Consecrated Virginity Question

[Sister_Laurel]

Cecilia -  I think you are wanting something for consecrated virginity which does not exist. The only person who can tell a consecrated virgin how she ought to live her vocation is her bishop. Some bishops insist on and/or permit a more secular angle, others insist and/or permit something more along the lines of what Sponsa Christi is talking about.  Some of them forbid the life of public consecration, period. A virgin and her bishop can listen to you and  everybody else - Cardinal Burke, Sr. Sharon Holland, the USACV - and say "that's nice." And then go do whatever it is they think is correct. And they would be well within their rights.

 

Looks like that's the way it's set up. There's a lot of flexibility and do-your-own-thing. In fact thats what I'm hearing from people on this thread. So why are those same people being so dogmatic when it comes to their interpretation?  Irony, no? There is no rule you have to wear a veil, there is no rule you can't move, there is no rule you have to work directly for the church. The only rule is you can't propose the possiblity that there be any other rules.     <<<< really? 

 

My own sense is that Cecelia is very clear about the nature of the vocation to consecrated virginity in the world and simply wants for that to be recognized and respected. Again, she has simply been clear, as I have also tried to be, that flexibility does not mean one can change the NATURE of the reality. No one here is saying the vocation cannot develop. In fact, in the past 30 years it has developed and greater clarity has been achieved in some matters. That is especially true regarding the paradoxically secular nature of this form of consecrated life. Originally Bishops associated consecrated life with religious life; there really was no other model. As a result it was common to call CV's Sister, to expect (and allow) them to wear habits, etc. That rapidly changed as clarifications were made and Bishops realized this was both entirely consecrated and entirely secular because it was a recovery of an expression of a vocation which had existed into the 12th Century side by side a cloistered expression. This clarity was affirmed and strengthened every time a woman was consecrated without being made to renounce her secular life. Again, liturgy is authoritative: Lex orandi, lex credendi. As we pray, so we believe. (The corollary is that as the Church ASKS or calls us to pray, so she calls us to believe!)

 

The call to a sacred or consecrated secularity is an amazing challenge and the freedom involved is a demanding one. One is called to use money, power, and participate in a relatively normal range of relationships in distinctly Kingdom-inspired ways and build a society which does the same. Rather than renouncing these things one is called to model a truly sacred participation society and in these integral dimensions of secular life. Religious are not only NOT called to do these things, they renounce them and are, in some ways, canonically prohibited from embracing a sacred secularity. Vows and habits are symbols of this "religious" (or non-secular) state of renunciation. They separate the religious FROM the secular in various ways precisely because, as active as religious may be in ministering to the world, Religious are not called to serve their brothers and sisters "in the things of the world," as consecrated virgins living in the world are.

 

No one is proposing arbitrary rules here. They are simply saying w and x are consistent with the secular nature of the vocation, and y and z are not;  further they are doing so on the basis of the recognized ecclesial and canonical import of vows, habits, etc. It is not only a Bishop who can tell a CV how she is to live her life. The Church more generally CAN and DOES tell her this is a secular vocation: do what you feel called to within the resulting parameters. She does this through her liturgy of consecration, through the formation she requires and the she does NOT require for CV's living in the world, through canon law (especially in this regard, by the canons which do NOT apply to CV's living in the world), etc.

 

I have written other places about using canon 603 as a stopgap for getting individuals professed and consecrated when what they really desire is to live in (and sometimes to found) communities. Especially c 603 is not about merely living a pious life alone, much less living alone for 9-10 hours a day when children and husbands come home from school and work!! In this case I think we are speaking of something similar --- a kind of variation on that theme. One cannot be consecrated as a virgin living in the world when one really wants to be a religious but wants to avoid some of the elements of the life, nor when one really wants to be a hermit but knows getting admitted to profession/consecration under canon 603 is a shorter, easier route. Similarly, one cannot seek to be consecrated as a CV living in the world, while deciding not to wholeheartedly embrace that secularity or instead to embrace the Religious' relationship to the secular. This changes the charism of the vocation completely. If one believes they are free to do this because (for instance) one believes the secular is ONLY the proper sphere of the laity, then perhaps they are not really called to be CV's living in the world at all.

 

In any case, I would suggest that just as a person cannot use c 603 legitimately to get professed and then define almost anything that possesses some degree of the silence of solitude as eremitical (perhaps saying it is just eremitical in the "weak sense") neither can women use c 604 to get consecrated and then morph the vocation into a quasi Religious one or "secular in the weak sense." She may well find she is really called to something else, but in that case she must be honest about it and change vocations as appropriate. Flexibility is not only allowed; in fact it is demanded in wide and challenging ways. Changing the nature of the vocation so it is neither fish nor fowl (a concern when the possibility of reprising the vocation was originally raised after Vatican II) is not. 

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Sister_Laurel]

My own sense is that Cecelia is very clear about the nature of the vocation to consecrated virginity in the world and simply wants for that to be recognized and respected. Again, she has simply been clear, as I have also tried to be, that flexibility does not mean one can change the NATURE of the reality. No one here is saying the vocation cannot develop. In fact, in the past 30 years it has developed and greater clarity has been achieved in some matters. That is especially true regarding the paradoxically secular nature of this form of consecrated life. Originally Bishops associated consecrated life with religious life; there really was no other model. As a result it was common to call CV's Sister, to expect (and allow) them to wear habits, etc. That rapidly changed as clarifications were made and Bishops realized this was both entirely consecrated and entirely secular because it was a recovery of an expression of a vocation which had existed into the 12th Century side by side a cloistered expression. This clarity was affirmed and strengthened every time a woman was consecrated without being made to renounce her secular life. Again, liturgy is authoritative: Lex orandi, lex credendi. As we pray, so we believe. (The corollary is that as the Church ASKS or calls us to pray, so she calls us to believe!)

 

The call to a sacred or consecrated secularity is an amazing challenge and the freedom involved is a demanding one. One is called to use money, power, and participate in a relatively normal range of relationships in distinctly Kingdom-inspired ways and build a society which does the same. Rather than renouncing these things one is called to model a truly sacred participation society and in these integral dimensions of secular life. Religious are not only NOT called to do these things, they renounce them and are, in some ways, canonically prohibited from embracing a sacred secularity. Vows and habits are symbols of this "religious" (or non-secular) state of renunciation. They separate the religious FROM the secular in various ways precisely because, as active as religious may be in ministering to the world, Religious are not called to serve their brothers and sisters "in the things of the world," as consecrated virgins living in the world are.

 

No one is proposing arbitrary rules here. They are simply saying w and x are consistent with the secular nature of the vocation, and y and z are not;  further they are doing so on the basis of the recognized ecclesial and canonical import of vows, habits, etc. It is not only a Bishop who can tell a CV how she is to live her life. The Church more generally CAN and DOES tell her this is a secular vocation: do what you feel called to within the resulting parameters. She does this through her liturgy of consecration, through the formation she requires and the she does NOT require for CV's living in the world, through canon law (especially in this regard, by the canons which do NOT apply to CV's living in the world), etc.

 

I have written other places about using canon 603 as a stopgap for getting individuals professed and consecrated when what they really desire is to live in (and sometimes to found) communities. Especially c 603 is not about merely living a pious life alone, much less living alone for 9-10 hours a day when children and husbands come home from school and work!! In this case I think we are speaking of something similar --- a kind of variation on that theme. One cannot be consecrated as a virgin living in the world when one really wants to be a religious but wants to avoid some of the elements of the life, nor when one really wants to be a hermit but knows getting admitted to profession/consecration under canon 603 is a shorter, easier route. Similarly, one cannot seek to be consecrated as a CV living in the world, while deciding not to wholeheartedly embrace that secularity or instead to embrace the Religious' relationship to the secular. This changes the charism of the vocation completely. If one believes they are free to do this because (for instance) one believes the secular is ONLY the proper sphere of the laity, then perhaps they are not really called to be CV's living in the world at all.

 

In any case, I would suggest that just as a person cannot use c 603 legitimately to get professed and then define almost anything that possesses some degree of the silence of solitude as eremitical (perhaps saying it is just eremitical in the "weak sense") neither can women use c 604 to get consecrated and then morph the vocation into a quasi Religious one or "secular in the weak sense." She may well find she is really called to something else, but in that case she must be honest about it and change vocations as appropriate. Flexibility is not only allowed; in fact it is demanded in wide and challenging ways. Changing the nature of the vocation so it is neither fish nor fowl (a concern when the possibility of reprising the vocation was originally raised after Vatican II) is not. 

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

By the way, in case someone believes that I think there is something wrong with mistakenly discerning a vocation or alterately needing to re-discern one down the line, let me be very clear that I do not believe that myself at all. If I find myself desiring to do more ministry and to lead a much more active and socially-involved life than canon 603 or the eremitical tradition really allows, then I would be responsible for discerning where at this point in time God is calling me. My vocation might have changed due to many factors: health, gifts, opportunities, maturation, changes in the Church's own perception and interpretation of my vocation, etc. If this is the case, then I need to rediscern the vocation to the extent what I feel called to live is contrary to the nature of the vocation I have embraced and been commissioned to live.

 

I am personally inspired by those hermits who spent 50 years and more solemnly professed as monks or nuns and then felt called to solitary life prior to canon 603. They needed to leave their monasteries despite the fact that these were the seedbeds of the vocation discerned late in life and, in the language used at the time, be secularized (be dispensed from vows, etc). I have heard some suggest these persons had mistakenly discerned their vocations originally; sometimes they suggest these persons' egos got in the way. Nonsense. Vocational paths change and there is nothing wrong in that.  (Our vocation to authentic and holy humanity achieved in dialogue with God does NOT change.) These monks and nuns became the immediate forerunners of canon 603 hermits and the reason Vatican II and those thinking through things post-Vatican II eventually accepted this solitary form of eremitical life as a state of perfection or a form of religious life without community (cf Handbook on Canons 573-746).

 

Thus I believe it is entirely possible to discern in good faith, make a similar commitment, live the life well, and STILL determine one is called to a different expression of discipleship down the line. In no way do I mean to suggest that ANYONE necessarily simply discerns badly or without real care.

 

best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notefromstillsong.blogspot.com

Edited January 18, 2013 by SRLAUREL

[Maggyie]

Since I don't intend to dispute this further (I have neither the time nor the inclination), interested readers can check out my blog

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

Sister I'm sorry you didn't keep your resolution, though your subsequent contributions have been very worthy! Time management is truly a challenge for everyone regardless of their vocation - arguing on the Internet is usually a tremendous time-waste, and yet it's also a tremendous temptation, difficult to resist. A temptation I succumb to, all too often :(

 

I read the entire thread, and as a non-virgin married woman, I can see the Church has not really given her children a clear picture of how this "new, yet ancient" vocation should be lived. I imagine as time goes by this vocation will under-go even more change and reform, just as religious life, the priesthood and to a lesser extent, marriage have. In most cases a greater diversity in the expression of the vocation comes to be approved and celebrated - where once religious life was only monastic, in the modern era there are apostolic religious vocations as well, and where there were once only Third Orders now there are personal prelatures as well. I am in awe of all the CVs who with their lives help to define and redefine what this vocation should mean to the Holy Church.

[BarbTherese]

Sister I'm sorry you didn't keep your resolution, though your subsequent contributions have been very worthy! Time management is truly a challenge for everyone regardless of their vocation - arguing on the Internet is usually a tremendous time-waste, and yet it's also a tremendous temptation, difficult to resist. A temptation I succumb to, all too often :(

 

I wonder if putting one's point of view on a Catholic discussion site is such a waste of time.  :) We may be somewhat aware of the concepts of those actually posting into a thread, but not those of anyone who is only reading - member or non member.  These sites are open to the public, the world.  Nor can we be aware often of either the positive or negative influence we may have, while our prayer is that it will be positive.  I think that we certainly need to be aware that we need to be disciples of Jesus at all times, in all places.  Certainly whenever Jesus spoke in public His words would have fell on 'all sorts of ground'.

While at times I have differed with some opinions of Sr Lauren, at other times she has made some very powerful statements that have set me thinking about my own vocation in life (not CV).  At times her words fell on "stony ground" and I rejected them, at other times they fell on "good ground".  A recent statement of Sr Laurel's in this thread has had quite a positive impact on me even though I do not have a vocation to CV

 

This all reminds me of the Parable of The Sower.  Ours is simply to prayerfully 'cast our seeds' as we go through life and probably without ever knowing for sure the affect or effect they have, or are going to have.  Success is always the Work of The Lord.  I recall a whole family (Mum and Dad, 5 children) that were baptized into The Faith and their interest in Catholicism was sparked simply because they saw me (just into my teens) walk to Mass in the mornings before school.  They asked my mother where I was going so early each day.  Those days morning Mass was around 7am.    They eventually made formal enquiries into The Faith.

 

 

 [3] And he spoke to them many things in parables, saying: Behold the sower went forth to sow. [Matthew 13:3] [Latin] [4] And whilst he soweth some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and ate them up. [5] And other some fell upon stony ground, where they had not much earth: and they sprung up immediately, because they had no deepness of earth.

[6] And when the sun was up they were scorched: and because they had not root, they withered away. [7] And others fell among thorns: and the thorns grew up and choked them. [8] And others fell upon good ground: and they brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, and some thirtyfold. [9] He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

 

[BarbTherese]

Duplicate Post

Edited January 18, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

Duplicate Post

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[Sister_Laurel]

Sister I'm sorry you didn't keep your resolution, though your subsequent contributions have been very worthy! Time management is truly a challenge for everyone regardless of their vocation - arguing on the Internet is usually a tremendous time-waste, and yet it's also a tremendous temptation, difficult to resist. A temptation I succumb to, all too often :(

 

I read the entire thread, and as a non-virgin married woman, I can see the Church has not really given her children a clear picture of how this "new, yet ancient" vocation should be lived. I imagine as time goes by this vocation will under-go even more change and reform, just as religious life, the priesthood and to a lesser extent, marriage have. In most cases a greater diversity in the expression of the vocation comes to be approved and celebrated - where once religious life was only monastic, in the modern era there are apostolic religious vocations as well, and where there were once only Third Orders now there are personal prelatures as well. I am in awe of all the CVs who with their lives help to define and redefine what this vocation should mean to the Holy Church.

 

Sometimes situations change.  In this case time opened up for me rather unexpectedly so please don't be concerned about (nor assume you know the nature of) the reasons I rejoined this discussion. Sometimes (usually in fact) God gifts and/or inspires us in surprising ways. While you might consider this discussion a waste of time, I don't. Of course my purpose was not to "win" an argument on the internet. That would indeed be foolish and futile. Instead, several points have been verified, clarified, and even strengthened for me theologically, historically, and pastorally, and for that reason the eschatologically secular nature of the CV vocation of women living in the world and its significance are clearer for me than they were even a week ago. So is the minority nature of those who desire a quasi-religious vocation instead. A chance to review the evidence for both positions offered here recently was beneficial last year when I first engaged with Sponsa Christi's positions on this in another forum and it has been equally beneficial for me here recently. So, was the chance to hear from other CV's dealing with the same matters every day and raising new questions both on and off this forum. So again, not to worry. Far from temptation, this discussion has been revelatory and therefore a graced opportunity for me as a theologian intimately interested in consecrated and Religious life.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[God's Beloved]

Have been through a very busy week and hardly managed to read the above posts in depth.So please excuse me if this post sounds as if I don't know what's going on since a week. After attending a seminar to get recent updates on psychology in practice , I have been analysing people too much : personality traits , defense-mechanisms at work unconsciously etc. etc. But it was a Wow ! experience of my favorite subject.

 

I have tried to do in-depth study of consecrated life from the perspective of psychology and it is clear that formation and other vocational  needs of young adults  can be very different from that of other age-groups. There have been various paradigm shifts in the approach to religious life /consecrated life  at the grassroot level. There are those with a traditional mindset and others moving towards liberal /innovative approach.

 

Since more than twenty years I've been close to Ecclesial movements / associations which have a core-group of  Consecrated members. During a World Youth Day encounter in Yr 2000 in Rome , I had the opportunity to meet such persons from movements across the globe and this development in the church has truly fascinated me. In fact when I first learnt about the Order of consecrated virgins, I understood it to be some kind of Ecclesial movement of ancient origin , revived according to the signs of the times.

 

Some of these movements/ associations  have Church-recognized  consecrated members. Some prefer to identify themselves as Laity since they live in the world . I've noticed that although they do not wear habits, most of these groups do have a 'distinct' style of dressing  common to their group.These groups are either public or private associations of the faithful , but their vows/commitments are Private . They live alone, with their families or in common, some of them have  the Blessed Sacrament reserved in their group homes, have  intense formation programs  spread over 9 to even 12 years with commitments to live the evangelical counsels according to the charism of their group .In local churches they are often addressed as Sister . But their bonds are not with the Church. If a member  feels called to leave , it is mutually discerned and exit is according to church approved norms of the group but the commitments / private vows are dispensed through the sacrament of reconciliation. 

 

These  Ecclesial groups are  either diocese based or spread all over the world. Their statutes are approved by the Diocese or CICLSAL[not sure]/or the Congregation for the Laity in Rome. Latest updates from the Church recognize these as truly Consecrated life, as Ecclesial groups ,not as Lay groups  , but under authority for Laity due to practical purposes. Of course  there have been teething troubles with some of these movements, e.g. in Regnum Christi.  I can say from my direct experience with such groups , that their  life is as radical  or even more matured  than religious life. Poverty for some gets translated to simplicity or common goods or attitude of emptiness. Obedience for most is translated to mutual discernment etc. They have obligations like Liturgy of the Hours, silent prayer, etc

 

I don't think their lives can be called quasi-religious. Many of them have arisen spontaneously in the life of the church. Many of them claim to pattern their lives on the households of virgins in the early church.  I know some countries that have hundreds of CVs,  have begun encouraging their younger members to live in households  without the rigid structures of religious life,  learning from the psychological needs of different age-groups [e.g. Erik Erikson's theory]. So  CV is taking different shapes around the world.

 

The new movements/ associations I described   live fully immersed in the world. Often they have common tasks in service of the church or society. Some charisms are focused on common mission, some on living in common. And yet they are very distinct from Secular Institutes.

 

 

 

Refering to the  clarification from the Congregation for the Inst. of Consecrated life in Rome as follows :

 

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.

 

 

Since CV is of Ancient origin,  there are two ways to re-discover its identity and mission in concrete living.

 

1. CV by itself

 

2. CV in relation to other vocations like religious life , secular institutes , laity.

 

To be practical, pastoral , I think the Primary approach in any discussion should be  CV by itself and then in relation with other vocations

 

 

Nowhere has the Church said that CV  is Secular in the same strict sense  that Secular Inst. are called . CV is very clearly  since ancient times, a Diocese- based vocation. CV embody the identity of the local church. Take the analogy of  diocesan clergy who  are called Father, have distinct garb etc. They are Secular in the sense that they are not Religious.  This is exactly what  the Church says about the secularity of  CV as is clearly seen from the response from the  office in Rome. Their words are not at all ambiguous. If they meant it in the strict sense, they would have replied to my question saying: Yes, CV is called to live in the world in the strict sense as it is with Secular Inst. and Laity.

 

 

 

The following from the Roman Pontifical:

 

I. NATURE AND VALUE OF CONSECRATION TO VIRGINITY  
1  The custom of consecrating women to a life of virginity flourished even in the early Church. It led to the formation of a solemn rite constituting the candidate a sacred person, a surpassing sign of the Church’s love for Christ, and an eschatological image of the world to come and the glory of the heavenly Bride of Christ. In the rite of consecration the Church reveals its love of virginity, begs God’s grace on those who are consecrated, and prays with fervor for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.   

II. PRINCIPAL DUTIES OF THOSE CONSECRATED  
2  Those who consecrate their chastity under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit do so for the sake of more fervent love of Christ and of greater freedom in the service of their brothers and sisters.  They are to spend their time in works of penance and of mercy, in apostolic activity, and in prayer, according to their state in life and spiritual gifts.  To fulfill their duty of prayer, they are strongly advised to celebrate the Liturgy of Hours each day, especially Lauds or Vespers. In this way, by joining their voices to those of Christ the High Priest and of his Church, they will offer unending praise to the heavenly Father and pray for the salvation of the whole world.

 

 

The following from the suggested homily: [ I wish I could get the Latin text to understand the nuances deeper].

 

The Church is the Bride of Christ. This title of the Church was given by the  fathers and doctors of the Church to those like you who speak to us of the world  to come, where there is no marrying or giving in marriage. You are a sign of the  great mystery of salvation, proclaimed at the beginning of human history and  fulfilled in the marriage covenant between Christ and his Church.

 

When the suggestions in the Rite speak of eschatological image of the world to come, the central idea is " where there is no marrying or giving in marriage ". This is  the meaning for a witness while living in the world according to  charism of CV. The call to be an apostle in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world  is also according to this charism, where  CV is called to be a witness  of God's plan of making all things one in Christ come to perfection.

 

In case of Secular Inst and Laity, they are called to transfigure the world from within, acting like a leaven within the cultural, economic and political life.  This living of Kingdom values also has Eschatological implications but they are specifically related to the temporal .

 

Eschatology is a very broad subject with various schools of thought and  every vocation fulfills its own role. The charism of Secular Inst  is something New in the Church. It ought not be imposed on CV.

 

 

 

[Sister_Laurel]

Sister I'm sorry you didn't keep your resolution, though your subsequent contributions have been very worthy! Time management is truly a challenge for everyone regardless of their vocation - arguing on the Internet is usually a tremendous time-waste, and yet it's also a tremendous temptation, difficult to resist. A temptation I succumb to, all too often :(

 

I read the entire thread, and as a non-virgin married woman, I can see the Church has not really given her children a clear picture of how this "new, yet ancient" vocation should be lived. I imagine as time goes by this vocation will under-go even more change and reform, just as religious life, the priesthood and to a lesser extent, marriage have. In most cases a greater diversity in the expression of the vocation comes to be approved and celebrated - where once religious life was only monastic, in the modern era there are apostolic religious vocations as well, and where there were once only Third Orders now there are personal prelatures as well. I am in awe of all the CVs who with their lives help to define and redefine what this vocation should mean to the Holy Church.

 

Sometimes situations change.  In this case time opened up for me rather unexpectedly so please don't be concerned about (nor assume you know the nature of) the reasons I rejoined this discussion. Sometimes (usually in fact) God gifts and/or inspires us in surprising ways. While you might consider this discussion a waste of time, I don't. Of course my purpose was not to "win" an argument on the internet. That would indeed be foolish and futile. Instead, several points have been verified, clarified, and even strengthened for me theologically, historically, and pastorally, and for that reason the eschatologically secular nature of the CV vocation of women living in the world and its significance are clearer for me than they were even a week ago. So is the minority nature of those who desire a quasi-religious vocation instead. A chance to review the evidence for both positions offered here recently was beneficial last year when I first engaged with Sponsa Christi's positions on this in another forum and it has been equally beneficial for me here recently. So was the chance to hear from other CV's dealing with the same matters every day and raising new questions both on and off this forum. So again, not to worry. Far from temptation, this discussion has been revelatory and therefore a graced opportunity for me as a theologian intimately interested in consecrated and Religious life.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Laurie]

Refering to the  clarification from the Congregation for the Inst. of Consecrated life in Rome as follows :

 

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.

 

[Laurie]

Refering to the  clarification from the Congregation for the Inst. of Consecrated life in Rome as follows :

 

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.

[Laurie]

I'm sorry for the duplications above. This is my first time commenting here and I'm not sure what I did wrong.

 

Thank you God's Beloved for taking the time to share the response above.

 

I've taken some time to go through the many documents located at this website http://consecratedvirgins.org/ for the Consecrated Virgins in the USA. Everything from the response above is reflected among the many items that can be found there.

 

As someone who has a degree in Political Science from a rock solid Catholic university, along with a degree in Humanities and Catholic Culture (an integrated study of philosophy, theology, literature, and history), I think we must be very careful not to adopt a modern interpretation of the word "public." Too often we adopt the materialistic culture around us and follow its lead in equating the word "public" with "advertised."

 

The deep sense of the term "public" refers to the things that are held in common. The Latin phrase res publica refers to the things that are shared by all, and it is the source of our term "republic."

 

I think it is a mistake to think a public vocation is the same as a visible vocation. St. Therese, after all, had a public vocation and was "seen" by no one but her sisters. The hiddenness of her vocation did not mean her vocation wasn't public.  But her life was not her own in the same way that a Consecrated Virgin's life is not her own. A Consecrated Virgin lays her life down for her brothers and sisters. Her vocation is for the Church. She is Christ's presence in the world, as His Bride, and she also continuously presents the world to Christ.

 

Similarly, often our understanding of the word "witness" is constricted. We tend to think of a courtroom drama where everyone knows person X took the stand. In a fuller sense, a witness gives evidence of and testifies to: in the sense of a Consecrated Virgin her very life of exclusive devotion to Christ as her Spouse gives evidence of the world to come and testifies to the deepest realities of human nature, that we are made for God.

 

Mary is the premier model for Consecrated Virgins. One of my favorite spiritual writers, Fr. Jean D' Elbee, has written a beautiful statement regarding Our Lady: "The Gospel tells us nothing about the childhood of Mary. It seems that God willed jealously to hide this diamond of greatest beauty. And Mary, all her life, kept her love of reticence, of self-effacement, of the hidden life, under the veil of simplicity, like a marvelous treasure. Think of her at Nazareth, the wife of a carpenter, keeping the household, sweeping, going to the fountain, she, the Queen of Heaven. She appears later as if lost in the midst of the holy women, having nothing to distinguish her.... Little Therese rediscovered this road of Nazareth. She approached this simplicity, but without equaling it--far from it. At Carmel there is still the austerity of the religious habit, of the enclosure. At Nazareth there was none of that. In our time Jesus also wants hidden saints like the "woman of Nazareth," who distinguish themselves in nothing exteriorly, but who burn interiorly."

 

Because Consecrated Virgins, and nuns, and sisters are all the Spouse of Christ, I think sometimes we focus our meditations on the nature of a Consecrated Virgin's vocation too narrowly. We focus on how Consecrated Virgins are or are not like sisters and stop there, whereas there are two other models that bear directly on the Consecrated Virgin's vocation. I think we can easily neglect meditating upon Mary's role as the model for Consecrated Virgins and what insights her life might give.

 

Also, I think we tend to neglect meditating on the role of the Church as the Bride of Christ in the midst of the world. She is set apart for Him while also being immersed in the world. I see parallels with the vocation of a Consecrated Virgin, who is His presence in the world and presents the world to Him.

 

I think it would be an error to conclude that a Consecrated Virgin must "look differently than" a member of a secular institute. The two vocations differ because one is a public state of consecration and one is a call to be leaven in the world. The very fact that bishops have latitude to decide matters such as dress for Consecrated Virgins indicate to me that the core of the vocation is such that style of dress, assuming the woman is modest and simple, is a periphery issue.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Because Consecrated Virgins, and nuns, and sisters are all the Spouse of Christ, I think sometimes we focus our meditations on the nature of a Consecrated Virgin's vocation too narrowly. We focus on how Consecrated Virgins are or are not like sisters and stop there, whereas there are two other models that bear directly on the Consecrated Virgin's vocation.

 

 

I totally agree with this. But beyond just looking towards other models for consecrated virginity, I think it’s also good to remember that this vocation already does have its own charism. It’s not really a vocation in search of a theology--even if it is a vocation that’s still going through “growing pains” with respect to our understanding of its best practical lived expression.

 

For this reason, I tend to dislike it when people describe my understanding of my vocation as being “quasi-religious”--I actually don’t believe that consecrated virgins should simply strive to become as much like religious as possible, based on the premise that religious life is somehow “more consecrated.” Although I do think, that because consecrated virginity and religious life are both public forms of consecrated life, it’s only natural that there would be a certain degree of “family resemblance.”

 

Consecrated virginity as a vocation preceded the development of religious life properly so-called (as in, a communal way of life marked by permanent vows, adherence to a specific rule, and a participation in the spirituality of a particular founder or foundress) by several centuries. Historically, some of the first precursors to religious life as we know it today were communities of consecrated virgins who lived together in order to assist each other in living out their mutual vocation more faithfully.

 

Also, I think that many elements which people often associate immediately with religious life—like “bride of Christ” imagery, making a commitment in the presence of a bishop, or even the receiving of the veil—actually originated with consecrated virginity. So with some things, it’s not a case of consecrated virgins trying to imitate religious, but rather, it’s the other way around: over the course of the centuries, women religious tended to inherit certain customs initially associated with consecrated virgins.

 

I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with this kind of historical â€œsharing.” But I do think that it should keep us from simply defining consecrated virginity as “not religious life”; or from necessarily assuming that just because some concept or practice might remind us of religious life, that it therefore automatically can’t apply to consecrated virginity as well.

 

Likewise, I believe very strongly that consecrated virginity does indeed have its own unique characteristics, which modern religious life doesn’t share (or at least, which religious life doesn’t share to the same extent or degree)—such as, among other things, an essential “rootedness” in the local Church, an identification with the Church’s early virgin-martyr saints, or the centrality of a spousal call and identity.

[Laurie]

I totally agree with this. But beyond just looking towards other models for consecrated virginity, I think it’s also good to remember that this vocation already does have its own charism. It’s not really a vocation in search of a theology--even if it is a vocation that’s still going through “growing pains” with respect to our understanding of its best practical lived expression.

I think how I would express it is that the models of Our Lady and the Church as the Bride of Christ in the world illuminate the heart of the vocation and offer insights (not just analogies or illustrations, but substantive insights) into the theology of the vocation. I myself wouldn’t use the term “models” here as if it were an abstraction.

It was my understanding that when consecrated virgins in the ancient Church received the veil, they then wore it in daily life. That was borrowed from the custom of the time that all married women wore veils. I think it’s accurate to say the sequence consisted of: married women wore veils > consecrated virgins wore veils > religious sisters wore veils.

These days all three wear wedding bands (many religious, at least).

[Sister_Laurel]

As someone who has a degree in Political Science from a rock solid Catholic university, along with a degree in Humanities and Catholic Culture (an integrated study of philosophy, theology, literature, and history), I think we must be very careful not to adopt a modern interpretation of the word "public." Too often we adopt the materialistic culture around us and follow its lead in equating the word "public" with "advertised."

 

The deep sense of the term "public" refers to the things that are held in common. The Latin phrase res publica refers to the things that are shared by all, and it is the source of our term "republic."

 

I think it is a mistake to think a public vocation is the same as a visible vocation. St. Therese, after all, had a public vocation and was "seen" by no one but her sisters. The hiddenness of her vocation did not mean her vocation wasn't public.  But her life was not her own in the same way that a Consecrated Virgin's life is not her own. A Consecrated Virgin lays her life down for her brothers and sisters. Her vocation is for the Church. She is Christ's presence in the world, as His Bride, and she also continuously presents the world to Christ.

 

My own understanding basically agrees with your observations, Laurie. When we refer to public vocations today (or to the public character of the associated commitments) we refer to those vocations and commitments associated with public (canonical) rights and obligations and so too, those which are the focus of necessary expectations on behalf of both Church and world. Because of the public nature of the vows/commitment the person acquires a new identity in the Church and belongs to everyone in specific ways. It is absolutely true we are not talking about notoriety or visibility; I agree completely with you on that. I believe you are speaking of precisely this dimension when you say the person's life is no longer their own. The vocation generally (CV, Hermit, etc) is seen as a gift of the Holy Spirit and the Church claims it (as does the individual whose vocation this is) in the Rite of Profession/consecration/ordination..

 

Thus, I would add that it is publicly, formally, and legally no longer their own as well as being personally given over to another (God via the mediation of the Church). With private  commitments, the life DOES remain one's own in the sense that there are no legal or formal obligations or necessary expectations attached. Of course one may give their life entirely to God in the process, but no one necessarily has a right to call them to accountability on the way they live this out, nor may anyone have necessary expectations of them in this regard. Only the person who is privately committed is directly involved in the commitment per se --- that is, no matter how many people may be significantly touched as that commitment is lived out it remains a private commitment implicating no one else directly. On the other hand with public vows, while only the person is bound by the vows themselves, a whole set of ecclesial and civil relationships are set up which define the state of life and persist until and unless the vows are dispensed, lapse, or the person dies. The person ceases to be her own person because she is publicly answerable for the gift the Holy Spirit has given..

 

Both privately and publicly committed persons give their lives for their Brothers and Sisters. Both commitments may be gifts of the Holy Spirit. The difference seems to me to lie in the degree of necessary expectations, ways of exercising accountability, and formal relationships which help ensure the integrity and fruitfulness of the commitment which necessarily obtain.

 

best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Sister_Laurel]

I think how I would express it is that the models of Our Lady and the Church as the Bride of Christ in the world illuminate the heart of the vocation and offer insights (not just analogies or illustrations, but substantive insights) into the theology of the vocation. I myself wouldn’t use the term “models” here as if it were an abstraction.

It was my understanding that when consecrated virgins in the ancient Church received the veil, they then wore it in daily life. That was borrowed from the custom of the time that all married women wore veils. I think it’s accurate to say the sequence consisted of: married women wore veils > consecrated virgins wore veils > religious sisters wore veils.

These days all three wear wedding bands (many religious, at least).

 

A theology spells out the nature, the underpinnings, and the implications of the charism. On the other hand, unless a charism can be theologically articulated it ceases to be a gift to anyone. From my own vantage point, I believe the CV vocation IS in search of a theology, or at least in search of those who will spell this out in a meaningful and systematic way to those in the Church who are supposed to benefit from this charism --- what ever that may actually be. (By the way, I am not denying there is  a very significant charism and I believe I understand and have referred to it many times here; it is up to theologians together with those living the life to make it clear how it is that when the Church asks for bread they have not been handed  an ancient stone which truly nourishes no one at all.) When people ask CV's why they "didn't go the whole way and become a nun"? or say "That's nice but so what?" when a CV says, "I am a spouse of Christ." they are asking "how does this vocation truly represent a gift to the Church and world?" and sometimes, "How is this a gift to the Church which does not demean or diminish the gift MY vocation is to the Church and World?"

 

My own understanding of the use of veils was that they were worn not only to mark the virgin as married but to mark her as beyond the deficiencies of being female as well. Virgins regularly argued they were not subject to the rules and limitations of ordinary women and some suggested they had become "male" in the process because of the freedom that attached to this position in society. They took St Paul's "neither male nor female" seriously and literally! St Perpetua had a terrifically telling dream about this perspective on the eve of her martyrdom in the arena. She was to be thrown to beasts, but in the dream when she arrived at the arena she became clad in gladiator's armor, was armed appropriately and was led in to fight with other gladiators. Virgins regularly acted as an independent and even a quasi-clerical authority within the Church; only over time did their "presumption" of being rid of female "deficiencies" cause both pagan men and Christian men (especially elders and clerics) to begin to argue against this and to regulate or control the vocation more strictly. Tertullian was one famous Church Father particularly put out by the virgins of his day. To continue the image from above, there were times when Tertullian thought of the vocation as a stone  (or a scorpion!) rather than bread or a fish!!!

 

In any case, the meaning of the use of the veil (or its theology) also transformed over time. (I would argue the nature of the charism itself also changed to some extent, as did the theology of the vocation itself.) Not only was the original notion of the virgin as married strongly reasserted and the virgin-as-male dropped, but so was the relative subservience of the virgin to Church (now meaning male) authority. The use of such symbols do change and today the common symbol of betrothal, espousal, or marriage is the wedding ring or band.

 

best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

Edited January 20, 2013 by SRLAUREL

[BarbTherese]

Both privately and publicly committed persons give their lives for their Brothers and Sisters. Both commitments may be gifts of the Holy Spirit. The difference seems to me to lie in the degree of necessary expectations, ways of exercising accountability, and formal relationships which help ensure the integrity and fruitfulness of the commitment which necessarily obtain.

 

I agree, Sister.  It does need to be stated also, I think, that though "the expectations, ways of exercising accountability, and formal relationships" ideally "should help to ensure the integrity and fruitfulness of the commitment" (in canonically vowed ways of living) is an objective assessment and not necessarily the subjective response to Graces granted leading to that integrity and fruitfulness of commitment.  One can only HOPE that the factors you meantion will lead to that response to Grace so necessary and indespensible.   However, the necessary and indispensable response to Grace can take place without those factors and outside of the canonically vowed state, or consecrated life.

 

I am very publically committed, the moment I state that I am a practising baptized Catholic and the general public does have expectations of me and all and these expectations met or denied have the potential to either build up or detract from The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ.  There is no expectation publically on me re poverty, chastity and obedience, since my vows are private.  But The Lord has His expectations 24 x 7 x 365.  Personally I fear The Lord and His Glory - and His Divine Rights far more than those of man.  Luke 12 " [4] And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. [5] But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him."

 

Holiness of life can be attained and ideally should be obtained in the canonically vowed state, it can equally also be obtained in the privately vowed state or in any other state of life whatsoever.  The Good Lord grants all the necessary Graces to grow into holiness to all.  There is not an exclusive claim to holiness in the canonically vowed state, nor any other state in life, and this needs to be stressed to my mind.  Each of the states in life builds up The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ, each in their own particular manner.

 

Overriding all things is God's Will for a person and the particular path along which He may call a person to holiness with all Graces necessary - and no matter the state of life involved.  And no matter how highfalutin and splendid theological objective considerations may be.  Please do forgive my expressions.  I strive to speak for the person in the pew as one of them for sure.

 

It does sadden me that often discussions on the various states in life do seem to set up barriers between the states, even some sort of a class/heirarchy of importance system, rather than striving for unity and fraternal community and how all vocations complement each other, speak to each other, and fulfill God's Will for each person building up His Church.  There is an individualism and/or group individualism often afoot it seems to me rather than an investment in The Church as The Mystical Body of Christ on earth in which every single member, every grouping, is irreplaceable.  It seems to me many including in the consecrated state are struggling to find their personal identity as in the theological scheme of things.

 

Most of the discussion in this thread goes over my head since I do not have the necessary theological skills nor knowledge of Church history and the various ins and outs of often quite complex matters to me.  I even tremble at times contributing to some threads.  This is sad.  It does illustrate however, just how often the person in the pew as it were is left behind and it is my experience that at some point, such persons cease trying to learn and are content with 'bare minimum Catholicism' and live in two completely separate worlds and never the twain shall meet, if I can term it all that.  They have their Catholicism in one world, and their secular lives in another - and neither world has anything to say to the other.  It has all becomes "too hard to understand" for some to live in any other way sadly.  It is important and vital that The Church and the various canonical consecrated states, our clergy, educated laity, can speak to the educated on their level - but must also strive so that the ordinary Catholic can also understand and find their rightful place of immense, unique and irreplaceable value in the life of The Church and for The Kingdom and no matter their particular state in life - and this does include those who bear illnesses that may exclude them from almost all the various states in life.  How often I have read on Catholic discussion sites how such people do suffer struggling to find who they are where they (i.e. suffering illness) - and where they are too in the Life of The Church in their own right apart from the objects of the charity of very generous and loving others.  "I will take your hearts of stone and grant you hearts of flesh".

 

My tuppence...........and I am aware :offtopic: ahh well, fait accompli.

[BarbTherese]

Sr Laurel:  Because of the public nature of the vows/commitment the person acquires a new identity in the Church and belongs to everyone in specific ways. It is absolutely true we are not talking about notoriety or visibility; I agree completely with you on that. I believe you are speaking of precisely this dimension when you say the person's life is no longer their own

 

 

The moment I was baptized, my life instrinsically was no longer my own to dispose of as I wished.  I am called by God to live in a particular manner.  Baptism is a very public consecration.  Just as in the consecrated state, the person's life is no longer their own called to live in a particular manner and in a public consecration, building on their baptism, to that particular way of life.  They are not called out of their baptism, but to live it out in a radical, evident or overt and quite public manner.  The baptized lay person is also called to a certain way of living in an evident, overt and quite public manner and at times (rather than in a stable state of radical-mess) this living out will ask a certain radical-ness. 

 

When God calls a person to a consecrated state or to the priesthood, they assume a quite public way of life in the instrinsic life of The Church and the theological understandings of that way of living differ from those in the lay state.  Hence, they are no longer in the lay state with its own theological understandings, but in another state in life with different theological understandings to those of the laity.  All states are to be lived in a public manner with their own particular theological explanations - and never "hid under a bushel".

 

  All states in life, all roles in The Church, no matter the theological understandings exist to build up The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ - and The Lord grants all the necessary Grace to assume that public role to holiness of life and therefore hollness in the particular way of life because of it and not despite it.

 

Why is one person called to the laity and another to a consecrated state or to the priesthood?  This forever remains within the Mystery of God and the very fact that it might be problematic to me in some way, either because I am or am not called elsewhere to where I am in fact, would make me personally question my prime personal spiritual inverstment as possibly being a little too much in "me".

 

I wonder if the awareness that some lay people do not take their baptism seriously, lays somewhere in all these posts and threads and that the different states of life in The Church can seem to 'compete' with a scale of importance being a focus with the laity are right down the bottom in the scheme of things and hence dismissive of their vocation.  I have even read threads on some sites where baptised Catholics feel that they have no vocation at all.  This non understanding can be laid at the feet of the laity as their fault - but I do wonder.  Is their fault too in discussions on vocations and in terminology used.  Is there a lack also in the education of laity and without an understanding of the demands of modern life, especially if one is married with children.  The great limitation on both finances and time.

I am in a position of living alone with adult indpendant children, retired on an age pension in the main, with plenty of time to read and to think, and to pray.

Edited January 20, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[Sister_Laurel]

The moment I was baptized, my life instrinsically was no longer my own to dispose of as I wished.  I am called by God to live in a particular manner.  Baptism is a very public consecration.  Just as in the consecrated state, the person's life is no longer their own called to live in a particular manner and in a public consecration, building on their baptism, to that particular way of life.  They are not called out of their baptism, but to live it out in a radical, evident or overt and quite public manner.  The baptized lay person is also called to a certain way of living in an evident, overt and quite public manner and at times (rather than in a stable state of radical-mess) this living out will ask a certain radical-ness. 

 

When God calls a person to a consecrated state or to the priesthood, they assume a quite public way of life in the instrinsic life of The Church and the theological understandings of that way of living differ from those in the lay state.  Hence, they are no longer in the lay state with its own theological understandings, but in another state in life with different theological understandings to those of the laity.  All states are to be lived in a public manner with their own particular theological explanations - and never "hid under a bushel".

 

  All states in life, all roles in The Church, no matter the theological understandings exist to build up The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ - and The Lord grants all the necessary Grace to assume that public role to holiness of life and therefore hollness in the particular way of life because of it and not despite it.

 

Why is one person called to the laity and another to a consecrated state or to the priesthood?  This forever remains within the Mystery of God and the very fact that it might be problematic to me in some way, either because I am or am not called elsewhere to where I am in fact, would make me personally question my prime personal spiritual inverstment as possibly being a little too much in "me".

 

I wonder if the awareness that some lay people do not take their baptism seriously, lays somewhere in all these posts and threads and that the different states of life in The Church can seem to 'compete' with a scale of importance being a focus with the laity are right down the bottom in the scheme of things and hence dismissive of their vocation.  I have even read threads on some sites where baptised Catholics feel that they have no vocation at all.  This non understanding can be laid at the feet of the laity as their fault - but I do wonder.  Is their fault too in discussions on vocations and in terminology used.  Is there a lack also in the education of laity and without an understanding of the demands of modern life, especially if one is married with children.  The great limitation on both finances and time.

I am in a position of living alone with adult indpendant children, retired on an age pension in the main, with plenty of time to read and to think, and to pray.

 

 Exactly right, and not really off-topic I don't think. Baptism represents a public commitment and consecration. I would suggest that the failure to take Baptism seriously as an exhaustive call to holiness is not due only to the laity's failure, but has been the fault of the Church (hierarchy, theologians, etc) which really nutured the laity's tendencies here. The tendency to hierarchilize everything has not served the Church well. Most of the time it is an entirely too-worldly (non Jesuan) way of thinking or proceeding. We have tended to reflect on and esteem the gifts of certain vocations at the expense of others. In the main this has happened because of a Greek way of thinking about reality which has permeated Catholic thought and which actually stands in direct conflict with Jesus' (and more Semitic) paradoxical way of seeing reality.

 

In this thread there is a sometimes tacit and sometimes more blatant tendency to disparage vocations to secularity --- as though those conflict with consecrated standing. They don't. One of the second Vatican Council's greatest contributions was it's clear teaching on the universal call to holiness. We need to take that with absolute seriousness, just as we take the saeculum as the primary place people are called to work towards the Kingdom.

 

best,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[God's Beloved]

 

Here is a post from my own blog , written more than a year ago.

http://ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.in/p/why-did-holy-spirit-revive-ancient.html

 

Contents pasted below :

 

Why did the Holy Spirit revive the ancient Order of Virgins for today’s world ?

 

This is the question I’ve been reflecting about recently. We hear arguments like , “ there’s no need for a vocation which began in antiquity!”  But that would mean we don’t need the  vocation to be a Christian since Christianity itself  began 2000 years ago.

 

Some people object to any  consecrated virgin who says she is a Bride of Christ. They say , “ so  is the entire Church , every Christian and also Religious women . So what makes her more special …. Its just romanticism” etc. etc.

 

These remarks are worth a million. We can give it a serious thought. Afterall, Why did the Holy Spirit decide to revive  the ancient Order of  Virgins after Vatican II for women  continuing to live in the world   ?

 

Already mentioned in an earlier post here  as far as I understand, the Second Vatican Council tried to remind the Church that Jesus Christ loves the world and so should we. It tried to reduce the gap between clergy and laity // religious and laity - and to somewhat flatten the hierarchical mountain , to bring the priesthood at the center rather than the top.The vision/mission of the  ordained priesthood according to Vatican II was at the service of animating the common priesthood of the laity [all the non-ordained people of God ]--so that together the entire church could be at the service of the world. The purpose of the desire to flatten the pyramid was mainly for greater unity and harmony within the Church.

 

 Why does the Church  celebrate the Eucharist? ………Jesus said , “ Do this in memory of Me !”. Since then at every Mass , we have remembered our Lord Jesus Christ and  He has become really present among us ,we have received Him in us.  This special way of remembering  or ‘Anamnesis’ in liturgical language – makes present today what is remembered from the past.

 

The consecrated virgin should manifest the identity and mission of the Church as virgin, bride and mother . She becomes a sign , an eschatological image of the Church’s love for Christ [the Church of the past, present and future] .  Perhaps this vocation  should help all Christians to ‘remember’ who we are in the eyes of Christ and make  the  entire Church [ communion of saints throughout history ] really present as a sacrament of salvation  in today’s world.

 

Also as reflected in my other post here  the Rite of consecration to a life of virginity  is in fact a marriage covenant  between Christ and the virgin . Maybe the Holy Spirit could foresee  Christians forgetting this relationship of the Church with Christ . In fact  in several countries people have forgotten the meaning  and value of marriage  itself which seems outdated and unnecessary.  So maybe the Holy Spirit decided to revive this Rite of consecration of virgins   to be at the service of animating the relationship of union  which every baptized Christian has with Christ .

 

Through  the sacrament of  ordination – a previously lay person or deacon  is set apart from the ranks of the common priesthood of the laity and consecrated  to serve the Church though the ministerial priesthood.

 

In a similar manner through the Rite of consecration to a life of virginity , a  woman is set apart from being a lay member of the Body /Bride of Christ to identify with and become an Image of the Entire Church .There is a paradigm shift.

 

The  Church-Bride of Christ was born when Jesus emptied Himself [kenosis] on the Cross as His heart was pierced . Through  a new anointing of the Holy Spirit during the consecration and mystical espousal with Christ – the virgin  is called to deny self , to lose or renounce her Individual identity as a member of the Body of Christ [Mt 16:24]  , to  die in union  with Jesus on the Cross and thus assume the  Collective identity of the entire community of the Diocese , later expanding  her consciousness even further to the Universal Church. It is NOT a call to an Individualistic or Solitary life .

 

 In today’s world it can be very painful for a consecrated virgin  to see her calling misunderstood , to feel one does not belong to any category when we hear exclusive prayers for clergy, religious and laity . Maybe during such moments we should realize that in losing our Individual Identity and being identified with the Church herself , we do not belong 'to' the Church but being identified 'with' the Church, we belong to Jesus Christ Himself . He is our Spouse and our Everything. From being daughters of the Church we have to be identified with Mother Church  called to the mission of Evangelisation and New Evangelisation that will bring salvation and the Reign of God on earth.

 

 From the sphere of the Diocese with its traditions, its Saints, its values, its limits and its problems you broaden your horizons to the universal Church, sharing above all in her liturgical prayer, which is also entrusted to you so that "the praise of our heavenly Father be always on your lips; pray without easing ",(RCV, n. 28). In this way your prayerful "I" will gradually be enlarged, until there is no longer anything except a great "we" in the prayer. This is ecclesial prayer and the true liturgy. May you open yourselves in your dialogue with God to a dialogue with all creatures, for whom you will find you are mothers, mothers of the children of God (cf. RCV, n. 28). --- from the address of Benedict XVI to the participants in the International congress-pilgrimage of the Ordo Virginum [The Order of Virgins] on 15^th May 2008

 

 

 

 

Consecrated virginity  is not superior to other vocations. But it should inspire a  good jealousy among all baptized  Christians . The youth should be inspired to jealously guard themselves from the sins against chastity, remembering they belong to the Body of Christ.  Couples in love should be inspired to get married instead of  a ‘live-in’ relationship. People should be inspired to have courage to make commitments in life. Every Christian should be reminded  that the Church exists to evangelize , to serve the world to bring about the Reign of God.

 

So the next  time you meet a consecrated virgin who seems to proudly say she is the Bride of Christ , you should remember the value of your baptismal calling , of marriage , of the primacy of God in your life.

 

 

 

Truly, the Holy Spirit’s plan to revive the order of consecrated virgins- will reach fulfillment when this vocation inspires every baptized  Christian in any state of life - to introspect and have a New Evangelisation , to fully live a life in union with the Trinity and remember that the Church exists to Evangelise, to be a sacrament of salvation in this world that Jesus loves and wants us to serve like Him. When that happens , the entire Church will experience the much-awaited Rapture or Parousia.

 

The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!" Whoever hears let him say, "Come!" Whoever thirsts let him approach, and whoever desires, let him freely take the water of life [Revelations 22: 17 ]

 

 

 

Of course during the last one year my ideas have been further refined ..............so the above post is not perfect !