Consecrated Virginity Question

[Sister_Laurel]

 

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.)

 

I am glad to see BrideofChrist posting here. I believe it is quite significant that the requirement of distinctive garb was dropped. As a theologian I have disagreed with Sponsachristi at other points (I have no intention of doing that here at any length) regarding her take on the vocation of the CV living in the world; specifically, I believe it is clear that CV's consecrated under canon 604 are not called to be quasi-religious, nor to distinctive garb which indicates some separation from the world (for that IS what religious habits of any sort indicate). A call to sacred secularity however cannot really function as it ought if the person separates herself from the very world she is supposed to be an integral part of. The absence of vows and habits of any sort indicate the integral secularity of the vocation and underscores the call to assist the world recognize the sacramentality to which it is called. In any case, dropping the requirement marks a clear distinction from nuns receiving the consecration and I don't think it can be treated as insignificant, especially when this is combined with the other factors which underscore the integral secularity of the vocation.

 

Since I don't intend to dispute this further (I have neither the time nor the inclination), interested readers can check out my blog under the labels attached to consecrated virginity and sacred secularity (cf right column). A couple of those posts are detailed responses to Jenna's own position so perhaps they will be helpful.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

 

[abrideofChrist]

Okay.  I'll take the bait and debate.

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.

Right now the "authoritative" authorities are the bishops who have consecrated the 2000+ virgins, 99.9% of whom obviously disagree with you as the lived lives of the virgins can attest.

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.

Naturally.  And what I suggest is what I wrote elsewhere in response to Sr. Catherine, which is that a CV religious is higher than a secular CV at least in the profession of vows if not in life.  A secular virgin has her vocation.  You appear to want a religious vocation for virgins.  Why don't you become a nun?

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.)

Why not?  Have you read the discussions that led to the formation of the second version of the Rite for virgins living in the world as opposed to those who were nuns?  Isn't it rather insulting to the intelligence of the fathers who revised the Rite and took the bold step of splitting it into two and of supressing certain items and adding others that they would be merely considering the "contemplative nun" in their vision of women living in the world?  Seriously?  How many women in the world do you know and that they would know follow the lifestyle of a contemplative nun? 

 

You may not be aware of this, but it is safe to say that women who are or have been religious in a habit respect the canonical gifting of the habit and do not go around wearing one of their own will (unlike certain laywomen who do not understand this point and think they can just don one).  Thus it is unlikely you would have former religious wearing a habit and it is unlikely that you would have a woman the bishop would seriously consider as a candidate wear a habit (bishops don't like it when laywomen wear it and see it as a serious red flag).  Therefore, one would have to conclude that the Fathers did not have a habit wearing laywoman in mind when they wrote the distinct Rite for women living in the world.  Further, since they spent a lot of time revising the Rite and did some serious changes to it, one should respect the fact that they did very deliberately drop the distinctive garb from the Rite. 

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.

Many a bishop, including a certain Cardinal Ratzinger himself did not and do not think it is wise to require wearing veils as part of their daily attire.  His Holiness strikes me as a person who would go for a traditional approach to things if he felt it was appropriate.  That he does not require it for his own diocese and never has appears to me an indication of the current magisterium's view towards this point.

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.

Funny.  The Rite itself compares consecrated virginity to marriage in the solemn consecratory prayer:  "Among your many gifts you give to some the grace of virginity yet the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.  As it was in the beginning your first blessing still remains upon this holy union.  Yet your loving wisdom chooses those who make sacrifice of marriage for the sake of the love of which it is the sign.  They renounce the joys of human marriage but cherish all that it foreshadows."  If you study the parallels of the marriage rite and virginity rite, you will notice a lot of similarities.  Perhaps it is because the bishops who wrote the rites deliberately saw them both as a rite of espousals and not of religious profession?

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.

They are not unattached to the local Church.  They simply don't have the onerous obligations you would place on them of restricting freedom of movement (changing dioceses), of working where work is available (many virgins work outside their home diocese), etc. 

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.

Not really.  Either you grant that the virgin is the bride of the Universal King and hence has freedom of movement amongst her peoples to follow her King where he beckons, or not.  Even Mary is said by tradition to have moved to Ephesus for her livelihood (St. John).  According to your arguments she should have remained at Nazareth where she was consecrated.  Or am I mistaken in thinking that Nazareth and Ephesus are in different dioceses?

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.

CVs like everyone else have membership in a parish, diocese, and universal Church.  Although the CV has a special bond with the bishop of whose diocese she resides in, practically speaking she relates most closely to the Church through Christ her Spouse, whom she serves where ever she is.  She serves Him in the people she encounters (this can be across several parishes and dioceses and even countries), in the prayer and penance she offers (universal), and in any formal ministry she may be engaged in (can be trans-parish, trans-diocese, and trans-nation).  She is a universal mother.  I would argue that most CVs relate visibly to the Church visible in the people she encounters on the parish territory level rather than diocesan. 

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).

While it can get tricky, the bottom line is that they can move given certain circumstances. CVs don't move at a whim.  Moving is serious business.  Restriction on movement is serious business.  Do you realize that certain virgins even of antiquity moved?  What about the virgins who transferred from Rome to the Holy Land to be with St. Jerome?  Did they need a special dispensation to do that? 

 

[Sister_Laurel]

Okay.  I'll take the bait and debate.

Right now the "authoritative" authorities are the bishops who have consecrated the 2000+ virgins, 99.9% of whom obviously disagree with you as the lived lives of the virgins can attest.

Naturally.  And what I suggest is what I wrote elsewhere in response to Sr. Catherine, which is that a CV religious is higher than a secular CV at least in the profession of vows if not in life.  A secular virgin has her vocation.  You appear to want a religious vocation for virgins.  Why don't you become a nun?

 

Why not?  Have you read the discussions that led to the formation of the second version of the Rite for virgins living in the world as opposed to those who were nuns?  Isn't it rather insulting to the intelligence of the fathers who revised the Rite and took the bold step of splitting it into two and of supressing certain items and adding others that they would be merely considering the "contemplative nun" in their vision of women living in the world?  Seriously?  How many women in the world do you know and that they would know follow the lifestyle of a contemplative nun? 

 

You may not be aware of this, but it is safe to say that women who are or have been religious in a habit respect the canonical gifting of the habit and do not go around wearing one of their own will (unlike certain laywomen who do not understand this point and think they can just don one).  Thus it is unlikely you would have former religious wearing a habit and it is unlikely that you would have a woman the bishop would seriously consider as a candidate wear a habit (bishops don't like it when laywomen wear it and see it as a serious red flag).  Therefore, one would have to conclude that the Fathers did not have a habit wearing laywoman in mind when they wrote the distinct Rite for women living in the world.  Further, since they spent a lot of time revising the Rite and did some serious changes to it, one should respect the fact that they did very deliberately drop the distinctive garb from the Rite. 

Many a bishop, including a certain Cardinal Ratzinger himself did not and do not think it is wise to require wearing veils as part of their daily attire.  His Holiness strikes me as a person who would go for a traditional approach to things if he felt it was appropriate.  That he does not require it for his own diocese and never has appears to me an indication of the current magisterium's view towards this point.

Funny.  The Rite itself compares consecrated virginity to marriage in the solemn consecratory prayer:  "Among your many gifts you give to some the grace of virginity yet the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.  As it was in the beginning your first blessing still remains upon this holy union.  Yet your loving wisdom chooses those who make sacrifice of marriage for the sake of the love of which it is the sign.  They renounce the joys of human marriage but cherish all that it foreshadows."  If you study the parallels of the marriage rite and virginity rite, you will notice a lot of similarities.  Perhaps it is because the bishops who wrote the rites deliberately saw them both as a rite of espousals and not of religious profession?

They are not unattached to the local Church.  They simply don't have the onerous obligations you would place on them of restricting freedom of movement (changing dioceses), of working where work is available (many virgins work outside their home diocese), etc. 

Not really.  Either you grant that the virgin is the bride of the Universal King and hence has freedom of movement amongst her peoples to follow her King where he beckons, or not.  Even Mary is said by tradition to have moved to Ephesus for her livelihood (St. John).  According to your arguments she should have remained at Nazareth where she was consecrated.  Or am I mistaken in thinking that Nazareth and Ephesus are in different dioceses?

CVs like everyone else have membership in a parish, diocese, and universal Church.  Although the CV has a special bond with the bishop of whose diocese she resides in, practically speaking she relates most closely to the Church through Christ her Spouse, whom she serves where ever she is.  She serves Him in the people she encounters (this can be across several parishes and dioceses and even countries), in the prayer and penance she offers (universal), and in any formal ministry she may be engaged in (can be trans-parish, trans-diocese, and trans-nation).  She is a universal mother.  I would argue that most CVs relate visibly to the Church visible in the people she encounters on the parish territory level rather than diocesan. 

While it can get tricky, the bottom line is that they can move given certain circumstances. CVs don't move at a whim.  Moving is serious business.  Restriction on movement is serious business.  Do you realize that certain virgins even of antiquity moved?  What about the virgins who transferred from Rome to the Holy Land to be with St. Jerome?  Did they need a special dispensation to do that? 

 

I would also note that CV's existed into the 12th century as a separate vocation from cloistered nuns. It is not the case that they simply morphed naturally into cloistered nuns as prototypes of those nuns and then ceased to exist  otherwise, nor that there were not two distinct vocations into the 1100's. Canon 604 reprises the original vocation, but also the vocation that existed side by side cloistered religious as a distinct and secular vocation. Sister Sharon Holland, IHM notes that the use of the consecration by nuns actually turned the vocation on its head so that c 604 is a way of recovering the original vocation precisely in its secularity.

 

In point of fact, however, a CV is not vowed to obedience and her special relationship with the Bishop does not rise to the level of legitimate superior/subject. When such a relationship is created (by vow to God in the hands of the superior), as any canonist or student of canon law should know, specific rights and obligations obtain and are spelled out in canon and proper law. In cases of ambiguity the presumption is ALWAYS on the least restrictive interpretation. Thus, CV's have been free to move from diocese to diocese, though one would assume they would have good cause for this, and though one would expect they would speak to the Bishops involved int he situation to apprise them of their needs.

 

Again, CV's are not quasi-religious and are not separated from the world of power by a vow of obedience. They model a different expression of responsible freedom in the world precisely by virtue of their consecration without vows. It is the freedom most people are called to --- a freedom to work out the will of God without legitimate superiors or the restrictions of law which obtain from public vows. Thus, they may be active in all of the areas of life any other person living in the world could embrace: academia, business, politics, etc, etc. That seems to me to be precisely what a number of documents on the vocation represent.

 

best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Chiquitunga]

I don't know very much on this subject without the background that several of you here have, but I would guess the Fathers left out a lot of things for CVs living in the world to give each CV freedom (&/or for it to develop) and to discern personally how the Lord is calling them to their lives for Him.

 

I do not think it is wrong however for one CV to encourage a more radical way of living out Consecrated Virginity, as it is certainly a very radical/not of this world/set apart (ie. consecrated) thing to do, to chose Christ as one's only Spouse and be solemnly & publicly consecrated as His Bride by His Church.

 

Again, as I said another thread, I think what SC wrote here is very well said/thought out and makes perfect sense - http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-does-it-mean-to-be-in-world.html

 

Because of this freedom/non-specifics that CVs have then, I do not think we can say that no CV is called to be/live like a quasi-religious. They are publicly consecrated and thus closer to religious than lay people. Maybe some CVs will live in a more outwardly secular looking way, while others might live closer to a religious - and if so, again, I do not think we can say they are not following their vocation as it should be lived (because again there are so few specifics on how they are to live) I'm not sure if anyone is saying this, although maybe it is being implied.

 

To bring in an example, was St. Gemma Galgani wrong in the way she lived as a laywoman in private vows? Not to focus only on outward garb, but for instance, she wore the same black wool dress and mantle every day, http://www.stgemmagalgani.com/2011/03/photos-of-st-gemmas-personal-items.html  Should she have tried to conform herself more to what would have been more proper to someone living in the world/who is not a religious? I don't think so because of her personal call/vocation from the Lord. I know she was aspiring to religious life, but she was still a laywoman. And I am sure there are many other saints like this as well (who lived similarly to religious though they were not) If St. Gemma could live this way, why couldn't a CV? 

Edited January 2, 2013 by Chiquitunga

[Sister_Laurel]

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

 

Regarding terminology (because I see misunderstandings of these a lot and they are important.): Vows are ALWAYS made to God NEVER to a human person. Religious vows are made to God in the hands of the legitimate superior. The legitimate superior receives the vows (more than merely witnessing them) in the name of the Church. They thus become/are public vows with public rights and obligations. Promises may be made to other persons; for instance I may promise my Bishop to  contact him once a year for an appointment, or to consult him in the meantime if there is need, but my vows are made to God alone. In either case CV's do not make vows. They have a commitment to chastity but it is not a vow, nor is their relationship with their Bishop one of a person to a legitimate superior. Hopefully someone else has clarified these points as well.

 

best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Sister_Laurel]

I don't know very much on this subject without the background that several of you here have, but I would guess the Fathers left out a lot of things for CVs living in the world to give each CV freedom (&/or for it to develop) and to discern personally how the Lord is calling them to their lives for Him.

 

I do not think it is wrong however for one CV to encourage a more radical way of living out Consecrated Virginity, as it is certainly a very radical/not of this world/set apart (ie. consecrated) thing to do, to chose Christ as one's only Spouse and be solemnly & publicly consecrated as His Bride by His Church.

. . .

 

To bring in an example, was St. Gemma Galgani wrong in the way she lived as a laywoman in private vows? Not to focus only on outward garb, but for instance, she wore the same black wool dress and mantle every day, http://www.stgemmagalgani.com/2011/03/photos-of-st-gemmas-personal-items.html  Should she have tried to conform herself more to what would have been more proper to someone living in the world/who is not a religious? I don't think so because of her personal call/vocation from the Lord. I know she was aspiring to religious life, but she was still a laywoman. And I am sure there are many other saints like this as well (who lived similarly to religious though they were not) If St. Gemma could live this way, why couldn't a CV? 

 

Personally, I don't think what is being suggested by those who seek to make c 604 into a quasi-religious vocation is a more radical way of living out consecrated virginity in the world, but a less radical way. Distinctive garb and religious vows (especially obedience) are ways of separating oneself from the everyday world in which one is called to live out one's vocation. What seems far more radical to me is living a completely secular life but as a consecrated person; in other words, it is a sacred secularity which one is called to live radically, not a vocation which is neither wholly secular nor wholly religious.

 

While consecration under c 604 sets one apart FOR and to God, it does NOT set one apart FROM the world. One is not meant to be OF the world, of course; instead one is of God, but one is absolutely called to live this vocation IN the world and in the things of the world, not in stricter separation from it as religious and hermits are called to. A passage from the homily of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins Living in the World reads: [[Never forget that you are given over entirely to the service of the Church and of all your brothers and sisters. You are apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the Spirit and in the things of the world.]] (emphasis added). As I have noted in the past, NO religious has ever been told they are apostles "in the things of the world"!

 

Vatican II worked very hard to be sure that lay persons understood theirs was not an entry level vocation, not second class, and similarly that the secular world was not to be despised but embraced for its truest potential and transformed into (or allowed to be) the sacrament of God it was made to be. While secularism is not a good thing (this essentially asserts the secular is the ultimate value and reality), the secular itself and thus the ordinary life we call secular, as God reminds us in Genesis, are essentially VERY good and holy indeed. Consecrated virgins living in the world are called upon to live out this truth as exhaustively as possible and summon lay persons to do the same in their own state of life.

 

I personally can't think of a vocation which is more challenging than a radical living out of one's secular vocation in a way which allows the secular to be every bit as sacred as it is meant to be. Religious are separated from secular life by their vows, and in many cases, by distinctive garb. (The vow of poverty separates them from the economic dimensions of the secular world in some ways, obedience separates them from the world of secular power and influence and asks them to exercise freedom differently, and consecrated celibacy separates them from many of the relationships and social obligations which are part and parcel of secular life.) They are actually prohibited from taking a full part in secular life canonically. CV's consecrated under canon 604 are not only called to take a full part in secular life, but to do so in a way which calls it to become completely and exhaustively the realm of the sovereign God. Theirs is a witness  which is at once radically holy and radically secular. I would argue anything which mitigates or compromises the sharpness of this paradox is actually less radical than the vocation calls for.

 

In my own life I am certainly free to discover the shape of contemporary eremitical life as our Church and world needs it. The canon that governs my life itself gives that right and obligation to me by demanding a specific combination of non-negotiable elements and the Rule which the hermit herself writes. The Fathers who created this canon allowed for that freedom, of course. However, they did not allow me to neglect or compromise the essential nature of either the eremitical or the solitary eremitical vocation in doing so. I am responsible not only for my own vocation, but for the eremitical vocation itself (and more specifically, the solitary eremitical vocation). Thus, when the Church defines it as one of "stricter separation from the world" and (sometimes) marks that with distinctive garb, vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a prayer garment (cowl), a prohibition of community life (lauras are different than cenobitical life), and functional cloister and stability, I cannot simply relinquish all of these and turn it into a secular vocation because I personally feel called to this or because (rightfully) a secular vocation too seems very good to me. My experimentation and discernment have definite limits no matter what the Fathers failed to say in their deliberations on establishing this vocation in the 20th Century. I suggest the same is true of canon 604.

 

all  my best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

Edited January 2, 2013 by SRLAUREL

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Wow- Just a thought: maybe some softer tones/less combative approaches might be better suited for those who are engaging in a public debate. Love above all things, right?... even when that persons POV is different then your own. Especially if one is consecrated to the Lord or discerning to be. I doubt Jesus would be out with a slug hammer dealing with these details. It isn't like anyone is speaking heresy. Also not totally necessary to nit-pick everything said if they don't use exactly the right vocabulary or if this person has a different opinion. I see nothing wrong with debate, but I think as Catholics we have a higher responsibility to censor the way we might say something. It seems like there is a lot of room for person choice within the CV vocation. 

[Nunsense]

Wow- Just a thought: maybe some softer tones/less combative approaches might be better suited for those who are engaging in a public debate. Love above all things, right?... even when that persons POV is different then your own. Especially if one is consecrated to the Lord or discerning to be. I doubt Jesus would be out with a slug hammer dealing with these details. It isn't like anyone is speaking heresy. Also not totally necessary to nit-pick everything said if they don't use exactly the right vocabulary or if this person has a different opinion. I see nothing wrong with debate, but I think as Catholics we have a higher responsibility to censor the way we might say something. It seems like there is a lot of room for person choice within the CV vocation. 

 

I am not exactly sure what you find combative or offensive in Sr Laurel's posts? I find them informative and realistic, even if I don't always agree with her POV on all things. I still respect that she is speaking with clarity and purpose and not with any personal agenda apart from information dissemination. Could you give an example of what you think should be 'censored'? Thank you.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

I am not exactly sure what you find combative or offensive in Sr Laurel's posts? I find them informative and realistic, even if I don't always agree with her POV on all things. I still respect that she is speaking with clarity and purpose and not with any personal agenda apart from information dissemination. Could you give an example of what you think should be 'censored'? Thank you.

 

I wasn't referring to her? But later tonight I will do so. I guess that post was a bit passive-agressive, although I still think it holds true. This isn't the Debate Table. This is the VS where prospective people (many of whom are lurkers) are seeing how this exchange is going down and I think in some ways it shows bad form. At the very least the tone could be taken down a notch or tow. This is all pretty open to interpretation. I am running out to dinner now, but I will post your request in a bit. 

[Lilllabettt]

"why don't you become a nun?"

 

 

why don't you tone down the sass.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Sister_Laurel]

Wow- Just a thought: maybe some softer tones/less combative approaches might be better suited for those who are engaging in a public debate. Love above all things, right?... even when that persons POV is different then your own. Especially if one is consecrated to the Lord or discerning to be. I doubt Jesus would be out with a slug hammer dealing with these details. It isn't like anyone is speaking heresy. Also not totally necessary to nit-pick everything said if they don't use exactly the right vocabulary or if this person has a different opinion. I see nothing wrong with debate, but I think as Catholics we have a higher responsibility to censor the way we might say something. It seems like there is a lot of room for person choice within the CV vocation. 

 

I am sorry you heard a tone I did not use to write my post or emotions I did not feel. As for vocabulary, words are important and in the topics discussed here make huge differences in what is actually being said. For instance, I did not make a vow of obedience to my Bishop. I made that vow to God in the hands of my Bishop. The difference in the two things in this particular case actually IS a matter of heresy or at least of blasphemy. We do not make vows to persons but ALWAYS to God. To say one makes a vow to one's Bishop is to arrogate to him a dignity which is due to God alone. It also changes very greatly the dynamics of the content of that vow and makes blind obedience to a human person normative when the obedience one owes one's Bishop is always discerned under a higher obligation --- that which one owes to God. It is a simple distinction but it has significant consequences. It is also one that seems to be not all-that-well understood by Catholics who are actually interested in making private vows, being consecrated, etc. I hope this explains my insistence on correct usage in these matters. Besides, I truly thought people interested in such discussion would like to be accurate and interested in the significant nuances involved.

 

Meanwhile, CV's do not make public vows at all. Those are proper to religious life because they create a kind of separation from the worldly dimensions of power, relationships, and money. I suspect that those called to secular lives and who consider private vows haven't always thought about the function of religious vows and may not have heard that baptism itself obliges one to live the evangelical counsels in a way proper to their state of life.

 

I agree with your last point and thought I indicated in my last post that there was quite a bit of freedom in the CV vocation or in my own for instance. Even so at the same time there are real limitations in just how far we can go. The CV vocation under canon 604 is essentially secular, a highly qualified secularity, but secular nonetheless. Those who would prefer to be quasi religious and would like to add specifications which are typical of the separation from the world proper to religious life seem to me to have crossed the line created by those limits.

 

all my best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[cmaD2006]

I wasn't referring to her? But later tonight I will do so. I guess that post was a bit passive-agressive, although I still think it holds true. This isn't the Debate Table. This is the VS where prospective people (many of whom are lurkers) are seeing how this exchange is going down and I think in some ways it shows bad form. At the very least the tone could be taken down a notch or tow. This is all pretty open to interpretation. I am running out to dinner now, but I will post your request in a bit. 

 

I 100% agree ... VS is not debate table.  It was never intended to be.  I've stayed quiet because honestly, it started to go overboard. 

 

AbrideofChrist -- you specifically said "ok I'll take the bait and debate"

 

This to me really shows how the discussion can go from a simple discussion to a full blown debate.  People are going to disagree ... and if it is going to become a back and forth, please, in all charity take it to the debate table.

 

I really used to like VS -- it was a home, a place to discuss vocation.  But when it becomes the debate table, it is no longer a welcoming place.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

I am sorry you heard a tone I did not use to write my post or emotions I did not feel. As for vocabulary, words are important and in the topics discussed here make huge differences in what is actually being said. For instance, I did not make a vow of obedience to my Bishop. I made that vow to God in the hands of my Bishop. The difference in the two things in this particular case actually IS a matter of heresy or at least of blasphemy. We do not make vows to persons but ALWAYS to God. To say one makes a vow to one's Bishop is to arrogate to him a dignity which is due to God alone. It also changes very greatly the dynamics of the content of that vow and makes blind obedience to a human person normative when the obedience one owes one's Bishop is always discerned under a higher obligation --- that which one owes to God. It is a simple distinction but it has significant consequences. It is also one that seems to be not all-that-well understood by Catholics who are actually interested in making private vows, being consecrated, etc. I hope this explains my insistence on correct usage in these matters. Besides, I truly thought people interested in such discussion would like to be accurate and interested in the significant nuances involved.

 

Meanwhile, CV's do not make public vows at all. Those are proper to religious life because they create a kind of separation from the worldly dimensions of power, relationships, and money. I suspect that those called to secular lives and who consider private vows haven't always thought about the function of religious vows and may not have heard that baptism itself obliges one to live the evangelical counsels in a way proper to their state of life.

 

I agree with your last point and thought I indicated in my last post that there was quite a bit of freedom in the CV vocation or in my own for instance. Even so at the same time there are real limitations in just how far we can go. The CV vocation under canon 604 is essentially secular, a highly qualified secularity, but secular nonetheless. Those who would prefer to be quasi religious and would like to add specifications which are typical of the separation from the world proper to religious life seem to me to have crossed the line created by those limits.

 

all my best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

Sister, I wasn't really referring to you in this thread honestly. I didn't feel like your correction to my post had any undertone in it. It was pretty informative. Thanks for elaborating on that point though because I do think it is important for discerners to consider as they are contemplating making a vow. Although I knew what I was referring to, maybe someone reading did not. 

 

I think Cma pretty much summed up my point, so I won't go any further and pull out the portions I felt were out of line. I don't want to call more attention to the portions I felt were unnecessary. 

[HisChildForever]

I 100% agree ... VS is not debate table.  It was never intended to be.  I've stayed quiet because honestly, it started to go overboard. 

 

AbrideofChrist -- you specifically said "ok I'll take the bait and debate"

 

This to me really shows how the discussion can go from a simple discussion to a full blown debate.  People are going to disagree ... and if it is going to become a back and forth, please, in all charity take it to the debate table.

 

I really used to like VS -- it was a home, a place to discuss vocation.  But when it becomes the debate table, it is no longer a welcoming place.

 

It is pretty weird to see VS people bat it out.

[cmaD2006]

It is pretty weird to see VS people bat it out.

 

Isn't it? :)  You expect wet noodles to come out right?

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Isn't it? :)  You expect wet noodles to come out right?

 

Don't tempt me. 

[God's Beloved]

To any CV interested in knowing what the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome said about this in yr 2003 :

 

My Question: According to the Roman Pontifical the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity is used for women living in the world and those in monasteries.Does 'living in the world' mean only that it is 'not in a monastery' or should it be lived strictly 'in the world' like in secular institutes ?

 

The charism of cons.virgins is to be an eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and the life to come, when the Church will at last live her love for Christ the Bridegroom.The charism of Secular Inst. is to transfigure the world from within, acting like a leaven within the cultural, economic and political life. Hence it would be improper for a member of a Secular Inst. to wear clothing which would identify them as a consecrated person. However,Cons.virgins are called to be an image of the Chruch's love for Christ.Would it be proper if the local circumstances demand, to wear clothing which would identify one as a consecrated person or be addressed as 'Sister'  even though one does not live in a religious community ?

 

The following was the response with the Official reference number. 

 

 Prot n.SpR 862-4/2003

 

The life of virginity lived in the world gives public witness in everyday life , in some self-supporting work and in her service to the Church. It is not quite the same as the style of a secular institute because the virgin's consecration is public ,yet it is secular in the sense that she is not a religious.

 

The use of the veil, provided for in the Rite is decided on in the local circumstances with the Diocesan Bishop.The same would be true regarding any other identifying clothing and/or the use of the title Sister.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those interested  in getting clarifications regarding Consecrated life, if you visit their site on vatican.va , you can write to   them with your queries by email. It is accepted if you also give your postal address.  You receive a response  between 1 to 6 months as I can state from my own experience , if they know you, even by email.

 

Hope this helps. They seem to avoid putting any kind of uniform code at universal level  and leave it to the local churches.

 

[Chiquitunga]

The following was the response with the Official reference number. 

 

 Prot n.SpR 862-4/2003

 

The life of virginity lived in the world gives public witness in everyday life , in some self-supporting work and in her service to the Church. It is not quite the same as the style of a secular institute because the virgin's consecration is public ,yet it is secular in the sense that she is not a religious.

 

The use of the veil, provided for in the Rite is decided on in the local circumstances with the Diocesan Bishop.The same would be true regarding any other identifying clothing and/or the use of the title Sister.

 

God's Beloved, thank you so much for posting that! It is great to read such a clear and simple statement on this from the Congregation in Rome. What they say regarding the vocation being "secular" is the same interpretation that Sponsa-Christi gives in her post on "living in the world" on her blog, http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-does-it-mean-to-be-in-world.html

 

The second statement there also makes it clear that it would not be incorrect for a CV to wear a veil or even identifying garb or be called Sister, making her much closer to a religious, if it were decided by the local bishop. Thus, I think we can conclude from all of this that again, the Fathers gave freedom on all of these matters, and that secularity is not an integral part of their charism as it is for secular institute for instance. The integral part of their charism is as you say, "to be an eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and the life to come, when the Church will at last live her love for Christ the Bridegroom." How beautiful! :heart:

 

Besides, I truly thought people interested in such discussion would like to be accurate and interested in the significant nuances involved.

 

I'll just say, I personally really appreciate your, & all others, precise answers, with accurate terminology :like: although, not meaning to disagree with TJTM or others by saying that. I don't like debates here either, although I appreciate reading all of the different perspectives of the different posters here, including several consecrated persons. 

 

Back to the original question, I did notice mention of a few CVs moving here & in the comments, http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/virgins-consecrated-virgins-yes-consecrated-virgins/ not saying I agree with this or not, or if it should only be rare, etc. Just something I noticed and thought I'd post here. 

Edited January 3, 2013 by Chiquitunga

[Sister_Laurel]

To any CV interested in knowing what the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome said about this in yr 2003 :

 

My Question: According to the Roman Pontifical the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity is used for women living in the world and those in monasteries.Does 'living in the world' mean only that it is 'not in a monastery' or should it be lived strictly 'in the world' like in secular institutes ?

 

The charism of cons.virgins is to be an eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and the life to come, when the Church will at last live her love for Christ the Bridegroom.The charism of Secular Inst. is to transfigure the world from within, acting like a leaven within the cultural, economic and political life. Hence it would be improper for a member of a Secular Inst. to wear clothing which would identify them as a consecrated person. However,Cons.virgins are called to be an image of the Chruch's love for Christ.Would it be proper if the local circumstances demand, to wear clothing which would identify one as a consecrated person or be addressed as 'Sister'  even though one does not live in a religious community ?

 

The following was the response with the Official reference number. 

 

 Prot n.SpR 862-4/2003

 

The life of virginity lived in the world gives public witness in everyday life , in some self-supporting work and in her service to the Church. It is not quite the same as the style of a secular institute because the virgin's consecration is public ,yet it is secular in the sense that she is not a religious.

 

The use of the veil, provided for in the Rite is decided on in the local circumstances with the Diocesan Bishop.The same would be true regarding any other identifying clothing and/or the use of the title Sister.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those interested  in getting clarifications regarding Consecrated life, if you visit their site on vatican.va , you can write to   them with your queries by email. It is accepted if you also give your postal address.  You receive a response  between 1 to 6 months as I can state from my own experience , if they know you, even by email.

 

Hope this helps. They seem to avoid putting any kind of uniform code at universal level  and leave it to the local churches.

 

Thanks for citing this. I think it goes well with the the document I cited stating CV's were given over ENTIRELY to their brothers and sisters both in the world and in the things of the world. A secular vocation is just that, a vocation lived in the world and in the things of the world. CV's consecration suggests they should be able to live this vocation with an integrity, radicality, and sacramentality others may not manage without veering into secularism. I note that the Congregation's response does not enter into statements or reasoning of quanitative difference (it is less secular than the vocation of those in secular institutes or it is "closer" to religious life than something else is); it distinguishes the publicly consecrated nature of this secularity from the "style" of commitment of secular institute members enjoy because of semi-public vows. Both are clearly stated to be secular vocations, however.

 

I am concerned that folks feel the need to say "we are LESS secular than x" or or "more like religious than y". Is this a holdover from a time when the word secular was demeaned and despised? Given the emphasis of Vatican II on the sacramentality of ALL creation and the universal call to holiness (which clearly means those living and ministering in the saeculum are called to an identically exhaustive holiness as those called to religious life) the Church is trying very hard to reclaim the word secular as something of infinite (Divine) worth and potential. As Paul reminded us we live in a world in which God is meant to be ALL in ALL. In fact, the references to the eschatological value of the CV vocation calls attention to the theological fact that the Reign of God is not ultimately going to be (nor is it meant to be) realized in some merely otherworldly heaven but in a heaven (that is, a realm of Divine sovereignty and transcendence) which completely interpenetrates and transfigures this world.  It is sin which prevents this. Christ's ministry of reconciliation -- the ministry with which we are all entrusted --- includes allowing this world of everyday reality to become God's own true realm. Consecrated virgins living in the world are called to be a special sign of this tremendous eschatological paradox.

 

That is why it seems to me c 604 CV's ought to be among the first persons witnessing to the world that the Church has changed (recovered) the way she perceives the secular (again, secularism is a different matter); they should be among the first who witness to a universal call to holiness in which the secular becomes the sacrament of God's presence. In fact, from what I have read about the vocation it seems clear that the Church recovered this instance of it precisely to underscore Vatican II's emphasis on all of this. What is historically undoubted is that the Church has recovered a form of consecrated life which pre-dated religious life and which, throughout history stood side by side it, both distinct from it and of equal dignity until well into the 12th Century. As I have already noted, Sister Sharon Holland, IHM  is clear in documents written while she was a chief member of CICLSAL, that the appropriation of this vocation by cloistered religious actually turned the vocation on its head and contributed to its demise. Canon 604 is an attempt to recover the vocation and reverse the situation in which genuine esteem for the everyday world of speace and time (saeculum) was replaced by the less Scriptural notion of a merely otherworldly heaven and a focus on religious life which devalued the universal call to holiness. I don't think the issue of  a CV's secularity can be adequately discussed apart from this theological, Scriptural, and historical context.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[carmenchristi]

Gosh, after all this discussion I think one would be inspired to think not twice, but two hundred times before discerning this vocation. Perhaps this is a good thing! but I certainly admire anyone who would be willing to enter into a vocation that is so unknown even to the Church herself. I, myself find the debate rather disheartening and am rather glad that my discernment has reached a turning point where this topic does not concern me. I'm rather relieved for this after reading this thread. I also agree that if this discussion is to continue, it should be moved to the debate table.

Oh, oops I guess I just accidentally resurrected a dying topic... Just realized that. Oh well.