the special link between consecrated virgins and the local Church.

 

For example, in an address given to consecrated virgins, Benedict XVI said:

 

“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…”

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

My point is that I think you need to expand your education to include a really solid basis in philosophy. I think that’s evident in your response here as well as above.

 

When I speak of legal obligations, and moral obligations, by no means do those refer to canonical obligations alone! Canonical obligations are only a sliver of the very beautiful way in which God leads us to perfection in Him.

 

Laurie,

 

I actually have a degree in Philosophy (I did the all coursework required for a pre-theologate). I think our problem might be that were using a term (“moral obligation”) that has slightly different meanings in the contexts of different disciplines.

 

Coming from a canon law perspective, there is a distinction between a legal/canonical/juridical obligation and a moral obligation. A legal is one which is spelled out explicitly in the Church’s legal system (which includes not only the Code of Canon Law, but also the Church’s liturgical rubrics and certain other kinds of official documents) and/or one which is quantifiable or provable in this legal system.

 

Catholics have many obligations which are included in the Church’s legal documents. But they also have obligations which, while being very real and serious, are not included in these documents.

 

For example, canon law does not say that Catholics must pray every day, be kind to children and the elderly, treat our housemates with common courtesy, avoid occasions of sin, or strive to trust God in times of trial, although there is no doubt that we are in fact called to do these things.

 

Obligations of this sort—which are real and serious, but which are not specified in black-and-white in the Church’s legal system—would be considered moral obligations. So from this perspective, even an obligation which is obviously a matter of revealed divine law, but which was not explicitly mentioned in canon law, would be considered a moral, as opposed to a legal or juridical, obligation.

 

When I say that CVs might have some level of, or something akin to, a moral obligation to a sense of stability toward their home diocese, I mean that: presuming that the Church really does envision consecrated virgins as having a meaningful bond with her home diocese in particular, then a consecrated virgin would be obligated to take this bond seriously. And naturally, taking this bond seriously would seem to suggest the practical consequence of having an intention to remain in and be present and available to that diocese.

 

People might disagree with the premise that CVs are called to have a special connection with one local Church, since this is still an ambiguous area which the Church hasn't yet clarified either way.

 

But if this premise is true (which it could very well be, and which in conscience I believe it is), then there would be a consequent moral obligation.On the other hand, if someone in conscience sincerely did not believe that Church calls a CV to a special relationship with her home diocese, then you couldn't say that that CV was committing a sin if she chose to move around at will.

 

However, even while a CV who followed her conscience in this regard wouldn't be subjectively doing anything wrong, it could still be possible that she was leaving a moral obligation objectively unfulfilled. And in such a case, then it would also follow that she wasn't objectively living her vocation as fully as possible.

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

double post, sorry

Edited June 4, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[abrideofChrist]

In the interest of the consciences of fellow Phatmasser's, I ask you, Sponsa Christi, to seriously think about ceasing to put vague, unfounded responsibilities on the souls of CVs that are not even required by the Church herself.  Cardinal Burke is a priest, a doctor of canon law, a theologian, and a man in charge of the Vatican's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura.  He has said that a CV may switch dioceses.  He also says that it is a matter of courtesy- not law- for her to inform the diocesan bishop she's leaving so that he can let the new one know.  Now, don't you think as a confessor he would have jumped all over the sin if it were a sin to relocate?  PLEASE do not impose what God does not impose.  You cannot create sin from thin air just because you want something to be a certain way.  Just because your personal ideology envisions virgins remaining within their diocese does not mean that the Church agrees with you.  If it was wrong to leave, then Our Lady was at fault for relocating, first to Egypt, and then to Ephesus. 

 

I will go even further.  I suggest that you talk to an eminent and well respected moral theologian and have them write an opinion on this topic.  Can a CV be obligated to remain in a diocese on account of her consecration?  Then, since you appear to write off Cardinal Burke, why not choose another respected canon lawyer such as Dr. Ed Peters or any one else who could give us an opinion on whether a person can restrict the natural right of relocation of the CV without a promulgation from the competent authority.  You may find to your surpise that they do not take you very seriously and laugh at the idea of it being 1) a moral obligation or 2) something that you can insist upon without it being legislated.

[abrideofChrist]

Honestly, I can't imagine why a virgin in America would need a law restricting her movements.  It's a pain and a half to move- as anybody who has done a major relocation can attest - and the likelihood of a virgin wandering about with a knapsack is extremely small.  Too small, in fact, for a universal law to be made on this. Virgins in first world countries would have serious reasons for moving because of all that is involved, and if they have serious reasons, well, obviously they've thought things through.  At some point, there can be too much control over a vocation that is meant to be lived by those who have demonstrated maturity.  Having to ask permission to move (when there are no vows to keep one in one diocese) and the like, smack of a fear of the virgin doing things willy nilly her way.

 

Do we keep the virgins under tight control or do we allow for the Holy Spirit to work in their lives and risk some virgins falling off the wagon?  Can we trust women to live out their commitments or can't we?  If we can't then yes, we should write a rule and constitutions for virgins and enforce them.  If we believe that Catholic women who are mature and have the assurance of perseverence in their holy vocation are able to live out their vocation, then, no.  They have the guidelines of the Catechism.  They have the words of the Rite.  They have the grace of the Holy Spirit.  At some point, you have to let Christ rule their hearts. 

 

You know, I read some forums on parenting.  It's funny how so many Catholic parents feel so judged by other Catholic parents.  They have too many kids.  Too few kids.  They spend way too much time on vacations.  They do too many extracurricular activities.  They do this.  They don't do that.  Guess what.  Each and every couple is responsible to themselves and to God for their decisions.  Some can't have kids because of infertility issues.  Some can have them, but don't have the dozen their parents had because one of their five is a high maintenance child.   They are not responsible to you or to me, they are responsible to God for their responsible parenting decisions. 

 

Maybe, just maybe, the same applies to how CVs live out their spousal vocation.  Maybe how they work "for the good of the Church and of their neighbor" is up to them and their Spouse.  Maybe the good of their neighbor involves a  long distance relocation.  Maybe the good of their neighbor involves getting up in haste to visit a pregnant cousin.  Just maybe the Church is a bit more universal and a little less provincial than some would have it.  I take it for granted a fervent CV will have a spiritual director and will consult her bishop as appropriate.  Why can't you?  Yes, it is tempting to want to lay out all kinds of rules and regulations - but where does that get us?  If we require distinctive clothes, then the virgins in Africa might be raped.  If we require the Liturgy of the Hours, the virgins in Saudia Arabia might be killed.  If we require skirts, then the virgins in Vietnam might be looked at strangly.  If we require daily Mass, then the virgins in remote villages might not be eligible. 

[abrideofChrist]

What is terrifyingly beautiful about this vocation is that the Church officially trusts the virgins it consecrates to be MATURE.  To be serious about being a spouse of Christ!  Just like it trusts married people to live out their holy vocation without constant helicopter vigilance, it trusts virgins to live out their holy vocation without helicopter vigilance.  This is a vocation in which the Holy Spirit is supposed to enlighten the virgin about His will for her in her life!  Maturity requires wisdom, requires prudence, requires prayer, kindness, etc.  This is why this is not for little girls.  This is for women who are familiar with the ways of the world and the ways of God and can walk the journey.  They have to be responsible adults who know that moving to another diocese is NOT a sin.  They have to be women of faith who ponder on the word of God day and night.  It is up to the bishop to determine whether a woman is ready to undertake to wed the Son of God and live up to that rank.

[Lilllabettt]

One dimension of spiritual maturity is accepting the possibility that people who are equal in education, intelligence, thoughtfulness, holiness and prayer may nevertheless come to different judgments.   Spiritual maturity also allows a person to accept difference with equanimity and peace, without seeing the vigor of another person's conviction as a threat to their own.

 

Your request for Sponsa Christi to stop putting "vague, unfounded responsibilities on the souls of CVs" seems to me to be coming from a place from insecurity. By your own argument she does not have the power to "impose"  anything on anyone.   Anyone discerning how best to live out their Consecration needs to consider seriously what their relationship will be with their diocese. Such a person would not be remiss to weigh the merit of Sponsa Christi's point of view, search their conscience and find out what  it imposes.  Anyone who allows posts on the internet to "put responsibilities" on their soul is in need of some spiritual maturity themselves. 

[abrideofChrist]

One dimension of spiritual maturity is accepting the possibility that people who are equal in education, intelligence, thoughtfulness, holiness and prayer may nevertheless come to different judgments.   Spiritual maturity also allows a person to accept difference with equanimity and peace, without seeing the vigor of another person's conviction as a threat to their own.

 

Your request for Sponsa Christi to stop putting "vague, unfounded responsibilities on the souls of CVs" seems to me to be coming from a place from insecurity. By your own argument she does not have the power to "impose"  anything on anyone.   Anyone discerning how best to live out their Consecration needs to consider seriously what their relationship will be with their diocese. Such a person would not be remiss to weigh the merit of Sponsa Christi's point of view, search their conscience and find out what  it imposes.  Anyone who allows posts on the internet to "put responsibilities" on their soul is in need of some spiritual maturity themselves. 

 

Lillabett, you miss the point.  Would you stand by if someone claimed that abortion is  not sinful because someone looked to their conscience and decided it wasn't?  Wouldn't you give reasons why it is sinful?  Would you stand by and passively watch if someone claimed that it was sinful to take a walk in the park because people should stay indoors all day?  Maybe people will not accept a difference in opinion because they know that abortion is objectively a sin and a walk in the park in and of itself is not objectively a sin.  Maybe people know that there are objective criteria by which to measure whether something is objectively sinful or not.

 

Lauren suggested one such measurement.  She said that for a moral obligation to exist in this matter (because it would be positive law, not natural law), there would have to be a promulgation of law forbidding the virgin from relocating.  Such a law has not been enacted.  Therefore, one has to conclude that such an obligation does not exist.  If such an obligation is non-existent, then there can be NO SIN if a virgin relocates!  Simple philosophy and logic.

 

I suggested another.  According to Church teaching, natural law rights cannot be restricted on a whim by just anybody.  Somebody with the proper authority has to restrict the natural law right of the freedom to relocate.  Restrictions of NATURAL LAW RIGHTS are taken seriously by the Catholic Church.  There are no restrictions on a virgin's right to relocate that have been proclaimed as law by anyone with the proper authority in the Church (the Pope).  Therefore such an obligation does not exist.  Therefore no one can privately dream up such a restriction and say that it is "morally obligatory" because that goes against the right of people to relocate.  I would go so far as to say that it is at best irresponsible and at worst objectively sinful to claim that CVs are morally obligated to remain in their dioceses because the Church does not restrict the rights of people and not tell them about it!

 

You are free to judge whether I am secure or insecure- that has no bearing on my inner sanctum, and has no affect upon my peace of soul.  But you may want to carefully go over the reasons why I believe and others believe that not only is it NOT sinful for a CV to relocate, but it CANNOT be a moral obligation for her to remain in her diocese based just on the nature of the Consecration itself.  An ad hominem thrust towards me has no bearing on the validity of my line of reasoning.  But it can be distracting to those who have not learned to follow reasoning.

[Laurie]

Thank you, Sponsa-Christi. Yes, I was remembering you have a degree in philosophy. But that fact alone doesn't suffice for a penetrating and nuanced analysis. I was trying to give you some feedback in the spirit of charity, but also for the sake of the many others who read this blog, are discerning, and don't have the time and/or background to sift through some of these discussions for themselves.

 

I hope my input has been helpful to you on some level, and at the very least to others discerning or living this vocation. I said we are at an impasse because I find you use words in your own unique ways, habitually, without defining them in accordance with Church teaching or the disciplines of philosophy and theology and/or using them consistently, and then move on to other discussions that you prefer to treat when someone asks for clarification. (For example, you have not yet addressed the relationship of obligation being tied to promulgation, which is the crux of the issue of whether a CV is morally obligated to stay in the diocese she was consecrated in.)

 

I think everything is clear to you in your own mind and that you have very good intentions. But something more substantive is needed in order to have a fruitful dialogue. Certainly, as you point out, you are entitled to your own opinions. But I question whether it is wise to put forward so many opinions, in numerous places online, about this vocation that differ greatly from the way the majority of CVs are living this vocation and differ greatly from the interpretations some noted canon lawyers have given while at the same time not offering a sustained, learned alternative. There is a danger of discouraging/confusing those who google this vocation and don't have the time or background to track down what really is expected by the Church of a CV.

 

I don't say this easily or lightly, but it needs to be said. Perhaps we will meet some day and have coffee or pray a rosary together in Rome. I hope that occurrs and  in the meantime hold you and all of us in prayer!

Edited June 5, 2013 by Laurie

[Sister_Laurel]

To build upon this.  The historic reason why the vow of stability (vow to remain in one abbey) was incorporated into monastic life was because there was a percentage of wandering monks who basically just did their own thing and hopped from one abbey to another.  When monastic life is built on communal interdependence and communal sanctification, the individualistic path these itinerants were following was against the crosses and specific structure of monastic life.  The implicit argument Sponsa Christi is making is that CVs who are not sticking to one diocese are not being faithful to the structure of "diocesan consecrated life".  The Church has not defined consecrated virginity to be diocesan centric.

 

Now, a huge amount of scandal kicked up when a bunch of guys decided to create mendicant orders.  Why?  Because the faithful were conditioned to thinking that it was essential to religious life to have stability (location in one place).  Instead, here were the Dominicans and Franciscans and Carmelites and others running around all over the place.  The concept of the religious family being overarching and place as having minor import was gradually imbibed and eventually people were able to accept the idea of consecrated religious moving about to respond to the needs of the religious family and to the different locations they happened to live in.

 

The Order of Virgins is unique in that a virgin is automatically by the law itself, attached to the diocese she resides in.  If she changes her residence, her new bishop becomes the bishop she reports to.  To my mind, this solves both problems of the "wandering monks syndrome" (she is under the direct care of someone, and of the Church's acknowledgement that there can be a need for consecrated people to travel or relocate to distant lands, transversing dioceses or even continents.  In both modes (staying/stability or relocating/mission work), the virgin or religious is fulfilling the obligation of working out her path of salvation in fear and trembling.  But since she has made no vows, a consecrated virgin may find that for her, the Lord is guiding her to remain in her diocese whereas another may discern that the Lord is calling her to the harvest of souls somewhere else.  Both are good counsels.  But which one is better is going to be subjectively different for each virgin.

 

This is a good point about stability but it is only one sense of the monastic value or vow of stability. There are various senses. Augustine Roberts, OCSO, in his work, Centered on Christ, A Guide to Monastic Profession lists five different forms or senses: 1) stability in cell,(this form was made famous by the Desert Fathers and Mothers) 2) stability under an Abbott (who might be the spiritual Father of several monasteries), and associated with Cistercians of the 12-13th centuries; 3) Stability on the pillar (associated with Simeon the Stylite, certain hermits, anchorites, and recluses who were closed up, walled off, or chained to walls); 4) stability of a traveller, which may seem like an oxymoron, especially given Benedict's comments on gyrovagues, but which allowed temporary movement to another monastery; and 5) stability in (the) community, which is Benedict's interpretation of the value, and which involves stability in the community of profession. Roberts also affirms that stability is an interpersonal value, one which is meant to foster communion or koinonia.

 

It can be argued then that as abrideofchrist notes, one may find moving to another diocese (or working within it) helps build communion or community in ways she is effectively being called to do while another CV is not. In the desert tradition there were Desert Abbas or Ammas who were wanderers; this was not typical but it was not seen of itself to be a transgression of the value of stability and as Roberts notes, was actually understood as a form of stability pointing to its wider wisdom and truth than simply staying in one place. (A part of a vow of stability, by the way, is a commitment to grow in one's vocation and in loving those to whom one is bound by vow. It is, therefore, more than simply a commitment not to leave a particular place. It is for this reason Roberts also notes that stability is an interpersonal value.)

 

It can be argued that mendicancy was actually the recovery of a form of stability dating to the desert Fathers and Mothers but lost from view with the rise of the Benedictine stability. Meanwhile, unless and until the Church requires a specific form of stability of a CV, she is indeed free to move from one diocese to another, especially if some dimension of her call to discipleship makes it important to do so. What each person (hermit, monastic, CV) must be clear about is how stability and movement in discipleship are linked in their own lives. Canon 604 leaves this up to the CV more than Canon 603 leaves it up to the hermit, for instance, because the Bishop is not a legitimate superior (and a new Bishop does not have to accept the obligations attached to this role). Even so the tension between the charge from today's Mass readings (Go out to the whole world and proclaim the Gospel) and the value of physical stability must be worked out by each person.

 

best,

Sister Laurel, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

[Sponsa-Christi]

Laurie,

 

First of all, even though it might seem that the majority of CVs agree on a particular interpretation of what this vocation means, it does not therefore follow that that interpretation is automatically the correct or most appropriate one. Also, Cardinal Burke’s interpretation on certain issues are, at this point in time, simply his opinion on the matter.

 

Right now, the Church has given us very, very few official clarifications of the more concrete aspects of consecrated virgins’ way of life. So at the present time, it is completely legitimate to have different opinions on these questions (and I have had several good theologians and canonists encourage me to keep writing down my thoughts on this subject).

 

I do think that anyone who is thinking of becoming a consecrated virgin does need to give serious thought, prayer, and study to the question of how the Church envisions a consecrated virgin’s relationship to her diocese. These questions are truly still questions in the Church, and ones which I think all consecrated virgins will find necessary to engage at at least some point in their consecrated lives. 

 

But to try to try clarify myself again, let me break down my argument:

 

1. I believe that consecrated virgins do indeed have a special bond with the particular local Church for which they were consecrated. I believe this is true on a theological level, given the very nature of the Rite of Consecration itself. I also believe that this is strongly implied in the Church’s existing laws on the subject. And I believe these things are objectively true, even if others might legitimately disagree.

 

2. I believe that it’s also important for consecrated virgins to incarnate their vocation in their exterior lives. That is, I think consecration to a life of virginity—because it is a public state of consecrated life in the Church and not a private devotional commitment—should shape our daily lives in demonstrable ways.

 

3. Therefore, I think that consecrated virgins' special bond with the local Church should have some exterior consequences. To me, it would seem that some level of stability (i.e., as a general principle, without right now proposing any specific rules or procedures, and without trying to comment on exceptional cases) would be the most natural way of manifesting this reality.

 

4. As a said earlier, a legal obligation is one which is unambiguously stated in the Church’s legal documents and which is quantifiable according to legal standards. Other obligations are called moral obligations. (Of course, we are also morally bound to observe legal obligations, but this is a different sense of the term.)

 

Because moral obligations are by definition those which are not mentioned explicitly in the Church’s legal documents, you really can’t speak of moral obligations as being “promulgated,” because the only thing that can be promulgated in the strict sense of the word are the rules of the Church’s man-made legal system. If a moral obligation were to be promulgated in the usual sense of the word--that is, through something like an official papal decree, an edit to the Code, a definitive interpretation from the appropriate dicastery in Rome--then that moral obligation would turn into a legal obligation. 

 

Since moral obligations do not always have the absolute clarity which canon law enjoys, they can sometimes be ambiguous or open for debate regarding the consequences or extent of their demands. For example, we can certainly say that all Catholics have the moral obligation to love God. However, we cannot determine in the external forum whether or not someone is fulfilling this moral obligation, because the degree of a person’s love of God is impossible to determine in a legal context. We can rightly say that it’s a sin to not love God enough, but judging from the outside, we can’t say at what point a specific person’s lack of love for God formally becomes a sin.

 

5. Back to consecrated virgins: if I am correct that consecrated virgins do in fact have a special bond with a particular local Church (a premise which is a debatable theological concept); and if I am also right that consecrated virgins are called to manifest their vocation in their exterior lives (another theological concept, albeit one which has moral implications); and if I am further correct in supposing that the most appropriate way to manifest this bond is through some kind of a commitment to stability; then it would follow that consecrated virgins do have some kind of moral obligation to stability (even if they don’t have a legal one right now).

 

Still, right now I wouldn’t go so far as to say that moving without a serious reason is actually a sin, because people can in good faith disagree on some of the above-mentioned premises. But at the same time, just because some of my premises are ideas which are still open to debate, it doesn't mean that my conclusion is an illogical result of my argument.

 

Finally, even apart from the consideration of obligations strictly speaking, it is also still my opinion that a life of stability is objectively a better, clearer, and fuller embodiment of the charism of consecrated virginity.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[Laurie]

Because moral obligations are by definition those which are not mentioned explicitly in the Church’s legal documents, you really can’t speak of moral obligations as being “promulgated,” because the only thing that can be promulgated in the strict sense of the word are the rules of the Church’s man-made legal system. If a moral obligation were to be promulgated in the usual sense of the word--that is, through something like an official papal decree, an edit to the Code, a definitive interpretation from the appropriate dicastery in Rome--then that moral obligation would turn into a legal obligation. 

 

Hi Sponsa-Christi,

 

Ok, first, I have no idea how or why you conclude that moral obligations "are by definition those which are not mentioned explicity in Church documents." This is an example of what I mean when I say you make statements that are not rooted in the Church's philosophical/theological tradition. This is not how the Church (or the many philosphers whose wisdom and scholarship She draws upon) defines a moral obligation. Add to that, obligations mentioned in Church documents certainly might be moral obligations. They might very well bind morally (depending on what the obligation is).

 

Second, the quote above is an excellent example of the point I have been trying to make. Respectfully, you DO need to study philosophy in greater depth. The idea of promulgation tied to moral obligiation is key to ethics. Absolutely key. That's exactly why the natural law binds! Human persons, through their intellects, have a natural capacity to discern certain moral truths (without divine revelation) and know that they are morally obligated to do X, Y, or Z. This very process of intellectually knowing is considered, by the Church, in Her teaching, to be a beautiful and primary promulgation. The moral law is made known (promulgated--to promulgate means "to make known"--I'm not making this up here--this comes from 2,000 years of the Western intellectual tradition) by God to the human person through that person's intellect.  There is no arguing around that. Promulgation is by no means limited to positive laws. I am frankly aghast that you think it is. Simply aghast!

 

Any future canon lawyer absolutely must be grounded in the Church's general understanding of law (and this encompasses ethics). It's crucial.

 

I understand that you are entitled to your opinions and you've mentioned a number of times that some experts encourage you in your investigations. I agree with that. I encourage you, too. That's why I've taken the time here to give some sustained input.

 

I do thank you for the time you've taken to write other things that I haven't responded to, but I haven't responded to your other points because I've observed that your foundation is not structured well and that in turn impacts many of your other points.

 

 

[Laurie]

If anyone is interested, here are excerpts from one of the books I recommend. It's a bit old fashioned in the writing but you get used to it, you'll see that the author, Fr. Thomas J. Higgins, SJ, has a lucid, penetrating mind. He was a canon lawyer and a philosopher. He drawing on the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman intellectual tradition that is the bedrock of the Church's teaching in many areas.

 

I have added no emphasis. Italics are as found in the original text.

 

Man as Man: The Science and the Art of Ethics, by Fr. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J.

 

Book 1: General Principles of Morality

Chapter 5: Law

 

Section I: The Source of Moral Obligation

 

Whence does obligation arise? [Fr. Higgins then outlines various philosophers, Hobbes, Kant, Dewey, etc., and points out the flaws in their theories.]

 

B. The Eternal Law

 

162. …St. Augustine defines the Eternal Law as the mind and the will of God commanding the natural order of the universe to be observed, forbidding it to be disturbed (Contra Faust., Lib. XXII, cap. 27)

 

…There exists in God an Eternal Law. It is not enough that God create, giving creatures their substantial being; by suitable providence, He must lead them to their final end and supreme good. It would be a glaring defect in God not to care for His creatures. Unless He directs them to their destiny by law God fails to make suitable provisions for them. Therefore (a) in God’s mind there must exist the over-all purpose of creation and the pattern of action required of creatures for the attainment of these purposes….

 

This act of the divine intellect and will constitutes a law for it is the norm whereby creatures are properly directed to act toward the common end of the universe and are forbidden from acting contrary to it. It is an Eternal Law because whatever is in God must be eternal.

 

165. In accordance with the nature of each, God wills the supreme good of all classes of beings and ordains that all things act according to their kind. Hence, man is obliged by God to seek the last end. Moral obligation exists and is unconditional. A natural compulsion is imposed on man to co-operate with the divine purposes by seeking his end and choosing the necessary means to attain it.

 

 

 

[Laurie]

Man as Man: The Science and the Art of Ethics, by Fr. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J.

 

Book 1: General Principles of Morality

Chapter 5: Law

 

Section II: Where Moral Obligation is Found

 

What the Natural Law is

 

171. The Eternal Law as it pertains to man, constituting the law of his nature and existing in his reason, is the Natural Law. What exactly is this?

 

The Natural Law consists in practical universal judgments which man himself elicits. These express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct which have been established by the Author of human nature as essential to the divine purposes in the universe and have been promulgated by God solely through human reason.

 

When we say the Natural Law consists in universal judgments, we do not mean that it is just a psychological act of man. Obviously our emphasis is upon the content of these judgments as revelatory of the Eternal Law.

 

Just as man formulates principles of knowledge, such as the principle of contradiction, and mathematical and physical formulae, so also he forms judgments concerning his moral behavior. Reflecting upon the world about him, he arrives at general conclusions regarding human action, such as, Children must obey their parents. These judgments express two things: (a) a norm of human conduct; (b) an obligation to follow the norm.

 

Those judgments, then, are a law because they convey to man a pattern of action and an obligation to conform thereto, both of which originate in a Supreme Legislator, the author of his nature….

 

175. How has God Promulgated this Law? God must manifest it so that man recognizes it as the authentic pattern of behavior demanding his conformity. Rhetoricians say that God inscribes the law in the heart of man. This metaphor means that God enunciates His law through our nature, that is, the sole instrument of promulgation is human reason…

 

177. …The Eternal Law naturally promulgated is called by men the Natural Law. Therefore we define the Natural Law as right reason reflecting the divine command that man do certain good acts and avoid certain evil acts.

 

 

 

[Laurie]

Some back ground info on the author:

 

Rev. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J., former president of what is now St. Joseph University in Philadelphia, later served as philosophy department chairman at Loyola College.

 

He taught ethics at Loyola and was chairman of the Philosophy Department from 1959 until 1966.

 

He served as a judge of the marriage tribunal of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, and was professor emeritus at Loyola from 1972 until he retired to Philadelphia in 1987.

 

Father Higgins was awarded the President's medal at Loyola College and in 1990 received the papal honor Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice for his work for the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

 

He was a member of the Canon Law Society of America, the Jesuit Philosophical Association and the American Catholic Philosophical Association.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2013 by Laurie

[Laurie]

Perhaps I should point out ahead of time that it doesn't hold water to object that the word "promulgation" really applies to positive law and only "kind of" applies to natural/moral law. That's not how the mind of the Church works. Essentially, the deeper and fuller the truth, i.e., the deeper and fuller the nature of the thing that is being examined is, the more claim it has in our hierarchy of definitions

 

Law, in the fullest, and highest sense, is the Eternal Law. Next comes the Natural Law. Next comes positive law. We speak of positive law (canon law, civil law, etc.) as being promulgated precisely because there is a prior existing, higher reality in which that word is rooted. It we wanted to rank types of promulgation, the promulgation of the Natural Law to man by God through reason is a higher and deeper kind of promulgation. It the basis from which we derive the notion of promulgation in relation to positive laws. That's exactly what separates us as Catholics who hold a specific view of the human person from all the other legal theorists out there who ground law and promulgation and obligation in something other than God and His relationship to His creatures.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Dear Laurie,

 

I still think our problem is that we’re coming from slightly different paradigms. The two disciplines of Catholic Philosophy in general on the one hand and Canon Law on the other often approach the same kinds of questions, but approach them in different ways and emphasize different aspects of the issue at hand.

 

Just as the Code of Canon Law by itself wouldn’t be adequate as the sole point of reference in a discussion of larger philosophical questions, we cannot really use St. Thomas’ writings by themselves as a way to resolve questions that are primarily canonical in nature (even though certainly his concepts—when appropriately understood, taken in context, and “translated” so as to apply to the situation—can often quite important background information in these cases).

 

Also, each discipline tends to use some of its own terminology. Even though Philosophy and Canon Law might use a lot of the same words, they can at times mean slightly different things. Within a Canon Law-based discussion, individual terms often have a much narrower and more specific meaning than they would in other contexts.

 

In all the Canon Law classes I’ve had, moral obligations were contrasted to legal obligations in the way I explained above. That is, legal obligations are ONLY what are written in black-and-white in the Church’s legal texts. Other obligations are considered moral obligations, and naturally this is a much more general category.

 

While we are morally bound to observe legal obligations, not all moral obligations are legal ones. This is why a certain act might be blatantly unethical and immoral, but still not be technically a canonical crime. (For example, there’s no canonical prohibition against worshiping a golden calf that a person sets up in his or her basement.)

 

Also, from a canonical perspective, “promulgated” really does indicate an explicit and visible action from the appropriate ecclesiastical authority figure. For obvious reasons, Canon Law can’t be promulgated in the same was as Divine or Natural law.

 

Relating this discussion back to consecrated virginity, from a canonical perspective, strictly speaking you can’t say it’s a legal obligation for a CV to maintain a commitment to some level of stability, since the Church’s legal documents don’t directly mention this. However, just because the Code (and the other pertinent documents) don’t strictly demand stability verbatim, it could still be that a consecrated virgin nevertheless “should” strive for this. (Just like how, while virginal consecration isn’t technically listed as an impediment to marriage, consecrated virgins still “should” persevere in a life of perpetual virginity.)

 

My thought is that if you wanted to have a purely theological/philosophical discussion of what consecrated virgins’ obligations were in light of Natural and Divine Law as opposed to Canon Law, you would have to start from considerations and principles that were not only independent of Canon Law, but also antecedent to it. For example, I’m thinking such a discussion would have to be based around questions like: what did I explicitly and implicitly promise to do? What do I in justice owe to those who have helped me or whom now have a special, particular need of my charism? What is the objective nature of my consecration and how does this nature demand to be manifested?

 

(Ironically, if anything, I would think that a purely theological/philosophical consideration of what consecrated virgins’ obligations might actually make this vocation more demanding!)