Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[Maggyie]

I urge any woman reading this thread who is discerning this vocation not to take any of these posts to heart (including mine). Remember that this is the internet and anyone can say anything they like, no matter how bizarre it is. There's a lot of strange stuff on the world wide web. Also remember that no one is actually qualified to define consecrated virginity except the successors of the apostles, and so to your bishop you should apply any questions.

[Lilllabettt]

yeah. good advice.

[oremus1]

I urge any woman reading this thread who is discerning this vocation not to take any of these posts to heart (including mine). Remember that this is the internet and anyone can say anything they like, no matter how bizarre it is. There's a lot of strange stuff on the world wide web. Also remember that no one is actually qualified to define consecrated virginity except the successors of the apostles, and so to your bishop you should apply any questions.

can you explain what parts you are referring to? ABC is some sort of canon lawyer or something, so is Sponsa, and they advise the formation of CVs in the USA. seems rather authoritative to me, and their views are often supported by cited documents.

[Maggyie]

can you explain what parts you are referring to? ABC is some sort of canon lawyer or something, so is Sponsa, and they advise the formation of CVs in the USA. seems rather authoritative to me, and their views are often supported by cited documents.

I'm referring to things like believing you can lose your virginity by watching a romantic comedy for instance. Just like you I have very strong doubts that ABC's understanding of her vocation in this regard fully matches the Church's. And by the Church, I mean the sense of the faithful as well as the teaching of the successor of St Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

[abrideofChrist]

Maggie, Maggie.  I never said that watching a romantic comedy necessarily constitutes an impediment to the consecration.  You are putting your own words in my mouth.  I made a lot of distinctions in what I wrote, and it doesn't appear that you have grasped them.  All spiritual authors worth their salt are agreed that you lose spiritual virginity/chastity when you sin against chastity.   You permanently lose the material element of virginity when you experience venereal pleasure (arousal) deliberately and sinfully have consented to it (like french kissing for the unmarried or virtuously indulged in venereal pleasure in married foreplay and the act itself).  If you have simply lost formal virginity but not material virginity (a passing bad thought that has not had venereal pleasure in touch, etc.) you can regain spiritual virginity.  If you have lost material virginity, it is lost forever.  You can never consider yourself a virgin again formally.  But you can regain spiritual/formal virginity.  

 

Let's go over what I said previously, shall we?  I said venereal pleasure.  There were definitions for that that I provided.  A romantic comedy comes in many forms with different ratings.  Simply watching a couple French kissing is normally not a situation in which a woman viewer is going to sin mortally (or do we have to go step by step in explaining why like the article does?).  Watching figures in their birthday suits or hot and passionately acting in ways that should not have been filmed is much closer to grave sinful material and the possibility of one viewing something one is not permitted to because there isn't a corresponding grave reason.  If simply bad thoughts are the result of a film, one can lose formal/spiritual virginity but not always material virginity.  I was questioning whether a person who has materially lost their virginity by french kissing, intercourse, masturbation, and other actions involving venereal pleasure would or should feel comfortable in receiving the consecration which is designed for people who have materially preserved their virginity.  That is one issue.

 

The other issue is that the consecration isn't just about material virginity that should be present in the female receiving the consecration.  It is also about the public reputation of chastity.  All sins against virginity are sins against chastity.  Chastity may be recovered (spiritual virginity), but material virginity can never be recovered.  Religious are bound only to be chaste not to be material virgins.  Virgins are required to have no public reputation of "flagrant or open violation of chastity" to receive the consecration.  This means that going to the strip clubs for a succession of bachlorette parties, and many kinds of actions that are unchaste in public should make a bishop decide to refrain from consecrating the woman presenting herself as a candidate.  Watching a video with some friends that has two seconds of a bad scene which was not the main intent of the video is not disqualifying because one can assume good intentions and a chaste reaction.  This is different from deliberately going to a strip club where there is no possible virtue involved. This requirement for public chasteness is more broad than simply being intact. 

 

Maggie, being chaste is hard.  I get it.  But this does not excuse anyone who is unmarried from refraining from French kissing or other seriously sinful actions.  When we speak about virgins, the Church is presenting to us women who are like Our Lady who have preserved both their material virginity (absence of venereal pleasure).  Because the Church does not pry into womens' consciences, some women who are not virgins will slip in and be consecrated.  This is not ideal, because the Church is virginal and such women cannot image her as intended.  This is like the situation where men who are communists or freemasons will slip in and get ordained priests.  The Church can only judge from the externals and try to make a prudent decision that in all probability this man is suitable for ordination or this woman is likely a virgin because she has not lived in a flagrant or open violation against chastity.  In the end, God knows and judges.  Women who have sneaked in will find themselves separated in Heaven from the true virgins.  That is why I cautioned any woman who has masturbated or french kissed to seriously reconsider trying for the consecration.  She may spiritually have recovered virginity but the material element is no longer present and it is the material element that determines whether you are considered a virgin.

Edited February 25, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

can you explain what parts you are referring to? ABC is some sort of canon lawyer or something, so is Sponsa, and they advise the formation of CVs in the USA. seems rather authoritative to me, and their views are often supported by cited documents.

 

I have not claimed to be a canon lawyer.  That is a specialized degree.  Sponsa is not a canon lawyer.  She is still a student.  [mod]edited out for personal information, though it wasn't specific it was requested that this be left out.  it should suffice to say she is still a student in the early phases of her studies on this subject and is therefore not an authority in and of herself on this subject -Aloysius[/mod].  This is why people with degrees like Laurie have objected to many things she has said because her education is not complete, and she has made several claims that are not sound.

 

Edited February 25, 2014 by Aloysius

[beatitude]

I have not claimed to be a canon lawyer.  That is a specialized degree.  Sponsa is not a canon lawyer.  She is still a student. [mod]potentially personally identifying remark that was requested to be removed -Aloysius[/mod].  This is why people with degrees like Laurie have objected to many things she has said because her education is not complete, and she has made several claims that are not sound.

 

CVs are taking their disagreement with SponsaChristi to such a level that they're prepared to go and look up her university schedule in order to see what classes she is taking?? And you all have so much time on your hands that you 'inform each other' what she's doing?

 

I am not going to look up her schedule, I'm not that nosy, and the things I find on there would have no bearing on the discussion - for all I know she could have been having personal talks with her professors about consecrated life in canon law all year long, without it even having to be formally timetabled. I don't know who is right, and after following multiple CV threads on Phatmass and trying to understand, I've lost interest in knowing. (I would probably be told that I can't know anyway unless I go and look it up in the original Latin/Syro-Phoenician.) So much of what is written here has an incredibly legalistic and nitpicky feel to it.

 

Religious communities, secular institutes, and the priesthood all have fairly basic criteria for entering - good health, some life experience, no debts, within a certain age range. Simple enough. Consecrated virginity seems to be the only vocation where there is this huge and often acrimonious debate over who qualifies and who doesn't, whose consecration was valid and whose wasn't, whose philosophical terminology is correct and whose isn't. Looking at all the CV threads on Phatmass, this leaves me no better informed over who consecrated virgins actually are and what they are contributing to the Church - I get the sense that it's like some exclusive club with squabbling gatekeepers who don't even like each other very much. I hope the real-life picture doesn't match the one I'm getting online.

[abrideofChrist]

CVs are taking their disagreement with SponsaChristi to such a level that they're prepared to go and look up her university schedule in order to see what classes she is taking?? And you all have so much time on your hands that you 'inform each other' what she's doing?

 

 

 

Yes,CVs with doctorates have looked up her credentials because they wondered where her novel ideas came from.  When you realize that she has never formally taken a class in her canon law programme until this year about consecrated life, and that this may be the only formal class she has on what consecrated life is, then you begin to understand why many of us have serious concerns about her mistaken views on consecrated life that she has spread through her writings online.  These concerns are compounded by the fact that canon lawyers should be well formed in theology and philosophy.  She has demonstrated a poor formation in these areas because she appears to be unable to grasp the concept of "moral obligation" or "separation from the world" or like notions.  It is not right for her to stand up and proclaim that CVs have a moral obligation to do A, B, and C (like remain in their diocese of consecration) when no such obligation exists, or that it is "objectively better" to live like a nun when that is not the vocation of a CV living in the world.  It's okay to have an opinion, but when opinions that are the result of poor formation and poor reasoning are influencing people without the formal education that would ground them and leads to false ideas about the vocation itself which can discourage true vocations, this can be harmful to hapless but eager discerners.  I am not the first person to notice the mistakes she has made in her writings nor am I the best educated.  This is not a personal attack, Sponsa Christi seems to be a very kind person and softspoken.  But, many of us have encountered women who have given up on the idea of becoming CVs because of the opinions that Sponsa has shared and which do not have any theological basis.  We have a difficult vocation to understand, and it doesn't help that she is frequently using her semi-professional status to inadvertantly mislead people with her personal opinions. 

 

When shallow people are faced with issues that are uncomfortable to them or that they do not have the necessary formation to dispute or to sufficiently understand and be able to make up their minds based on the evidence presented, they will often resort to denigrating the discussion or the topics.  It is a lot easier to complain that you don't see the relevance of a discussion on whether material virignity is required for the consecration than it is to reasonably discuss it.  It is easier to say that the vocation is not comprehensible or is too vague or is not what you would personally consider as an option than it is to put forth the effort needed to understand this beautiful vocation founded by the Holy Spirit on the occasion of the Annunciation.  Some of us feel that this vocation does need spokespersons because it's not like the bishops are going to stand up and preach on this on a daily basis, and we want to clear up misunderstandings that are fostered by people like Sponsa Christi that keep people away from the vocation.  And instead of responding with a typical ad hominem attack that is so prevalent on this site, why don't you or others try to point out where my statements could possibly be in error and demonstrate why they are so that I can apologize and stand corrected.  I have noticed, that when certain people disagree with me, they cite their feelings or their fears that I may not be in line with the Church's teachings without actually showing how they are correct.  My tone is irrelevant except to shallow thinkers.

[beatitude]

A good friend once said to me, "It's more important to be kind than to be right." I disagreed with her quite strongly at the time. Several years later, I am now convinced that I would rather live with humility and love than command great philosophical knowledge, even if that does make me a 'shallow thinker'. Knowledge passes away, as St Paul tells us. I work with people who have profound learning disabilities and I have lost any tendency I had to glorify the intellect. I don't think that any of us will need to pass a pop quiz on the difference between material and physical virginity at the gates of heaven. Knowing that difference is useful only insofar as it helps you to fulfill your vocation, to lead a holy life. No doubt the knowledge does help people. But I don't see the 'how' being demonstrated here.

 

I agree that a technical understanding of the CV vocation would be valuable, especially given the amount of contradictory information that exists about it. But I don't think that understanding has been imparted. I am not the only person on PM to have received the impressions that I have from the things that have been posted here (not just from you). I doubt that this is likely to matter to you, as it seems that anyone who takes issue with how you present things is either uneducated or shallow in your eyes - but from my experience, example is as powerful a means of teaching as debates, and the debates are of little value without a good solid personal example to back them up.

Edited February 25, 2014 by beatitude

[Aloysius]

Alright, so my edit may not have been necessary as there wasn't anything directly identifying there, but I obliged because it was requested.  HOWEVER, if you do wish to keep your identity private, it is your responsibility to do so, if you put things out there that make you easily identifiable it is not really our business to be trying to protect you from yourself.  Obviously someone suggested you were an authority on the subject and therefore the fact that you are currently only a student is relevant, beyond that simple fact I'd ask that people steer clear of specifying the details of Sponsa's studies in public to respect her privacy.

[abrideofChrist]

Aloysius-

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the rules on the Phorum.  Sponsa Christi has a link to her blog on her personal profile and she has made this information public not only on her profile, but on several threads.  My understanding was that you respect the wishes of posters who keep their identity private and have maintained privacy.  Sponsa has not kept her identity private and once you click on her website, she has a lot more information about herself and her studies.

[the171]

Aloysius-

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the rules on the Phorum. Sponsa Christi has a link to her blog on her personal profile and she has made this information public not only on her profile, but on several threads. My understanding was that you respect the wishes of posters who keep their identity private and have maintained privacy. Sponsa has not kept her identity private and once you click on her website, she has a lot more information about herself and her studies.

Let her divulge personal details. Please.

[abrideofChrist]

Let her divulge personal details. Please.

 

Can you point out where I have revealed something private that she has not already made public?

[Aloysius]

Aloysius-

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the rules on the Phorum.  Sponsa Christi has a link to her blog on her personal profile and she has made this information public not only on her profile, but on several threads.  My understanding was that you respect the wishes of posters who keep their identity private and have maintained privacy.  Sponsa has not kept her identity private and once you click on her website, she has a lot more information about herself and her studies.

You haven't broken any rules, I merely obliged a request for privacy without changing the content of your post (the point you made that she is a student who has not studied the subject too much and therefore should not be taken as an authority).  I realize she has linked her identity to her phatmass account this way which is why I pointed out that it's up to her to maintain her privacy and I won't keep policing it that way.  Like I said, my edit was probably unnecessary, just trying to be helpful when someone requested something about their privacy, and then I made a simple request.  I'm not going to keep coming in and enforcing that though, it was just a request to respect her wishes on that matter (I think she basically doesn't want random readers of this thread to try to look her up and link her to it in real life somehow... I think one should be free to explore ideas in argument on the internet without those coming back to you in your academic life, but you're right that if you don't want that connection made you shouldn't let those accounts be linked that way)... but it's just a matter of a simple request to respect her desire not to have details mentioned in this thread, it's not a rule. it's not up to me to maintain your privacy if you're putting all your information out there for people anyway.  

[Sponsa-Christi]

Okay, maybe I shouldn’t have requested that the information be removed after all. I’m certainly not embarrassed about the classes I’m taking, and it’s nothing that I would consider to be truly secret. But even though this is not something that’s absolutely private, it is something that would take some research to uncover (I have a link to my blog on my profile; and I have a brief “about” section on the blog which lists the places where I’ve studied; and if you go to the website of my present university and hunt around a bit, you can find the schedules for the required courses to be taken each year).

 

I was startled and taken aback that someone would do that much digging into my personal life just to discredit me here, and my gut reaction was that this was something that would have been considered universally inappropriate on the phorum. But I do understand the “post at your own risk” nature of the internet in general.

 

For the record…I’ve never tried to present myself as an expert, although I do consider myself to be someone whose thoughts on consecrated virginity are at least worth considering. I am still a student, but I have been studying canon law for several years now, I have already completed degrees in theology and philosophy, and I’ve been a consecrated virgin for five years.

 

I always take care to state that my opinions are only my opinions, and to underscore the obvious that I don’t speak with the authoritative voice of the Church. Also, I only express opinions on issues that can still admit different opinions.

 

I started sharing my ideas on consecrated virginity because I honestly thought I could provide some helpful insights (or at some least food for thought) to women who might be discerning this vocation. Although seeing how these conversations usually go, I am starting to reconsider how fruitful my involvement on Phatmass really is.