Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[BarbTherese]

Do Consecrated Virgins have the Blessed Eucharist resident in their homes?

[oremus1]

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?

Do you have a source to support this view?

What is someone derived venereal pleasure from hugging? Does that also exclude them?
At present in the church we now have three different views:

1) Spiritual purity only is required. Physical virginity is not essential. Previously married women are eligible as long as the marriage was annulled.
2) Physical virginity is required, married women and reformed women are not eligible
3) ABC's view that CVs should have physical virginity AND have abstained from kissing/hugging
 

Personally I think the church's view is 2). This is supported by the letter below:

 

Letter to His Excellency, the Most Reverend Raymond Burke, Archbishop of St. Louis, dated April

4, 2007 from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, signed by

Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith, Secretary.

“This Dicastery concurs with the propriety of Your

 

Excellency’s interpretation according to which women who have lost the gift of virginity by knowingly and

deliberately engaging in sexual relations should not be received as consecrated virgins.............

 

 

As you can see it refers to sexual relations. I'm pretty sure if you asked anyone what 'sexual relations' were, they would not include kissing and hugging. Also, the ever famous Catholic encyclopaedia:
Vermeersch, A. (1912). Virginity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 23, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm
"Morally, virginity signifies the reverencefor bodily integrity which is suggested by a virtuousmotive. Thus understood, it is common to both sexes, and may exist in a women even after bodily violation committed upon her against her will. Physically, it implies a bodily integrity, visible evidence of which exists only in women."

It is clear again that they are refering to sexual intercourse, not kissing and hugging.

 

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.

 

They would not necessarily have lied to the church. I can assure you that only a tiny minority (if any) dioceses require that a CV should have abstained from kissing and hugging. In fact, I would be surprised if they even asked that question. Let us not forget that most diocese are prevented from asking directly if the woman is a virgin, as it is a matter for internal forum.the USACV talks about this in their info packet. this is combined with the fact that many diocese, even some whole countries, do not know that physical virginity is a requirement. It also depends on what one thinks virginity is. If you accept the normal definition of virginity as having never willfully participated in sexual penetration (i am including bill clinton style in this definition), then many women could be consecrated having kissed a guy, hugged a few guys, in a clear conscience. i would think in that situation their consecration is valid.

 

also many hold the view that it is the prayer of consecration that consecrates - so if a candidate was not a virgin, arguably the consecration could still be valid.
 

Do Consecrated Virgins have the Blessed Eucharist resident in their homes?

 
they can, but is not an automatic right. the relevent conditions under canon law must be met, the bishop has to give permission, and a priest must be able to come to say mass there occassionally, renew the Hosts etc. www.consecratedvirgins.org gives some good answers to many FAQs.

Can anyone answer my question:
 

In yr 2003 someone on Phat 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


if the CV can be dispensed by the local bishop to marry someone else, then it is not a nuptial bond akin to matrimony. Does anyone know about this?

Edited February 23, 2014 by oremus1

[oremus1]

IF anyone wanted the reference to the letter above: the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments  - "women who have lost the gift of virginity by knowingly and deliberately engaging in sexual relations should not be received as consecrated virgins." it is [Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, Prot.n.231/06/L, Rome, 4 April 2007]
 

[abrideofChrist]

Do you have a source to support this view?

What is someone derived venereal pleasure from hugging? Does that also exclude them?
At present in the church we now have three different views:

1) Spiritual purity only is required. Physical virginity is not essential. Previously married women are eligible as long as the marriage was annulled.
2) Physical virginity is required, married women and reformed women are not eligible
3) ABC's view that CVs should have physical virginity AND have abstained from kissing/hugging
 

 

Yes, I do have a couple of sources to defend this view.  It is connected with the other thread on making out.  I never said that hugging was a sin.  Anybody can give another a light hug or a quick peck.  What I was talking about was sins against chastity.  The virtue of virginity is lost when a sin against chastity has been committed.  A public violation of chastity need not be confined to the marital act.  As I have mentioned before, even being a topless waitress in public is sufficient to bar a woman from the vocation.

 

Now to French kissing (link as in Making out thread):

The Connection of the Act with Sex Pleasure

The connection of any act with sex pleasure depends, in turn, on
two conditions: the sensibility of the individual concerned, and
the nature of the act. Each individual gradually finds out what
affects him, and must refrain accordingly. In cases where acts
stimulate him which are not ordinarily connected with sex
pleasure, for example, a boy riding a bicycle, a boy looking at
another boy in a bathing suit, or a girl at another girl, etc.,
these should ordinarily be simply ignored.

The stimulating nature of different acts depends on what is done
and to whom it is directed. An act directed to one of the
opposite sex is usually more stimulating than the same act toward
one's own sex. A passionate kiss is different from a brotherly
kiss, and so on. Some acts are very stimulating because they are
the ordinary preliminaries to the act of sexual mating. If one
has no right to the marital act (that is, is not married), he has
no right to the preliminaries. Such preliminaries are: passionate
kisses and embraces, "heavy" petting, touching the private parts
of the body, etc.[1]

Other acts are only slightly stimulating; for example, a light
embrace or kiss. Granted that consent is not given to any
accidental sex pleasure, these are venial sins if done without a
good reason.

To give you some norms by which to judge, a series of acts is
listed below. Those of the first group are considered seriously
sinful for the ordinary person, if done without a justifying
reason:

1. Deliberately looking at a person of the opposite sex entirely
or almost nude. Looking at really obscene pictures or
illustrations (unless very briefly).

2. Touching the private parts of the bodies of the same or
opposite sex, deliberately and/or lingeringly.

3. Attending highly suggestive or indecent movies, plays,
burlesque, etc.

4. Petting and kissing which are passionate or pro-longed.

5. Suggestive or immoral dancing.

6. Holding obscene thoughts in the mind. Note the difference from
impure thoughts, explained above (Principle II in preceding
chapter).

7. Telling or listening to extremely immoral and suggestive
stories.

The following actions are ordinarily venial sins unless justified
by a sufficient reason:

1. Immodest looks at the opposite sex (for example, in a bathing
attire) in a passing way or from curiosity or frivolity.

2. Embraces, kissing, "light" petting, indulged in for short
periods or out of levity. (Ordinary kissing games belong here, as
also many teen-age activities that cause parents and superiors a
good deal of worry.)

3. Telling lightly suggestive stories or reading them.

4. Suggestive thoughts entertained for a brief time, listening to
"dirty jokes" for the humorous element, etc.


The Reason

In determining what might be a good reason for these acts, it
must be kept in mind that the reason must be proportionate to the
effect. A doctor must do many things in his study and profession
which may cause venereal pleasure. This is also true for nurses,
educators, social workers, and many others. Again, a child must
learn some sexual matters as he grows older, despite the fact
that this knowledge may be stimulating. Moreover, recreational
reading excuses the excitation that might arise from some of the
pictures seen in the ordinary magazine, or the scenes described
in ordinary stories or books. The most that can be laid down as a
norm is this: acts of such a nature as to cause satisfaction or
near-satisfaction demand a very serious reason to justify them.
Acts which only slightly arouse the passions may be done for a
lesser reason. Remember, however, that all this holds only
deliberate delight in the venereal pleasure which might arise.

We shall put this in schema form to make it easy to remember:

1. Acts which of their nature may lead to sexual pleasure depend:

a) on the excitability of the individual;

b) on the stimulating nature of the act and the person to whom it
is directed.

2. These acts, done without a good reason are:

a) mortally sinful if they are of such a nature as to arouse
complete or nearly complete pleasure;

b) venially sinful if they are of a nature to arouse only slight
sexual pleasure.

3. A sufficient reason may justify them, always PROVIDED THERE IS
NO SERIOUS DANGER OF CONSENT to the pleasure which may arise.

Let us try to apply this principle to concrete cases.

1. Dr. A. studies anatomy and treats women in his practice.
Occasionally, the nature of his actions causes complete or nearly
complete pleasure, to which he refuses consent. Does he sin?

a) From his own nature, and from what he does, he is seriously
excited.
b) The action would be a mortal sin without a reason, but

c) his vocation of curing human ills gives him a sufficient
reason. He commits no sin.

2. Mary B. is a mature art student who has progressed so far
that, in order to continue, she must study the nude form. She is
frequently excited, but refuses consent. She commits no sin.

3. Joan B., her younger sister, aged 17, is also a budding
artist. She decides to study the nude with her sister. She too
experiences serious excitation to which she refuses consent. She
sins mortally if there is no reason at this stage to study the
nude, venially if there is a reason but it is used a little too
soon.

4. Joe, a boy of 14, finds that in bathing he experiences slight
sexual pleasure (no consent). He commits no sin. If he touches
himself out of curiosity, venial sin is committed.

5. Sadie, aged 15, reads through a picture magazine which has a
number of "lightly clad" illustrations. Out of curiosity she
looks at them deliberately, with a light venereal pleasure to
which she does not consent. She commits a venial sin.

6. Jack, 17, and Mae, 16, go to a Friday night dance. Though the
dances are not suggestive, they both experience some sexual
pleasure, to which they refuse to consent. No sin! Ordinary
dancing is a legitimate form of recreation.

7. Henry, 17, and Isabelle, 16, go out on a date. They indulge in
extensive petting, saying that they want to express affection and
protesting to themselves that they do not want the sex pleasure
resulting. They sin mortally. There is no good reason for these
stimulating acts, which are the normal preliminaries of the
marriage act.

8. Mike, 21, and Josephine, 20, are to be married in three
months. They are very frequently alone; they like to walk arm-in-
arm, to hold hands, to embrace on meeting and kiss at parting.
Josephine likes to rest her head on Mike's shoulder, and he likes
to put his arm around her waist. Sometimes they experience some
sexual pleasure, but they do not seek it, being determined to
reserve these pleasures for their marriage. They commit no sin at
all. They have every right to express decent love. If, however,
they indulge in passionate kissing, embracing and petting, they
sin seriously, no less than Henry and Isabelle above. About two
weeks before their wedding, both Mike and Josephine read an
important book on the duties of marriage. Some of the necessary
information violently excites them, against their will. They
commit no sin. They are obtaining necessary knowledge.

Edited February 23, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[oremus1]

 

Yes, I do have a couple of sources to defend this view.  It is connected with the other thread on making out.  I never said that hugging was a sin.  Anybody can give another a light hug or a quick peck.  What I was talking about was sins against chastity.  The virtue of virginity is lost when a sin against chastity has been committed.  A public violation of chastity need not be confined to the marital act.  As I have mentioned before, even being a topless waitress in public is sufficient to bar a woman from the vocation.

 

Now to French kissing (link as in Making out thread):

The Connection of the Act with Sex Pleasure

The connection of any act with sex pleasure depends, in turn, on
two conditions: the sensibility of the individual concerned, and
the nature of the act. Each individual gradually finds out what
affects him, and must refrain accordingly. In cases where acts
stimulate him which are not ordinarily connected with sex
pleasure, for example, a boy riding a bicycle, a boy looking at
another boy in a bathing suit, or a girl at another girl, etc.,
these should ordinarily be simply ignored.

The stimulating nature of different acts depends on what is done
and to whom it is directed. An act directed to one of the
opposite sex is usually more stimulating than the same act toward
one's own sex. A passionate kiss is different from a brotherly
kiss, and so on. Some acts are very stimulating because they are
the ordinary preliminaries to the act of sexual mating. If one
has no right to the marital act (that is, is not married), he has
no right to the preliminaries. Such preliminaries are: passionate
kisses and embraces, "heavy" petting, touching the private parts
of the body, etc.[1]

Other acts are only slightly stimulating; for example, a light
embrace or kiss. Granted that consent is not given to any
accidental sex pleasure, these are venial sins if done without a
good reason.

To give you some norms by which to judge, a series of acts is
listed below. Those of the first group are considered seriously
sinful for the ordinary person, if done without a justifying
reason:

1. Deliberately looking at a person of the opposite sex entirely
or almost nude. Looking at really obscene pictures or
illustrations (unless very briefly).

2. Touching the private parts of the bodies of the same or
opposite sex, deliberately and/or lingeringly.

3. Attending highly suggestive or indecent movies, plays,
burlesque, etc.

4. Petting and kissing which are passionate or pro-longed.

5. Suggestive or immoral dancing.

6. Holding obscene thoughts in the mind. Note the difference from
impure thoughts, explained above (Principle II in preceding
chapter).

7. Telling or listening to extremely immoral and suggestive
stories.

The following actions are ordinarily venial sins unless justified
by a sufficient reason:

1. Immodest looks at the opposite sex (for example, in a bathing
attire) in a passing way or from curiosity or frivolity.

2. Embraces, kissing, "light" petting, indulged in for short
periods or out of levity. (Ordinary kissing games belong here, as
also many teen-age activities that cause parents and superiors a
good deal of worry.)

3. Telling lightly suggestive stories or reading them.

4. Suggestive thoughts entertained for a brief time, listening to
"dirty jokes" for the humorous element, etc.


The Reason

In determining what might be a good reason for these acts, it
must be kept in mind that the reason must be proportionate to the
effect. A doctor must do many things in his study and profession
which may cause venereal pleasure. This is also true for nurses,
educators, social workers, and many others. Again, a child must
learn some sexual matters as he grows older, despite the fact
that this knowledge may be stimulating. Moreover, recreational
reading excuses the excitation that might arise from some of the
pictures seen in the ordinary magazine, or the scenes described
in ordinary stories or books. The most that can be laid down as a
norm is this: acts of such a nature as to cause satisfaction or
near-satisfaction demand a very serious reason to justify them.
Acts which only slightly arouse the passions may be done for a
lesser reason. Remember, however, that all this holds only
deliberate delight in the venereal pleasure which might arise.

We shall put this in schema form to make it easy to remember:

1. Acts which of their nature may lead to sexual pleasure depend:

a) on the excitability of the individual;

b) on the stimulating nature of the act and the person to whom it
is directed.

2. These acts, done without a good reason are:

a) mortally sinful if they are of such a nature as to arouse
complete or nearly complete pleasure;

b) venially sinful if they are of a nature to arouse only slight
sexual pleasure.

3. A sufficient reason may justify them, always PROVIDED THERE IS
NO SERIOUS DANGER OF CONSENT to the pleasure which may arise.

Let us try to apply this principle to concrete cases.

1. Dr. A. studies anatomy and treats women in his practice.
Occasionally, the nature of his actions causes complete or nearly
complete pleasure, to which he refuses consent. Does he sin?

a) From his own nature, and from what he does, he is seriously
excited.
b) The action would be a mortal sin without a reason, but

c) his vocation of curing human ills gives him a sufficient
reason. He commits no sin.

2. Mary B. is a mature art student who has progressed so far
that, in order to continue, she must study the nude form. She is
frequently excited, but refuses consent. She commits no sin.

3. Joan B., her younger sister, aged 17, is also a budding
artist. She decides to study the nude with her sister. She too
experiences serious excitation to which she refuses consent. She
sins mortally if there is no reason at this stage to study the
nude, venially if there is a reason but it is used a little too
soon.

4. Joe, a boy of 14, finds that in bathing he experiences slight
sexual pleasure (no consent). He commits no sin. If he touches
himself out of curiosity, venial sin is committed.

5. Sadie, aged 15, reads through a picture magazine which has a
number of "lightly clad" illustrations. Out of curiosity she
looks at them deliberately, with a light venereal pleasure to
which she does not consent. She commits a venial sin.

6. Jack, 17, and Mae, 16, go to a Friday night dance. Though the
dances are not suggestive, they both experience some sexual
pleasure, to which they refuse to consent. No sin! Ordinary
dancing is a legitimate form of recreation.

7. Henry, 17, and Isabelle, 16, go out on a date. They indulge in
extensive petting, saying that they want to express affection and
protesting to themselves that they do not want the sex pleasure
resulting. They sin mortally. There is no good reason for these
stimulating acts, which are the normal preliminaries of the
marriage act.

8. Mike, 21, and Josephine, 20, are to be married in three
months. They are very frequently alone; they like to walk arm-in-
arm, to hold hands, to embrace on meeting and kiss at parting.
Josephine likes to rest her head on Mike's shoulder, and he likes
to put his arm around her waist. Sometimes they experience some
sexual pleasure, but they do not seek it, being determined to
reserve these pleasures for their marriage. They commit no sin at
all. They have every right to express decent love. If, however,
they indulge in passionate kissing, embracing and petting, they
sin seriously, no less than Henry and Isabelle above. About two
weeks before their wedding, both Mike and Josephine read an
important book on the duties of marriage. Some of the necessary
information violently excites them, against their will. They
commit no sin. They are obtaining necessary knowledge.

Ok so you are saying that any of the above are sins against chastity, but the ones that are mortal sins also consitutue a loss of virginity,

 

therefore the below mean the woman is no longer a virgin for the purposes of c.604:

- passionate embraces (this above is distinct from kissing, so basically a firm hug)
- dancing in a nightclub including the shaking of hips; salsa or tango dance
- watching a R rated rom-com in the cinema
- listening to someone telling a dirty joke
- looking at a pornographic photo
- having a sexual thought and lingering the mind on it
 

im assuming you mean that the ones involving pornographic materials are 'public violations of chastity' because they involve the person featured in the porn?

 

does your bishop implement such a definition?

 

if this was the definition intended by the CDW, why did they say 'willfully engaging in SEXUAL RELATIONS" and not "wilfully committing any mortal sin against chastity"

Edited February 23, 2014 by oremus1

[abrideofChrist]

Ok so you are saying that any of the above are sins against chastity, but the ones that are mortal sins also consitutue a loss of virginity,

 

if this was the definition intended by the CDW, why did they say 'willfully engaging in SEXUAL RELATIONS" and not "wilfully committing any mortal sin against chastity"

 

Maybe because that was the point of the question?  Cardinal Burke was asking whether sexual relations done in secret between the woman and the man constituted "a public violation against chastity" because some people would argue that this would be a "private violation against chastity".  This does not preclude other sins against chastity being "public" or sins.

[oremus1]

Maybe because that was the point of the question?  Cardinal Burke was asking whether sexual relations done in secret between the woman and the man constituted "a public violation against chastity" because some people would argue that this would be a "private violation against chastity".  This does not preclude other sins against chastity being "public" or sins.

does your bishop implement your definition? That anyone who has done any of the below are not eligible for consecration:

- passionate embraces (this above is distinct from kissing, so basically a firm hug)
- dancing in a nightclub including the shaking of hips; salsa or tango dance
- watching a R rated rom-com in the cinema
- listening to someone telling a dirty joke
- looking at a pornographic photo
- having a sexual thought and lingering the mind on it
 

Edited February 23, 2014 by oremus1

[abrideofChrist]

Why would it matter if my bishop does or does not?  The Rite says "lived in open violation against chastity".  Yes, women have been barred from the consecration when it has been discovered that they were the equivalent of topless waitresses because that is considered an open violation against chastity.  They might be intact physically but they have lost the virtue of virginity and a good reputation.  The real question you should be asking yourself is whether the Church is wrong in thinking that it is possible for a woman to be a virgin, never having sinnned against chastity in any manner during her life.  If this is impossible, then God should be informed, because He is the one who made us sexual beings to begin with and we are told that we can avoid sin with the graces He has given us.   The bar is a lot higher for this vocation than it is for religious life or the priesthood.  This is because the virgin is supposed to be a virgin along with the Church and Our Lady.

Edited February 23, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[oremus1]

Why would it matter if my bishop does or does not?  The Rite says "lived in open violation against chastity".  Yes, women have been barred from the consecration when it has been discovered that they were the equivalent of topless waitresses because that is considered an open violation against chastity.  They might be intact physically but they have lost the virtue of virginity and a good reputation.  The real question you should be asking yourself is whether the Church is wrong in thinking that it is possible for a woman to be a virgin, never having sinnned against chastity in any manner during her life.  If this is impossible, then God should be informed, because He is the one who made us sexual beings to begin with and we are told that we can avoid sin with the graces He has given us.   The bar is a lot higher for this vocation than it is for religious life or the priesthood.  This is because the virgin is supposed to be a virgin along with the Church and Our Lady.

 

 

i agree that the lady working as a topless waitress has 'LIVED IN' a state of violation of chastity.

 

'lived in' such a state implies it is a continuous occurance. like cohabitation. or habitual unchaste work (like working in hooters or as a model), or such. it does not imply a one off event. otherwhite it would have said "has never commited A sin against chastity".

 

what is the distinction between 'open' or 'public' violations? the intro mentions both, so it cannot be intended that they are the same. i would suggest that 'open' means witnessed by many people, such as a one-off pole dance, and public just means witnessed by one other person (though i find it hard to put looking at a porn photo in that category since there is only one person present. )

 

i am also drawing a distinction between "what the church thinks" and what YOU think because i would be extraordinarily surprised if ANY bishop or cardinal in the world agrees with your opinion, and publically states that a candidate who once listened to a dirty joke, or hugged a guy firmly has "lived in an open violation of chastity" and is not classed as a virgin for c.604. 

 

this is why i am most interested in whether your bishop is implementing this idea of yours across your diocese, and his interpretation. i somewhat doubt it.

 

i am not saying these are not mortal sins. indeed such things are wrong. but i disagree that they exclude candidates from becoming consecrated virgins. also you previously said that the prayer of consecration makes the woman into a CV. so your personal interpretation doesnt matter, what matters is the bishops interpretation, and the consciences and intention of the candidate. if a bishop (in some countries) interprets that phrase as 'spiritually pure but not physically virginial' and the candidate feels OK in her conscience that she is 'spiritually virginal' then the bishop says the prayer of consecration over her, she is a consecrated virgin in a clear conscience.

[abrideofChrist]

When CVs get together and talk about scenarios like the topless waitress (this is the example a CV friend has brought to my attention recently), we also discuss the candidates we may be in charge of, and exchange formation tips.  Bishops have been known to flout the law and consecrate women who have been married or widowed just like bishops have been known to "ordain" women.  Does this make their actions right?  Theologians would agree that certain actions would fall under the flagrant or open violation of chastity umbrella and others would not.  Someone privately viewing a pornographic film by themselves would not be considered committing an open violation against chastity.  The virtue of virginity is lost when delection or venereal pleasure is experienced.  The virtue of chastity may be lost in many more ways.  This is why a good talk with a confessor who is reasonably learned in these matters is suggested.  It is a sad truth that many priests do not know the difference between virginity and chastity and assume they are the same thing.  These are the same priests and bishops who think that spiritual virginity is all that is necessary for the consecration.  We have seen on the other thread that otherwise decent Catholics believed that french kissing is not sinful for unmarried people.  Virginity is rare in this hyper-sexualized society, and people who want this consecration will do anything to justify it for themselves.  Some will argue that it is okay if men can receive it since the Rite doesn't say that men are forbidden.  The list goes on and on.  People want to have their cake and eat it too.  This does not make it right.  I have said enough on the subject. 

Edited February 23, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[oremus1]

Ok, can anyone comment on the topic of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated life saying that dispensation (for CVs who wish to marry) IS possible ? why? how?

 

this means the CV is not really espoused to Christ, if she can just marry another when she likes?

[abrideofChrist]

Ok, can anyone comment on the topic of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated life saying that dispensation (for CVs who wish to marry) IS possible ? why? how?

 

this means the CV is not really espoused to Christ, if she can just marry another when she likes?

 

Not volunteering here.  You blocked me from PMs.  Otherwise I might have directed you to someone who does have an insight on that topic. 

[freedomreigns]

I don't understand something and just want to clarify.  If A Bride of Christ could comment I would appreciate it as I do think you know what you are talking about.

 

I know I don't qualify, so this is not about me.  But if someone privately sins against chastity (ie masturbation) would that disqualify her?

[oremus1]

Not volunteering here.  You blocked me from PMs.  Otherwise I might have directed you to someone who does have an insight on that topic. 

ok this was not intentional, though i may have tried to switch off PMs altogether. i am not sure how to fix this

[abrideofChrist]

I don't understand something and just want to clarify.  If A Bride of Christ could comment I would appreciate it as I do think you know what you are talking about.

 

I know I don't qualify, so this is not about me.  But if someone privately sins against chastity (ie masturbation) would that disqualify her?

 

She qualifies for the consecration if this sin is kept between her and in confession because this is not a "public" violation against chastity.  She is no longer a virgin because she has experienced venereal pleasure.  Then it comes down to whether she would feel comfortable becoming a consecrated virgin even though she knows she is truly not a virgin. 

 

Not all sins against chastity will destroy virginity.  A willful bad thought is against chastity but once repented and confessed will restore the virtue of virginity.  It is when venereal pleasure (arousal, touch, etc.) is voluntarily experienced that virginity is irretreviably lost.

 

The Rite looks at two elements to determine from the outside whether a woman is likely to be a virgin.  One is whether the woman has been married.  Virginity is lost through lawful intercourse.  The other element is more sweeping.  It is whether the woman has the reputation for being chaste.  Even one outside person's knowledge is enough for that reputation to be deemed lost.