Cv- Question

[MarysLittleFlower]

I was reading about Consecrated Virginity... and I came across an article that mentioned the requirements for being a CV. One requirement is that the woman must not have ever lived in open or public violation of chastity. I tried reading about this before (and asking) just to understand more what they mean... I know this question sounds a bit personal but I want to just ask in a general way, what do they mean by this and what dont' they mean? thanks :)

Edited August 18, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Sponsa-Christi]

Basically, this means that a candidate for consecrated virginity must be a literal virgin, and not simply a “spiritual virgin,” a “born-again virgin,” or a “second chance virgin.”

 

That is, she must never have engaged in the marital act with full knowledge and of her own free will. (Abuse victims can still be considered virgins in this strict literal sense—even if they might not be virgins from a strictly biological perspective—because the Church defines virginity as pertaining primarily to a person’s will.)

 

However, Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity could be interpreted as demanding an even stricter requirement than simple virginity. To try to phrase this as delicately as possible…a “public violation of chastity” can encompass more than just the marital act in a non-marital context.

 

The word “public” here refers to an act committed in the “external forum”—i.e., an act that can be verified by a third party without trespassing into the sanctuary of one’s conscience. A good example of an act committed in the external forum would be an act which was witnessed by at least one other person. So in this sense, any grave sin against chastity that is committed with another person present could be considered a “public violation of chastity.”

 

However, I’m not writing this to trouble anybody’s conscience! When we’re talking about the sins against chastity which would disqualify someone from receiving the consecration of virgins, I do think that there can be a lot of “gray areas” in real life. Therefore, I would strongly encourage anyone who has questions about whether or not she personally qualifies for the consecration of virgins NOT to take her questions to the internet, but rather to talk the matter over with her bishop and her spiritual director (and/or perhaps some other knowledgeable, discreet, and trustworthy person.)

 

And, I think it also goes without saying that a woman who is not eligible to become a consecrated virgin is still very precious in God’s eyes, and might very well be called to some other form of consecrated life.

[abrideofChrist]

The 400 page information packet the USACV has does discuss this.  Is there anything in there specifically you are confused about?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thanks for the replies. I'm not asking about the obvious... like the marital act done outside of marriage. If it has to be external forum.. does that mean that thoughts don't break this requirement? I guess there are so many ways this question could become tricky if someone hasn't lived a chaste life in the past but hasn't engaged in the marital act so it's not as obvious. The words "public violation of chastity" would mean the marital act, but also some other things too perhaps. Where is the line drawn? What if someone did immoral dancing with someone back in their teenage years? It's public and not chaste even though it doesn't physically break one's virginity. That's why I asked if it's referring to physical virginity or spiritual virginity... and where is the line drawn? Is the key here that the act must involve another person?  If so, I'm wondering why, - why would it be something in the external forum, if there are other sins that also violate chastity?

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm just asking cause I know the world considers "virginity" to be only physical. But here, would it mean something more... since there can be sins against chastity with another person that don't actually break one's physical virginity, would that be all of them, or only the more serious ones? what about other sins against purity? I don't want to get too graphic...

Edited August 18, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

This article lists other sins against chastity... like sins that dont' involve another person. The author says that they do in fact break one's virginity? (I don't mean the medical definition). http://doihaveavocation.com/blog/archives/640 I guess this is confusing because this author is saying that these sins make someone no longer a virgin, and yet in this thread it was mentioned about the sin needing to be in the external forum. Can sins be in the external forum if no other person witnesses them? What has been the traditional understanding, does anyone know?

 

I'm also wondering, traditionally, were women only allowed to be nuns if they were virgins? I mean like pre-VII... or has it ALWAYS been the case that they can be nuns if they're widows, or lost their virginity and then repented, etc?

Edited August 18, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Sponsa-Christi]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

An impure thought is a perfect example of something which is not a public act (unless a person were to blog or otherwise publish their impure thoughts...) Impure thoughts are something which only one's confessor and/or spiritual has a right to ask about, and which someone would only know about if you told them.

 

So I think it's fairly safe to say that impure thoughts by themselves would not qualify a woman from receiving the consecration of virgins. Although, if a woman had a very serious and persistent problem with deliberately entertaining impure thoughts, she might want to ask herself if a spirituality focused on virginity and sexual purity is something that she truly feels called to or comfortable embracing.

 

Impure dancing I think is a good example of a gray area, where the line can't really be drawn in the abstract. For example, there's a huge difference between "not leaving enough room for the Holy Spirit" once in the eighth grade, and regularly doing truly R-rated dance moves on a regular basis all though high school and college to the extent that your reputation actually suffered from it.

 

Generally when I speak of things other than the marital act which would disqualify a woman from receiving the consecration of virgins, I'm thinking of those actions through which someone might actually be able to catch a disease...or those which still can't be shown on American television...or those which would be in only an R- or NC-17 rated movie...or those actions which would actually be called a "scandal" if a politician got caught doing them... (I'm not suggesting any of these things as objective criteria--I'm just really trying to be as discreet and non-graphic as I can!)

 

Even though this thread is dealing with a question on a theoretical level, I do want to take the chance to say once more: if any readers are dealing with these questions as a part of their own personal discernment, please take them directly to someone who can help you in real life.

 

Otherwise, MLF, I hope this helps?

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

I'm also wondering, traditionally, were women only allowed to be nuns if they were virgins? I mean like pre-VII... or has it ALWAYS been the case that they can be nuns if they're widows, or lost their virginity and then repented, etc?

 

In general, it's always been the case that widows and penitent women have been able to enter religious life.

 

At different times in history, individual religious communities might have had their own restrictions (like a policy of not accepting widows or penitent women who had a notorious history of chastity). But, the Church's law on religious life in general never excluded these categories of women.  

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thanks for the reply, Sponsa Christi. I understand what you're saying.

 

I think one of the issues I'm struggling with is:

- is the whole issue here scandal? like if something was or wasn't a scandal?

- or is it whether one's spiritual (not just medical, which is obvious as a requirement) virginity has been affected?

If it's the first, then this goes together with what you said. If it's the second, then the question is: is it then affected only through a sin done with another person? The author in the article above seems to think that it can be other sins too. I wonder if there have been writings on this.

 

I'm trying to ask kind of generally, and with my own discernment, yes I'll speak to a confessor or someone.

[MarysLittleFlower]

In general, it's always been the case that widows and penitent women have been able to enter religious life.

 

At different times in history, individual religious communities might have had their own restrictions (like a policy of not accepting widows or penitent women who had a notorious history of chastity). But, the Church's law on religious life in general never excluded these categories of women.  

Thanks :)

[OnlySunshine]

I asked a question similar to this for a friend 2 years ago:

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/111286-conditions-for-being-a-consecrated-virgin/

[Sponsa-Christi]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

To answer your last question: yes, I think scandal has something to do with it, but I do think the "no public violation of chastity" part has a strong spiritual dimension as well.

 

Being a consecrated virgin isn't just about not crossing the line or avoiding serious sin (which is something that all Christians are called to do), but it's about embracing the virtue of virginity as a central element of your spirituality in a positive way. This isn't an exact parallel, but it's kind of like how Franciscans aren't just called to not be greedy or overly materialistic--they're called to fall in love with "Lady Poverty."

 

So to over-simplify things, I think there is a sense in which the Church's eligibility requirements do tell us who is virgin "enough" to be able to live out a charism of virginity in this kind of full and vibrant way. A "half-virgin" might be technically a virgin in a purely biological sense, but she's probably not going to be able to live out the virtue of virginity in the same way as someone who had refrained from certain unchaste acts. (However, a woman in this situation might still be able to find the more general virtue of chastity to be a particularly meaningful way to relate to the Lord and to be an evangelical witness for the wider Church in some other form of consecrated life.)

 

But even as I write this, I am aware that scrupulosity can be a real problem in trying to define sins against chastity--and it also seems like some of the most pure people are also the most likely to have scruples. So unless you know for sure that you have done something to disqualify you from the consecration of virgins, I would encourage you to try to be at peace until you are able to talk to your confessor or SD.

 

Finally, I just want to point out that even though virginity is a very precious and beautiful virtue, it's not nearly the most important one. It's much more important to the Lord that we be loving, humble, courageous, generous, etc., than that we be virginal.