Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[Sponsa-Christi]

i just found out in my country, women who have had their marriage annulled are not excluded from consecration. because chastity =/= celibacy, and one can observe marital chastity , therefore a married couple living together are not in public violation of chastity. when i mentioned the CDW respose to Cardinal Burke, I was told "that is just an opinion, thats not what we do here. the emphasis is on being an autonomous celibate vowed woman". are CDW responses binding in any way? must they be followed?

 

Technically, individual responses from Vatican dicasteries are not absolutely the authoritative last word on a given subject, although they are certainly much more significant than something like a theologian or canonist's private professional opinion. 

 

However, the Rite itself states that it is required of candidates for the consecration "...that they have never been married or lived in public or flagrant violation of chastity". (Emphasis mine) A marriage that was declared null is still a "putative marriage," which is why the children of such a union are still considered legitimate. 

 

(And this is beside the point that it really isn't very accurate to say that consecrated virginity is just about being "an autonomous celibate vowed woman.")

[God's Beloved]

i just found out in my country, women who have had their marriage annulled are not excluded from consecration. because chastity =/= celibacy, and one can observe marital chastity , therefore a married couple living together are not in public violation of chastity. when i mentioned the CDW respose to Cardinal Burke, I was told "that is just an opinion, thats not what we do here. the emphasis is on being an autonomous celibate vowed woman". are CDW responses binding in any way? must they be followed?

 

Yours is not the only country where this is happening.

 

My personal opinion is that they are 'not' entering the order of virgins as per canon 604 . These are women who for various reasons wish to have some kind of recognition in the church to their single life , or continue their religious vocation outside a religious institute. The church does not have a rite for them, so they are modifying the ancient rite , changing the 'essentials' of the rite , thus formulating another rite of their own , getting it approved by their bishop who is not an expert in these matters.

 

This may be okay for elderly women , but for a young woman like you, who has expectations and desire to truly live the vocation of CV , I say....WAIT !..... do not hurry to receive the consecration  even if your heart desires it so much.

 

I wonder whether we need to make a joint petition to the Holy Father regarding this problem. So many groups, institutes, individuals , ex-religious etc are misusing , changing the rite. Real lives are involved here.

 

To remain silent , according to me, is to agree with the wrong that is happening. Forgive me for my strong words.

[oremus1]

Yours is not the only country where this is happening.

 

My personal opinion is that they are 'not' entering the order of virgins as per canon 604 . These are women who for various reasons wish to have some kind of recognition in the church to their single life , or continue their religious vocation outside a religious institute. The church does not have a rite for them, so they are modifying the ancient rite , changing the 'essentials' of the rite , thus formulating another rite of their own , getting it approved by their bishop who is not an expert in these matters.

 

This may be okay for elderly women , but for a young woman like you, who has expectations and desire to truly live the vocation of CV , I say....WAIT !..... do not hurry to receive the consecration  even if your heart desires it so much.

 

I wonder whether we need to make a joint petition to the Holy Father regarding this problem. So many groups, institutes, individuals , ex-religious etc are misusing , changing the rite. Real lives are involved here.

 

To remain silent , according to me, is to agree with the wrong that is happening. Forgive me for my strong words.

Its more women aged 50 - 65 who do this i think (wanting the consecration when they find themselves unmarried at a certain age).

we do have people changing the word virginity to celibacy in the rite.

we also have people taking a ritual for lay associations, replacing the name of that association with 'order of consecrated widows' and bishops using it to consecrate widows.

i have been told the intro to the rite is 'a product of its time' and no longer followed - this includes the specified dates of the consecration.

i also requested info about meeting with the bishop after consecration as per apostolorum successores, but was told that no-one meets the bishop after consecration (most consecrations are delegated to priests therefore some CVs never meet the bishop at all), and that it was a sign of spiritual immaturity to want to continue contact with the bishop. that CVs are supposed to be fully mature and autonomous, not to use up the time of the bishop.

the bishops dont care, and there is no point in me raising these issues as most CVs in our country are like that, and happy that that is alright. so it will look like i am causing trouble. no-one cares. only a few USA bishops care. most bishops seem to think CVs render no ministry, so the main thing is to just consecrate them if they seem normal, then they will stop using up time.

Edited February 17, 2014 by oremus1

[oremus1]

sorry - even more questions!

 

Sponsa mentioned that marriages which are anulled prevent one from becoming a CV due to 'putaive marriage'.

 

Where does it say that putive marriage counts as marraige for c.604? or is this just one possible interpretation?

 

Most people would consider anullment to mean there was no marriage in the first place at all.

 

also, what about people who have been in josephite (celibate) marriages? surely those ladies are elibigle and their marriage could easily be annulled?

[oremus1]

Also can I share this photo album of CVs from a gathering in france http://www.helenerobert.com/viergesconsacrees.swf . you can see the badges given out from the 2008 pilgrimage. you can also see that most are very old, no young ones.  

[BarbTherese]

 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/marriage/catholic-marriage-and-annulments/  "In addition, the Church acknowledges that there was a valid civil contract and recognizes that the spouses were lawfully married in the eyes of the state. Therefore, all children born of this valid civil contract are legitimate, according to the Catholic Church. In keeping with canon 1137, they are known as the legitimate children of a "putative marriage"

 

I might be a bit off topic, but since "putative marriage" has been raised within the subject, I am interested in the actual meaning of the term.

 

a) I am a bit confused about "putative marriage" - is the term only for marriages with the legitimate children born of a later annulled marriage, or is it a term for annulled marriages without children as well provided it was a valid civil or state marriage?

 

Canon 1137 Children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate.

 

b) From the above, it seems to me (could be wrong - this is Canon Law!)that a valid marriage in the eyes of the state or civil law is known as a "putative marriage" in the eyes of The Church once the marriage is annulled and whether children were born of the marriage or not?

 

[BarbTherese]

(As clarification.  I am not considering any sort of public consecration in Canon Law - I am 68yrs old and with an annulled marriage.  I am interested in the subject of CV in this thread for personal info only)

[BarbTherese]

As I understand annulment - there was no marriage in the eyes of The Church, while there was according to civil law.  Hence prior to applying for annulment, I needed a divorce (which had been effected in my case prior to applying to the Tribunal).

 

http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp

"The Catholic Church presumes that marriages are valid, binding spouses for life. When couples do separate and divorce, therefore, the Church examines in detail their marriage to determine if, right from the start, some essential element was missing in their relationship. If that fact has been established, it means the spouses did not have the kind of marital link that binds them together for life.

 

The Church then issues a declaration of nullity (an annulment) and both are free to marry again in the Catholic Church."

 

 

[oremus1]

(As clarification.  I am not considering any sort of public consecration in Canon Law - I am 68yrs old and with an annulled marriage.  I am interested in the subject of CV in this thread for personal info only)

 

I am not sure, Sponsa is a canon lawyer i think .

 

I found this http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12584a.htm which seems to be that putative mariage is where at least one party believes the marriage to be valid, but is actually invalid. (hence even though the parties may think they are married, they are actually not canonically married. ) it is a bit like 'marrige' prior to realising it is invalid requiring annulment.

 

its relevance to this thread is that the Rite of Consecration says that the CV must "never have been married". in some countries, women whose marriages which have been annulled are counted as "never married" and hence are being consecrated under c.604 (it is also debatable whether physical virginity is required).

 

A strict interpretation is: physical virginity is required AND a woman must never have entered into any sort of marriage even if proven later to be invalid

 

A liberal interpretation: spiritual purity only is required, and annulled marriages are not considered marriages at all.

Edited February 21, 2014 by oremus1

[oremus1]

Another question: Is it possible to be dispensed from consecration? many CVs say NO, most notably the USACV and Therese Ivers on her famous blog - their reason being that is a nuptial vocation, not one which has vows. Hwoevr the CDW says the bishop CAN dispense:

I saw this

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/126119-can-a-consecrated-virgin-become-a-diocesan-hermit-or-vice-versa/

In yr 2003 I sent following Questions to the Congr for the Inst. of Cons. life in Rome :

 

Canon 604#1 says that we are consecrated by the Bishop. How exactly is this different from the Prayer of consecration in the Rite for the Profession of Religious Women ? In several theological articles it is said that in the Cons. of virgins what is specific is the charismatic element in the Rite whereas in the Rite of Religious Profession what is specific is the ascetic element or the Profession of vows according to the Constitution of the Institute .............Since the Consecration takes place by the very words in the Prayer of Consecration, the Information provided by the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins says that it is Irrevocable. They say there can be no dispensation from the commitment ...........in case later in life the virgin feels a call to marriage. How far is this true ?

 

Their response : Prot.n. SpR 862-4/2003 was :

 

........ it is to be hoped that as the Rite is better known,and is studied both by the candidate and by the consecrating bishop, it will be clear that the candidate's proposito expresses her intent and the solemn prayer of the Bishop consecrates her. This is distinct from the rite of religious profession in which the profession of the evangelical counsels- all other canonical requirements being in place--consecrates the candidate to God[c.654]

 

It would be true to say that the Consecration effected through the Rite is permanent. For this reason some Bishops require periods of time with a private vow of chastity during the formation time, before accepting a candidate for the Consecration.We have , however, received the question of a possible dispensation from the proposito and from the obligations arising from the Consecration. This while regrettable, would seem would be within the competency of the Diocesan Bishop. There has not been any formal definition in this regard

[BarbTherese]

I am not sure, Sponsa is a canon lawyer i think .

 

I found this http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12584a.htm which seems to be that putative mariage is where at least one party believes the marriage to be valid, but is actually invalid. (hence even though the parties may think they are married, they are actually not canonically married. ) it is a bit like 'marrige' prior to realising it is invalid requiring annulment.

 

its relevance to this thread is that the Rite of Consecration says that the CV must "never have been married". in some countries, women whose marriages which have been annulled are counted as "never married" and hence are being consecrated under c.604 (it is also debatable whether physical virginity is required).

 

A strict interpretation is: physical virginity is required AND a woman must never have entered into any sort of marriage even if proven later to be invalid

 

A liberal interpretation: spiritual purity only is required, and annulled marriages are not considered marriages at all.

 

Thank you for the link, O1 -

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12584a.htm Putative Marriage:
"Putative (Latin, putativus supposed) signifies that which is commonly thought, reputed, or believed. A putative marriage, consequently, in canon lawis a matrimonial alliance which is commonly reputed to be valid, and is sincerely believed by one at least of the contracting parties to be so in the eyes of the Church, because entered into in good faith; but which in reality is null and void, owing to the existence of a diriment impediment. The Church too in her external forum recognizes such a marriage, until its invalidity be proved; and concedes to the children born thereof the rights of legitimacy.."

 

I personally hold that Consecrated Virginity does ask actual physical virginity, which would exclude including a woman with a valid annulment of marriage.  To date, I have not read anything authoritative that would change my own thoughts.

  I think that if The Lord calls to Consecrated Virginity, He will see to it that physical virginity remains intact (preclude impediments to a vocation).  This can possibly be difficult for those whose virginity physically is not intact but are spiritually pure or with an annulled marriage with spiritual purity and are attracted to Consecrated Virginity - it all comes down to my will or God's Will - as I view things.  And this can be a difficult journey.

[brandelynmarie]

I have a question concerning the Making Out thread...I was under the impression that CV was related to the physical “virga intacta" & of course intention of chastity....but someone made the comment that even a personal history of french kissing could/would prevent one from becoming a CV...So is a history of dating even allowed? What is to be made of sexual feelings related to puberty? Or related to dating even if they are not fully acted upon? Or is all looked at on an individual basis?

If this has been answered elsewhere...my apologies...

[Lilllabettt]

Or is all looked at on an individual basis?

yes. 

[abrideofChrist]

I have a question concerning the Making Out thread...I was under the impression that CV was related to the physical “virga intacta" & of course intention of chastity....but someone made the comment that even a personal history of french kissing could/would prevent one from becoming a CV...So is a history of dating even allowed? What is to be made of sexual feelings related to puberty? Or related to dating even if they are not fully acted upon? Or is all looked at on an individual basis?

If this has been answered elsewhere...my apologies...

 

Dating is fine as long as it's chaste.  French kissing is not chaste because it is supposed to be arousing by its nature.  One who sins in French kissing has lost their virginity because it is considered a venereal pleasure.  Because it is committed with another person, it might be considered an "open" violation of chastity just like intercourse would be an open violation.  It is a violation of chastity, the question is whether it is public.  The other question is why someone who has lost her virginity in this way would want to receive the consecration of virgins when she won't receive the crown of virginity in Heaven?  How does one psychologically come forward for the consecration and say I am a virgin without blushing even though she knows that in eternity she may be numbered among the chaste but not among the virgins?  And how does the person she made out with get the Church's understanding of virginity if he knows that this woman engaged in sexual overtures with him?

[BarbTherese]

What I wonder is, long before Heaven indeed, how would a person live with their conscience and in their relationship with The Lord knowing that they had lied to The Church in a quite serious matter -  and therefore to The Lord, who knows well that they embraced a ritual of  consecration of virgin under false pretences leading their diocesan authority astray with an untruth or untruths.  I would think that this would constitute grave matter and with the two other conditions also present, mortally sinful. And would that consecration therefore be valid?

One might feel embarrassment speaking with one's Bishop about some matters in applying for CV, but there is in our diocese anyway in the Vocations Office a nun qualified to answer most all questions on vocations, and if she can't, she certainly knows how to obtain the answers.

Edited February 23, 2014 by BarbaraTherese