Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[God's Beloved]

I prefer to have common universal understanding of the essentials and leave the rest to the circumstances of the local church which may not only allow but require some pastoral flexibility till the vocation grows around the world and gains acceptance in the church.

 

Here I see the needs of young CV different from the needs of older [ especially ex-religious] CV.

Psychologically the younger generation needs concrete points of reference , some basic norms , clearer visibility as CV . In developing countries women are still not very independent. They need to concretely support each other in associations ...even sometimes living together without having a common rule of life or ministry and without becoming one more institute of consecrated life. There are associations around the world e.g. in the diocese of Raphael in Argentina where  CV have option to live together in association or alone or with their families. I like that model and think it is very practical.

http://ocvar.8m.net/Directorio_Rafaela.doc

In fact , if given the opportunity , I would love to live in association with a group of CV.

[oremus1]

I prefer to have common universal understanding of the essentials and leave the rest to the circumstances of the local church which may not only allow but require some pastoral flexibility till the vocation grows around the world and gains acceptance in the church.

 

Here I see the needs of young CV different from the needs of older [ especially ex-religious] CV.

Psychologically the younger generation needs concrete points of reference , some basic norms , clearer visibility as CV . In developing countries women are still not very independent. They need to concretely support each other in associations ...even sometimes living together without having a common rule of life or ministry and without becoming one more institute of consecrated life. There are associations around the world e.g. in the diocese of Raphael in Argentina where  CV have option to live together in association or alone or with their families. I like that model and think it is very practical.

http://ocvar.8m.net/Directorio_Rafaela.doc

In fact , if given the opportunity , I would love to live in association with a group of CV.

 

So you are also in favour of CVs wearing habits?

 

most ex-religious CVs would like to wear habits also.

 

 

how do you think the needs of young CVs differ from older, ex religious ones?

 

if CVs live in common in convent-type communities, wear habits, and undertake the exact same prescribed, ministry to the church together, why would they not just become religious sisters ?

 

so you take 'in the world' to mean 'as opposed to in an enclosed monastic communuty' rather than, in the world meaning not sepeated form the world by way of clothing, place of living, places of work etc?

 

what do you make of auxiliaries of the apostolate, werent they the forerunners of modern CVs?

 

and if CVs are to have heavily prescribed lives, and not necessarily live autonomously, whre the USACV says they must have maturity and relevent experience to live in the  world alone, perhaps this is not required? perhaps the normal minimum age for consecration could be dropped to 18 rather than 25 - 30?

Edited February 5, 2014 by oremus1

[God's Beloved]

http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-consecrated-life-is-an-encounter-with

 

Homily by Pope Francis : speaks about young and elderly in consecrated life.

 

 

The Feast of the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple is also known as the Feast of the Encounter: the encounter between Jesus and his people. The liturgy tells of when Mary and Joseph brought their child to the Temple in Jerusalem; it is when the first encounter between Jesus and his people took place. This day is also called the Feast of Encounter because on it the New Testament, represented by the Baby Jesus, encountered the Old Testament, represented by Simeon and Anna.

 

He points out it was also a meeting between the young and the elderly: the young were Mary and Joseph with their infant, and the elders were Simeon and Anna, two characters who always attended the Temple.

 

We observe what the evangelist Luke tells us of them, as he describes them. He says four times that Our Lady and St Joseph wanted to do what was required by the law of the Lord (cf. Luke 2, 22.23.24.27). One perceives that Jesus' parents have the joy of observing the precepts of God, the joy of walking according to the law of the Lord! They are two newlyweds, they have just had their baby, and they are motivated by the desire to do what is prescribed. This is not an external fact; it is not just to feel right, no! It ' a strong desire, a deep desire, full of joy. That’s what the Psalm says: "I rejoice in following your statutes…. Your law is my delight (119, 14.77).

 

And what does St. Luke says of the elderly? He underlines, more than once, that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. He says Simeon was a righteous and devout man, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and that "the Holy Spirit was upon him" (2:25). He says that "the Holy Spirit had announced "that before dying he would see the Christ, the Messiah (v. 26); and finally he went to the Temple “moved by the Spirit “(v. 27). He says Anna was a “prophet” (v. 36), She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying" (v. 37). In short, these two elders are full of life! They are full of life because they are animated by the Holy Spirit, obedient to his action, sensitive to his calls...

 

And thus, this is the encounter between the Holy Family and the two representatives of the holy people of God. Jesus is at the centre. It is He who moves everything, who attracts all of them to the Temple, the house of his Father.

 

It is a meeting between young people who are full of joy in observing the Law of the Lord, and the elderly who are filled with joy for the action of the Holy Spirit. It is a unique encounter between observance and prophecy, where young people are the observers and the elderly are prophetic! In fact, if we think carefully, the desire to keep the Law is animated by the Spirit and the prophecy moves forward in the path traced by the Law. Who, more than Mary, is full of the Holy Spirit? Who better is docile than she to its action?

 

Dear Brothers and Sisters, in the light of this Gospel scene, let us look to consecrated life as an encounter with Christ: it is He who comes to us, led by Mary and Joseph, and we go towards Him guided by the Holy Spirit. But the centre is Him. He moves everything, He draws us to the Temple, to the Church, where we can meet Him, recognize Him, welcome Him, embrace Him.

Jesus comes to us in the Church through the foundational charism of an Institute: it is nice to think of our vocation in this way! Our encounter with Christ took its shape in the Church through the charism of one of its witnesses. This always amazes us and makes us give thanks.

 

And in the consecrated life we live the encounter between the young and the old, between observation and prophecy. Let’s not see these as two opposing realities! Let us rather allow the Holy Spirit to animate both of them, and a sign of this is joy: the joy of observing, of walking within a rule of life; the joy of being led by the Spirit, never unyielding, never closed, always open to voice of God that speaks, that opens, that leads us and invites us to go towards the horizon.

 

It's good for the elderly to communicate their wisdom to the young; and is good for the young people to gather this wealth of experience and wisdom, and to carry it forward, not so as to store it in a museum, but to bring it forward addressing the challenges of life, to carry it forward for the sake of respective religious orders and of the whole Church.

 

May the grace of this mystery, the mystery of the Encounter, enlighten us and comfort us in our journey. Amen.

[God's Beloved]

So you are also in favour of CVs wearing habits?

 

most ex-religious CVs would like to wear habits also.

 

 

how do you think the needs of young CVs differ from older, ex religious ones?

 

if CVs live in common in convent-type communities, wear habits, and undertake the exact same prescribed, ministry to the church together, why would they not just become religious sisters ?

 

so you take 'in the world' to mean 'as opposed to in an enclosed monastic communuty' rather than, in the world meaning not sepeated form the world by way of clothing, place of living, places of work etc?

 

what do you make of auxiliaries of the apostolate, werent they the forerunners of modern CVs?

 

and if CVs are to have heavily prescribed lives, and not necessarily live autonomously, whre the USACV says they must have maturity and relevent experience to live in the  world alone, perhaps this is not required? perhaps the normal minimum age for consecration could be dropped to 18 rather than 25 - 30?

 

 

THIS IS A TOTAL MIS-REPRESENTATION OF WHAT I HAVE SAID .

 

Please remove your glasses and read what I have said .....without reading into it thru the lens of religious life.

 

I am the last person on earth who would want to wear a religious habit or follow a common rule of life or live in a convent like sisters.

 

Have you ever spent some time with associations of lay consecrated women or those in movements ? they do NOT wear any habit , they do NOT normally have a common rule of life. They just live together in association and support each other.

 

I

[oremus1]

THIS IS A TOTAL MIS-REPRESENTATION OF WHAT I HAVE SAID .

 

Please remove your glasses and read what I have said .....without reading into it thru the lens of religious life.

 

I am the last person on earth who would want to wear a religious habit or follow a common rule of life or live in a convent like sisters.

 

Have you ever spent some time with associations of lay consecrated women or those in movements ? they do NOT wear any habit , they do NOT normally have a common rule of life. They just live together in association and support each other.

 

I

 

Sorry I got you confused with Lillabett, but also sponsa - they were suggesting the same things as i mentuoned in my post . so i suppose my Q's are to them, not you.  

(see the posts at the bottom of p.6)

[God's Beloved]

Sorry I got you confused with Lillabett, but also sponsa - they were suggesting the same things as i mentuoned in my post . so i suppose my Q's are to them, not you.  

(see the posts at the bottom of p.6)

 

It is okay dear !

 

I like to have various viewpoints in a debate and do not like to see anyone  all alone with everyone else pouncing on her . I love each one of you in spite of your different views.

 

Behind every debater is a Human person who deserves all the love and respect , especially when she is belonging to the same vocation. We need to build the spirit of debating lovingly to search for the truth . Who knows ....this thread may give birth to the future of CV in the church !

 

"Maybe" I am on the side of the majority on a particular point about the vocation. But if that is influenced by a lot of emotion, it makes sense to go on the other side and find points to support another point of view too......then put all views together and see where the Spirit is leading CV.

 

in my research , to be honest , I have found scholars writing from both perspectives which are being debated here.

 

By the way, living alone is often due to the culture of today's world. It is not the essence of CV.

 

CV may live alone or with family or in groups.......this has been the most ancient tradition.

[Cecilia]

Do any of you know a woman who is a member of a secular institute – and has received the consecration of a virgin in the world?

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Un-cluttered thinking aids our understanding on these topics – one question is whether working for the Church is compatible with the consecrated in the world vocation – however whether working for the Church is the ideal is another question -- you prefer the latter without demonstraing why it is <<better>>. Likewise the question of diocesan priests – I inquired what you think is ideal for them in living poverty <<beyond the requirements of the law>> -- you commented with the requirements of the law – canon about simplicity and wearing of clerics. This does not answer the question posed.

 

Likewise the question of publicly identify versus public witness. You use <<public>> in many ways – however you like in a moment. Probably it would be better to define your terms and stick to them – quite possibly this is why we misinterpret you – you cross categories in using definitions and in giving explanations for your positions.

 

One example – you say Our Lady is visible because she is present to us to contemplate – however her <<visibility>> is not visible. It is mental – it is spiritual. She is presented to us via myriad ways – these are not visible ways – because none of us <<see her>> immediately. You present this position about Our Lady as if it means the consecrated virgin in the world should be visible in the physical sense – but you have demonstrated nothing – in fact. The consecrated virgin may be an eschatological sign exactly as the Blessed Mother is – presented to our minds and souls as an image of the life to come. Probably the Church should make the consecrated virgin vocation better known so more people are aware of it – but this is again a visibility that is contemplated and held in the heart – to teach the faithful about a vocation that will give them hope and inspiration – whether or not the local diocese has a consecrated for the faithful to <<see>>.

 

Indisputably a consecrated virgin commits to – and becomes – an eschatological sign in her consecration. Indisputably this is a witness that is << different from>> the baptismal witness that all the faithful share – however the fact of it being different does not mean it must be physically visible – beyond her spousal ring. Indisputably as a member of consecrated life she lives the spirit of the evangelical counsels – these points are all given and understood – none of them demonstrate she must look visibly different. These points are given in Church teaching – on the consecrated life generally and the Rite of consecration for a virgin – but to skip from indisputable Church teachings on vocations – and a particular vocation – to your conclusions about what is ideal for a consecrated in the world – does not aid others in following your positions. Either your positions follow in a tidy way from Church teaching – or they do not -- if they do – you should be able to demonstrate it.

 

One more – secret marriages are not ideal – but they are marriages – full and complete. Secret ordinations of bishops are not ideal – but they are ordinations – full and complete. Public knowledge of them – and visibility to the faithful – is not required. Possibly we misunderstand you because you skip around in your thinking. Possibly we have more common ideas that are not expressed.

 

 

 

[Cecilia]

Lilllabettt, It is better to consider first what the Church teaches about the forms of consecrated life – and how they differ from each other – before relying on other vocations. Your comments are of aid– but only so much – because reflections on diocesan priesthood cannot override distinctions the Church herself makes within categories of consecrated life.

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, How do you prove your conclusion – that the Magisterial document approved by the Holy Father and issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes – gives no authoritative guidelines on secular institutes? This is your hope – your opinion – but how do you prove it? What can you point to -- that justifies your interpretation that you do not have to take the guideline as giving directives for secular institutes? Other than your own ideals, hopes – opinion – how do you justify disregarding what the document says on secular institutes? You must understand that others are not convinced to disregard a Magisterial document –– however convinced you may be of your own opinion – to others this will not signify.

[Nihil Obstat]

Why does everyone love coloured fonts so much, anyway?

[arfink]

Because nobody wants to be just normal.

[cmaD2006]

.... and this is why this thread belongs in Debate table, not VS :). 

[Cecilia]

Sorry -- I use colour because my eyes are poor and I see letters better in colour -- but I can type in colour and change it to black before posting. That is fine -- it will look better with other posts. When I read comments I copy them -- and change the font and colour. I change colours because it is less tedious -- welcome to my rainbow thread. :)

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa Christi, How do you prove your conclusion – that the Magisterial document approved by the Holy Father and issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes – gives no authoritative guidelines on secular institutes? This is your hope – your opinion – but how do you prove it? What can you point to -- that justifies your interpretation that you do not have to take the guideline as giving directives for secular institutes? Other than your own ideals, hopes – opinion – how do you justify disregarding what the document says on secular institutes? You must understand that others are not convinced to disregard a Magisterial document –– however convinced you may be of your own opinion – to others this will not signify.

 

I was not trying to argue that it’s okay to ignore magisterial documents. My point was only that the document: “Essential Elements in the Church’s Teaching on Religious Life” was not written for the express purpose of providing norms for secular institutes, but rather for the purpose of clarifying the Church’s teaching on religious life specifically. I was not trying to imply that we should disregard Church teaching on secular institutes, but only that it might be more helpful in general to look for directives on secular institutes in documents that were actually written with this specific object in mind.

 

Also, I totally accept that secular institutes members are called to live a “normal,” distinctively secular way of life, and one which does not normally involve a public witness. I’m just not convinced that consecrated virgins, who have a different vocation, are called to live in this same way. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

no-one is saying it is incompatibloe, but you seem to be saying it is obligatory that CVS shoudl work for the church full time, and that they should wear distinguishing garb.

 

the garb was dropped from the revised rite for those in the world. the homily gives ways that the CV's service would manifest itself. so while she MIGHT fulfil these by working full time for the church, she MIGHT ALSO work in a secular occupation and still do these, the propositum of virginity is to facilitate nuptials, and not to better assist her to undertake a particular service to the church. her works are just a fruit of her espousal. it is, afterall, not the 'dedication of a virgin to a life of service to the church'. 

 

so it seems you are desiring to impose obligations where there are none, because you feel that the CV vocation is not enough in itself and needs to borrow from the religious life.

 

also, where you wish her to work full time for the church, where the suggested homily says "Love everyone, especially those in need. Help the poor, care for the weak, teach the ignorant, protect the Young, minister to the old, bring strength and comfort to widows and all in adversity." are you suggesting that the CV fulfil this by working with other religious sisters?

 

if so, if you wish her to dress like one, and work with them, what do you feel is so distinctive about the call to being a CV and not a religious sister - since externally, her life would be more or less the same as one, in order to give 'public witness' and be a 'sign'?

 

I mean this respectfully, but I sort of feel like you’re misreading me a little bit. I’ve already said a few different times that I’m not arguing that consecrated virgins should all be required to wear habits.

 

I do think that the Church calls consecrated virgins to be a “visible,” i.e., public witness, meaning that their consecration should be an open and obvious element of their identity. Because of this, on a secondary and purely practical level, I think wearing a veil or perhaps some other distinctive garb (which is not the same thing as a habit per se) could be appropriate and praiseworthy custom. But saying that something could be praiseworthy is not the same things as saying it should be required, and it’s also not the same thing as saying it is already an obligation!

 

I also think that the Church calls consecrated virgins to dedicate their lives to the service of the Church—which I don’t think would necessarily mean that CVs have to be officially diocesan employees, but rather that they devote themselves as fully as possible to those things that advance the Church’s mission in an explicit way (i.e., that they “spend their time in works of penance and of mercy, in apostolic activity, and in prayer” to quote the praenotanda of the Rite). The works of mercy mentioned in the Rite’s homily can certainly be carried out as an explicit expression of the Church’s mission, whether or not they happen to be done in collaboration with religious. 

 

I believe that consecrated virgins have this call to service because: canon 604 literally says that consecrated virgins are “dedicated to the service of the Church”; because the Catechism and Vita Consecrata also mentions CVs’ call to be dedicated/committed to the service of the Church; and because the Rite itself mentions consecrated virgins’ call to service no less than ten separate times, including in the promises a candidate makes before the bishop (when the bishop asks her: “Are you resolved to persevere to the end of you days in the holy state of virginity and in the service of God and his Church?”) So while I would agree that service is a fruit of a CV's vocation and not the impetus for it, I still think that the Church sees this fruit of service as being integral to the vocation.

 

In all honestly, I’m not simply making these things up out of whole cloth because I want to control CVs, impose non-existent obligations on people, or turn consecrated virginity into religious life. After very seriously studying and praying about these questions, I’ve personally come to a level of moral certainty that these things are objectively what the Church does in actual fact call her consecrated virgins to do. In conscience, I can’t pretend that I somehow don’t think this is what the Church is asking of us—even though, at the same time, I completely respect the consciences of other CVs who might have sincerely come to different conclusions.

 

Even if CVs were to serve the Church full time and wear distinctive clothing, to me this would still be a very different vocation from apostolic religious life. Among other things, CVs wouldn’t have the same vocation to community life that religious have, nor would they be bound to a particular corporate apostolic work, nor would they strive to follow the charism of a particular founder. Also, “living in the world” (i.e., lacking any cloister obligations) would mean that a CV could be more of a direct part of the life of her diocese, and much more practically “accessible” to the faithful.  

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, I will put three quotes from you below –

 

Direct quotes from you --

1. It is true that all the baptized are all called to be a Christian witness, but consecrated persons in general are called to do this in a much more radical way
2. I do think that, under ordinary circumstances, CVs should dedicate their lives to the direct service of the Church, that we should be a visible public witness
3. Also, I totally accept that secular institutes members are called to live a “normal,” distinctively secular way of life, and one which does not normally involve a public witness

You agree that members of secular institutes do not live a Christian witness – in a way that looks <<visibly>> different – from other baptized lay people -- #3

 

You think consecrated persons are called to be a witness – in a way that is far more radical than the rest of the baptized – you call this radical witnessing <<public witness>> -- #2

 

You think because consecrated virgins are consecrated, they must live radical, visible <<public witness>> #1

 

Here is the logical conclusion – if you say you agree that members of secular institutes are leaven -- #3 – then you cannot also say that they are consecrated – you must dispute this despite the Church’s teaching. The Church includes secular institutes under the umbrella of the forms of consecrated life – in canon law, the catechism, in  other authoritative documents. If #1 and #2 are true – as you say they are – then you cannot logically hold #3. Because in order to be <<really>> consecrated, members of secular institutes would have to have radical witness, what you call <<public witness>> -- and they would have to visibly look different from the rest of the baptized. But they do not look different. Therefore they cannot be <<really>> consecrated. Or else you have to revise your other conclusion -- that someone who is consecrated must have radical witness and this radical witness must be visible.

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, I will put another quote from you below --

 

Your quote --

 

I think (though admittedly, I’m not 100% sure on this point) that this implicit commitment to the counsels was the reason that consecrated virginity was actually allowed to be classified as “consecrated life” in the first place

 

 

I do not understand how you can say this – the decree of promulgation of the Rite from the Vatican answered your question – I put this quote already in the thread – at the beginning.

 

The revised Rite of Consecration of Virgins for Women Living in the World was published by the decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship on 31 May 1970, after having been formally decreed by the Second Vatican Council. The decree of promulgation explains the development of this venerable and ancient rite in this way:

 

 The rite for the consecration of virgins is one of the most treasured in the Roman liturgy. Consecrated virginity is among the most excellent gifts bequeathed by our Lord to his Bride, the Church. From apostolic times women have dedicated their virginity to God, so adding to the beauty of the mystical body of Christ and making it fruitful in grace. Even from earliest times, as the Fathers of the Church bear witness, mother Church in her wisdom set her seal on this high vocation by her practice of consecrating those who followed it by means of a solemn prayer. This prayer, enriched in the course of time by other ritual elements to bring out more clearly the symbolism of virginity in relation to the Church, the bride of Christ, was incorporated into the Roman Pontifical. [Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 62] (1970).

 

This is indisputable -- <<implicit commitment>> to the evangelical counsels is  not  the reason why the Vatican allowed consecrated virginity to be classified as  <<consecrated life>> in the first place. The Magisterium spells it out. There is no ambiguity – the woman is consecrated by the Church -- by means of a solemn prayer. Consecrated virginity belongs to consecrated life because the Church consecrates the woman by means of a solemn prayer. I do not understand why you question this – the Church’s teaching on how a woman comes to be consecrated could not be made more explicit. It is not – as you suggest – through <<implied>> evangelical counsels. I do not understand why you prefer your own hypothesis – over and against what the Vatican’s decree states.

[Cecilia]

My comment from above I am putting below again -- because I did not see the first time the numbers did not show -- and I cannot edit the one above.

 

Sponsa Christi, I will put three quotes from you below –

 

Direct quotes from you --

 

1.  It is true that all the baptized are all called to be a Christian witness, but consecrated persons in general are called to do this in a much more radical way

 

2. I do think that, under ordinary circumstances, CVs should dedicate their lives to the direct service of the Church, that we should be a visible public witness

 

3. Also, I totally accept that secular institutes members are called to live a “normal,” distinctively secular way of life, and one which does not normally involve a public witness

 

You agree that members of secular institutes do not live a Christian witness – in a way that looks <<visibly>> different – from other baptized lay people -- #3

 

You think consecrated persons are called to be a witness – in a way that is far more radical than the rest of the baptized – you call this radical witnessing <<public witness>> -- #2 -- and you also discuss radical witness as being visible witness throughout other comments you make -- not quoted here.

 

You think because consecrated virgins are consecrated, they must live radical, visible <<public witness>> #1

 

Here is the logical conclusion – if you say you agree that members of secular institutes are leaven -- #3 – then you cannot also say that they are consecrated – you must dispute this despite the Church’s teaching. The Church includes secular institutes under the umbrella of the forms of consecrated life – in canon law, the catechism, in  other authoritative documents. If #1 and #2 are true – as you say they are – then you cannot logically hold #3. Because in order to be <<really>> consecrated, members of secular institutes would have to have radical witness, what you call <<public witness>> -- and they would have to visibly look different from the rest of the baptized. But they do not look different. Therefore they cannot be <<really>> consecrated. Or else you have to revise your other conclusion -- that someone who is consecrated must have radical witness and this radical witness must be visible.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2014 by Cecilia

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

Here is the logical conclusion – if you say you agree that members of secular institutes are leaven -- #3 – then you cannot also say that they are consecrated – you must dispute this despite the Church’s teaching. The Church includes secular institutes under the umbrella of the forms of consecrated life – in canon law, the catechism, in  other authoritative documents. If #1 and #2 are true – as you say they are – then you cannot logically hold #3. Because in order to be <<really>> consecrated, members of secular institutes would have to have radical witness, what you call <<public witness>> -- and they would have to visibly look different from the rest of the baptized. But they do not look different. Therefore they cannot be <<really>> consecrated. Or else you have to revise your other conclusion -- that someone who is consecrated must have radical witness and this radical witness must be visible.

 

A few points in response to this:

 

1. There is actually still some debate among theologians and canonists as to whether, or in precisely what sense, secular institutes can be properly considered “consecrated life.” While secular institutes are usually classified alongside other forms of consecrated life, there are a few different aspects of a secular institute vocation which would seem to be inconsistent with this. For example, can. 711 says that profession in a secular institute does not change one’s lay status, which seems to suggest that secular institute members don’t enter into a formally consecrated state of life. Also, the Catechism identifies consecrated life with a public profession of the evangelical counsels (cf. CCC 944), and there is some question as to exactly how public secular institute members’ vows actually are.

 

2. However, if for the sake of argument we go ahead and suppose that secular institute members are in fact officially consecrated in the fullest and in every sense of the word, we can still say that secular institutes live fully secular lives in the world as part of their very unique and distinctive proper charism. That is, it would be better to consider a public witness as sort of the “default” state of consecrated persons in general, with the hidden witness of secular institutes being the exception. (I think it’s more reasonable to presume this scenario as opposed to vice-versa, where we would propose that discretion about one’s vocation is the normal call of publicly consecrated persons, with the public witness of religious being the great exception to the rule.)

 

3. But, even if we completely set aside this “argument from category” (wherein we propose that consecrated virgins are called to a public witness by virtue of the fact that consecrated virginity is a public state of consecrated life), I still think there is enough in the Rite and in the documents that explicitly pertain to consecrated virginity to justify a belief that consecrated virgins are called to a life dedicated to the service of the Church and to a life of radical public witness.