Consecrated Virginity Question

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi, the law that a CV shouldn't get married is in the Rite itself.  Here is what it says about those who can be admitted to the consecration for women living in the world: " b) that by their age, prudence, and universally approved character they give assurance of perseverance in a life of chastity dedicated to the service of the Church and of their neighbor."    This is actually promulgated in the Rite itself.  It doesn't need to be in the Code of Canon law to be a rule.  But, the important thing is that it is promulgated and it is clear.  Elsewhere in the Rite, it says "You have renounced marriage for the sake of Christ."  I don't know how much clearer you need things to be that it isn't permitted to get married!

 

 

Edited June 3, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

Sponsa Christi, your marriage is with Christ and not with the diocese.  You will always have a bishop no matter where you move.  Therefore, you will always have someone with whom to monitor your spiritual journey.

 

 

I’m sincerely not trying to debate, but on a very practical level, it’s entirely possible that a consecrated virgin who moves to a new diocese might find that the bishop of her new diocese wants nothing to do with her.

 

And, as pastorally unfortunate as such a situation might be, in some ways it is well within the bishop’s rights. That is, it would be hard to demand that a bishop take a special interest in a consecrated virgin whose vocation neither he nor his predecessor discerned and confirmed, nor for whom he didn’t personally make the choice to accept into his diocese.

 

On the other hand, if the original bishop invested time and resources in personal mentorship and formation for the consecrated virgin, it would seem to be a rather unfair loss for him if the consecrated virgin decided to move away on her own initiative.

 

Also, if the people of the original diocese were enthusiastic and supportive of the consecrated virgin’s vocation, it also seems a bit unfair to them to be losing the spiritual mother whose prayers and service to their community they had a right to count on.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi, I understand where you're coming from.  Yes, there are deficiencies.  It is well  known that some bishops leave their consecrated virgins on their own and refuse to see them.  It is also sad when a consecrated virgin has to leave a diocese to help an ailing relative or pursue missionary work or get a job that is more in line with her skills and talents.  Yet, I don't know that we can label that as unfair.  We could posit unfairness if there was incardination (like for priests) or if there was a vow of stability (like certain religious).  But both incardination and the vow of stability promise in return certain rights which CVs currently do not enjoy.  Ideally, there would be hundreds of CVs in each diocese (like the 600+ in Paris alone) where a few dozen moving in or out won't disturb the faithful in the area in any great manner, any more than diocesan priests being transferred to a different parish.  The bishop of Rome didn't condemn St. Jerome for having a handful of Consecrated Virgins move from Rome to Jerusalem/Bethlehem.  Ultimately, formation is provided for CVs for the good of the Church at large, whether the virgin remains in a diocese or not.  You might say it is the same as marriage.  We give engaged couples marriage formation and don't expect them and their good works to remain in a diocese.  The bottom line is that it is not unfair for a married couple or family to leave a diocese because they are not transgressing any law.  They are using their natural law right to relocate.  And the same goes for a CV.  It is not unfair for her to leave because she uses her natural law right to relocate.  In neither case is there a law that prohibits this or restricts their freedom of movement.  Therefore it cannot be intrinsically unfair.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

Sponsa Christi, the law that a CV shouldn't get married is in the Rite itself.  Here is what it says about those who can be admitted to the consecration for women living in the world: " b) that by their age, prudence, and universally approved character they give assurance of perseverance in a life of chastity dedicated to the service of the Church and of their neighbor."    This is actually promulgated in the Rite itself.  It doesn't need to be in the Code of Canon law to be a rule.  But, the important thing is that it is promulgated and it is clear.  Elsewhere in the Rite, it says "You have renounced marriage for the sake of Christ."  I don't know how much clearer you need things to be that it isn't permitted to get married!

 

 

My point wasn’t to say that consecrated virgins should be able to get married! I certainly don’t believe this is the case.

 

Instead, I was just trying to point out how, if we're just sticking to the words of the law apart from a theological consideration of what consecrated virginity is, we’re not automatically guaranteed to draw the right conclusions. (And we might even run the risk of veering into legal positivism.)

 

Even with the quotes you mentioned, if a CV somehow changed her mind and wanted to get married, she could probably use these very words as a loophole. E.g., she could in theory argue that giving "assurance of perseverance in a life of chastity” and hearing in a homily that “you have renounced marriage” is not exactly the same thing as “legally incurring a permanent invalidating impediment to marriage.”

 

Now, I’m not saying that these apparent loopholes should be considered actual loopholes. I do believe that consecrated virginity is an absolutely permanent commitment.

 

But my point is, the reason why we know that consecrated virgins can’t get married is not just because of the law alone, but because we take the law in context with the history, tradition, and the objective nature of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity.

 

 

[Laurie]

Also, as kind of a side note, in talking about possible moral obligations, I’m considering the question from the perspective of how to live consecrated virginity in the fullest way possible, as opposed to what fulfills the bare minimum of the legal requirements.

 

From this perspective, I think there can be moral obligations that aren’t as hard-and-fast or clear-cut as, for instance, obeying the Ten Commandments.

 

To use the Christian life in general as an example—there is no formal rule saying that baptized Catholics must pray every day. Technically, we have to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, and receive Communion once a year. If this is all we do, we are fulfilling our obligations as Catholics. However, you wouldn't present this kind of bare-bones prayer life as “normal” to someone who was seriously thinking of entering the Church. I think in a case like this, you would be right in saying that Catholics have some level of moral obligation to pray every day, since daily prayer is necessary to lead a good Christian life with any kind of fullness.

 

So with consecrated virginity…if we only did just what the law made expressly clear, it’s probable that our lives would be “consecrated” in name only.

 

Since there are presently so very few official rules on how consecrated virgins are to live their lives, I think we need to frame our personal discernment in terms of “what would be the best and fullest expression of my call to be a bride of Christ” as opposed to simply “am I doing everything that the law says I should?”

 

It’s nice that our timelines have converged such that we can dialogue a bit here given our normally hectic lives!

I read your first response above, followed by this one here.

 

My point is that I think you need to expand your education to include a really solid basis in philosophy. I think that’s evident in your response here as well as above.

 

When I speak of legal obligations, and moral obligations, by no means do those refer to canonical obligations alone! Canonical obligations are only a sliver of the very beautiful way in which God leads us to perfection in Him.

 

In the Church’s tradition, “law” is used as one of the chief ways to express how God leads us to Him. Divine law, divine positive law (Revelation), natural law (the moral law known via the gift of our intellects) and the interpretations & codifications of these first 2 in human positive law (setting aside human positive laws that have no moral bearing, such as traffic rules).

 

The Church elucidates the nature and dignity of the human person through her various discussions of law. For example, you can’t separate discussions of the virtues (prudence, wisdom, etc.) from discussions of the natural law.

 

It’s impossible to conceive of a vocation understood separately from the Church’s view of law and moral obligation. There exists no scenario in which a person could go “beyond strict legal requirements” or “moral obligation” towards something “more.” A consecrated virgin’s perfection in her vocation could never be separated from her moral obligations and her moral perfection.  That’s because grace perfects nature. Theology builds upon philosophy. This leads back to my point that a sound grasp of philosophy is non-negotiable in understanding the vocations. A consecrated virgin’s perfection in grace is built upon her moral perfections, which are rooted in moral obligations that are, in turn, rooted in the various kinds of law.

 

A consecrated virgin never “surpasses” bare bones requirements to go onto  something more. The bare bones requirements are not a “stage” to be surpassed. They are the framework of a whole to which she is called.  

 

The whole to which she is called is the totality of her perfection in Christ, which she reaches through faithfulness to her vocation.   

 

I do think we have reached an impasse. There’s no amount of explaining I could do that will substitute for a careful formation in philosophy. I do want to thank you for taking the time to respond!

 

I’ll end with the sentences of the Catechism that begin the section titled “God’s Salvation: Law and Grace.” As I’ve noted above, the Church understands law as far more than this or that canonical rule or this or that moral obligation (in the fullest sense, Christ is Himself the law, just as He is Himself the Word). We never “go beyond the law”; it is Christ Himself.

 

CHAPTER THREE
GOD’S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

1949    Called to beatitude but wounded by sin, man stands in need of salvation from God. Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him:

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.¹

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2013 by Laurie

[Laurie]

Laurie, you're absolutely spot on.  There are no obligations where none are promulgated.  There are no obligations even if someone thinks that they are implied when such pseudo obligations restrict the rights of the people.   In the case of CVs, the natural law right to relocate is restricted if you follow Sponsa Christi's viewpoint.  However, there is no positive, promulgated law by competent authority (the Pope) that imposes this restriction of movement upon the virgin.  Therefore, there is no corresponding obligation.  Therefore, there is no moral obligation whatsoever to remain in the same diocese if no such agreement has not been made previously with the CV's consecrating bishop.

 

Reminder:  A moral obligation means that one will sin if one does not obey it.  Sponsa Christi does not have the authority to create a sin out of thin air because she thinks it is more appropriate for CVs to stay in their home dioceses.

 

Thank you, abrideofchrist, I'm glad you appreciated my post. I don't often have time to be online so I'm glad to have been able to share in your exchanges today.

[Laurie]

We can all do extra things and grow in the love of God.  But we absolutely cannot tell people that we must do this or must avoid that as a moral obligation when these are not obligatory. 

Yes, and I think we have to be crystal clear about the difference between a moral obligation that flows from X law versus the myriad of counsels that are all legitimate ways of fulfilling an obligation. For example, a CV is morally obligated to serve the Church. The various ways in which she could do that (and, given her own situation, all of them will not be equal) are counsels regarding how she can meet that obligation. But I can't take a counsel I myself prefer, assume it is self-evident for all as the best way, and set it forth as equal to the obligation itself.

[abrideofChrist]

Yes, and I think we have to be crystal clear about the difference between a moral obligation that flows from X law versus the myriad of counsels that are all legitimate ways of fulfilling an obligation. For example, a CV is morally obligated to serve the Church. The various ways in which she could do that (and, given her own situation, all of them will not be equal) are counsels regarding how she can meet that obligation. But I can't take a counsel I myself prefer, assume it is self-evident for all as the best way, and set it forth as equal to the obligation itself.

 

To build upon this.  The historic reason why the vow of stability (vow to remain in one abbey) was incorporated into monastic life was because there was a percentage of wandering monks who basically just did their own thing and hopped from one abbey to another.  When monastic life is built on communal interdependence and communal sanctification, the individualistic path these itinerants were following was against the crosses and specific structure of monastic life.  The implicit argument Sponsa Christi is making is that CVs who are not sticking to one diocese are not being faithful to the structure of "diocesan consecrated life".  The Church has not defined consecrated virginity to be diocesan centric.

 

Now, a huge amount of scandal kicked up when a bunch of guys decided to create mendicant orders.  Why?  Because the faithful were conditioned to thinking that it was essential to religious life to have stability (location in one place).  Instead, here were the Dominicans and Franciscans and Carmelites and others running around all over the place.  The concept of the religious family being overarching and place as having minor import was gradually imbibed and eventually people were able to accept the idea of consecrated religious moving about to respond to the needs of the religious family and to the different locations they happened to live in.

 

The Order of Virgins is unique in that a virgin is automatically by the law itself, attached to the diocese she resides in.  If she changes her residence, her new bishop becomes the bishop she reports to.  To my mind, this solves both problems of the "wandering monks syndrome" (she is under the direct care of someone, and of the Church's acknowledgement that there can be a need for consecrated people to travel or relocate to distant lands, transversing dioceses or even continents.  In both modes (staying/stability or relocating/mission work), the virgin or religious is fulfilling the obligation of working out her path of salvation in fear and trembling.  But since she has made no vows, a consecrated virgin may find that for her, the Lord is guiding her to remain in her diocese whereas another may discern that the Lord is calling her to the harvest of souls somewhere else.  Both are good counsels.  But which one is better is going to be subjectively different for each virgin.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

To build upon this.  The historic reason why the vow of stability (vow to remain in one abbey) was incorporated into monastic life was because there was a percentage of wandering monks who basically just did their own thing and hopped from one abbey to another.  When monastic life is built on communal interdependence and communal sanctification, the individualistic path these itinerants were following was against the crosses and specific structure of monastic life.  The implicit argument Sponsa Christi is making is that CVs who are not sticking to one diocese are not being faithful to the structure of "diocesan consecrated life".  The Church has not defined consecrated virginity to be diocesan centric.

 

 

I mean this respectfully, but I do think that without at least some level or degree of stability, modern consecrated virgins are in serious danger of becoming like modern-day gyrovauges, with all the spiritual dangers this entails.

 

Even the mendicant Orders and apostolic religious communities have a kind of stability among their members, in that they ordinarily remain in the same community throughout their consecrated lives. Also, even married lay people are called to a form of stability, in that they can't change spouses or families at whim.

 

It's true that consecrated virgins are married to Jesus and not the diocese, but the the diocese provides the practical context in which we can express our love and commitment to Jesus. Since we can't see Jesus in the same way that His disciples saw Him when He walked the earth, if we make direct contact with Him in prayer our ONLY point of reference for living our vocations faithfully, we run the risk of deluding ourselves or simply "hearing what we want to hear" in prayer (and this is true no matter how mature we are in the spiritual life--this is why all the great spiritual writers and doctors of the Church emphasize the importance of submitting our discernment to the authority of the visible institution of the Church.)

 

And while the Church hasn’t specified exactly what the diocesan character of consecrated virginity means on a practical level, there are instances where the Church does acknowledge the special link between consecrated virgins and the local Church.

 

For example, in an address given to consecrated virgins, Benedict XVI said:

 

“Dearest friends, your vocation is deeply rooted in the particular Church to which you belong: it is your Bishops' task to recognize the charism of virginity in you, to consecrate you and, possibly, to encourage you on your way, in order to teach you fear of the Lord, as they commitment themselves to do during the solemn liturgy of consecration. From the sphere of the Diocese with its traditions, its Saints, its values, its limits and its problems you broaden your horizons to the universal Church…”

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

My point is that I think you need to expand your education to include a really solid basis in philosophy. I think that’s evident in your response here as well as above.

 

When I speak of legal obligations, and moral obligations, by no means do those refer to canonical obligations alone! Canonical obligations are only a sliver of the very beautiful way in which God leads us to perfection in Him.

 

Laurie,

 

I actually have a degree in Philosophy (I did the all coursework required for a pre-theologate). I think our problem might be that were using a term (“moral obligation”) that has slightly different meanings in the contexts of different disciplines.

 

Coming from a canon law perspective, there is a distinction between a legal/canonical/juridical obligation and a moral obligation. A legal is one which is spelled out explicitly in the Church’s legal system (which includes not only the Code of Canon Law, but also the Church’s liturgical rubrics and certain other kinds of official documents) and/or one which is quantifiable or provable in this legal system.

 

Catholics have many obligations which are included in the Church’s legal documents. But they also have obligations which, while being very real and serious, are not included in these documents.

 

For example, canon law does not say that Catholics must pray every day, be kind to children and the elderly, treat our housemates with common courtesy, avoid occasions of sin, or strive to trust God in times of trial, although there is no doubt that we are in fact called to do these things.

 

Obligations of this sort—which are real and serious, but which are not specified in black-and-white in the Church’s legal system—would be considered moral obligations. So from this perspective, even an obligation which is obviously a matter of revealed divine law, but which was not explicitly mentioned in canon law, would be considered a moral, as opposed to a legal or juridical, obligation.

 

When I say that CVs might have some level of, or something akin to, a moral obligation to a sense of stability toward their home diocese, I mean that: presuming that the Church really does envision consecrated virgins as having a meaningful bond with her home diocese in particular, then a consecrated virgin would be obligated to take this bond seriously. And naturally, taking this bond seriously would seem to suggest the practical consequence of having an intention to remain in and be present and available to that diocese.

 

People might disagree with the premise that CVs are called to have a special connection with one local Church, since this is still an ambiguous area which the Church hasn't yet clarified either way.

 

But if this premise is true (which it could very well be, and which in conscience I believe it is), then there would be a consequent moral obligation.On the other hand, if someone in conscience sincerely did not believe that Church calls a CV to a special relationship with her home diocese, then you couldn't say that that CV was committing a sin if she chose to move around at will.

 

However, even while a CV who followed her conscience in this regard wouldn't be subjectively doing anything wrong, it could still be possible that she was leaving a moral obligation objectively unfulfilled. And in such a case, then it would also follow that she wasn't objectively living her vocation as fully as possible.

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

double post, sorry

Edited June 4, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[abrideofChrist]

In the interest of the consciences of fellow Phatmasser's, I ask you, Sponsa Christi, to seriously think about ceasing to put vague, unfounded responsibilities on the souls of CVs that are not even required by the Church herself.  Cardinal Burke is a priest, a doctor of canon law, a theologian, and a man in charge of the Vatican's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura.  He has said that a CV may switch dioceses.  He also says that it is a matter of courtesy- not law- for her to inform the diocesan bishop she's leaving so that he can let the new one know.  Now, don't you think as a confessor he would have jumped all over the sin if it were a sin to relocate?  PLEASE do not impose what God does not impose.  You cannot create sin from thin air just because you want something to be a certain way.  Just because your personal ideology envisions virgins remaining within their diocese does not mean that the Church agrees with you.  If it was wrong to leave, then Our Lady was at fault for relocating, first to Egypt, and then to Ephesus. 

 

I will go even further.  I suggest that you talk to an eminent and well respected moral theologian and have them write an opinion on this topic.  Can a CV be obligated to remain in a diocese on account of her consecration?  Then, since you appear to write off Cardinal Burke, why not choose another respected canon lawyer such as Dr. Ed Peters or any one else who could give us an opinion on whether a person can restrict the natural right of relocation of the CV without a promulgation from the competent authority.  You may find to your surpise that they do not take you very seriously and laugh at the idea of it being 1) a moral obligation or 2) something that you can insist upon without it being legislated.

[abrideofChrist]

Honestly, I can't imagine why a virgin in America would need a law restricting her movements.  It's a pain and a half to move- as anybody who has done a major relocation can attest - and the likelihood of a virgin wandering about with a knapsack is extremely small.  Too small, in fact, for a universal law to be made on this. Virgins in first world countries would have serious reasons for moving because of all that is involved, and if they have serious reasons, well, obviously they've thought things through.  At some point, there can be too much control over a vocation that is meant to be lived by those who have demonstrated maturity.  Having to ask permission to move (when there are no vows to keep one in one diocese) and the like, smack of a fear of the virgin doing things willy nilly her way.

 

Do we keep the virgins under tight control or do we allow for the Holy Spirit to work in their lives and risk some virgins falling off the wagon?  Can we trust women to live out their commitments or can't we?  If we can't then yes, we should write a rule and constitutions for virgins and enforce them.  If we believe that Catholic women who are mature and have the assurance of perseverence in their holy vocation are able to live out their vocation, then, no.  They have the guidelines of the Catechism.  They have the words of the Rite.  They have the grace of the Holy Spirit.  At some point, you have to let Christ rule their hearts. 

 

You know, I read some forums on parenting.  It's funny how so many Catholic parents feel so judged by other Catholic parents.  They have too many kids.  Too few kids.  They spend way too much time on vacations.  They do too many extracurricular activities.  They do this.  They don't do that.  Guess what.  Each and every couple is responsible to themselves and to God for their decisions.  Some can't have kids because of infertility issues.  Some can have them, but don't have the dozen their parents had because one of their five is a high maintenance child.   They are not responsible to you or to me, they are responsible to God for their responsible parenting decisions. 

 

Maybe, just maybe, the same applies to how CVs live out their spousal vocation.  Maybe how they work "for the good of the Church and of their neighbor" is up to them and their Spouse.  Maybe the good of their neighbor involves a  long distance relocation.  Maybe the good of their neighbor involves getting up in haste to visit a pregnant cousin.  Just maybe the Church is a bit more universal and a little less provincial than some would have it.  I take it for granted a fervent CV will have a spiritual director and will consult her bishop as appropriate.  Why can't you?  Yes, it is tempting to want to lay out all kinds of rules and regulations - but where does that get us?  If we require distinctive clothes, then the virgins in Africa might be raped.  If we require the Liturgy of the Hours, the virgins in Saudia Arabia might be killed.  If we require skirts, then the virgins in Vietnam might be looked at strangly.  If we require daily Mass, then the virgins in remote villages might not be eligible. 

[abrideofChrist]

What is terrifyingly beautiful about this vocation is that the Church officially trusts the virgins it consecrates to be MATURE.  To be serious about being a spouse of Christ!  Just like it trusts married people to live out their holy vocation without constant helicopter vigilance, it trusts virgins to live out their holy vocation without helicopter vigilance.  This is a vocation in which the Holy Spirit is supposed to enlighten the virgin about His will for her in her life!  Maturity requires wisdom, requires prudence, requires prayer, kindness, etc.  This is why this is not for little girls.  This is for women who are familiar with the ways of the world and the ways of God and can walk the journey.  They have to be responsible adults who know that moving to another diocese is NOT a sin.  They have to be women of faith who ponder on the word of God day and night.  It is up to the bishop to determine whether a woman is ready to undertake to wed the Son of God and live up to that rank.

[Lilllabettt]

One dimension of spiritual maturity is accepting the possibility that people who are equal in education, intelligence, thoughtfulness, holiness and prayer may nevertheless come to different judgments.   Spiritual maturity also allows a person to accept difference with equanimity and peace, without seeing the vigor of another person's conviction as a threat to their own.

 

Your request for Sponsa Christi to stop putting "vague, unfounded responsibilities on the souls of CVs" seems to me to be coming from a place from insecurity. By your own argument she does not have the power to "impose"  anything on anyone.   Anyone discerning how best to live out their Consecration needs to consider seriously what their relationship will be with their diocese. Such a person would not be remiss to weigh the merit of Sponsa Christi's point of view, search their conscience and find out what  it imposes.  Anyone who allows posts on the internet to "put responsibilities" on their soul is in need of some spiritual maturity themselves.