Cvs, Religious Orders, And Virginity

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm sorry for making yet another thread about this topic... but it's about something specific so I wasn't sure if it would fit in the other threads.

 

I'm kind of very lost about this. I'd appreciate any ideas or prayers for me to figure this out.

 

I understand that in order to be a Consecrated Virgin (CV), a woman would need to be a virgin. I was told that in order to be a nun, it's not necessary to be a virgin, and there have been nuns who were widows.

 

It makes sense for why a CV needs to be a virgin because of what the vocation is. Since she shares the title of the bride of Christ with the Church, and offers herself totally for this, it would make sense that she would offer her virginity.

 

But in various religious orders, there is spousal language in the Rite.. for example, when Sr Josefa Menendez became a nun, she was asked "do you take Jesus Christ as your Spouse?".

 

So that's where I'm getting confused. I don't want to just repeat other threads on the nuns being brides of Christ question. But let's say a woman is not a virgin. So she can't be a CV. Let's say she enters a religious order and is asked something like this, or is referred to as Christ's Spouse or Bride - how would she understand this??? if she's not a CV, and IF she's not a virgin?

 

I understand about CVs. I'm just asking about nuns - how would such a person understand this imagery in the Rite of religious profession? Because I tried to put myself in that place and got very confused..  I imagined myself in this position and got very confused thoughts like: "CVs are brides of Christ. They need to be virgins for this. I'm not a virgin. But I'm being asked if I would be Christ's bride". ??? I'm getting terribly confused about this. What is missing in my understanding? I know there's the whole thing about CVs being brides of Christ through a change that happens to them in the Rite, etc, - but the nuns also have this imagery, so if someone is a nun, HOW is she to take this imagery, especially if she's not a virgin? I understand about CVs I think... but with nuns, many Saints who were nuns still called themselves brides of Christ, or were even called this, - so WHY could nuns enter the convent without being virgins necessarily?

Edited August 19, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[maximillion]

I can't answer from a theological point of view, but if a woman is not a virgin then she can't be a CV - as far as I understand it.

However, she can become a nun or a sister, and so long as any sin involved was repented of and forgiven, or so long as a marriage is annulled or the woman is a widow, then she can still think of herself in a spousal way.

 

Since the whole Church is the Bride of Christ, then any chaste person can think of themselves in these terms....more so if you are also celibate for love of God.

 

In my own community there were women who were not virgins but we all used spousal language and imagery and applied this to ourselves, and all received a ring at Profession with 'Jesus is my Spouse' written on it. I doubt if those who were not virgins thought of themselves as that different to those who were, but since we didn't have CV then none of us knew anyway (who was and who was not), it was between God and each Sister.

 

There are realms of other levels of understanding and connection other than the simple physical for the Spousal love of God and His Bride (the Church), so though one may not physically meet the criteria of virginity, one can still enter into a deep communion through Spousal love of God.

After all, a true bride is not a virgin either......

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

I know there's been a couple of threads on this, so here's my short answer:

 

I do believe that nuns and Sisters who aren't CVs can still be called to a truly spousal relationship of Christ. And, I also think that in many cases, it would be appropriate for them to refer to themselves brides of Christ (unless you want to make some canonical or very technical theological distinctions--which is unlikely to be helpful or necessary in probably at least 90% of all the human interactions you'll have). 

 

Even though consecrated virgins must be literal virgins, I think it's possible that Christ could still call a repentant non-virgin to relate to Him as her spouse. 

 

In fact, one thing you might take a look at is the Church's liturgy for the feast of St. Mary Magdalene, who is traditionally considered to be a penitent saint in the Latin Church. One of options for the first reading at Mass is from the Song of Songs, and her proper Office in the Liturgy of the Hours has a few antiphons which sound similar to ones used for virgin-martyr saints. Even though I am certainly NOT suggesting that Mary Magdalene was a spouse of Christ in a "Da Vinci Code" kind of way, I think it is significant that the Roman Rite liturgy for her feast has almost "bridal" overtones. 

 

I hope this helps. Peace and prayers!

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thank you for the replies! Yes I'm just wondering how someone would relate to Christ in a spousal way if they're drawn to this, - if they're not a CV but a nun, and for example if the woman is not a virgin. Like if the woman has a past involving unchastity that has been repented of, or if she's a widow in which case of course there's no sin but she's not a virgin, that's what I mean.

 

I'm not saying for sure what I'm called to yet but understanding this could help my discernment.

Edited August 19, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[abrideofChrist]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

Religious life requires a vow of chastity (or at least obedience with implicit chastity) not a vow of virginity.  This is why both men and women can become religious.  It is true that men do not have the same body as women but they do take the same vows as women do in religious institutes.  It is important for you to realize that the vocation of the CV is strictly spousal and is seen by the Church as a genuine spousal vocation, the counterpart to human marriage.  The vocation of the religious is strictly a matter of vows to live a life in common with the evangelical counsels informing that life in a manner that is spelled out by the constitutions. 

 

When I gave people the example of the different types of marital bonds (see my thread), only God's Beloved appears to have grasped some of its significance in relation to this problem of understanding CV vs. religious life.  Yet, had I had the same question as you did, I would have asked myself why on earth would ABC have written what she did about marriage bonds.  Why did she emphasize the different kinds?  What relevance did it have to the vocation of consecrated virgins?  I would have read up further on marriage so as to understand her point better.

 

A decade ago, I had a wonderful friend who asked me to teach something to people.  I told him that I could not teach what I did not understand.  I made it my mission to have a better grasp on that subject.  I poured over books day and night when I had free time from my duties.  I read hundreds of books.  Many times the books contained only one paragraph or sentence or footnote that was useful.  I was determined to come to understand the subject I had feelings about but no real knowledge.  I took the plunge and discussed the topic with all kinds of people.  They forced me to revise my theories over and over again.  After several years of hard work and hundreds of books and the great arguments I had with people on the subject, I finally felt I was an expert on the matter.  I had finally reached the point where I had a cohesive theory that withstood every test you could give it.  It had internal unity, answered all the differing points, and was a good theory.  I was finally at a point where I could go back and explain it very simply to people because I had put the pieces of the puzzle together for myself (and I am a very strict critic) with confidence because all the major flaws had been worked out.  Yes, this led me to heartache because I had to give up some of my cherished myths and beliefs, to sacrifice them on the altar of truth.  But ultimately, it was a gratifying experience because I "owned" what I was preaching.  Having done the hard work, I "knew" what I was talking about.  It wasn't a matter of mere words for me, I understood the material.  I wrote a fairly short monograph on the subject and occasionally pass it around to my friends. What makes me laugh is that they have no idea as to how many years I labored to get to the point where I could write that paper.  They have no idea how careful I had to be with every. single. word. and how distilled and condensed everything was.

 

In my thread on the Bride of Christ, I gave you and others MANY clues as to how to understand the title and reality of being a bride of Christ.  Every single time I did, I had the funny feeling that what I was writing was not being understood because many people didn't care enough to make sure they understood what I was saying.  Again, what I wrote about the different types of marriages is extremely important.  So is the idea of gay marriage vs. polygamous marriage vs. true marriage vs. single life.  When a person cannot articulate or pinpoint the realities behind the words, especially when they pertain to marriage and spousal love, then it is really hard to understand the supernatural vocation of the CV or the supernatural vocation of religious. 

 

If I had not been ABC writing, I would have researched every quote, every thing that was said by ABC, every analogy and pondered things.  I would have come up with hard hitting questions and done serious research for answers.  Why?  Because I am passionate about the truth and I believe we have been given the tools to uncover a lot of it by the gift of reason God gave us.  And, as a matter of fact, I have continued to be as passionate with this topic. 

 

Every time someone posted something, I took care to read it very carefully, word by word.  I analyzed things word by word and thought about the different significations of the words and the presumed intent of the posters.  I read the different documents people linked to (even that 400 page one God's Beloved had referenced) to make sure I was not leaving any stones unturned in my quest for the truth.  I weighed things in light of known Church teaching, in light of philosophical and theological principles, in light of logic, in light of many different variables.  You could say I was playing Devil's advocate and Devil's advocate to the Devil's advocate as we progressed in the thread when any claims were raised.  I formulated questions that would challenge my theory at each step.  Why?  Because I have nothing to lose.  I found that out the first time I sought the truth on a subject.  It was painful, but the exhilaration and joy of discovery was immense. 

 

You are lucky because you have google as your friend.  I found some very good Church documents and writings of the saints researching online while responding on my thread.  This is a subject I don't think you or most of the others will really understand or "own" until you do some critical thinking and research for yourself.  If anyone- even the Pope- said something, I'm not sure you'd really understand what he was saying.  The Rite says very plainly that CVs are Brides of Christ and the Church gives this title to them.  The saints do talk about the difference between chastity and virginity, and the Fathers of the Church wrote books on the subject.  But sometimes it takes a bit of elbow grease to start connecting the dots and understanding the realities that are hidden beneath words.  Your question is the precise question we are answering in my thread.  What exactly does it mean to be a bride of Christ and how is this to be understood of nuns?  Of CVs?  What makes CVs different and similar to nuns? 

[Laurie]

MLF, a few quick thoughts (and, I'm sorry, I wish I had more time to devout to your recent questions!). But I'll give you what I can.

 

Elsewhere, we've established the various ways in which a person shares in a spousal identity in relation to Christ (baptism and what theologians such as Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross call mystical marriage being two ways). Neither of these 2 ways require the person to be a virgin. And yet, the spousal relation with Christ is real.

 

We've also noted elsewhere  that religious women, through their consecrated life, share deeply in a spousal relation with Christ, too. We also know that religious sisters are not required to be virgins.

 

So, there are a lot of people (the whole Church, in fact, excepting consecrated virgins!) that are spouses of Christ in these varying ways that do not require virginity.

 

Then there's the question of a consecrated virgin. As we've hashed out in numerous posts in the other thread, the consecrated virgin has a very specific vocation to image the Church as Virgin, Bride, Mother. It logically follows that the vocation that has this unique imaging would have a unique requirement, that of virginity.

 

The CV vocation as a vocation images the integrity of the Church's spousal union with Christ. Virginity is a prerequisite for this (both physical and spiritual virginity). Married persons image the fecundity of the Church's spousal union with Christ. (That's why openness to life is a prerequisite of marriage!)

 

There's nothing contradictory about a non-virgin who is a religious sister legitimately sharing in a deep degree to a spousal union with Christ. We all share in it, in varying ways!

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

AbrideofChrist,

 

I see what you are saying. I am trying to understand more about the topic.. I'll try to read about it more. However, one thing I'm trying to understand now is the spousal language in the Rite of religious profession and what that means, for nuns. I don't mean CVs right now, because I realize what CVs are and what their vocation is. I'm asking if someone is not eligible to be a CV, but still is drawn to spousal type of relationship with Our Lord, and if they enter a convent and the Rite has spousal language, how would THEY understand it. Do you have any thoughts on that? I'm asking if a person is not eligible to be a CV so they can't discern between religious life and CV, but are still drawn to a spousal type of relationship. What would the Rite of profession be for them, if it mentions this type of language, and because the Saints who were religious etc also used that language and were referred to as brides. How is this type of being a bride, not dependent on being a virgin? and is it true that it isnt'? can non-virgins be brides of Christ in some other way? (I don't mean the mystical way, because that seems to be for people of any vocation). Do you have any thoughts on that?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Laurie, thanks for the reply. I'm trying to understand how the relationship between Jesus and a nun has a spousal component compared to a baptized person in general. Because I see in the lives of the Saints etc, after their profession, they were referred to as brides, even by Christ. I know CVs are brides of Christ, and they have to be virgins. If nuns can have this spirituality, why is virginity not necessary? if a nun is not a virgin, what is the case for her?

[Laurie]

Laurie, thanks for the reply. I'm trying to understand how the relationship between Jesus and a nun has a spousal component compared to a baptized person in general. Because I see in the lives of the Saints etc, after their profession, they were referred to as brides, even by Christ. I know CVs are brides of Christ, and they have to be virgins. If nuns can have this spirituality, why is virginity not necessary? if a nun is not a virgin, what is the case for her?

 

I understand why you are trying to unpack the exact nature of how a religious sister and a non-CV nun participate more than a lay person in a spousal identity. (This is what I'm trying to uncover with Aquinas and analogy.)

 

Still, though, I don't understand the rest of your question, so I guess I'm not going to be much help. From my perspective, we've really delved into these questions in the other thread. I don't have much more to say about why a CV does need to be a virgin and why a religious sister doesn't.

 

There is the separate question of exactly how a sister participates more in a spousal identity than a lay person. But I don't have anything more to add about why a CV is fully the bride of Christ (and this requires virginity) whereas a religious sister isn't. So I'm not uncomfortable with the fact that a sister really truly participates in a spousal identity and can have a deep spousal devotion and yet not be a virgin. Because her vocation is not, esssentially, to be virgin, bride, and mother, there's no contradiction.

 

Again, the exact difference between a lay person's participation and a religious sister's participation in spousal identity does interest me. But I don't have anything more to add on the virgin/non-virgin requirements. Good luck!
 

[BarbTherese]

_{The Church is THE Bride of Christ hence we all share in this spousal relationship (I've learnt this from reading these threads - the sharing I mean).  We share in this spousal relationship in differing ways and the CV is a very deep sharing.  We are all "a bride of Christ" but The Church is the One THE Bride of Christ.  Religious and nuns share in this spousal relationship also and can rightly, to my mind, call themselves spouses of Christ - but then so can I as a baptised person, while I have no right to the title, which is for The Church to determine.  I have no right to any title whatsoever - and this rather quite suits me quite joyfully.  It does put me on the very same level with the least in this world and in The Church  which is where such as I belong.}

 

_{Frankly, personally, I am quite happy that I am not a CV - the vocation would truly humble me right down into the mud........beyond the dust.}

[BarbTherese]

_{It does put me on the very same level with the least in this world and in The Church  which is where such as I belong.}

 

 This is an aside I guess.  Being on the same level as the least of this world (where Bipolar does place me) has been a distinct blessing and advantage as the main focus of the Bethany way of life is focused care and concern for those who are the least and suffering in some way in this world and no matter their genre of suffering.  Once I share that I suffer Bipolar Disorder, I am not at all viewed as in any way superior.  I am on the same level as all - suffering a particularly distasteful to society mental illness.  I am not viewed as being in a helping role, rather in a sharing role drawing from a well of experience.I have no title nor elevated role in The Church and am just a very ordinary face-in-the-pew type Catholic.  And this is just where I desire to be and how I choose to be viewed or considered and it speaks to the way of life that Bethany is in fact.

 

To my way of thought, objective levels theologically are for theologians and let them hash it all out as it is important to them and once The Church declares some flow of theological thought correct, then I embrace it in a detached manner - yet a warm and all embracing manner. (Catholic spirituality is full of dichotomy).  But objective theological levels for me have nothing to say to my own vocation which is simply that vocation to which I am called and confirmed by the abundance of The Lord's Graces supporting me through so many years of a very colourful journey.  If The Church states that I am on the lowest of levels theologically, then that is quite simply where I am.  "In those days, the last shall be first and the first last".  I have no idea really what that means, but I do know that being the last has never made me feel last.  I feel right up with the best of them on the theological objective level, though theologically objectively I am not.  What I feel and what actually is do not of necessity concur rather often in life.

 

 But the theological objective level is not the only level in our monarchy - The Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

Which is superior, the objective theological level or the subjective level of holiness.  I suspect it might be the latter, with no real investment intellectually in either as levels one above or below the other.  I simply have no investment in levels as levels. While I do aspire to holiness in my particular call in life and as the quite unique person that I am created to be.

Edited August 19, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

_{While I have no desire to be a CV - nor had ever heard of it until rather recent years post V2, I have a certain "holy envy" of those who are called and can rejoice in their vocation as much as I rejoice in my own.  ......pause here........ a short reflection here tells me that in reality it is not holy envy at all.  It is just a rejoicing that some are called to the vocation of Consecrated Virgins, others to religious or monastic life.  Others to baptism or to private vows evangelical counsels or not.  My rejoicing is that God's Will is done on earth as it is in Heaven wherever it may occur.}

[MarysLittleFlower]

Barbara, thanks for the reply :) I think that's great that you want to identify with the least of those on earth - I think that's a very blessed thing to want. I also think it's great that you are able to rejoice with those who are called to any vocation provided God's will would be done! That is something I pray for myself to be able to do :)  I will keep praying about God's will for me..

 

God bless you!

[MarysLittleFlower]

I did some more research, and apparently - virginity is lost through voluntarily and completely experiencing sexual pleasure.

[abrideofChrist]

I did some more research, and apparently - virginity is lost through voluntarily and completely experiencing sexual pleasure.

 

Which includes anything to do with touch.