Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[Sponsa-Christi]

FrJeremiah, The veil given signifies she is a spiritual mother and bride of Christ – however it is a wedding veil or mantilla that the consecrated virgin receives. It is not the daily veil that sisters wear. The sacrament of marriage is a public vocation – the wedding band is its symbol. The consecrated virgin in the world has a public vocation – the wedding band is its symbol. Many vocations are public vocations – only religious have public witness as part of their public vocation. Read Magisterial document  <<Essential Elements of The Church’s Teaching on Religious Life>> 1983 from the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes – sections 9-11. The habit and veil belong to religious life not secular institutes. Lay women in secular institutes can receive the consecration of a virgin living in the world – and they cannot wear habits or daily veils. Only one kind of individual can receive the consecration of virgin and wear a habit that signifies public witness – the cloistered nuns who are permitted to receive the consecration.

 

Well...consecrated virginity isn't the same vocation as secular institutes, so not everything that applies to secular institutes would automatically apply to consecrated virgins. "Essential Elements" doesn't actually comment on consecrated virginity specifically.

 

It is true that secular institute members can theoretically receive the consecration of virgins, but I think this might say more about the nature of secular institutes than about the nature of consecrated virginity.

 

For example, a diocesan priest can be a member a of secular institutes while still living fully the life of a diocesan priest and being incarnated in his diocese. In a case like this, the priest's life as a diocesan priest is his "primary" vocation, which his membership in a secular institutes simply serves to support. Perhaps something similar could be said about CV members of secular institutes---that they are called to be consecrated virgins attached to a diocese as their main vocation (with a call to be a public witness in this role), with their secular institute membership serving as a source of personal spiritual support for them.

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, A member of a secular institute may receive the consecration of virginity lived in the world. A member of a secular institute is not permitted to wear clothing similar to religious clothing. The Magisterial – indisputably Magisterial and authoritative – document given above spells this out. A member of a secular institute cannot wear clothing that looks like a religious sister’s clothing – the Magisterium flat out prohibits it – however she can receive the consecration of virgins in the world. This means the two consecrated vocations – secular institute and consecrated virgin in the world – are 100% compatible. Because a woman may receive one and not the other they are obviously not identical – however the requirements of each are such that they are fully compatible. It logically follows that one item – wearing a daily veil like religious do – cannot be a necessary part of the consecrated virgin’s vocation if that same item is prohibited by the secular institute vocation. Otherwise the Magisterium would offer a qualification to members of secular institutes receiving the consecration. Facts such as these – indisputable requirements and teachings, handed straight down from the Magisterium – must be respected. Denying them causes vocational confusion.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Also, I think other parts of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity besides the giving of the veil do show that CVs are called to a life of public witness.

 

For example, consecrated virgins would seem to make an explicit promise to be a public evangelical witness when they answer "I do" to the bishop's question: Are you so resolved to follow Christ in the spirit of the Gospel that your whole life may be a faithful witness to God’s love and a convincing sign of the kingdom of heaven?

 

To me, it seems hard to see how one could be a "convincing sign of the Kingdom of Heaven" if one were to keep one's vocation more or less hidden to most people.

 

Also, the Rite also specifies that the "As occasion offers, and especially to promote an esteem for chastity, to deepen understanding of the Church, and to encourage a greater attendance of the people, the faithful should be notified of the celebration in good time" 

 

This is something very different from the profession/commitment ceremonies of secular institute members, which are much more discreet.This would seem to show that the new CV's consecrated status is supposed to be well-known among the people of God, and even in society generally.

 

But, my main reason for believing that consecrated virgins are in fact called to a life of public witness is because of the very nature of the Rite as a liturgy. Liturgy is always an intrinsically public action of the Church, and consecrated virgins enter into their vocation through the liturgical ministry of the bishop. To me, it doesn't make sense to propose that consecrated virgins enter into a public state of consecrated life, but that they are not called to publicly identify as consecrated persons.

[Cecilia]

I have never seen a Magisterial document explicitly stating that consecrated virgins in the world give public witness – public witness is not the same as a public vocation. Possibly I have missed such a document – however I doubt it – considering the Church’s document above regarding secular institutes – which may have members who are consecrated virgins in the world – versus religious orders, who are prohibited from having members who are consecrated virgins in the world. The example of a diocesan priest and secular institute does not work – the two vocations are compatible. What could not happen is that a religious priest would also be a member of a secular institute – because the first includes public witness – the second does not.

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, I am looking for what the Church has actually taught – I would not disregard something the Church does teach -- in reality -- in favor of something I quite simply hoped could be inferred from the Rite. The latter might be acceptable in some situations – but not when it contradicts the former.

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Possibly you confuse publicly identify with public witness. In baptism – and our baptismal promises – all the faithful commit to follow Christ in the spirit of the Gospel and to be a sign of the Kingdom to come. This is the nature of being a baptized Christian. Christians witness Christ to the world. Married couples enter a public status in the Church when they marry. They do so even though a liturgy is not required for the sacrament to take place – and so they may enter a public vocation without having a liturgy. This means there is not necessarily a direct correlation between a public vocation and a public liturgy as you hope. Members of secular institutes – while leaven in the world – are witnesses to the Kingdom. In fact they commit to follow Christ in the spirit of the Gospel <<more explicitly>> than a consecrated virgin in the world – because they are consecrated by promising the evangelical counsels.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Cecilia

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa Christi, A member of a secular institute may receive the consecration of virginity lived in the world. A member of a secular institute is not permitted to wear clothing similar to religious clothing. The Magisterial – indisputably Magisterial and authoritative – document given above spells this out. A member of a secular institute cannot wear clothing that looks like a religious sister’s clothing – the Magisterium flat out prohibits it – however she can receive the consecration of virgins in the world. This means the two consecrated vocations – secular institute and consecrated virgin in the world – are 100% compatible. Because a woman may receive one and not the other they are obviously not identical – however the requirements of each are such that they are fully compatible. It logically follows that one item – wearing a daily veil like religious do – cannot be a necessary part of the consecrated virgin’s vocation if that same item is prohibited by the secular institute vocation. Otherwise the Magisterium would offer a qualification to members of secular institutes receiving the consecration. Facts such as these – indisputable requirements and teachings, handed straight down from the Magisterium – must be respected. Denying them causes vocational confusion.

 

Some thoughts on this:

 

1. I actually don't think secular institute members are outright forbidden to wear habits (although granted, this does go against the spirit of their vocations in probably at least 95% of all cases...). I think a few institutes do have a distinctive garb. But this is somewhat beside the point.

 

2. A CV secular institute member perhaps should not wear identifying clothing specifically as part of her vocation to her institute, but this is a different issue from the question of whether or not she should be a public witness in her capacity as a consecrated virgin. The point in my previous post is that, if a vocation to consecrated virginity could be considered a woman's main vocation, then the public witness of her consecrated virginity might take precedence over the "hiddeness" of her secular institute vocation. This would be similar to how a priest-member of a secular institute is still called to be open about his priesthood.

 

3. I'm not actually trying to argue that wearing a veil is required for CVs. But, even if something (like a daily veil) is not required, it still may be appropriate and praiseworthy. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

I have never seen a Magisterial document explicitly stating that consecrated virgins in the world give public witness – public witness is not the same as a public vocation. Possibly I have missed such a document – however I doubt it – considering the Church’s document above regarding secular institutes – which may have members who are consecrated virgins in the world – versus religious orders, who are prohibited from having members who are consecrated virgins in the world. The example of a diocesan priest and secular institute does not work – the two vocations are compatible. What could not happen is that a religious priest would also be a member of a secular institute – because the first includes public witness – the second does not.

 

A religious priest can't become a member of a secular institute because he is already a member of an institute of consecrated life--i.e., his religious community. A diocesan priest--who is called to be a public witness in his priesthood--can join a secular institute (or alternately, a secular institute member who is a layman can seek ordination in a diocese) because the diocesan priesthood is not an institute.

 

I think consecrated virginity can be thought of as parallel to the diocesan priesthood in this particular instance, in that consecrated virginity itself is also not an institute, and (arguably) involves a vocation to a public witness as a CV.

[Cecilia]

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND FOR SECULAR INSTITUTES

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIFE AS APPLIED TO INSTITUTES DEDICATED TO WORKS OF THE APOSTOLATE

 

From the Vatican, on the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 31 May 1983.

 

#9 below—a woman who belongs to #9 is permitted to receive the consecration of virgins living in the world. Possibly members of this or that secular institute have decided on their own that they will wear distinguishing garb—however the Magisterial, authoritative document below explicitly states this is not the norm.

 

9. Union with Christ by consecration through profession of the counsels can be lived in the midst of the world, translated in the work of the world, and expressed by means of the world. This is the special vocation of the secular institutes, defined by Pius XII as "consecrated to God and to others" in the world and "by means of the world" (Primo feliciter, V and II). Of themselves, the counsels do not necessarily separate people from the world. In fact, it is a gift of God to the Church that consecration through profession of the counsels can take the form of a life to be lived as a hidden leaven. Christians so consecrated continue the work of salvation by communicating the love of Christ through their presence in the world and through its sanctification from within. Their style of life and presence are not distinguished externally from those of their fellow Christians. Their witness is given in their ordinary environment of life. This discreet form of witness flows from the very nature of their secular vocation and is part of the way that their consecration is meant to be lived (cf. PC 11).

 

10. Such is not the case, however, with those whose consecration by the profession of the counsels constitutes them as religious. The very nature of religious vocation involves a public witness to Christ and to the Church. Religious profession is made by vows which the Church receives as public. A stable form of community life in an institute canonically erected by the competent ecclesiastical authority manifests in a visible way the covenant and communion which religious life expresses. A certain separation from family and from professional life at the time a person enters the novitiate speaks powerfully of the absoluteness of God. At the same time, it is the beginning of a new and deeper bond in Christ with the family that one has left. This bond becomes firmer as detachment from otherwise legitimate relationships, occupations, and forms of relaxation continues to reflect God's absoluteness publicly throughout life. A further aspect of the public nature of religious consecration is that the apostolate of religious is in some sense always corporate. Religious presence is visible, affecting ways of acting, attire, and style of life.

 

#10 above—a woman who belongs to #10 is not permitted to receive the consecration of virgins lived in the world. #10 is explicitly contrasted – as a vocation – against #9 above. The two are incompatible. The Magisterium above connects religious profession made by vows which the Church receives as public with public witness – the two go together. A member of a secular institute promises the evangelical counsels privately – not publicly. A consecrated virgin in the world does not promise the evangelical counsels – and certainly does not vow them – unless she belongs to a secular institute – in which case she promises them privately. Never does a consecrated virgin in the world publicly profess the evangelical counsels, the very thing that gives rise to public witness.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Cecilia,

 

And honest question for you...how exactly would you define the distinction between a public witness, a public vocation, and a public identity?

 

To me, a public vocation mean that you are completely open about the commitments you have taken on. Marriage is public, because the community in general is supposed to know that you are married, and who your spouse is.

 

If consecrated virgins are called to be, as the Rite says: "...a transcendent sign of the Church’s love for Christ, and an eschatological image of this heavenly Bride of Christ and of the life to come", then how precisely can being "public" about this mean that we are discreet about our consecrated status?

[oremus1]

Some thoughts on this:

 

1. I actually don't think secular institute members are outright forbidden to wear habits (although granted, this does go against the spirit of their vocations in probably at least 95% of all cases...). I think a few institutes do have a distinctive garb. But this is somewhat beside the point.

 

2. A CV secular institute member perhaps should not wear identifying clothing specifically as part of her vocation to her institute, but this is a different issue from the question of whether or not she should be a public witness in her capacity as a consecrated virgin. The point in my previous post is that, if a vocation to consecrated virginity could be considered a woman's main vocation, then the public witness of her consecrated virginity might take precedence over the "hiddeness" of her secular institute vocation. This would be similar to how a priest-member of a secular institute is still called to be open about his priesthood.

 

3. I'm not actually trying to argue that wearing a veil is required for CVs. But, even if something (like a daily veil) is not required, it still may be appropriate and praiseworthy. 

 

the CV wears a wedding ring, i'd think that is just as public witness as a married persons wedding ring.

 

i think it can be fitting for a CV to wear a veil, but that the obligation should not be made mandatory. the veil i have in mind is more of rectangle scarf which preserves her modesty, yet is not to be confussed with a religious veil: like the one in my avatar, or like this http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RIG1ZFi_bfI/TNrmjmYMlJI/AAAAAAAABNc/M4yTRgRy9PY/s1600/JERUSALEM+26+0811.jpg
 

Edited February 2, 2014 by oremus1

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christ, <<Public witness>> and <<Public vocation>> are used by the Church. <<To publicly identify -- as a Christian>> is a phrase I use casually.

 

Publicly identify as Christian – casual term. Generally -- to not hide your light under a bushel basket… Generally -- as followers of Christ -- we are called to witness to Him. The entire faith should inform our entire life.

 

Public witness – particular to religious life per the Magisterium’s teachings – habit, communal life, set apart from the world, a visible sign of the Kingdom to come -- explicitly set apart from the world to signify the world to come. See paragraph 10 in document. Involves only a subset of those who have a public vocation -- to religious life. May be <<out of sight>> and still be <<public witness.>> Think of remote monastic community – few in the world <<see them.>> Few <<know about them>> -- however they live a public witness.

 

Public vocation – Publicly entering into a state of life in the Church – various. Marriage, consecrated virgin in the world, ordination of clergy, religious. Versus private vows. Public vocation is a status in the Church – does not require being publicized to have the status of being public – think of an underground bishop in China.  Think of a couple who marries secretly for some reason. Being unpublicized does not affect public status.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa Christ, <<Public witness>> and <<Public vocation>> are used by the Church. <<To publicly identify -- as a Christian>> is a phrase I use casually.

 

Publicly identify as Christian – casual term. Generally -- to not hide your light under a bushel basket… Generally -- as followers of Christ -- we are called to witness to Him. The entire faith should inform our entire life.

 

Public witness – particular to religious life per the Magisterium’s teachings – habit, communal life, set apart from the world, a visible sign of the Kingdom to come -- explicitly set apart from the world to signify the world to come. See paragraph 10 in document. Involves only a subset of those who have a public vocation -- to religious life. May be <<out of sight>> and still be <<public witness.>> Think of remote monastic community – few in the world <<see them.>> Few <<know about them>> -- however they live a public witness.

 

Public vocation – Publicly entering into a state of life in the Church – various. Marriage, consecrated virgin in the world, ordination of clergy, religious. Versus private vows. Public vocation is a status in the Church – does not require being publicized to have the status of being public – think of an underground bishop in China.  Think of a couple who marries secretly for some reason. Being unpublicized does not affect public status.

 

Okay, I think then the spot where we disagree is that I don't think that the Church is actually saying that religious are the ONLY ones in the Church who are called to be a public witness of the life of the world to come. As I see it, "Essential Elements" is saying that religious do have this call in contrast to secular institutes, but I don't think this document is actually commenting on whether or not other forms of consecrated/ordained/dedicated  life not here mentioned (e.g., consecrated virgins, hermits, societies of apostolic life, or the secular clergy) might or might not have this call as well.

 

I'm willing to agree to disagree on this. But for the sake of fruitful dialogue, I would sincerely like to know: how do you explain the Rite's frequent mention of consecrated virgins as called to be an eschatological sign? What could being called to be a "sign" mean other than a call to be a public witness?

[abrideofChrist]

Okay, I think then the spot where we disagree is that I don't think that the Church is actually saying that religious are the ONLY ones in the Church who are called to be a public witness of the life of the world to come. As I see it, "Essential Elements" is saying that religious do have this call in contrast to secular institutes, but I don't think this document is actually commenting on whether or not other forms of consecrated/ordained/dedicated  life not here mentioned (e.g., consecrated virgins, hermits, societies of apostolic life, or the secular clergy) might or might not have this call as well.

 

I'm willing to agree to disagree on this. But for the sake of fruitful dialogue, I would sincerely like to know: how do you explain the Rite's frequent mention of consecrated virgins as called to be an eschatological sign? What could being called to be a "sign" mean other than a call to be a public witness?

 

ALL consecrated persons are "eschatological signs".  Including members of secular institutes!  This means that the sign value primarily refers to the being of the person consecrated and their intrinsic value rather than their garments.  All reputable theologians agree that the words "public witness" in consecrated life are reserved to religious.  This is HOW the Church differentiates between secular vocations and religious vocations.  This isn't a matter of debate or "fruitful dialog", this is a matter that has been settled.  If the Church did not see a likeness to secular institutes with CVs, she would never have referred to the consecration of virgins in the papal document establishing secular institutes!  Also, the fact that some secular institutes wear habits and the fact that many religious don't does not negate the fact that many religious communities live like secular institutes and some secular institutes live like religious because of a fundamental confusion of their vocation. 

 

You continue to forget, even though you are training to receive a degree in canon law, your first pontifical degree, that religious life poses restrictions on legitimate ways of life.  We cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on people where the law does not impose them nor can we claim that there is somehow a "moral obligation" to do so.  If the Church does not impose limits on attire, lifestyle (A further aspect of the public nature of religious consecration is that the apostolate of religious is in some sense always corporate. Religious presence is visible, affecting ways of acting, attire, and style of life.) then it is not obligatory nor can it be remotely construed as an essential part of the vocation.  This is very basic but you continue to refuse to acknowledge this because this undermines your theory that consecrated virginity must be modelled on religious life.  Also, as has been pointed out, if the Church did require veils and habits and all the religious life trappings you appear to desire, then she has made a fundamental mistake in admitting women in secular institutes to the consecration of virgins.  You seem incapable of appreciating the fact that the diocesan priest who belongs to a secular institute continues to own and use money even though he now has a vow of poverty.  That alone is a substantial difference from religious priests.  I get the impression from your writings that you do not even see the secular institutes as having a true and valid consecration, equal to that of religious life, which if my impression is correct, indicates you do not have a foundational understanding of that vocation.
 

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Parallels with diocesan clergy may help at times – however the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world first fits within consecrated life. It has to be understood in terms of all the forms of consecrated life. Magisterial and teaching documents that define the different kinds of consecrated life signify in defining the consecrated vocations against each other. Comparisons of consecrated virginity in the world with the vocation of diocesan priests are only illustrations – attempts to define something second hand – explaining one thing through examining another. Possibly helpful but not something that should be favored over authoritative teachings on the vocations – these teachings come first.

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church – it defines consecrated virginity. Next section – religious life. Next section – secular institutes. In defining religious life, against the sections on other forms of consecrated life that proceed and follow it – this appears:

 

925   Religious life was born in the East during the first centuries of Christianity. Lived within institutes canonically erected by the Church, it is distinguished from other forms of consecrated life by its liturgical character, public profession of the evangelical counsels, fraternal life led in common, and witness given to the union of Christ with the Church.⁴⁶⁸ (1672)

 

Possibly you will want to say that consecrated virginity fits in #925 because the Rite is liturgical – so the vocation to consecrated virginity that comes through a liturgical Rite must be included in #925 on religious life… But this is insufficient. It does not respect the definitions the Church herself gives. It does not respect the categories the Church breaks consecrated life into – in the Catechism, Code of Canon Law, in Magisterial documents.

 

Possibly you are confusing witness with public witness. Each vocation witnesses in a different way. Public witness is a type of witness belonging to religious life. The Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests does not mention public witness – it describes the witness of clergy differently from the public witness of religious in #10 of the other document. An exception would be clergy who are also religious – but diocesan clergy do not have public witness like religious clergy do. Diocesan clergy have the witness in #3 below.

 

DECREE ON THE MINISTRY AND LIFE OF PRIESTS PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

 

2. The Lord Jesus, "whom the Father has sent into the world" (Jn 10:36) has made his whole Mystical Body a sharer in the anointing of the Spirit with which he himself is anointed.(1) In him all the faithful are made a holy and royal priesthood; they offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ, and they proclaim the perfections of him who has called them out of darkness into his marvelous light.(2) Therefore, there is no member who does not have a part in the mission of the whole Body; but each one ought to hallow Jesus in his heart,(3) and in the spirit of prophecy bear witness to Jesus.(4)

 

3. Priests, who are taken from among men and ordained for men in the things that belong to God in order to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins,(15) nevertheless live on earth with other men as brothers. The Lord Jesus, the Son of God, a Man sent by the Father to men, dwelt among us and willed to become like his brethren in all things except sin.(16) The holy apostles imitated him. Blessed Paul, the doctor of the Gentiles, "set apart for the Gospel of God" (Rom 1:1) declares that he became all things to all men that he might save all.(17) Priests of the New Testament, by their vocation and ordination, are in a certain sense set apart in the bosom of the People of God. However, they are not to be separated from the People of God or from any person; but they are to be totally dedicated to the work for which the Lord has chosen them.(18) They cannot be ministers of Christ unless they be witnesses and dispensers of a life other than earthly life. But they cannot be of service to men if they remain strangers to the life and conditions of men.(19) Their ministry itself, by a special title, forbids that they be conformed to this world;(20) yet at the same time it requires that they live in this world among men. They are to live as good shepherds that know their sheep, and they are to seek to lead those who are not of this sheepfold that they, too, may hear the voice of Christ, so that there might be one fold and one shepherd.(21) To achieve this aim, certain virtues, which in human affairs are deservedly esteemed, contribute a great deal: such as goodness of heart, sincerity, strength and constancy of mind, zealous pursuit of justice, affability, and others. The Apostle Paul commends them saying: "Whatever things are true, whatever honorable, whatever just, whatever holy, whatever loving, whatever of good repute, if there be any virtue, if anything is worthy of praise, think upon these things" (Phil 4:8).(22).

[Cecilia]

An eschatological image means she points towards the life to come. Possibly you are confusing <<sign>> with something visible to the naked eye. In her consecration the consecrated virgin images the Bride of Christ – below 923 from the Catechism. Being an eschatological sign means she embodies a reality that points to Heaven – however this does not mean a consecrated virgin in the world will be recognized on the street as being a sign. Below 972 from the Catechism explains Mary as the eschatological icon of the Church. Mary is a sign without being visible to the faithful. She embodies in herself a reality that will come true for all of us. She points to this reality. However she has no <<public witness>>. Mary does not walk among us veiled and visibly distinguished in order to qualify as a <<sign>>.

 

923   â€œVirgins who, committed to the holy plan of following Christ more closely, are consecrated to God by the diocesan bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are betrothed mystically to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church.”⁴⁶⁴ By this solemn rite (Consecratio Virginum), the virgin is “constituted... a sacred person, a transcendent sign of the Church’s love for Christ, and an eschatological image of this heavenly Bride of Christ and of the life to come.”⁴⁶⁵ (1537, 1672)

 

III. Mary—Eschatological Icon of the Church

972   After speaking of the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own “pilgrimage of faith,” and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There, “in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,” “in the communion of all the saints,”⁵¹⁸ the Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother. (773, 829, 2853)

 

In the meantime the Mother of Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God.⁵¹⁹

[oremus1]

by advocating the wearing of distinctive garb, the requirement to work full time for the church (rather than, say, an accountant or firefighter), a fixed horarium, in that the CV's life will be 'visibly' consecrated, perhaps actually sponsa is in favour of CV being bestowed on members of apostolic religious sisters, and perhaps she would have preferred this?

 

i am not a theologian, but i think Judith Stegman of the USACV, who was an accountant and did not wear any distinctive garb is a great role model for CVs. She worked in the secular world, was open about her vocation even in the international press and on TV and the web, visibly (she had a lamp shaped consecration ring), and she did not try to be a religious or a hidden leaven. she saw it very much like a married persons vocation. the usacv even had a convocation on the 'lived in the world' element. interestingly she was not even called 'sr' or 'reverend miss'.

 

i think phatmass should be OK that i have used her as an example since all that info is on the USACV website and known worldwide.

[God's Beloved]

Brandelynmarie and God's Beloved,

 

It is very hard for CVs when their bishops don't give them the support that the Church envisions (and actually, even the list I gave wasn't really me talking about what I see as the ideal, but rather sort of the bare minimum, drawing only on those things which the Rite and other documents mention directly). I do think that we can say it's truly unfair when CVs are left to fend for themselves in this way.

 

BUT, at the same time I still want to caution people about being too hard on the bishops! First of all, there are bishops out there who are encouraging of their CVs. Also, most bishops I've been blessed to meet personally--whether or not they were especially supportive of consecrated virgins--have stuck me as very holy, fatherly, hard-working men in general, who sincerely try their best to do the right thing in the face of all the difficult and complicated problems they're called upon to resolve as part of their ministry. 

 

And, objectively, consecrated virginity is not a very well-known or well-understood vocation, so I don't think we can fault the average bishop for not being an expert in something that's still relatively obscure. This obscurity is further complicated by the fact that a lot of bishops who are familiar with consecrated virgins have had bad experiences with them! So as much as I wish consecrated virginity was better understood and promoted, I do appreciate the fact that bishops' time is limited, and they have to make prudential judgments about which needs of their diocese to prioritize.

 

So even though of course I'm not happy when consecrated virgins suffer due to a the lack of concern from their bishops, as a CV I'm always going to be "on the bishops' side". That is, I'm always going to accord them the proper respect and prayerfully support them in their ministry.

 

Sponsa-Christi,

 

What you have written is not disputed. But it is one side of the coin. There are experiences : positive and negative. In fact there are bishops who think they are doing good by promoting the vocation and electing candidates for consecration. There are other bishops with every good intention who refuse  even to TRY to discuss or understand the charism of OCV .

 

There are priests who are very good friends but who refuse to discuss the vocation. It is usually due to 'their own' ideology.

 

In several places around the world -this vocation is being promoted to use CV as cheap labour etc.

 

It is a complex situation. But some philosopher has said [ i don't remember the name ] -that from utter chaos and complex situations -sometimes something NEW and very ORDERLY emerges or is born . I hope this painful phase in the vocation of CV will lead to something really good for the Church and the world. Sometimes it looks as if the vocation is useless .....at other times it seems to have much good. e.g.  Pope Francis is promoting the idea that people should experience the Church as a Mother.  This is also the vocation of CV . We need to reflect .....not superficially ....but in depth.....together ....in spite of our different views.

 

Supporting the Bishops and priests  through Prayer  is part of the calling  and it is always there. But my experience is different from yours.

There was a time laity complained that I was on the side of the hierarchy . Then I saw their point. They spontaneously have given me the title ' daughter of the Church'. I think my calling is indeed that . I have opted to be on the side of the poor , the marginalized , the voiceless. There are places [the existential peripheries] where the bishops and priests cannot reach ....but I can .....because i do not have the restrictions which a religious would face.

 

The love of a daughter is there for the Fathers of the local church . But the love of a mother for the voiceless is stronger in my life.

[oremus1]

Sponsa-Christi,

 

What you have written is not disputed. But it is one side of the coin. There are experiences : positive and negative. In fact there are bishops who think they are doing good by promoting the vocation and electing candidates for consecration. There are other bishops with every good intention who refuse  even to TRY to discuss or understand the charism of OCV .

 

There are priests who are very good friends but who refuse to discuss the vocation. It is usually due to 'their own' ideology.

 

In several places around the world -this vocation is being promoted to use CV as cheap labour etc.

 

It is a complex situation. But some philosopher has said [ i don't remember the name ] -that from utter chaos and complex situations -sometimes something NEW and very ORDERLY emerges or is born . I hope this painful phase in the vocation of CV will lead to something really good for the Church and the world. Sometimes it looks as if the vocation is useless .....at other times it seems to have much good. e.g.  Pope Francis is promoting the idea that people should experience the Church as a Mother.  This is also the vocation of CV . We need to reflect .....not superficially ....but in depth.....together ....in spite of our different views.

 

Supporting the Bishops and priests  through Prayer  is part of the calling  and it is always there. But my experience is different from yours.

There was a time laity complained that I was on the side of the hierarchy . Then I saw their point. They spontaneously have given me the title ' daughter of the Church'. I think my calling is indeed that . I have opted to be on the side of the poor , the marginalized , the voiceless. There are places [the existential peripheries] where the bishops and priests cannot reach ....but I can .....because i do not have the restrictions which a religious would face.

 

The love of a daughter is there for the Fathers of the local church . But the love of a mother for the voiceless is stronger in my life.

A brilliant post,

 

the problem is that some bishops and priests DO NOT WANT to understand it. 

 

for a bishop, i made a list of various practices in our country which rendered the consecration invalid, with references and protocol nrs,  the bishop just glanced at it and gave it back to me and told me to concentrate on myself and not worry about the other CVs. he also said the Rite was 'rather long', hence the delegation, and bishops cannot be expected to meet with CVs after consecration as they are too busy already .

 

in my country it is customary for the consecration to be in their parish church. but my parish priest said he did not believe in the vocation - there was not the support of a community, there was no habit, the only regulations and obligations are hazy / subjective. He says CV need a fixed horarium, accountability, and strict regulations and statutes. therefore he would not allow my consecration to be in our parish church and he says he wants no part in the ceremony. he would not even provide me with a reference. and he probably wont even come. this priest is a very lovely priest but just thinks it is a non-vocation.

 

what did anyone have as formation? how long was it?

Also, Gods Beloved - when you said "There are other bishops with every good intention who refuse even to TRY to discuss or understand the charism of OCV ." how can this be from a good intention?

Edited February 3, 2014 by oremus1

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, A question – I gave you quotes from the Magisterium –the Church’s authoritative teaching on Secular Institutes -- #9 – and her teaching on Religious Institutes -- #10.

 

<<SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND FOR SECULAR INSTITUTES

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIFE AS APPLIED TO INSTITUTES DEDICATED TO WORKS OF THE APOSTOLATE>>

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccscrlife/documents/rc_con_ccscrlife_doc_31051983_magisterium-on-religious-life_en.html

 

9. Union with Christ by consecration through profession of the counsels can be lived in the midst of the world, translated in the work of the world, and expressed by means of the world… Of themselves, the counsels do not necessarily separate people from the world… Their style of life and presence are not distinguished externally from those of their fellow Christians.

 

10. Such is not the case, however, with those whose consecration by the profession of the counsels constitutes them as religious…A certain separation from family and from professional life at the time a person enters the novitiate speaks powerfully of the absoluteness of God… Religious presence is visible, affecting ways of acting, attire, and style of life.

 

How do you explain your comment that the Church’s teaching --in #9, bolded -- only applies to 95% of secular institutes? – I do not think this can be justified – I do not think we can choose what in Magisterial documents we will abide by and what we will explain away and disregard. Do you see why your 95% comment gives this impression – that if some secular institutes would rather live their vocation as religious institutes – found in #10 – then they are free to do so? They are free to disregard an authoritative teaching from the Magisterium?