Consecrated Virginity Question

[abrideofChrist]

[quote from Laurie] "A well-formed CV should not have a 'twinge of conscience' on this topic. If she does, she needs to carefully examine her personal formation. This is not an aspect of the vocation that warrants 'twinges of conscience.'"

 

[Response from Sponsa Christi] "Respectfully, you seem to be using this as the conclusion, when this would actually seem to be the very question at hand."

 

 

No. The Church is not ambigous on this level. If she thought CVs were morally obligated to stay in their dioceses of consecration, she would have issued an ecclesiastical law stating as much.

Further, I don't know how you can even dispute whether this is a conclusion or not when you have repeatedly said, of your own accord, that you don't understand the Church's teaching on moral obligation. You asked abrideofchrist and I to clarify it for you. We have, several times. You seem to want to both say it is up for debate and yet you yourself don't understand the terms used for definitions in the "debate."

 

I’m guessing it’s frustrating for you that I keep hammering away at the same points. From my perspective, I’m not going to go down intellectual rabbit holes, chasing ill-formed arguments, in order to try to make some sense out of them. I selected one glaring example of an error in the foundations of your argument (the fact that you don’t grasp the Church’s understanding of law and moral obligation) to address. There’s no point in my seriously weighing other statements you make when you are basing them on a flawed foundation.

 

If you don’t understand moral obligation, you can’t venture into what might constitute a valid “twinge of conscience.”

 

You've shifted your conversation from whether a CV is morally obligated to stay in her diocese to whether she is morally obligated to seriously consider that she has a special bond with her diocese. There's no point in my addressing the latter when you clearly don't understand the nature of a moral obligation. We could spin of possible "maybe moral obligations" until the day we die--if we don't grasp the Church's teaching on what constitutes a moral obligation, there is no point.

 

Again:

 

A CV is not morally obligated to stay in her diocese of consecration.

 

Ecclesial laws can bind morally. If there were an ecclesial law requiring her to stay in her diocese of consecration, that would bind morally. There are none.

 

In the absence of an ecclesial law, we'd have to resort to some other kind of law in order for her to be bound morally to stay in her diocese. No one has demonstrated that there is another kind of law that would bind her morally to stay in her diocese of consecration. That's because, due to the very nature of this kind of obligation, it would need to be clarified in ecclesiastical law. It would need to be clarified in ecclesiastical law because it is not a self-evident moral truth for which human reason alone could be relied upon. Again, it COULD have been made a moral obligation very easily. By the Church. In her ecclesiastical laws. She chose not to. That means it doesn't bind morally. Period. (There is a finality here because she explicitly chose not to bind morally in this instance.) She doesn't leave CVs out there, hanging on a limb, trying to figure out what might be expected of them, in terms of serious obligations. The Church doesn't play verbal shell games of "guess which shell has your real obligation." "Guess which document implies your real obligations."

 

On this note, I'm out. I wish each of you all the best & will hold your intentions in prayer. Cheers!

 

I have to agree.  The ONLY way a CV could be required to stay in her diocese of consecration is through a positive ecclesiastical law.  None has been enacted. 

 

I also agree that there is no way a reasonable conversation can be sustained here.  As Laurie points out, there are shifts in the conversation, different definitions are being used, and there are way too many errors in Sponsa Christi's positions stemming from a lack of understanding fundamental principles which make it impossible to debate.  The first thing necessary for a genuine debate or (hopefully in this case) a seeking of the truth, is agreement on definitions.  When remedial philosophy and moral theology has been attained, then it will be time to continue this discussion.  Or rather, I doubt that the discussion would continue, because remedial theology and philosophy would shed light on the inadequacies of her opinions and I think she'd naturally revise them.  I, too, am stepping out of this conversation.  Anyone who is reading this has been exposed to enough proper philosophy and theology and can bring this to their priest or theologian or canon lawyer or philosopher and get some clarifications on what obligations CVs really have.

[Lilllabettt]

I have to agree.  The ONLY way a CV could be required to stay in her diocese of consecration is through a positive ecclesiastical law.  None has been enacted. 

 

I also agree that there is no way a reasonable conversation can be sustained here.  As Laurie points out, there are shifts in the conversation, different definitions are being used, and there are way too many errors in Sponsa Christi's positions stemming from a lack of understanding fundamental principles which make it impossible to debate.  The first thing necessary for a genuine debate or (hopefully in this case) a seeking of the truth, is agreement on definitions.  When remedial philosophy and moral theology has been attained, then it will be time to continue this discussion.  Or rather, I doubt that the discussion would continue, because remedial theology and philosophy would shed light on the inadequacies of her opinions and I think she'd naturally revise them.  I, too, am stepping out of this conversation.  Anyone who is reading this has been exposed to enough proper philosophy and theology and can bring this to their priest or theologian or canon lawyer or philosopher and get some clarifications on what obligations CVs really have.

 

The lack of generosity and shabby meanness with which consecrated people speak about each other is truly a discouragement.

[OnlySunshine]

I really wish this thread would die.

[beatitude]

So do I. If it weren't for the one wonderful CV whom I know in real life, who has shown me that the vocation does not consist of legalism and snarking, this thread would have made me seriously doubt whether CVs should even have been reintroduced to the Church.

[God's Beloved]

Honestly i feel what's needed is some Emotional Intelligence , especially when the older , more qualified and more experienced persons interact with youngsters, budding stars..............

 

The One Moral Obligation Every Christian is called to fulfill is to Love............

 

The way some persons are often seen attacking Sponsa Christi 'publicly' is simply unacceptable. Please do not stifle the Holy Spirit.

[OnlySunshine]

Honestly i feel what's needed is some Emotional Intelligence , especially when the older , more qualified and more experienced persons interact with youngsters, budding stars..............

 

The One Moral Obligation Every Christian is called to fulfill is to Love............

 

The way some persons are often seen attacking Sponsa Christi 'publicly' is simply unacceptable. Please do not stifle the Holy Spirit.

 

Both posters who were engaging in debate left.  Let this thread die.  That is all.

Edited June 10, 2013 by MaterMisericordiae

[God's Beloved]

The tension between the Church as  Institution and as Mystical Body of Christ / People of God on a pilgrim journey-- is reflected in the discussions on  CV since the charism of the Church is the charism of CV.

 

My personal reflections seem to indicate that  Consecrated life in the Church began with Consecrated virginity and developed into many other forms of Committed life . It began as a movement gradually getting Institutionalized . With the Second Vatican Council consecrated life seems to have turned around full circle , once again reviving  the Order of Virgins.But should Consecrated life repeat history  or be innovative ?

 

The Holy Spirit is working in the CVs with different shades of  understanding the vocation , just as the Church herself is struggling with her Identity and mission , whether to be closed in on herself , self-defensive ,individualistic , in a maintenance mode  or willing to move out of herself , be open to the action of the Spirit , willing to walk together in solidarity even if there is risk of accidents [ as Pope Francis says so often].............

 

I think  the best way to decide in which direction the Order of Virgins should move , depends on the direction of the Church herself . Either the Church will influence the future of  CV  or  if there are really  holy CVs  they might  become exemplary models of how the  Church should live her vocation. Actually I think CV is called to 'animate' the People of God  to live their vocation to the fullest.

 

However from what I've seen,  in many cases CV is a fallback vocation . Some are not so interested in the Institutional Church and wish to be independent . Others look forward to greater integration with the Institutional Church . Both approaches have their legitimate reasons.

 

The younger generation has a need for point of reference in the Institutional Church especially in the formative and early years of their consecration. As they mature and are rooted in the Church , they are more prepared to work in the world and more independently.

 

This is a healthy tension and should be allowed . Discerners ought to be aware that such tension exists and CV should have enough courage to face it and live her vocation fruitfully.

 

 

 

[Laurie]

For those who have contacted me to request further recommended readings, this is a solid article on moral theology and canon law:

 

http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/50/50.1/50.1.7.pdf