Cvs, Religious Orders, And Virginity

[MarysLittleFlower]

MLF, reading what you have posted these past few weeks, I think what you really need, and what has been sorely lacking, is a pastoral approach to your questions.

 

on the subject of self stimulation -- for the sake of discussion, lets give ABC the point that the full and voluntary experience of sexual pleasure forfeits virginity as the Church understands it. It says right in the Catechism that immaturity, habit or addiction diminish agency and responsibility for those acts. In addition: most men and women are unfamiliar with the idea that virginity is forfeited by masturbation. A person cannot lose her virginity unless she knows she is losing it and consents to it. So frankly, taking a pastoral approach, I doubt that most people who have masterbated have in fact lost their virginity by doing so, regardless of what the "rule" is. The pastoral approach is how God deals with souls. There are the "rules" and definitions and objective this and that --- but then there is how the good Lord sees your individual soul in relation to those rules.

 

Lilllabettt, to be honest I'm not really sure about the idea that one only loses virginity if they know they're losing it: is this a Church teaching? I just don't know - not saying either way right now...  my understanding is that the person need not be thinking about virginity, but about the sexual pleasure, and if it's willful and consented to - then it's a sin. It seems like what St Thomas is saying is that a virgin never consented to sexual pleasure, since it has that spiritual component. Some here are saying that it's not an infallible teaching. I'm trying to see if there is an infallible teaching, and just seeking the truth on this issue. I do think there are certain things that might reduce culpability in certain cases, and God knows what they are in specific cases.. I don't know how this would relate to virginity... basically I just don't really know much of anything it seems lol :) I'm trying to seek the truth and I hope God would help me to find it.

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Lilllabettt]

For 99% of life's questions, there is no "official" or "infallible"Church teaching.  Most moral questions go without an official answer; we are supposed to form our consciences well and then make a good faith effort to apply our conscience to the questions. Often enough an official pronouncement is made only when the debate has become a distraction to the faithful. If you are always wanting a rule to make you feel safe thinking or doing this or that ---  Christianity does not work like that.

 

 

[God's Beloved]

AbrideofChrist,

 

I see what you are saying. I am trying to understand more about the topic.. I'll try to read about it more. However, one thing I'm trying to understand now is the spousal language in the Rite of religious profession and what that means, for nuns. I don't mean CVs right now, because I realize what CVs are and what their vocation is. I'm asking if someone is not eligible to be a CV, but still is drawn to spousal type of relationship with Our Lord, and if they enter a convent and the Rite has spousal language, how would THEY understand it. Do you have any thoughts on that? I'm asking if a person is not eligible to be a CV so they can't discern between religious life and CV, but are still drawn to a spousal type of relationship. What would the Rite of profession be for them, if it mentions this type of language, and because the Saints who were religious etc also used that language and were referred to as brides. How is this type of being a bride, not dependent on being a virgin? and is it true that it isnt'? can non-virgins be brides of Christ in some other way? (I don't mean the mystical way, because that seems to be for people of any vocation). Do you have any thoughts on that?

 

 

Dear MarysLittleFlower,

 

The suggested homily in the rite of consecration of virgins says, "by his Paschal Mystery, he brought his Church into being. He desired it to be a virgin, a bride, and a mother: a virgin, to keep the faith whole and entire; a bride, to be one with him forever; and a mother, to raise up the family of the Church."

 

For  a CV ,

virginity is a reminder of the Integrity of the Faith of the Church.

Being a bride is a reminder that the Church is called to embrace Only Jesus Christ as her savior  , and not worship any other gods .

Being a mother is to love the entire church community  , and to evangelize to give spiritual birth to new members in the church.

 

Nuns and religious sisters and every baptized person  has all the freedom to spiritually relate with Jesus as their Spouse . There is no rule or Church teaching stating that  any particular vocation [ including CV] has any extra privilege to do so. Nuns and religious are free to see their Final Profession from a spousal perspective if that is the tradition of their institute or they have chosen the spousal version of the rite of profession.  However ,  they are not Obligated  to publicly express their spousal relationship with Christ in daily life . They are Obligated to publicly express Religious Poverty  since renunciation is an essential aspect of the Religious Charism.

 

For a nun or apostolic religious woman  , chastity [ even if  they are virgins]  is not a reminder of the Integrity of the faith of the Church.  Chastity can have different shades of meaning according to each institution : for greater availability in service , for spousal relationship with Jesus , for renunciation as a way to purify self and become holy , in thanksgiving  to God or a penance to implore God's mercy or favours on others etc. etc.

 

For a CV, being a virgin   is a gift. It is not a penance , it is not offered to God as a sacrifice in exchange of favors etc. It is not a renunciation and  It is not difficult. It helps her focus on saying Yes to Jesus  ,loving Him alone as the Only Spouse and everything and everyone for her. It is also for greater availability to serve others but the primary reason is the relationship with Jesus.

 

A CV  has the obligation to publicly express her Identity as Virgin, Bride of Christ, Mother.  I sometimes think , it would be appropriate for  CV to be  called ' Mother' since the Charism of Mother Mary is conferred through the rite of consecration upon her  ;  just as  religious are called 'Sister' since they have sisterly bonds of religious life essential to their vocation.

[BarbTherese]

One of the reasons I left monastic life was during recreation (we were not allowed to read even Catholic newspapers, only books in the library assigned by Mother), Mother read out of a Catholic newspaper about a missionary nun and several women who had been murdered in a missionary country.  The horror of it all to my sisters was that a nun had been murdered.  I tried to point out that the horror of it all was that several women, even mothers, were murdered.

 

This started up a discussion about the superiority of the religious vocation over and above other vocations (including motherhood and amongst the murdered women). Children were left suddenly without a mother in life. I was expected to see and experience myself as superior because God had called ME to a religious vocation in the discussion that followed.  That I was superior in the Mind of God by virtue of endowing me with a religious vocation.  I could not experience nor see myself in that light at all.  I came away from that recreation experience very disturbed to add to a few disturbances on other levels I was experiencing. Not only this, but I did not feel that I did have a religious vocation as a confirmed matter - rather I was in the discerning process still. 

 

I guess I finally left because I realized something in all my struggles.  I had left behind a very busy life indeed.  A lifestyle of constant interruptions.  That I was running away from people who did seek me out for some sort of assistance and had grown weary and jaded with it all.  Hence my primary motivation in seeking monastic life was to run away from a busy life.  I then found myself in monastic life and growing just as weary and jaded but for other reasons.  What I need to do, I know, is take breaks regularly from doorbell and phone - and at least once yearly to get right away from Adelaide altogether which I am planning to do for a week in September this year.  My Rule does include a particular provision for regular breaks.

 

When I returned to Bethany, I found that I was renewed in outlook and energy and took up my Bethany way of life.  I have never been weary nor jaded since (this was around 44 years of age).  At 64 years of age (4 years ago), The Lord took me out of the suburb and residence I had been living in and I am now in a more affluent, a decidedly more affluent, suburb.  The whole way of life in Bethany has changed and towards something for which I had always longed.  I still have doorbell and phone to contend with, but there are days of breaks too.  Bethany was always about and is always about Divine Providence.  I was able when I returned to Bethany to embrace Divine Providence in a new way.  It was never people at the door or on the phone, it was God calling to me and His Grace would be sufficient and possibly might ask suffering and The Cross.  I had stumbled over Abandonment to Divine Providence by de Caussade and this opened up a whole new world of attitudes and perspectives for me.

 

Some post exchanges in this thread are really disturbing.  Really disturbing, and a reminder of why in part I had left monastic life with a resolution finally to never seek out religious life again.  So far has that initial aspiration faded, that I can't really believe I ever had the aspiration in the first place.  Having entered twice in my life, both times I found attitudes within religious life quite alarming and that the world was just as present as it was outside of the cloister.  In fact it was more present because in an enclosed environment one either embraced the prevailing attitudes or became an outsider, on the fringe, on the inside in the cloister.  This included in the noviciate which embraced the attitudes of leadership as religious life attitudes and concepts. On the outside of the cloister, one can hold contrary notions to the prevailing culture and not be day and night in its midst.    Just as I see worldly attitudes alive and well and flourishing in some posts into this thread and by women whom I think are consecrated women.  There were women I experienced in religious life who did not embrace these attitudes but these were isolated individuals.  They tended to remain very quiet and hidden and no wonder.

These are all simply my experiences and by their very nature therefore are limited experiences.  But The Lord speaks to us in our circumstances and in our experiences also.  I don't share my experiences for the sake of sharing them - rather, I share in the hope that someone will glean something somewhere that speaks to them also. Whether the same as what I experienced, or something different.

 

Some posts protest that they are speaking on an objective theological level, but then wording in some of the lengthy posts do incline me as a reader of what is written to think "Au contraire", not at all on an objective theological level.  Protesting that all is simply the objective theological level is a way of being safe about who one really is and what one is really thinking.  I am not saying all posters, but some.  The objective of consecrated life, its very purpose of existence, is to enshrine and proclaim ways of living that will more easily lead to the perfection of CHARITY.  Love of God and neighbour.  Where is CHARITY in all this? I can't even say nowadays that I love my brothers and sisters because of God.  Rather I can see them as beloved of God just as I am.......all our various kinds and degrees of warts, boils, bites and scars...... and all.  He loves every one of us equally and calls to that vocation that will best serve His Glory and His Will.

Consecrated CV's as a vocation in  life seems to be the subject of so much contention and unrest. Since one lives it in the midst of the world, why not simply embrace it for what The Church states that it is.......then live it.  If one thinks one has a CV vocation, then approach one's diocese and spiritual direction and have one's ideas and concepts, personal notions, all sorted out 'from the horses mouth' as it were.  What anyone at all has to say to us may not be accurate, but it is an experience and The Lord does not speak to no purpose.  It is then up to one to prayerfully decide on action.

 

The very fact that the objective theological level of the CV vocations is needed to be established in the minds of all in this thread and beyond speaks for itself without anything further at all. To protest that one only wants to establish what The Church has to say is simply a garment of disguise at times in my book - and due to the wording used in some posts.

 

All in all to me it is a very sad thread and conversation indeed.  And a very sad witness to Catholicism in a public forum.  Just as public as if standing on a box in Times Square with a microphone.

[Laurie]

I see what the quote is saying, but I meant the specific quote before about solitary sin. Is there a quote mentioning it in particular?

 

Because it could be that the reason the Church says about it being a public sin, is to not force people to reveal their conscience in the external forum... but they would still think about their conscience on their own... and if such a sin does take away virginity, I suppose the woman would disqualify herself, rather than her being disqualified by a third party in the case of a public sin. I'm just wondering if this is a possibility. It depends on why there's a requirement that the sin is public... is it because only such a sin can take away virginity, or is it to protect the person from having to reveal their conscience?

 

 

MLF, very good point.

 

Some other points, no particular order:

 

1. The idea that there is a bare bones definition of virginity (no voluntary sexual intercourse) but also an expanded material definition (no voluntary masturbation), coupled with the theological dimension, throughout the ages, is a beautiful gift from our Church to the world. It's not something that should inspire some to feel inferior or as if they are judged. Our Church's teaching on the virtue of virginity points to the dignity of every human being! It shouldn't be watered down, even if at first it sounds odd and stands out to strongly against our present culture. When I say "our Church" I am counting her many theologians over the centuries who have expounded upon this virtue and do not reduce it to a material element. We can't just disregard the contribution of these theologians because they haven't explicitly spoken "on behalf of the Magisterium."

 

2. The vocation to be a consecrated virgin involves being an image of the Church as virgin, bride, and mother. This tells me that something more than just bare bones material virginity is needed for someone pursuing this vocation. The nature of the vocation is spiritual/theological, so it is imperative that someone discerning the vocation should carefully consider what the Church's theologians have had to say about virginity. (Obviously, a woman doesn't bestow the virtue of virginity on herself. If she's conceited about being "pure" or whatever, and is attributing her virginity to her own "goodness," then that attitude itself would be disordered and an indication that she--on the grounds of her pride-in-self rather than gratitude to God for His graces--might not be a good candidate for the vocation.)

 

3. I suspect part of the reason behind the directives regarding a public act/sin is, as MLF points out, to protect a woman's conscience. I also think it's to make room for a wide area, so to speak, that could only be discerned on a case by case basis. As ABC, and others, have pointed out, the sin has to be voluntary. Probably because I regularly minister to destitute women, I can think of a number of cases in which a woman might have engaged in the objective sin of masturbation in a way that wasn't fully voluntary. (Catechism section "The Morality of Human Acts" is a great place to start in order to start to understand distinctions here.) I think, for example, of a little girl exposed to pornography or her mom's series of live-in boyfriends. If she were to develop a habit of masturbation as a young teenager, later have a conversion,  and get married at 24 never having had voluntary intercourse, I wouldn't consider her a non-virgin due to her past. (I would imagine that she did not have the moral formation to have any idea that her behavior was disordered, etc.) But that's a specific analysis of a specific situation. It's not an across the board's dismissal of the Church's teaching that virginity does have a variety of material and spiritual elements. It would be to recognize a myriad of factors that greatly lessened the gravity of her actions (while acknowledging them to be objectively disordered.)

 

That said, it gets tricky here, because if the same girl were to engage in pre-marital sex, the same myriad of factors could greatly lessen her culpability for that choice. But we would say that she was no longer a virgin, even if due to her particular circumstances she didn't commit a mortal sin.

 

My guess is that because this is such a nuanced and delicate area, the Church has left it open on purpose, giving the general guidelines and leaving it to individual women to further discern with their confessors/spiritual directors whether or not they are candidates for consecration (both objectively, whether they meet the basic criteria, and subjectively).

 

4. In the case of the kind of girl mentioned above, I would leave the door open to the possibility of her having a vocation as a CV. I'm inclined to say this because there does seem to be a difference between voluntary intercourse (however un-culpable someone might be due to various factors, she does go from virgin to non-virgin in making the choice to engage in sex) and masturbation (in which it seems there could be factors that mitigate or remove its voluntarity). I'm inclined to say a woman could be spiritually restored in the latter scenario though not in the former (but forgiven for all in confession, of course).

 

I believe there is a quote from one of the heavy hitting theologians about how some lesser transgressions against virginity could be restored through repentance and spiritual atonement, but that this only goes so far. (I'm sorry, I've racked my brain and can't think of who or where it is, so take that with a grain of salt.) If I'm remembering this correctly, I might say that could apply to the scenario in which deep spiritual healing is needed after certain objectively disordered acts have been committed without full voluntarity (without claiming that the loss of virginity itself can be restored or that "secondary virginity" is the same as primary virginity).

 

Hope this makes sense. Bottom line is, I think the Church in her wisdom has left the door open for individual women to seek spiritual direction on this issue if she is uncertain and if she meets the guideline given regarding not having committed public sins.

 

But it's also true that virginity is not reducible to a "technical" standpoint. E.g., I wouldn't agree that a woman who had a hedonistic, freely chosen past and did everything but sin with another person would be a viable candidate for the consecration.

 

Those are just my thoughts. I don't have ironclad sources for some of my gut instincts but my biggest instinct of all is that what past theologians have said about virginity is meant to be a gift to the Church, a real guide in our present culture, and shouldn't just be dismissed as archaic.
 

Edited August 21, 2013 by Laurie

[MarysLittleFlower]

For 99% of life's questions, there is no "official" or "infallible"Church teaching.  Most moral questions go without an official answer; we are supposed to form our consciences well and then make a good faith effort to apply our conscience to the questions. Often enough an official pronouncement is made only when the debate has become a distraction to the faithful. If you are always wanting a rule to make you feel safe thinking or doing this or that ---  Christianity does not work like that.

Sure, many decisions might not be exactly defined in Church teaching. I think with this the issue is that we're dealing with a theological question essentially... so I hope the Church has said something about it.

 

Dear MarysLittleFlower,

 

The suggested homily in the rite of consecration of virgins says, "by his Paschal Mystery, he brought his Church into being. He desired it to be a virgin, a bride, and a mother: a virgin, to keep the faith whole and entire; a bride, to be one with him forever; and a mother, to raise up the family of the Church."

 

For  a CV ,

virginity is a reminder of the Integrity of the Faith of the Church.

Being a bride is a reminder that the Church is called to embrace Only Jesus Christ as her savior  , and not worship any other gods .

Being a mother is to love the entire church community  , and to evangelize to give spiritual birth to new members in the church.

 

Nuns and religious sisters and every baptized person  has all the freedom to spiritually relate with Jesus as their Spouse . There is no rule or Church teaching stating that  any particular vocation [ including CV] has any extra privilege to do so. Nuns and religious are free to see their Final Profession from a spousal perspective if that is the tradition of their institute or they have chosen the spousal version of the rite of profession.  However ,  they are not Obligated  to publicly express their spousal relationship with Christ in daily life . They are Obligated to publicly express Religious Poverty  since renunciation is an essential aspect of the Religious Charism.

 

For a nun or apostolic religious woman  , chastity [ even if  they are virgins]  is not a reminder of the Integrity of the faith of the Church.  Chastity can have different shades of meaning according to each institution : for greater availability in service , for spousal relationship with Jesus , for renunciation as a way to purify self and become holy , in thanksgiving  to God or a penance to implore God's mercy or favours on others etc. etc.

 

For a CV, being a virgin   is a gift. It is not a penance , it is not offered to God as a sacrifice in exchange of favors etc. It is not a renunciation and  It is not difficult. It helps her focus on saying Yes to Jesus  ,loving Him alone as the Only Spouse and everything and everyone for her. It is also for greater availability to serve others but the primary reason is the relationship with Jesus.

 

A CV  has the obligation to publicly express her Identity as Virgin, Bride of Christ, Mother.  I sometimes think , it would be appropriate for  CV to be  called ' Mother' since the Charism of Mother Mary is conferred through the rite of consecration upon her  ;  just as  religious are called 'Sister' since they have sisterly bonds of religious life essential to their vocation.

 

Thanks for the post God's Beloved. I think that virginity is a beautiful thing, I don't think it's so much of a "no" as it is a "yes". It's giving oneself only to Jesus, as one's only Spouse. I don't see it in a negative way at all.

 

One thing I'm struggling with - maybe I'm realizing it more now - is understanding religious life. For example - anyone can integrate bridal spirituality into their life by thinking of their soul as being like a bride before God. However, at the same time they might have a human spouse. What if a person feels drawn to only having Jesus as their Spouse.. and only belonging to Him. (I understand this needs to be discerned.) But instead of becoming CVs, they become nuns... .and isn't it still true then that Jesus is their all and they don't belong to anyone else? so is this a different type of participation in being a bride than a baptized person who is not a nun, would have? after all, Jesus even called certain Saints who were nuns, His brides.. so how is it different from the general understanding of each soul being like a bride? (because they might have a human spouse). I'm asking more about religious life than CV here, because I understand about the CV position.

 

And what if the person is not a virgin...? (and is a nun). Is it the same or somehow different? I mean without the Consecration of Virginity... but still wanting Jesus to be their only love.

 

that's kind of what I'm getting at here...

 

I understand this is something that needs to be discerned. I'm still discerning. I just mean IF a person is called to be a nun. I'm not saying nuns don't have a real spousal relationship with God.. I think they do. But I'm just wondering why they aren't always virgins, and how not being a virgin would affect this.

Edited August 21, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Can't edit anymore.. I wanted to say, maybe I'm not seeing the whole reality of it yet.

[MarysLittleFlower]

MLF, very good point.

 

Some other points, no particular order:

 

1. The idea that there is a bare bones definition of virginity (no voluntary sexual intercourse) but also an expanded material definition (no voluntary masturbation), coupled with the theological dimension, throughout the ages, is a beautiful gift from our Church to the world. It's not something that should inspire some to feel inferior or as if they are judged. Our Church's teaching on the virtue of virginity points to the dignity of every human being! It shouldn't be watered down, even if at first it sounds odd and stands out to strongly against our present culture. When I say "our Church" I am counting her many theologians over the centuries who have expounded upon this virtue and do not reduce it to a material element. We can't just disregard the contribution of these theologians because they haven't explicitly spoken "on behalf of the Magisterium."

 

2. The vocation to be a consecrated virgin involves being an image of the Church as virgin, bride, and mother. This tells me that something more than just bare bones material virginity is needed for someone pursuing this vocation. The nature of the vocation is spiritual/theological, so it is imperative that someone discerning the vocation should carefully consider what the Church's theologians have had to say about virginity. (Obviously, a woman doesn't bestow the virtue of virginity on herself. If she's conceited about being "pure" or whatever, and is attributing her virginity to her own "goodness," then that attitude itself would be disordered and an indication that she--on the grounds of her pride-in-self rather than gratitude to God for His graces--might not be a good candidate for the vocation.)

 

3. I suspect part of the reason behind the directives regarding a public act/sin is, as MLF points out, to protect a woman's conscience. I also think it's to make room for a wide area, so to speak, that could only be discerned on a case by case basis. As ABC, and others, have pointed out, the sin has to be voluntary. Probably because I regularly minister to destitute women, I can think of a number of cases in which a woman might have engaged in the objective sin of masturbation in a way that wasn't fully voluntary. (Catechism section "The Morality of Human Acts" is a great place to start in order to start to understand distinctions here.) I think, for example, of a little girl exposed to pornography or her mom's series of live-in boyfriends. If she were to develop a habit of masturbation as a young teenager, later have a conversion,  and get married at 24 never having had voluntary intercourse, I wouldn't consider her a non-virgin due to her past. (I would imagine that she did not have the moral formation to have any idea that her behavior was disordered, etc.) But that's a specific analysis of a specific situation. It's not an across the board's dismissal of the Church's teaching that virginity does have a variety of material and spiritual elements. It would be to recognize a myriad of factors that greatly lessened the gravity of her actions (while acknowledging them to be objectively disordered.)

 

That said, it gets tricky here, because if the same girl were to engage in pre-marital sex, the same myriad of factors could greatly lessen her culpability for that choice. But we would say that she was no longer a virgin, even if due to her particular circumstances she didn't commit a mortal sin.

 

My guess is that because this is such a nuanced and delicate area, the Church has left it open on purpose, giving the general guidelines and leaving it to individual women to further discern with their confessors/spiritual directors whether or not they are candidates for consecration (both objectively, whether they meet the basic criteria, and subjectively).

 

4. In the case of the kind of girl mentioned above, I would leave the door open to the possibility of her having a vocation as a CV. I'm inclined to say this because there does seem to be a difference between voluntary intercourse (however un-culpable someone might be due to various factors, she does go from virgin to non-virgin in making the choice to engage in sex) and masturbation (in which it seems there could be factors that mitigate or remove its voluntarity). I'm inclined to say a woman could be spiritually restored in the latter scenario though not in the former (but forgiven for all in confession, of course).

 

I believe there is a quote from one of the heavy hitting theologians about how some lesser transgressions against virginity could be restored through repentance and spiritual atonement, but that this only goes so far. (I'm sorry, I've racked my brain and can't think of who or where it is, so take that with a grain of salt.) If I'm remembering this correctly, I might say that could apply to the scenario in which deep spiritual healing is needed after certain objectively disordered acts have been committed without full voluntarity (without claiming that the loss of virginity itself can be restored or that "secondary virginity" is the same as primary virginity).

 

Hope this makes sense. Bottom line is, I think the Church in her wisdom has left the door open for individual women to seek spiritual direction on this issue if she is uncertain and if she meets the guideline given regarding not having committed public sins.

 

But it's also true that virginity is not reducible to a "technical" standpoint. E.g., I wouldn't agree that a woman who had a hedonistic, freely chosen past and did everything but sin with another person would be a viable candidate for the consecration.

 

Those are just my thoughts. I don't have ironclad sources for some of my gut instincts but my biggest instinct of all is that what past theologians have said about virginity is meant to be a gift to the Church, a real guide in our present culture, and shouldn't just be dismissed as archaic.
 

Laurie, thanks for your post.

 

I'll respond in the same way if that helps :)

 

1. I agree that virginity is very beautiful! I don't think it should be toned down.

 

2. I agree there too.

 

3. It seems like this is something for someone to speak to a priest about... if they have a question. My question sort of comes from the understanding that this sin is based on lust, even if there are factors like addiction, etc, the addiction is still to the lustful feeling. But this is still something I'm trying to learn about.. I see there are different views here on this thread... of course, there's also St Thomas Aquinas who is really respected as a theologian! so I don't want to just ignore anything and look at it all seriously... maybe this is a topic to discuss with a good confessor or something.

 

I definitely don't think that virginity is archaic or anything like that :) I also see it's really significant spiritually as well.

[BarbTherese]

Were I considering a consecrated state such as consecrated virginity, I would be taking it to spiritual direction and also the the vocations director of the diocese, laying all my cards on the table - and leave it all up to diocesan leadership whether I am a suitable candidate for consecrated virginity or not - especially since the subject seems so conflicted.  Insofar as I know one can approach the vocations director of a diocese without any obligation involved - merely an enquiry at which stage one could lay one's cards on the table.  The vocations director will tell one what the next step might be from there. I think it is always very wise and prudent to have a spiritual director in the background who is in support.

 

If one just wants to find out the moral situation re virginity or lack of it, one can contact diocesan offices and ask how one would contact a moral theologian who would be able to settle the question fully.  Moral theologians very often are lecturers in the seminary.

[MarysLittleFlower]

That makes sense.. I have heard of dioceses differing on this point though which is kind of confusing :(

 

btw, thanks for the reminder in your signature about the Queenship of Mary! :D I didn't know.

[BarbTherese]

That makes sense.. I have heard of dioceses differing on this point though which is kind of confusing :(

 

btw, thanks for the reminder in your signature about the Queenship of Mary! :D I didn't know.

 

The Church as hierarchy does take notice of movements amongst the faithful and certain details relating to Consecrated Virginity seem to be difficult to sort out.  It might be that The Church at some point will put out a document setting everything straight for all concerned and on those points about which people are debating. 

I have heard too that diocese differ.  I read somewhere recently and really had to laugh - that a Vicar General was approached by a person interested in the CV vocation.  The VG said "We do hermits, but we don't do consecrated virgins"  LOL :)

 

I try to post a new pic into my profile relating to a coming feastday, but sometimes they slip by without me remembering to change my profile picture.  I used to put a reminder into "What's on your mind?" also, but we no longer have that facility.  So I am trying to remember to put it into my signature. Today for example here in Australia 21.8.13 at 5.13pm is the Feast of St Pius X who is responsible for us being able to receive First Reconciliation and Holy Communion at around 7 years of age and he was also responsible for advocating frequent Holy Communion - insofar as I recall.  He was a great reformer.

After The Queenship of Mary on 22.8.13, our next big day is the Feast of St Bartholomew, Apostle (24.8.13).  On feasts of the apostoles, I try to remember to pray especially for the Universal Church and the Holy Father and our hierarchy and priests - all intentions.

Of course, Our Lady's special feasts are other days I try to recall the same intentions.  Plus a special day to pray for all in consecrated life.

 

But one can make up one's own intentions of course if one follows the feastdays through the year.  Although it can be very difficult to stay in touch with secular duties and the secular calendar and with The Church as well.  One of the things I miss about monastic life - quite limited amount of remembering to be done and nothing compared to secular life.  It was all done for us. :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thanks! I really like Pope St Pius X :) here's a really amazing story about how he decided to lower the age limit for First Holy Communion! :) http://fatherdoyle.com/2012/02/02/thoughts-for-february-2-anniversary-of-little-nellie-from-fr-willie-doyle/  and a longer story about Little Nellie of Holy God: http://www.knocknovena.com/littlenellie.htm

Edited August 21, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[BarbTherese]

Thanks! I really like Pope St Pius X :) here's a really amazing story about how he decided to lower the age limit for First Holy Communion! :) http://fatherdoyle.com/2012/02/02/thoughts-for-february-2-anniversary-of-little-nellie-from-fr-willie-doyle/  and a longer story about Little Nellie of Holy God: http://www.knocknovena.com/littlenellie.htm

 

Thank you for sharing, MLF.  I don't have time just now to read it in full, just skimmed over it.  I'll have a closer read tonight. There are some pretty amazing stories on the site, I have accessed it several times in the past.

 

 

Barb :)

If you want a clear answer on virginity and what qualifies as virginity, if you ring your diocesan offices you will be able to locate a moral theologian.  Or ring a local diocesan seminary.  But one could well find that their own diocese and their bishop might have different understandings and requirements - hence ring diocesan offices and speak to the vocations director.  Probably diocesan offices and the vocations director would be best.  This way one knows where one stands in one's own dioceses.  Although on such a serious question as virginity, it puzzles me why there would be differences.  The Church is infallible on matters of Faith and Morals and it follows that there should be one united teaching throughout The Church.

Edited August 21, 2013 by BarbaraTherese