Consecrated virginity question

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 hour ago, Laurie said:

If you're going to give advice to discerners in a public forum on this vocation, you should have a baseline level of knowledge. We don't take vows.

I've never tried to argue that consecrated virgins technically took vows per se in a canonical sense.

I would say that we make a public, permanent commitments to a life of virginity (as well as, arguably, public commitments to serving the Church and to an "evangelical" way of life), while noting that this is a similar kind of thing to the common, colloquial, every-day usage of the word "vow." But I know CVs don't technically make vows and I've never tried to argue this. 

[Laurie]

16 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I've never tried to argue that consecrated virgins technically took vows per se in a canonical sense.

I would say that we make a public, permanent commitments to a life of virginity (as well as, arguably, public commitments to serving the Church and to an "evangelical" way of life), while noting that this is a similar kind of thing to the common, colloquial, every-day usage of the word "vow." But I know CVs don't technically make vows and I've never tried to argue this. 

That's the entire heart of the issue. You put in words like "per se" and "technically" to buffer yourself from having to straight out admit that we don't make vows OR promises. Period. And I think you do that b/c you aren't comfortable that we aren't enough like religious life. That's my sense. So you try to shoehorn in your own ideas about our vocation by using all kinds of buffer language that convolutes the truth.

To say "we don't technically make vows  per se" means absolutely nothing. By saying that you get to IMPLY that we do make some sort of vows or promises and yet when you get criticized for that thought, you've set it up so you can say "I never said that we make vows." Yet, at the end of the day, reading everything you've said & how you've said it, you DID say that. By twisting every sentence so hard to leave the door wide open to implied vows/promises, and also flat out ignoring & dismissing the official English translation of the Rite b/c it doesn't fit your theory, you ARE saying we take vows or promises.

"Per se" means "intrinsic." Either it is intrinsic to the vocation of consecrated virginity to make a vow or it is not. It is not.

To say we "technically don't make vows" and then to explain at length how we really do though make promises (???) means what? It means you are trying to shoehorn your preference for vows (call them promises if you prefer) where they don't fit. We don't make vows. Technically or otherwise.

And then after at length you've tried to say vota/vow/promise really is in the Rite, and I tell you that the correct & officially approved translation for vota there is "intention" not "vow" you respond along the lines: Oh, never mind anyhow, it's really not that important.

It's not important b/c it doesn't support your theory!

???

 

16 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Actually, I had heard that they were revising the English translation of the Rite. My understanding was that this was part of the wider project of revising the English translations of the Church's liturgy in general, which began with the new Mass translation we started using in Advent 2011. I just wasn't aware that the new translation of the Rite of Consecration was now already currently in use--this was the first time I had heard that the new translation was already out there.  

My understanding is that, when determining what the Church most accurately intends to say, you always go to the typical Latin edition of whatever document you are studying. Of course, a translations from the typical Latin into other languages can provide some useful theological insight, but a translation itself doesn't determine Church teaching (especially not universal Church teachings, as translations are by their very nature aimed at only a particular language group). 

Though if it really was the typical Latin edition that was changed, rather than just the English translation, that would be very significant (though I would have been surprised if a revision of that magnitude wasn't published in some official Vatican media channel.)

Of course the Church bases her theology on the Latin editions. And the very reason Pope Benedict wanted the English versions of the masses to be revised is because there were some very significant issues with some English words NOT reflecting their true Latin meanings.

So in the mass of consecration, when the word "vota" in Latin was translated as "vow," and in that instance it doesn't mean vow, it was corrected. It's precisely b/c the Latin cannot be read in that context as "vow" that the English version was changed. Relying upon the Latin original, the English was updated.

The fact that the Latin edition wasn't changes has nothing to do with anything. The Latin wasn't incorrect. The English was. The authority in reading & interpreting the LATIN versions of texts is the Church herself. So when she tells us (!) the Latin word here doesn't mean vow, we (I) listen. Because she knows Latin a lot better than I do.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Laurie

[Sponsa-Christi]

@Laurie Honestly, I'm really not trying to turn consecrated virginity into religious life. I apologize if I've given that impression. I really do appreciate the difference between the two vocations. (I even wrote about this here: http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2017/02/consecrated-virginity-and-religious-life.html )

Granted that consecrated virgins don't make "vows" in the technical sense of the term, insofar as we make a permanent public commitment I think it's safe to say that we do do something that is like a vow in the colloquial understanding of the term. I add qualifiers like "technically" because I'm concerned that, if I just said "CVs don't make any vows" absent any context, it makes it sound like CVs don't actually make any binding commitments, when of course we do. 

I do think the candidates' responses during the "examination" part of the Rite are indeed promises, but this is based just on my objective observations of what is actually going on in the liturgy--it's not based on personal agenda.  I understand that these promises aren't the defining element of what makes a CV consecrated (e.g., if bishop rushed to consecrate a candidate in danger of death and skipped the examination to jump right into the central consecratory prayer, I would presume that that consecration would still be valid). 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Sponsa-Christi

[Sponsa-Christi]

Tossing this out there as an honest attempt at understanding, I guess I don't understand why the use of the word "vow" is so controversial? While I certainly appreciate clear language that accurately reflects technical canonical categories, our "propositum" is similar enough to a vow in it's general nature--i.e., as a serious permanent commitment made to God, in public--that I think it could reasonably called a vow in informal, poetic, colloquial, or non-technical uses of the term.

Also, I don't think "vow" automatically blurs the line between CVs and religious, since other people in the Church besides religious make vows. E.g., married people make vows to each other (or at least, an exchange of consent that is popularly called "vows") and many lay people make private vows. 

[Laurie]

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Tossing this out there as an honest attempt at understanding, I guess I don't understand why the use of the word "vow" is so controversial? While I certainly appreciate clear language that accurately reflects technical canonical categories, our "propositum" is similar enough to a vow in it's general nature--i.e., as a serious permanent commitment made to God, in public--that I think it could reasonably called a vow in informal, poetic, colloquial, or non-technical uses of the term.

Also, I don't think "vow" automatically blurs the line between CVs and religious, since other people in the Church besides religious make vows. E.g., married people make vows to each other (or at least, an exchange of consent that is popularly called "vows") and many lay people make private vows. 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are giving your professional opinion as a canonist and then not use very precise canonical and theological terms in defense of your position. What you are saying is, "This is my professional canonical opinion and I'm going to base it on a colloquial understanding of the word 'vow.'"

Vows have explicit meanings in various vocations. They involve obligations and confer rights, in religious life, marriage, etc. The church uses the word all over the place whenever & wherever she finds it accurate. She doesn't use it for our vocation.

[Makarioi]

[God's Beloved]

My suggestion is that you read the writings of St Jerome on the sacrum virginitatis propositum. 

There are various traditions in the East and West and nuances in the understanding of the vocation in early Church history in different local churches.  You cannot interpret ancient practice with contemporary phenomenology or the paradigm of religious life.

Pope Francis rightly says that the problem with formation of leaders in the church is that we are taught to look at things in black and white.  OCV is a vocation with many grey areas and questions open to discussion.  I don't like the tone being used to judge Sponsa Christi's competency and intentions. It's hardly evangelical to non philosophers and non theologians reading this thread. 

[Feankie]

Amen!!!!  I realize this IS the internet and one can neither see the facial expressions nor hear the tone of voice of the posters, but IMHO as a SD and D.Min. (and a trained, credentialed S.D. to clear up any misunderstandings  if credentialing is an issue :))  ) isn't it simply time to say you agree to disagree? Instead of being a quasi-debate/informative thread, it's turned to almost one-sided ad hominem finger pointing..  If you agree that CV may be a bit of a misunderstood vocation, can you put this thread to bed?  For many reasons, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this.  It's degenerated into "I'm right, you're wrong."  Just sayin......this thread is one of the reasons I don't post as much as I used to - it wears me out just to get through the replies!

[Laurie]

I am suddenly getting flashbacks to discussions long, long ago where CV topics were moved to the debate section. Maybe this shouldn't even be in vocation station? I don't know.

But what I do know is that, yes: I am saying I'm right and Sponsa-Christi is wrong.

That's not the same as an ad hominem. I DO expect her to speak canonically and theologically if she's giving professional advice. To do otherwise isn't acceptable.

It'd be one thing to have a thread here talking about everyone's personal opinions on the vocation. It's quite another to give advice to someone who has asked a clear question, offer your degree as proof your advice is solid, then proceed to give what is only personal opinion. (I have criticized Sponsa-Christi in the past for doing that. It's a very important matter.)

The consecrated virgin vocation is WILDLY misunderstood.

Part of the issue here is that by leaving the door open to implied vows, I believe Sponsa-Christi does that because she wants to say we have all sorts of obligations we don't have (like not moving out of our dioceses unless for a grave reason, that a consecrated virgin must work directly for the church, etc.). I'm not conjecturing that latter part. There are all sorts of things written by her, written all sorts of places, over the years, outlining all the things that a consecrated virgin "should do" and that are implied in her vocation.

These distinctions are hugely important. Whether someone makes a vow or not matters. Whether someone "sort of makes a vow" (I mean, that's not even possible, but I'll go with it) matters.

The obligations a woman has in her vocation, and the corresponding rights she enjoys matter.

I do know I'm not going to just roll over because people don't like the nature of the discussion and say, okay, none of this really matters. It DOES matter. As I have said before, there are women who are genuinely good candidates for this vocation who have been led to think otherwise because they don't work directly for the Church, or because the thought of sitting in one diocese for their lives feels restrictive (and it is, this vocation doesn't require that). Or any number of other things that are hugely important when a woman is discerning her vocation.

I remember now the objection being brought up in the past here on the Phatmass site that "Debates don't make the cv vocation look good." Or, "a hostile tone doesn't make the vocation look good." Stuff like that. Those are personal judgments that apply to how some people feel and not others.

Meaning, there are some people who read a thread like this and think it's pointless. There are some who don't think it's "nice" to tell someone she's flat out in error. That might be someone's opinion, but the fact remains there are times when it is an act of justice and charity to tell someone she is wrong, most especially when her error is impacting many others.

I know quite a few women (30 plus, and counting) who have been deeply thankful that there are those of us willing to stand up, stand strongly, and argue coherently for what the Church teaches this vocation is, and isn't.

I can't tell you how many times I've spoken with women who thought at one point they were not a good candidate for this vocation, and when they realize they ARE a good candidate, are full of joy. In those instances a boulder has been removed, quite actually, from their spiritual shoulders. It's women like that whom I have in mind when I insist on speaking the truth about this vocation.

(Which is not to say there aren't also debatable things about the consecrated virgin vocation. There are.)

The only thing I've got left is this really good article by Sr. Sharon Holland, who is an expert on the vocation.

http://consecratedvirgins.org/usacv/sites/default/files/documents/VocRes/holland.pdf

Even though I only pop into Phatmass a few times I year, I pray for all of you, all the time. Take care!

[Guest]

http://consecratedvirgins.org/usacv/sites/default/files/documents/VocRes/holland.pdf

Thank you for the above link, worth a read.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

 Is Catholicism the only institution that has the vocation of consecrated virginity? Does the Orthodox church have consecrated virgins? I know they have nuns, but do they have CVs? 

 

Thanks.

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 hour ago, ToJesusMyHeart said:

 Is Catholicism the only institution that has the vocation of consecrated virginity? Does the Orthodox church have consecrated virgins? I know they have nuns, but do they have CVs? 

 

Thanks.

I'm not an expert in Orthodoxy (or even on Eastern Catholicism for that matter), but as far as I know Catholicism is the only branch of Christianity that has CVs.

I haven't researched this particular topic that extensively, but my impression is that the consecration of virgins might be a primarily a Latin Catholic thing. As in, I think the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity mainly developed out of the Latin liturgical tradition. I know the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (the counterpart of our Code of Canon Law for Eastern Catholics) mentions that individual Eastern Churches can decide in their own specific sets of laws whether they want consecrated virgins and/or consecrated widows.

However, I personally have never seen a specifically Eastern liturgy for the consecration of virgins. My impression--which may very well be wrong, because again, I haven't taken the time to look too deeply into this--is that Eastern Catholic CVs are often consecrated with the Latin Rite of Consecration. 

[God's Beloved]

The Anglican Church does have the Order of virgins. In UK they encourage ecumenical communication between Catholic and Anglican consecrated virgins, although Anglican theology has a liberal approach.

Ancient history shows varying theologies for the dedication or consecration of virgins, in different local churches. Vatican II also developed the ecclesiology of Local church which is more decentralized.  Hence the Order of virgins is understood and lived in many many ways according to what the bishop and consecrated virgins/s decide in each diocese. Even the consecrated virgins within the same diocese can be called to live the vocation in different ways according to God's will.  The essence of the vocation however, remains non negotiable.  

The Syrian tradition of virgins is very beautiful. There are several books on their theology of the vocation. In ancient history, the Order of virgins was a socioliturgical category, not necessarily tied to a common rite of consecration.

Edited July 17, 2017 by God's Beloved

[Laurie]

Throwing this out there in case anyone has thoughts on it. The Vatican conference in Rome occurring in these present days (“Consecration & Consecration by Means of the Evangelical Counsels”) got me to thinking about the purpose of the evangelical counsels.

It seems to me that two things are true. One is the primacy of the counsels, whether in the form of vows in religious life, or the spirit of the counsels as embraced by all the baptized faithful, in the life & history of the Church, and in the salvation of her members. The second is a (not infrequent)tendency, I think, to emphasize the formally vowed counsels over & above what they signify.

By that, I mean that often the vowed evangelical counsels are seen as an equivalent to sequela Christi. Of course, following Christ as poor, chaste & obedient is beautiful, fitting, and necessary for each of our salvations (whether we are vowed religious or not). But to distill Christ Himself down to His being poor, chaste & obedient – and likewise to boil our walking with Him, and our conformity to Him & His will, down to our being poor, chaste, and obedient "like He was" – can be *harmful.

These thoughts have occurred to me because there are some who like to “rank” the vocations. E.g., They see publically vowing the counsels as “best,” privately promising the counsels as “second best,” and “merely” living the spirit of the counsels as not up to snuff, at least for someone who has made a serious commitment to being holy. I think most of us here would agree that such ideas are false, and immature, but in trying to drill down to the assumptions underpinning such attitudes, I realized there is at times a larger (and often undiagnosed) error of raising the counsels up as if they themselves are equivalent to sequela Christi (and this, I think, occurs not infrequently, by well-educated & well-intentioned & not immature people).

My point is, the counsels are meant to elucidate, not exhaust, primary ways in which we can follow, and be conformed to, Christ. (Related to this is the fact that the evangelical counsels serve the virtue of charity. They don’t, in and of themselves, equal charity -- just as they don’t guarantee holiness or salvation -- but rather they exist to help bring charity about in our souls -- i.e., a radical love of and devotion to Christ).

*This distinction, regarding the counsels existing to serve & bring about charity in our lives & souls, gets to the heart of what I mean by “harmful” above. It’s harmful to a person’s human & spiritual progress if he or she gets the erroneous idea that practicing poverty, or chastity, or obedience in itself brings about holiness or conformity to Christ. (E.g., Fasting due to a vow or spirit of poverty may or may not bring one in conformity with Christ. It depends on many things: What is Christ’s will for that person? Is the person doing the fasting out of pure intentions, or vanity, or a mix of both? Etc.)

The gathering in Rome includes religious and other consecrated, including consecrated virgins in the world & members of secular institutes. The latter two are frequently misunderstood, since as consecrated persons, they often don’t exhibit, for others to observe easily as is the case with religious, a life informed by the counsels. From there it’s sometimes assumed that a consecrated person’s sequela Christi is reducible to the ways the evangelical counsels are readily discernible in his or her life, with the conclusion that less “visible” living of the counsels = a less than ideal sequela Christi.

It’s an error that arises in prioritizing the counsels in and above Christ Himself and each of our conformity to Him. (A related point is that Christ was, Himself, hidden for most of His life. We could make the case that imitating Him in a hidden way, as the secular institutes do, is no less noble an imitation of Him than the religious who manifest His public witness.)

[Laurie]

Life is fascinating.

I have a few friends in Rome, clergy & consecrated, attending the Vatican conference (“Consecration & Consecration by Means of the Evangelical Counsels”) that I mentioned in my earlier post. No sooner did I create that post than I received several updates on today’s discussions and proceedings. Turns out, much of the topic of my post was discussed today at the Vatican!

One attendee asked whether a virgin who is consecrated by her bishop also somehow implicitly vows the three evangelical counsels during the liturgy of consecration. (Note that there’s not a spot in the liturgy where the virgin makes a profession. The question was asking, more or less: During a virgin’s consecration by the bishop, isn’t she at least implicitly making vows?)

The answer was: No, in being consecrated by her bishop, the virgin does not implicitly vow the counsels. The respondent then went on to say that the consecration of a virgin by her bishop predates the existence of the profession of vows; that the evangelical counsels apply to everyone, including the laity, not just consecrated persons; and that there were many other counsels in the Life of Christ that a disciple embraces, and sequela Christi can’t be reduced to the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

[Guest]

  Some good comments in the above posts - thank you.  Really looking forward to this thread unfolding further.

[Laurie]

You're welcome, Barbara!

If anyone is interested, in the near future (when I find the time) I can create a transcript of the sessions from the conference recordings, plus a translation of the transcript, so anyone whose interested can read what was actually said (versus someone else's summary, which is also good, but not as useful as a verbatim account). I'll create a Google Drive link that anyone in the world can view & post the link here.

[Guest]

Thank you - I am interested but I don't know what a Google Drive is.   I had a look at a YouTube instruction video, but it looks too complex for me (I am not at all computer literate per se).

I will have to be content to follow the posts here on Phatmass.

Must admit, "higher" "better" "more noble" and the like don't mean much to me personally - not to state that there is no such theological determinations that are quite valid..........."important" might be another matter dependant on the context.  It is that age old problem that if I desire to give my whole self to Christ, then I have to enter consecrated life.

Quote

Laurie posted: "that the evangelical counsels apply to everyone, including the laity, not just consecrated persons; and that there were many other counsels in the Life of Christ that a disciple embraces, and sequela Christi can’t be reduced to the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience."

The above, I think, is important but not generally understood - certainly not understood often by laity but not only laity.    I do think it is very important that it is understood across all vocations in The Church.  I do think too that if one is sincerely striving to live a Gospel orientated life with Christ, one will be living out a form of poverty, chastity and obedience and perhaps without realising it.

_______________________

We seem to have lost the "Quote This" facility.

[Laurie]

Don't worry! a "Google Drive link" sounds intimidating & fancy, but it isn't. It would simply be a link that I'd post here, and you'd click on, like you do for any website. It'd take you straight to the items I mention so you can read them if you want. It's a way to share the information without creating dozens of posts here at once on Phatmass. Those who wanted could also download the documents from the link if they wanted to.

Take a look: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPRKnNpFNdL-Yatb4bjjcAIzaUzd1mDv_GDWAj42Sw4/edit?usp=sharing

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Laurie

[Guest]

Thank you very much, Laurie     ..............pheww............ I really would be interested.

Just clicked on to the link..............Greetings to you also and another thank you...........you are quite correct, easy as!