Questions About Consecrated Virginity

[freedomreigns]

I am wondering specifically how formation for this vocation works- 

 

Also, totally separately from that question-  What would happen if a Consecrated Virgin went off the tracks either theologically or even morally?  Is there a process for something like "laicization" as there is for priests?  It would seem there must be some way of being held to the disciplinary authority of the Church.

 

 

[Benedictus]

Check this out -  hope it helps :cheers:  - http://consecratedvirgins.org/

[freedomreigns]

Thank you!  I will explore the website this afternoon!  

[Sponsa-Christi]

Right now, technically, both formation and the level and type of a consecrated virgin’s accountability for living her vocation faithfully are left entirely to the discretion of the local bishop.

 

The USACV provides a lot of suggestions (most of which I think are pretty good ones), but ultimately it’s the bishop who decides what he is going to do in his own diocese.

 

In terms of really serious disciplinary actions…I actually don’t know if there have been any recorded cases in modern times of consecrated virgins “falling.” I do know that there is no official process in current canon law for something like removing a woman from the Order of Virgins, so any discussion about how such a case would or should be handled is just hypothetical or educated speculation at this point.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[Sponsa-Christi]

Although, as a P.S. to my last post...I suppose that if you had a consecrated virgin who went of the tracks in a strictly theological way, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome could treat her as it would any other wayward theologian. (E.g., by placing warnings or restrictions on her books, by telling bishops not to endorse or support her questionable apostolic activities, etc.) But whether or not there would be any consequences for her specifically as a consecrated virgin is still sort of an unanswered question. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I hope it would be okay if I added a question too! :) (not to take over the thread with another question, lol...) I made a thread about this but it was archived right away.

 

In order to be a consecrated virgin, I understand that the person would need to be a virgin. But how is virginity defined here? Does it refer to only physical virginity, or never having sinned against chastity at all?

 

I tried looking at the website but I can't seem to find the answer yet, maybe I need to read more! But I was wondering if perhaps the consecrated virgins here would know what the requirements are :)

[freedomreigns]

That is a good question, MLF...because some  serious sins against chastity do not require another person's involvement and I have wondered the same thing.  And please, I started this thread so that people could ask questions not directly related to those being discussed in other threads without derailing those threads.  So ask away!!!

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

In terms of really serious disciplinary actions…I actually don’t know if there have been any recorded cases in modern times of consecrated virgins “falling.” I do know that there is no official process in current canon law for something like removing a woman from the Order of Virgins, so any discussion about how such a case would or should be handled is just hypothetical or educated speculation at this point.

 

Sadly, there have been a couple of cases. I don't know what happened as I know one of them left the Church. It is very sad.

 

It is a reminder that we all need to pray for each other for fidelity in our vocation in life.
 

[freedomreigns]

Thanks for the replies, Sponsa Christi and Sr.Mary Catharine-  I have looked online to try to find out about the formation and discipline of Consecrated Virgins but have never come up with much.  It makes sense that this is because there is not a formal process of formation and discipline at this point.  I guess that is one thing I really appreciate about religious life--the formation received to enable the person to cooperate most fully with the graces of the vocation.  I was just hoping something similar existed for Consecrated Virgins-- both for their understanding of the vocation and also for personal and spiritual formation.  Is the Consecrated Virgin answerable to the local ordinary in a specific way?

Edited July 25, 2013 by freedomreigns

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

Sadly, there have been a couple of cases. I don't know what happened as I know one of them left the Church. It is very sad.

 

It is a reminder that we all need to pray for each other for fidelity in our vocation in life.

 

I didn't know this. It is terribly, terribly sad--although human nature being what it is, I'm not too surprised to hear that things like this have happened before.

 

Very well-put about the need to pray for each other. (I'm also glad that we have cloistered nuns praying for the whole family of the Church.)

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

Thanks for the replies, Sponsa Christi and Sr.Mary Catharine-  I have looked online to try to find out about the formation and discipline of Consecrated Virgins but have never come up with much.  It makes sense that this is because there is not a formal process of formation and discipline at this point.  I guess that is one thing I really appreciate about religious life--the formation received to enable the person to cooperate most fully with the graces of the vocation.  I was just hoping something similar existed for Consecrated Virgins-- both for their understanding of the vocation and also for personal and spiritual formation.  Is the Consecrated Virgin answerable to the local ordinary in a specific way?

 

Since consecrated virginity is such a "new" vocation, I can appreciate the need to let things let formal formation processes develop in a more organic way. Still, I do think the general lack of formation and discipline for consecrated virgins is a very serious challenge for us. I don't think that consecrated virginity should ever become quite as structured as religious life, but I do think it would be a very good thing if the Church could eventually give us some more concrete guidelines for consecrated virginity.

 

The topic of exactly how or in what way a consecrated virgin is answerable to the local Ordinary has been a hot topic of debate on phatmass before, but it's another thing that hasn't been defined in-depth by the Church yet.

 

My own opinion is that basically a consecrated virgin should regard her bishop as a true ecclesiastical superior. I don't think this means that she needs to have him approve all the minor decisions of her day-to-day life, but I do think this means that she should normally discern her major life choices in conversation with him to ensure that she is living a truly "consecrated" life and that she is helping to fulfill the actual needs of her diocese (but to put this in context, I also believe that under normal circumstances, consecrated virgins should order their entire lives around prayer and the direct service of the Church). 

[Benedictus]

My understanding is that a bishop can give a decree to remove the status of consecrated Virgin as the woman falls under his jurisdiction. This would be similar to the situation of consecrated religious who seek to leave, or are dismissed, whilst the order is of diocesan right. 

In terms of Virginity, it seems to mean having no full physical sexual intercourse with a man. The meaning as would be understood in the general speak. I had heard that before admittance the bishop usually deems it necessary for a physical examination by a doctor to confirm, but I'm not sure if this is universal or how reliable it is  :paperbag:

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

My understanding is that a bishop can give a decree to remove the status of consecrated Virgin as the woman falls under his jurisdiction. This would be similar to the situation of consecrated religious who seek to leave, or are dismissed, whilst the order is of diocesan right. 

 

Theoretically, I suppose a bishop could do something like this, although I don't think you could quite compare it to a situation where a religious is made to leave their institute.

 

On a theological level, virginal consecration would seem to be something which is absolutely permanent--unlike vows, which are promises from which someone could be released, consecration as a virgin is a constitutive blessing which a woman passively received and which can't truly be "undone." However, simply refusing to continue recognizing someone's status as a consecrated person isn't "un-consecrating" them. (I suppose you could draw a parallel with a priest who loses his clerical status--he's actually still a priest on an ontological level, he just isn't recognized as one any longer.)

 

But once again, I'm not personally familiar with any case where this has actually happened, and canon law doesn't give us any specific information on how to proceed in such a situation. I would sincerely hope, though, that any effort to deprive a consecrated virgin of her status would be done with the all care and that would normally go into an ecclesiastical trial. It would be a travesty if a bishop were to refuse to continue to recognize a virgin as "consecrated" based on something like a rumor or hearsay.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

In order to be a consecrated virgin, I understand that the person would need to be a virgin. But how is virginity defined here? Does it refer to only physical virginity, or never having sinned against chastity at all?

 

At least in the United States, it's generally accepted that a consecrated virgin must be a literal virgin. This means that she has never had any voluntary relations with a man, so victims of abuse could still be eligible to become consecrated virgins.

 

The actual words of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity state that a candidate for consecration must â€œhave never been married or lived in public or flagrant violation of chastity” (“ut numquam nuptias celebraverint neque publice seu manifeste in statu castitati contrario vixerint”).

 

To me, this requirement would actually seem to go a bit beyond the normal, basic definition of virginity. A "public violation of chastity" to me would seem to encompass any serious sin of chastity which was committed with another person. Here, I think that "public" means that there is at least one other person who can attest to the fact that a certain act was committed. Therefore, (and trying to phrase this as delicately as I can...) I don't think that a "half-virgin" or a "technical virgin" would be eligible to receive the Rite.

 

 

 

In terms of Virginity, it seems to mean having no full physical sexual intercourse with a man. The meaning as would be understood in the general speak. I had heard that before admittance the bishop usually deems it necessary for a physical examination by a doctor to confirm, but I'm not sure if this is universal or how reliable it is   :paperbag:

 

Okay, I have NEVER heard of this kind of medical exam being a requirement! This would be an extreme violation of privacy and of conscience, and you could make a good argument that this actually violates canon law as well. 

 

[OnlySunshine]

My understanding is that a bishop can give a decree to remove the status of consecrated Virgin as the woman falls under his jurisdiction. This would be similar to the situation of consecrated religious who seek to leave, or are dismissed, whilst the order is of diocesan right. 

In terms of Virginity, it seems to mean having no full physical sexual intercourse with a man. The meaning as would be understood in the general speak. I had heard that before admittance the bishop usually deems it necessary for a physical examination by a doctor to confirm, but I'm not sure if this is universal or how reliable it is  :paperbag:

 

 

At least in the United States, it's generally accepted that a consecrated virgin must be a literal virgin. This means that she has never had any voluntary relations with a man, so victims of abuse could still be eligible to become consecrated virgins.

 

The actual words of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity state that a candidate for consecration must â€œhave never been married or lived in public or flagrant violation of chastity” (“ut numquam nuptias celebraverint neque publice seu manifeste in statu castitati contrario vixerint”).

 

To me, this requirement would actually seem to go a bit beyond the normal, basic definition of virginity. A "public violation of chastity" to me would seem to encompass any serious sin of chastity which was committed with another person. Here, I think that "public" means that there is at least one other person who can attest to the fact that a certain act was committed. Therefore, (and trying to phrase this as delicately as I can...) I don't think that a "half-virgin" or a "technical virgin" would be eligible to receive the Rite.

 

 

Okay, I have NEVER heard of this kind of medical exam being a requirement! This would be an extreme violation of privacy and of conscience, and you could make a good argument that this actually violates canon law as well. 

 

If I was seeking to be a Consecrated Virgin and the Bishop of my diocese asked for a physical exam to check, I'd question his legitimacy and wonder if he was living under a rock.  That is not right on so many levels.  :shock: :x