Consecrated Virginity

[FSM Sister]

[code][/code]This isssue has confounded me as I also know - personally!!! - Consecrated Virgins were not Virgins in the physical sense. In fact, one was consecrated in a northeast American Church - publicly - by the Cardinal, and she has children (but obviously did not remarry and the kids are older).

I also know two nuns who received the FULL ancient Rite of being Consecrated Virgins, and both were VERY open about not being Virgins in the physical sense.
[code][/code]


I don't know how to put a quote from someone else into my own post (can someone explain it to me? I feel like such a dummy!)

Anyway, I wanted to respond to Tradmom's comment.

I wonder if - sometimes - priests, bishops, and even Cardinals misinterpret canon law. Not to be uncharitable, but my experience with most diocesan priests is that they know very little about how religious life works. In a few instances, you almost get the impression that they just do not want to go to the trouble. Here is an off topic example. I know two cases where someone married their first cousin, in the church, in a Catholic wedding, with a priest celebrating the mass. In both cases, the priest (a monsignor, actually) "granted" the couple a dispensation. The first time this happened, the mother of the groom wrote to me and asked me to look it up in canon law. I did, and there is no such dispensation in the '83 code. Was there in the previous code? I don't know - but this Msgr. either thought that there still was, or just flat out lied to the couple (who was already co-habitating, and already had at least one child). It was a pretty big wedding, too. So I wonder if the bishop - or cardinal - who performed this consecration, did so for pastoral reasons. Just a thought - as I don't know (and do not want to know) the identity of the cardinal to which Tradmom refers.

I am very happy that the church is restoring the order of consecration of virgins, and that it is being allowed in more and more diocese. It is especially needed in our western culture, where virginity is seldom talked about and drastically misunderstood!!!

Edited December 6, 2010 by FSM Sister

[ontherock4good]

[quote name='abrideofChrist' timestamp='1291604005' post='2191133']
This is one area in which the vocations of consecrated virginity and religious life differ. Consecrated virginity requires as valid "matter" a woman who has not had voluntary sexual experience (fornication, the marital act, or adultery) and one has had to have been always a virgin. Not all sins invalidate the woman's eligibility for the consecration; just the completed conjugal act (in marriage or out). Consecrated religious life requires a vow of chastity that one will abstain from all sexual experience (including impure thoughts, words, and actions) from that time forward irrespective of one's sexual experience prior to making that vow.



[/quote]


So are you saying that someone who has had a voluntary sexual experience, as long as it was not intercourse, can be a consecrated virgin? Sorry to harp on this, but I'm just a little confused. I would also want to be able to explain it clearly to someone who's thinking about the vocation (ie: whether they are eligible for it or not)

[Shana]

[quote name='ontherock4good' timestamp='1291617458' post='2191166']
So are you saying that someone who has had a voluntary sexual experience, as long as it was not intercourse, can be a consecrated virgin? Sorry to harp on this, but I'm just a little confused. I would also want to be able to explain it clearly to someone who's thinking about the vocation (ie: whether they are eligible for it or not)
[/quote]

I've been hesitating to reply because there are a lot of gray areas. My friend who is a consecrated virgin wrote a post relating to the topic of virginity as it relates to this vocation recently on her blog about consecrated virginity:

[url="http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2011/01/charism-of-virginity.html"]http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2011/01/charism-of-virginity.html
[/url]
Be sure to take a look at the comments as well as someone asked a very similar question as yours and this was Jenna's response which I honestly think is the the best one you're going to find online (trust me I've researched this issue) :

"In my own personal OPINION, a "half-virgin" or a "technical virgin" probably should not receive the Rite of Consecration, since I think this would count as having lived in "public or flagrant violation of chastity."

But I hesitate to emphasize this point, since it can be really easy for women to become scrupulous about chastity. I don't believe that comparatively minor sins against chastity would make a woman ineligible to receive the Rite; however, there are a lot of "gray areas" and it's next to impossible to "draw the line" in the abstract. Practically speaking, I think it would be easier to discern eligible vocations to consecrated virginity in real life with actual candidates, since women tend to know for themselves whether or not they are really virgins (i.e., whether or not they still have their whole heart, so that they can give themselves whole-heartedly to someone)."


I think she hits it right on the head here in saying that it is next to impossible to draw the line in the abstract and that it would be easier to discern this matter in real life with actual canidates.

Also, I do think her advice should be heeded is that if you are having issues with your own personal discernment of your matter it would be wise to not consult the internet as you will confuse yourself and get all worked up.

If someone is personally having issues in discerning this you can PM me and I may be able to give you some advice.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Shana

[Chamomile]

So... I'm going to throw this out there because I've always wondered it, and this seems like the right place to ask it.

I've come across many writings about religious life that stress virginity. Especially in Poor Clare literature. Also on the main page for the Franciscans of the Immaculate in American: [url="http://marymediatrix.com/"]FI Sisters[/url]. Scroll down, and you'll see it says "Consecrated Virginity for Mary."

Are there some religious orders or communities that do require one to be a physical virgin? In some of the Poor Clare information I've read, there's such an emphasis on virginity that it seems one would have to be. Yet I don't think this is the case (even though they retain the Rite of Consecration in their vows, I think?).

Also, I just flipped on EWTN for a second and caught part of the homily. It was given by a Dominican, and he was speaking about marriage. He then started speaking about the spousal love of a vowed religious for God, and he exclusively used the word "virginity" instead of chastity. As in, he spoke of being called to "a life of virginity."

If consecrated virginity is [i]never[/i] a requirement for religious life, I don't understand why this term is used to refer to the chaste state of religious life. To me, there is an actual difference between virginity and chastity. Although I have run across a quote, I think by St. Bernard, that says something like, a long period of chastity is a second virginity... part of me says that confuses the definition of virginity. And our society really doesn't need to be confused about what constitutes sexual purity versus impurity.

So... why the use of "virginity" when it seems "chastity" would suffice? Is there an issue in translation? If it's meant to heighten chastity to a spiritual virginity, why not use the term "spiritual virginity"? Or how about using "celibacy"? I'm a convert, so did I miss something about the way the Church speaks of one's sexual past versus present/future?

If anyone could provide some insight into this, I would be grateful. I've always found it confusing, and I don't know who to bring these questions to.

And prayers for you, Shana, as you discern! I think Consecrated Virginity is an amazing vocation, and you would be such a witness in that life.

[CatherineM]

We have a couple CV here in this diocese, and had at least one back home in St. Pete. One of the CV's here is an old testament professor at my school. She's leaving at the end of the term though. She took additional training as a Chaplain, and is basically taking over as the head one for the Catholic health system here.

[Shana]

[quote name='Chamomile' timestamp='1297387564' post='2211171']
So... I'm going to throw this out there because I've always wondered it, and this seems like the right place to ask it.

I've come across many writings about religious life that stress virginity. Especially in Poor Clare literature. Also on the main page for the Franciscans of the Immaculate in American: [url="http://marymediatrix.com/"]FI Sisters[/url]. Scroll down, and you'll see it says "Consecrated Virginity for Mary."

Are there some religious orders or communities that do require one to be a physical virgin? In some of the Poor Clare information I've read, there's such an emphasis on virginity that it seems one would have to be. Yet I don't think this is the case (even though they retain the Rite of Consecration in their vows, I think?).

Also, I just flipped on EWTN for a second and caught part of the homily. It was given by a Dominican, and he was speaking about marriage. He then started speaking about the spousal love of a vowed religious for God, and he exclusively used the word "virginity" instead of chastity. As in, he spoke of being called to "a life of virginity."

If consecrated virginity is [i]never[/i] a requirement for religious life, I don't understand why this term is used to refer to the chaste state of religious life. To me, there is an actual difference between virginity and chastity. Although I have run across a quote, I think by St. Bernard, that says something like, a long period of chastity is a second virginity... part of me says that confuses the definition of virginity. And our society really doesn't need to be confused about what constitutes sexual purity versus impurity.

So... why the use of "virginity" when it seems "chastity" would suffice? Is there an issue in translation? If it's meant to heighten chastity to a spiritual virginity, why not use the term "spiritual virginity"? Or how about using "celibacy"? I'm a convert, so did I miss something about the way the Church speaks of one's sexual past versus present/future?

If anyone could provide some insight into this, I would be grateful. I've always found it confusing, and I don't know who to bring these questions to.

And prayers for you, Shana, as you discern! I think Consecrated Virginity is an amazing vocation, and you would be such a witness in that life.
[/quote]

I totally understand where you are coming from and more or less share your confusion. I do think there needs to be some clarification on this point.

I looked at the FI website and I'm having a hard time finding where it says "consecrated virginity for Mary" so it's hard for me to ascertain what exactly they mean by that. Somehow I doubt that means actually recieving the rite. I do know there are some religious communities, such as some Benedictines, which give professed nuns the [i]option[/i] of recieving the rite (and the option of not recieving it if one is not a virgin and is therefore not eligible).

I'm not aware of any religious communities that require one to be a virgin. Perhaps there are a few out there that I am not aware of. If there are it of course isn't the norm. Perhaps back in the day, say in the early early Church, this may have been more common? I don't know.

I know what you mean by people using celibacy and virginity interchangably in a way that sort of blurs their distinction. I lent my consecrated virgin friend, Jenna, a CD with a talk that a nun friend of mine, Sr. Helena Burns, gave on celibacy where she seems to be using virginity and celibacy more or less interchangably. I wanted to talk to Jenna about this and see what her thoughts were. I'm thinking that it probably is valid for virginity to be used at times more loosely. I think Sr. Helena seemed to prefer the word virginity as opposed to celibicy because celibacy speaks of a lack where virginity has more of connotation of a fullness in God. Virginity more drives home the concept of totally God's body and soul, integrity and fullness. Though there definitely needs to be some more clarification about all this because oftentimes when I'm reading Catholic stuff and the word virginity comes up it's not always clear what is meant by that.

I have a suggestion. Why don't you make a comment on Jenna's post on viginity asking her just what you asked here. I think she'd have something very interesting to say on this topic and she would probably know which, if any, religious communities require literal virginity or what they mean by emphasising virginity or what they are getting at when they use that word.. Who knows, she may even write a blog post on it sometime! Or if you prefer you could shoot her an email, her address is on her blog, and say that Shana sent you and she'll get back to you sooner or later I'm sure. Next time I chat with her if I remember I'll bring this up seeing as how it's a topic I'm personally interested in as well and share anything that may help answer your question.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Shana

[Chamomile]

[quote name='Shana' timestamp='1297439066' post='2211346']
I have a suggestion. Why don't you make a comment on Jenna's post on viginity asking her just what you asked here. I think she'd have something very interesting to say on this topic and she would probably know which, if any, religious communities require literal virginity or what they mean by emphasising virginity or what they are getting at when they use that word.. Who knows, she may even write a blog post on it sometime! Or if you prefer you could shoot her an email, her address is on her blog, and say that Shana sent you and she'll get back to you sooner or later I'm sure. Next time I chat with her if I remember I'll bring this up seeing as how it's a topic I'm personally interested in as well and share anything that may help answer your question.
[/quote]

Good idea! Is Jenna the author of [url="http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/"]this blog[/url]?

[Shana]

[quote name='Chamomile' timestamp='1297440396' post='2211349']
Good idea! Is Jenna the author of [url="http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/"]this blog[/url]?
[/quote]

Yup, that would be the one!