Canon Law - Private Vows

[BarbTherese]

I read somewhere or other that public vows (i.e. consecrated life) is an act of public worship of The Church.  I wondered where then did private vows fit in - if indeed anywhere.  I noticed in going back to Canon Law (and not a canon law expert, nor remotely even their bootlace) that private vows come under Section II of Canon Law titled: "The Other Acts of Divine Worship" under which also, of course, both public and private vows appear.  Could private vows then be considered a private act of Divine Worship of The Church?  The Church, of course, is all the baptised and each of our gifts, charisms etc. belong to the whole Church, as do our failures.  We either build up The Church as The Mystical Body of Christ on earth -  or diminish it to some degree or other...... Pope Benedict

 

Canon Law does state and under Section II HERE  :

Can.  1191 §1. A vow, that is, a deliberate and free promise made to God about a possible and better good, must be fulfilled by reason of the virtue of religion.

§2. Unless they are prohibited by law, all who possess suitable use of reason are capable of making a vow.

 

 

The above has led me to try to research "the virtue of religion".  I found the following on New Advent re the virtue of religion HERE :

"The notion of it commonly accepted among theologians is that which is found in St. Thomas's "Summa Theologica", II-II, Q. lxxxi. According to him it is a virtuewhose purpose is to render God the worshipdue to Him as the source of all being and the principle of all government of things

.   There can be no doubt that it is a distinct virtue, not merely a phase of another. It is differentiated from others by its object, which is to offerto Almighty God the homage demanded by His entirely singular excellence.

In a loose construction it may be considered a general virtuein so far as it prescribes the actsof other virtuesor requires them for the performance of its own functions. It is not a theological virtue, because its immediate object is not God, but rather the reverenceto be paid to Him. Its practice is indeed often associated with the virtuesof faith and charity. Still the concordant judgmentof theologians puts it among the moralvirtues, as a part of the cardinal virtuejustice, since by it we give God what is due to Him. St. Thomas teaches that it ranks first among moralvirtues. A religiousattitude towards God is essentiallythe product of our recognition, not only of His sovereign majesty, but also of our absolutedependence on Him.

Thus, as Father Rickaby says, He is not merely "the Great Stranger", our behaviour towards whom must be invested with awe and admiration; He is besides our Creator and Master and, in virtue of our supernatural filiation in the present order of things, our Father. Hence we are bound to cherish habitually towards Him sentiments of adoration, praise, thanksgiving, loyalty, and love. Such a demeanour of soul is inexorably required by the very law of our being. We must not, however, rest satisfied because perchance our interior bearing is fairly in conformity with this standard.

We are not simply spirits. Our composite nature needs to express itself by outward acts in which the body as well as the soul shall have a part — this not only to spur on our inner feelings, but also because God owns us body and soul, and it is right that both should show their fealty to Him. This is the justification of external religion. Of course God does not need our worship, whether interior or exterior, and it is puerile to impugn it on that score. We cannot by our homage add anything to His glory, unless it be the extrinsic increment of the theologians of which account need not be taken here. It is not because it is strictly speaking of use to Him that we render it, but because He is infinitely worthy of it, and because it is of tremendous value to ourselves. The chief actsof this virtueare adoration, prayer, sacrifice, oblation, vows; the sins against it are neglect of prayer, blasphemy, tempting God, sacrilege, perjury, simony, idolatry, and superstition."

 

I have no idea at all what "unless it be the extrinsic increment of the theologians" means!  But anyway it seems not to apply in the subject under discussion.

 

At some point, when my list of 'to be done' grows smaller and quite a way ahead as yet, I will ring diocesan offices and ask for contact point for a canon law expert (re private vows) - and of course post any responses into Phatmass.  Not much is available re private vows and I am trying to understand as much as I can for my own instruction.  A book from me might/could/possibly/perhaps be in the pipeline somewhere re private vows and also a Catholic journey with mental illness - two books??? Some notes recorded already in Word.  Meanwhile, I am presenting the subject here in the Debate Forum and all opinions valued - while not of necessity agreed with by this lowly mere fallible and faulted mortal.............hence the Debate Forum.  Personal concepts are one matter, what The Church has to state can be another.  My two favourite comedies on TV are "Seinfeld" and also "Becker" in which characters can argue like crazy - and still remain close friends and the way it ideally should be.

 

Apologies for a long and perhaps complex post ! ..........if anyone indeed has made it and read this far, God's richest blessing upon you.  Doubly so if you contribute in the thread! :)  ............oh and including those who like to contribute the funny side -  and lighten a thread.

[CatherineM]

As to mental illness, there has been some progress here. We actually have a seminarian who was accepted even though he has bipolar. He had to agree to stay on his medication. Last year we ordained a man who was profoundly dead.

[arfink]

As to mental illness, there has been some progress here. We actually have a seminarian who was accepted even though he has bipolar. He had to agree to stay on his medication. Last year we ordained a man who was profoundly dead.

 

I did a double take there. O_o

[BarbTherese]

Thank you both very much for contributing - and truly wonderful news indeed, CM!  :winner:

 

Must admit I had to look and look again at "profoundly dead" and then realized the typo laughing. rotfl  I think you just  might be a touch-typist, CM. 

 

Are you able to share your diocese, CM?  I understand totally if you would rather not.

 

  Many who suffer mental illness and especially when they stay on their medication as prescribed and without fail; who visit their psychiatrist regularly if advised to do so, these can live a quite productive life in the community including in religious communities/seminaries, if the latter are open to same.  It has taken Catholic cultural thinking quite a while really to catch up with the truth of mental illness and those who suffer it - in some to many cases that is. And I think that our general Catholic thinking and concepts are still on this journey with a way to go - but thankfully the journey has commenced.

 

I was in a psychiatric hospital years ago and it was night time and I was sitting outside smoking a cigarette.  Two policemen had brought a patient into hospital.  As they walked passed me leaving the grounds, I heard one say to the other "You know, sometimes they actually do make sense, don't they?"  I still can laugh heartily at that memory.  We don't have two heads and we aint 'off the planet' (psychotic and disconnected from reality) all of the time, just some of the time - and in some cases only.

 

It is vitally important that facts such as you have shared, CM, are shared - and thank you again. :)  In this way it is a 'pebble in the pool' effect and the one little seed in a Catholic forum as it were will have an outward ripple effect.  It may take time, but it will happen.  Certainly, I will be spreading the word and putting your post on file and it is there now.  You are sharing the information and doubtless others in your diocese are too......some may read your post and learn something and then spread the word.............and so the ripple gets bigger and bigger and spreads outwards.

 

 I know a profoundly deaf young lady who had been a life saver and wanted to do further qualifications in that organization.  The organization prevented this due to her disability.  Her parents were not stuck for' two bob' and the young lady took the organization to court.  She won and opened the way for others with disabilities. She is now the a senior counsellor for the deaf (university qualifications) and the secretary of a very important organization in the community.  Disability she does have, but one ignores her abilities at considerable risk - she is quite outspoken and assertive, well educated.

 

Also, one contemplative nun I know (and I know a few) is absolutely convinced that at least two in her community are probably bipolar disorder sufferers but undiagnosed.  They have been professed in the enclosed community for many years now.  Bipolar disorder has ranges of severity, including those just within the bounds of normality or on the socially acceptable side of the line as it were.  They do cope in every way very well; however, undoubtedly they just might find life less of a struggle at times, hurdles easier to negotiate, if they were diagnosed and accepted medication..........not always of course.

 

I recall going to my general practitioner before I had the first quite serious episode of bipolar in my late twenties.  All I could say to my doctor was that something just was not right and would he refer me to a psychiatrist.  He had been my doctor since I was 2 years of age and dismissed my request as my imagination.  It just might be, and absolutely no way of knowing, that if he had referred me things might not have gone as far as they did.  No way of knowing.  Since those days - and now 40 years ago - our general practitioners are instructed re mental illness and there is far more accurate information readily available than ever before.

 

Thank you again for the truly wonderful news on both scores, CM.  Deo Gratius! Alleluia! Amen. :dance6:

[BarbTherese]

CatherineM (I suspect and well done!) and also Arfink and also well done:

 

God's richest blessing upon you.  Doubly so if you contribute in the thread! :)  ............oh and including those who like to contribute the funny side -  and lighten a thread.

 

 

I'm still laughing.

[BarbTherese]

" I know a profoundly deaf young lady who had been a life saver"

 

 

I'm not too bad either in the funny department.............. although entirely unintentionally!

 

...........meanwhile........

............................back at the ranch........

............................................private vows and canon law, their place in the overall scheme of things.

Edited July 4, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[tinytherese]

Last year we ordained a man who was profoundly dead.

"Your friend here is only mostly dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive" (Miracle Max from The Princess Bride).

[BarbTherese]

.......and from the New Zealand Herald :
 

 

"This follows the refusal of the Speaker's Office to allow special funding for the equipment needed by Ms Mathers who is New Zealand's first profoundly dead MP," the original statement read.

The party put out a correction a short time later

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10785567

 

 

[AccountDeleted]

So where's the debate? 

 

"Could private vows then be considered a private act of Divine Worship of The Church?"

 

Is this the question? Well, how is it debatable? It's a bit like private revelations - they are private and even if the Church approves of them, it doesn't compel the faithful to believe in them.

 

My question would be 'why wouldn't private vows' be a 'private act' of Divine Worship of the Church?

 

Maybe I'm just being dense. ????  :think: 

[BarbTherese]

So where's the debate? 

 

"Could private vows then be considered a private act of Divine Worship of The Church?"

 

Is this the question? Well, how is it debatable? It's a bit like private revelations - they are private and even if the Church approves of them, it doesn't compel the faithful to believe in them.

 

My question would be 'why wouldn't private vows' be a 'private act' of Divine Worship of the Church?

 

Maybe I'm just being dense. ????  :think: 

 

Thank you, nunsense  :) .....yep, that is the question.......and your response is much as I thought.  I find it always helpful to get others' opinions if one is unsure of one's own + x.  I recall in the early days of coming out the closet on a Catholic discussion site (I think Phatmass) re private vows in the celibate lay state and really struggling to get my point across.  Some kind member sent me a PM with a quotation from a Vatican Document that was new to me and proved to be exactly my point - and a real relief! 

 

Eventually I will have an opportunity to speak with a canon lawyer - just to ensure I actually am on the right track.  Canon Law can be a minefield as is moral law for such as I anyway- and why we have experts in these fields. Certainly, before I write any sort of book if that is where I am heading.  I was writing the other day and suddenly stopped (touch typing) and re-read :

"...........Life for me is a journey and the goal ever undefined and ahead somewhere. If I reach it, only then I can define and understand……only to have the goal redefine itself and slip once more into the far horizon of my journey and into the unknown and unknowable............"..........

 

Faith and Morals only are the subject of infallibility.  I am unsure on this point also, but I think when The Church approves some text of writing it is only to state that it is free from doctrinal and moral error.  And of course even so, still remains completely up to individuals or the faithful whether to hold to/believe in these texts or not.

Very quick research http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu89.htm and with quick research anyway, I think I am on the right track.

 

Regards...........Barb :)

 

Edited July 4, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[AccountDeleted]

Barb - I think the important thing is not to confuse private vows done in public as 'public vows' and then there could be no debate. There are probably quite a lot of people who make private vows, but they never do them in public, or they don't announce them and have a special event for them, etc, as you are doing. So when someone does private vows in public as you are doing, perhaps it can lead to some confusion by those who don't understand the difference. That's the only reason I can think of for there being any debate about them.But I can't see how they wouldn't always constitute a private act of worship.

 

You are making 'private vows' (or renewing them), but you are doing them in a public way, at a Home Mass, knowing full well that doing them in public still doesn't make them 'public vows' (like CHs or CVs), nor make you a consecrated religious. 

 

But what you are doing is not unheard of. Most secular communities make their promises in public, often at a Mass. When I was in a Carmel in England, an OCDS (secular Carmelite) wanted to make her first temporary promises at a Mass at the Carmel. It was scheduled so that she could do this at the same time as an extern sister was making her simple vows (she was changing from solemn vows to simple vows for special reasons so she needed to make them in public and not in private as is usually how professed nuns renew their vows annually). The OCDS was making private promises (in public) -- that did not 'consecrate' her as a religious - but it did confirm her as a member of a secular order  - whereas the extern was making public vows that did consecrate her as a religious -- two different types of promises/vows though they were both doing them at the same public event (at different times and in different ways but at the same Mass).

 

And renewing one's promises is common in secular orders, so why not in individual private vows as well? You are simply renewing your private vows in a public way so that others may share in your joy and support you in continuing your commitment.

 

This is the renewal promise of OCDS in Australia - just for interest sake.

 

The Devotional Renewal of the Promise

During Eastertide each year, the members of each community renew the promise made using the following wording:

I, (name), desiring to follow the Crucified and Risen Christ in the Secular Order of Carmel, renew my profession, and I promise to tend toward evangelical perfection in the spirit of the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty and obedience, and of the Beatitudes, according to the Constitutions of the Secular Order of Discalced Carmelites. I confidently entrust my promise to the Virgin Mary, Mother and Queen of Carmel. 

 

 

 

 

[BarbTherese]

Thanks again!  I am aware of all you wrote - except the OCDS "Renewal of Promise".  Father John has asked me to write my own vows for the Mass and what you have shared is most opportune indeed with some changes I don't have time to focus on now - but thank you again.

 

I think that the term "private vows" is to distinguish their nature from "public vows" in Canon Law and the terms are Canon Law terms.  I have written on this subject extensively (I think) in my thread in Open Mike RELEVANT THREAD BEGINS HERE - for only one location on Phatmass.  I almost know it all by heart I think since I have written so often and in Phatmass on the subject.

 

The term "private vows" does not mean of necessity that they are kept private.  One can of course as I did for many years, or one may choose not to do so and this latter at this stage of my journey is my decision after discussions with my spiritual director and confessor. His advice and my decision were not at all done lightly in any way whatsoever.  To 'top it all off' as it were, His Grace Archbishop Wilson gave his permission for the Home Mass and for the purpose.  My parish priest also gave his permission for same to take place in his parish, in which I am a parishioner.

 

 This is why some institutions within The Church make their private vows in a rather public type of setting.  This latter cannot change the nature of the vow or vows as "private" (Canon Law definition and term) and the fact that we remain fully in every way in the lay celibate state of life and in secular life. 

 

Private vows are a vocation all on its own.  As public vows into the consecrated state of life is another vocation all on its own.  They are totally different.  If one feels one is called to consecrated life, then the vocations to consider are religious life, secular institutes here -  eremitical life under Canon 603 or Consecrated Virginity. 

Private vows are for those who feel called to secular life in the lay celibate state.

All in a nutshell!

I am not in any way whatsoever a religious, nor have the slightest desire any more to discern the vocation, while I still love the way of life.  I know to where I am called and I think I might even know why in broader terms than the obvious - that is yet to unfold and I am in safe hands indeed with Father John.  Rest easy, nunsense!

 

I have tried and often and always to stress that no matter how one actually has one's vows received, it in no way whatsoever places them in that Canon Law determination known as "public vows" or the consecrated state.  I have stressed very often that where "private vows" are concerned one remains in every way in the lay celibate state - and the document that is probably our prime  guiding light is Decree on The Apostolate of The Laity http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html

 

If others are confused about private vows renewed and received at a semi public type of celebration like a Home Mass, then I am sure hoping that if they read my posts that they will no longer be confused and wherever I come across confusion on the subject, I do try to help out.  Private vows has nothing to do whatsoever with religious life or the consecrated state of life.  The evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience are a recommended to all the baptised as an abiding disposition, not necessarily in a stable form of life however.  The evangelical counsels are not 'owned' as it were by the consecrated state of life only but for all the faithful in some form or other.

 

I am privately vowing to live the evangelical counsels in a stable form of life under my own rule of life approved by Fr John and in the state of lay celibate chastity, approved by Father John.  I am simply a lay celibate person.  Please do not assume that because Fr John approved my rule that I consider it is anything more than my personal rule of life - because it most definitely is not anything but a rule of life for myself alone personally and nothing more.  My spiritual director and confessor has approved that rule which means nothing more than it is ok for my use in his opinion.  Nothing whatsoever infallible about it and nothing to do with the wider Church at all in ordinary terms of the day to day.

 

 

"The Evangelical Counsels"  http://www.carmelite.org/index.php?nuc=content&id=237

All Christians are invited to practice the 'Evangelical Counsels' of poverty, chastity and obedience. Professed members of the Carmelite Family - that is those religious or laity who make a public statement of wanting to live the Carmelite way of life - make promises or vows to follow these Evangelical Counsels.

They are called the ‘evangelical’ counsels because we find them lived and therefore recommended (counselled) by Jesus in the four accounts of the Gospel ('evangelium' in Latin). Jesus Christ was poor in spirit, chaste in heart, and obedient in love to the will of his Father. The evangelical counsels are a useful support in our pursuit of living - as the Carmelite Rule states - 'in allegiance to Jesus Christ'.

All Christians are called to live as Christ lived, and Carmelites profess to do this publicly through the evangelical counsels. The evangelical counsels are closely linked to the way of life of religious communities, because although people have been living the evangelical counsels since the time of Jesus it was not until the development of monastic and mendicant communities that these virtues were professed publicly with the swearing of a vow or promise. Vows of poverty, chastity and obedience are now taken in some form by all formal congregations and orders of religious in the Roman Catholic Church, and the counsels are regarded as the foundation of their conduct and way of life.

 

 

[BarbTherese]

Just to jump to another place from the above quotation re evangelical counsels:

 

"A universal invitation
However, the invitation to live poor, chaste and obedient is not restricted to religious and clergy. All Jesus’ followers are invited to adopt these principles in whatever way is appropriate to them. The evangelical counsels are recommended for all the baptised. Both the 1983 Code of Canon Law (§207 # 2) and the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church (§873) remind us that within both the clergy and the laity ‘there exist Christian faithful who are consecrated to God in their own special manner and serve the salvific mission of the Church through the profession of the evangelical counsels.’ The Catechism states that those who profess the evangelical counsels publicly within a permanent state of life recognised by the Church live a consecrated life."

[AccountDeleted]

Barb - don't imagine for a moment that what I wrote in any way means that I think you might be confused about the difference between private and public vows, as I am confident from everything you post that you have no confusion about this matter. You have posted an abundance of material supporting your understanding of private vows many times.

 

I only mentioned the 'possible' confusion (for others) to help myself understand why this would even be in the Debate Table at all because I can't see what there is to debate about unless one were to accidentally confuse the two types of vows. So, if this is not a confusion for someone, what else do you see that might occasion debate??

 

 

Edited July 4, 2014 by nunsense

[BarbTherese]

Just about to put off the computer.  The only debate I considered MIGHT occur is over the question of private vows being a private act of worship by The Church and under the virtue of religion.  If there is no debate and everyone agrees - well that is something of a confirmation anyway.  At the time of posting, I had no idea whether there would be any sort of debate or not.  It was a question asked and in the debate forum to give room for debate if that was the way the thread was to unfold.

No big deal!  Not for me anyway.

 

If confusion does exist over the nature of public vows in the consecrated state and private vows in the lay celibate state, then let it take place.  No hastle or problem to me - in fact welcomed as an opportunity to try to set things straight.  The great thing about the debate forum, I think, is that it can indeed wander all over the place without problems.

 

My concepts and fallible, faulted, weak and fallen all the way - and I do have an open mind, but I do need some sort of proof, not just someone else's opinion in order to change my own concepts.  Or some sort of reasonable argument put forward.

Edited July 4, 2014 by BarbaraTherese