Question - Women And Veiling Outside Of Mass (especially Cvs)

[oremus1]

Actually, communion in the hand is the norm in many dioceses. I receive communion in the hand as per the directives of my diocese and I teach the children in my class in a Catholic school to reverently receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament by forming the throne for the King of Kings with their hands to receive Him in their hearts.  You may certainly have a preference but your preference never trumps the right of the diocese to make a norm and the right of the faithful to follow that norm not only with clear consciences, but knowing that they are lovingly caring for their Lord.  I take offense at your attitude towards what my bishop has directed the diocese to do.  I believe God will certainly bless the obedience of those who follow their rightful shepherd, their bishops, rather than the opinions of people with no professional training in these matters.  "Obedience is mission: 'I have come into this world to do the will of my Father, who has sent me.' Where there is no obedience, there is no virtue; where there is no virtue there is no good; where good is wanting, there is no love, there is no God; where God is not, there is no Heaven."--St. Padre Pio I'm not here to fight you on communion but you do need to look at how you are communicating your view because it is offensive to those of us who are interested only in following the direction of our ordinary, as we should.

 

On the topic of veiling, as a religious sister who wears a veil, I can say that it makes me uncomfortable to think of women in the Catholic tradition veiling in a religious way outside of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament when they are not religious sisters.  This is my opinion only so I present it as such.  I am completely aware that I could be incorrect in my feeling about this.  I believe veils are meant for religious as far as everyday wear is concerned and I am grateful for the unique witness of the consecrated virgin I know who faithfully and quietly communicates her consecration through her life instead of through the signs of public profession which belong to religious.  There is a uniquely special character to her consecration that I do believe is further emphasized because she wears modest, plain, becoming clothing that is not overtly associated with the clothing of a religious sister.  

 

Nunsense has an incredible amount of experience and perspective to share and I'm glad she shared her thoughts here.  You wanted to have a discussion about veiling... she has a different perspective.  Just because someone is trying to communicate something different doesn't mean a debate is necessary or that the person is doing something wrong.  Thank you for your perspective, Nunsense!  

I gave examples of the veils this thread is referring to which are clearly and obviously NOT religious veils http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/134445-question-women-and-veiling-outside-of-mass-especially-cvs/?p=2680298

I agree the CV should not wear the religious veil

While this thread is not about communion in the hand, this is very important. you are absolutely mistaken when you say you are under obedience to your bishop to recieve communion in the hand.THis is very important, that you realise you always have the right to recieve kneeling and on the tongue. Your students too. If you are denied that, it is a pastoral abuse. The GIRM at 160 - 161 makes it clear. you have that right. A letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship on 2/26/03: Prot. N. 47/03/L said that "“the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Communion.”. Furthermore, the Notitiae 38 (2002), 582–584:
"Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and — if the complaint is verified — that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse."

Also here is the document from 2008 when the Pope decided to ONLY give communion on the tongue. Deo gratias: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

[AccountDeleted]

Actually, communion in the hand is the norm in many dioceses. I receive communion in the hand as per the directives of my diocese and I teach the children in my class in a Catholic school to reverently receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament by forming the throne for the King of Kings with their hands to receive Him in their hearts.  You may certainly have a preference but your preference never trumps the right of the diocese to make a norm and the right of the faithful to follow that norm not only with clear consciences, but knowing that they are lovingly caring for their Lord.  I take offense at your attitude towards what my bishop has directed the diocese to do.  I believe God will certainly bless the obedience of those who follow their rightful shepherd, their bishops, rather than the opinions of people with no professional training in these matters.  "Obedience is mission: 'I have come into this world to do the will of my Father, who has sent me.' Where there is no obedience, there is no virtue; where there is no virtue there is no good; where good is wanting, there is no love, there is no God; where God is not, there is no Heaven."--St. Padre Pio I'm not here to fight you on communion but you do need to look at how you are communicating your view because it is offensive to those of us who are interested only in following the direction of our ordinary, as we should.

 

On the topic of veiling, as a religious sister who wears a veil, I can say that it makes me uncomfortable to think of women in the Catholic tradition veiling in a religious way outside of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament when they are not religious sisters.  This is my opinion only so I present it as such.  I am completely aware that I could be incorrect in my feeling about this.  I believe veils are meant for religious as far as everyday wear is concerned and I am grateful for the unique witness of the consecrated virgin I know who faithfully and quietly communicates her consecration through her life instead of through the signs of public profession which belong to religious.  There is a uniquely special character to her consecration that I do believe is further emphasized because she wears modest, plain, becoming clothing that is not overtly associated with the clothing of a religious sister.  

 

Nunsense has an incredible amount of experience and perspective to share and I'm glad she shared her thoughts here.  You wanted to have a discussion about veiling... she has a different perspective.  Just because someone is trying to communicate something different doesn't mean a debate is necessary or that the person is doing something wrong.  Thank you for your perspective, Nunsense!  

 

 

Sr Marie - I wasn't going to post in this thread again because it is quite obvious to me that my differing opinions from those of the OP are being seen not only as debate, but also as hostile, when that was not my intention. Since the OP has also made it very clear by her last post directed at me that she would prefer I not post here anymore, I promise this will be my last one. I didn't send this as a PM because I wanted to make it clear that I propped your last post - not because you said nice things about me (propping a compliment could be construed as a little self-serving, couldn't it? :) )  but because I admire the way that you address contentious issues and respect the fact that you are actually living the life of a vowed religious sister. The fact that you agree with me on some issues has no relevance whatsoever of course. :child: 

 

I remember some really tough threads that you had to deal with in the past, and yet you always inspire me with your common sense and tolerance. So I thank you for your perspective as well. Now that our mutual admiration society has been duly acknowledged :P I leave this thread in your tender care, dear Sister. Perhaps we will meet up in another one or can PM each other sometime. 

 

Smiles and laughter and much love..... :blowkiss:

[Sister Marie]

What I said was that it was the norm.  It's acceptable for others to receive on the tongue but I follow the norm my bishop has set up in the diocese, which is to receive on the hand, while respecting what others choose to do.  Again, I find it offensive that you would say that I receive the Eucharist, the Jesus I love and have given my life to, irreverently because I follow the norm of the diocese in which I live and serve.  It's just plain ridiculous to speak about others, to accuse them of being irreverent, because you choose to do something else.  You are not the bishop, Holy Father, or Jesus.  It is a form of obedience to follow the norm... that doesn't mean its disobedience not to.  Who are you to judge what is reverent and what isn't?  The answer is no one... as I am no one to judge either.  That is why I didn't write it was irreverent or disobedient to receive on the tongue but that Padre Pio, whom was already quoted, lauded the effort to be obedient as the way to holiness.  You were wrong when you wrote it was irreverent to receive communion on the hand - I am not irreverent when I receive my Jesus.  He knows my love for Him and I know his love for me.  Thank God it doesn't depend on the judgement of others!  I hope you can accept this as a fraternal correction of the judgment you publicly made about all who receive in the hand (that their action is irreverent)... I reverence, love, and adore Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and your opinion does not change that fact. 

I will be praying for your peaceful and free following of Jesus.

I gave examples of the veils this thread is referring to which are clearly and obviously NOT religious veils http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/134445-question-women-and-veiling-outside-of-mass-especially-cvs/?p=2680298

I agree the CV should not wear the religious veil

While this thread is not about communion in the hand, this is very important. you are absolutely mistaken when you say you are under obedience to your bishop to recieve communion in the hand.THis is very important, that you realise you always have the right to recieve kneeling and on the tongue. Your students too. If you are denied that, it is a pastoral abuse. The GIRM at 160 - 161 makes it clear. you have that right. A letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship on 2/26/03: Prot. N. 47/03/L said that "“the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Communion.”. Furthermore, the Notitiae 38 (2002), 582–584:
"Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and — if the complaint is verified — that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse."

Also here is the document from 2008 when the Pope decided to ONLY give communion on the tongue. Deo gratias: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

 

Edited June 22, 2014 by Sister Marie

[Lilllabettt]

oremus I'm afraid you've got the wrong tone for vocation station. this is a gentle part of phatmass.

 

I am not unsympathetic, either. With regards to the USCCV and veiling there seems to be a lack of prudence and generosity in how they address the issue. But then you seem to be mirroring it back at them a little, no? With regards to how to receive -- it seems most important that Jesus comes to us, however he comes, whether on the hand or on the tongue.  I must say to hear of a diocese making reception on the hand an explicit "norm" strikes me as a little strange. First of all, that issuing such a thing explicitly would be required. Perhaps its just a reflection of that weird American attitude of wanting a rule for how to do everything.  And then second strangeness being that if it is required it should be something other than the universal custom. 

 

Awhile ago in my home diocese the bishop requested everyone stand after receiving. There was some hullabaloo from folks who wanted to continue kneeling as was local tradition and of course they were "allowed." But the fact is that standing after communion is the universal custom, and his excellency wanted us brought in line with that. Simply strikes me as odd to hear of it going the other way; not sure what they could possibly be getting at.  Sister Marie I hope you tell your children they can receive on the tongue if they wish. Although giving them too many options at that age can result in a mess can't it. But its their right and what a shame if they grow up unacquainted with the universal custom.  

 

 

But  ...I guess bishops are responsible for this sort of thing, so why don't we leave the burden of their office to them.

 

 

[freedomreigns]

I would like to someday actually meet a consecrated virgin in person.  I have a feeling that my internet experience may not paint a full picture of the vocation and how women actually respond to it lovingly in day to day life.  Perhaps even those who ruffle my feathers online are holy and beautiful...

 

 It does seem that usually on VS threads involving CV end up being contentious and divisive and that there is often a tone of criticism and rigidity and a lack of a sense that "Men judge by appearances but God sees the heart."  In this thread I am especially referencing the Communion on the Hand topic, the women must follow Padre Pio's standards for dress in all circumstances topic, and the insinuation that it is irreverent for me as a lay woman to worship God without a head covering.  First of all these are side topics and tangents that will lead to nowhere good and second of all the Church Herself does not say any of these things.  

 

This is certainly not the first troubled CV thread.  I wish that I could say that the fact that I have yet ever to see a CV thread here that did not devolve has not shaped my opinion of the value of the vocation, but alas, to say so would not be true.  If a CV wants to wear a veil, fine by me and likewise if not, fine by me.  If a CV wants to be critical of the rest of us average Catholics going to mass in a manner in accordance with the norms set by our bishops, not so fine.   

 

I realize that my "Don't judge!" stance is in itself a judgment.  Heaven help me!

[oremus1]

 

What I said was that it was the norm.  It's acceptable for others to receive on the tongue but I follow the norm my bishop has set up in the diocese, which is to receive on the hand, while respecting what others choose to do.  Again, I find it offensive that you would say that I receive the Eucharist, the Jesus I love and have given my life to, irreverently because I follow the norm of the diocese in which I live and serve.  It's just plain ridiculous to speak about others, to accuse them of being irreverent, because you choose to do something else.  You are not the bishop, Holy Father, or Jesus.  It is a form of obedience to follow the norm... that doesn't mean its disobedience not to.  Who are you to judge what is reverent and what isn't?  The answer is no one... as I am no one to judge either.  That is why I didn't write it was irreverent or disobedient to receive on the tongue but that Padre Pio, whom was already quoted, lauded the effort to be obedient as the way to holiness.  You were wrong when you wrote it was irreverent to receive communion on the hand - I am not irreverent when I receive my Jesus.  He knows my love for Him and I know his love for me.  Thank God it doesn't depend on the judgement of others!  I hope you can accept this as a fraternal correction of the judgment you publicly made about all who receive in the hand (that their action is irreverent)... I reverence, love, and adore Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and your opinion does not change that fact. 

I will be praying for your peaceful and free following of Jesus.

 

Nowhere did I say THE PEOPLE who do these practices are irreverent, I said the PRACTICE itself is irreverent. of course we do not know what is in a persons heart. i have deliberately gone off topic and cited sources to support this, in order that we may be vigilant to preserve the Lords Body from profanity. . do not put words into my mouth in order to attack me.
 

oremus I'm afraid you've got the wrong tone for vocation station. this is a gentle part of phatmass.

 

I am not unsympathetic, either. With regards to the USCCV and veiling there seems to be a lack of prudence and generosity in how they address the issue. But then you seem to be mirroring it back at them a little, no? With regards to how to receive -- it seems most important that Jesus comes to us, however he comes, whether on the hand or on the tongue.  I must say to hear of a diocese making reception on the hand an explicit "norm" strikes me as a little strange. First of all, that issuing such a thing explicitly would be required. Perhaps its just a reflection of that weird American attitude of wanting a rule for how to do everything.  And then second strangeness being that if it is required it should be something other than the universal custom. 

 

Awhile ago in my home diocese the bishop requested everyone stand after receiving. There was some hullabaloo from folks who wanted to continue kneeling as was local tradition and of course they were "allowed." But the fact is that standing after communion is the universal custom, and his excellency wanted us brought in line with that. Simply strikes me as odd to hear of it going the other way; not sure what they could possibly be getting at.  Sister Marie I hope you tell your children they can receive on the tongue if they wish. Although giving them too many options at that age can result in a mess can't it. But its their right and what a shame if they grow up unacquainted with the universal custom.  

 

 

But  ...I guess bishops are responsible for this sort of thing, so why don't we leave the burden of their office to them.

Many people, particularly nunsense, sought to attack me in this thread and hijacked it in order to talk about other things. but i bore it bravely, in order to exhort communion on the tongue. if it goes off topic again, please can you just delete those posts? this thread is about veiling, for all women, not just CVs. Those who have said it is a shallow topic and there are bigger issues, why are they continuing to post on this thread??

Also, in response to your point about the bishops requesting everyone to stand - this was addressed in Notitiae by the Cong. Divine Worship in 2003:

In many places the faithful are accustomed to remain kneeling in private prayer or to sit after they return to their seats once they have individually received the holy Eucharist at Mass. Whether the provisions of the Third typical edition of the Roman Missal prohibit this practice?

â„Ÿ. In the negative and with a rationale.

The rationale is that by the prescripts of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, n. 43 is intended to give, on the one hand, within broad limits some uniformity of posture in the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of the holy Mass, and at the same time, on the other hand, not to regulate posture so rigidly that those who wish to remain kneeling or to sit would no longer be free to do so.

Notitiae 39 (2003), 533

I am very sorry to hear that in some diocese communion on the tongue is banned by the Bishops, and I suggest it is taken further - you have seen from my sources how seriously Rome takes this. Also, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal at 160-161 says it is up to each communicant how they recieve. i would hope they consider this carefully.

I would like to someday actually meet a consecrated virgin in person.  I have a feeling that my internet experience may not paint a full picture of the vocation and how women actually respond to it lovingly in day to day life.  Perhaps even those who ruffle my feathers online are holy and beautiful...

 

 It does seem that usually on VS threads involving CV end up being contentious and divisive and that there is often a tone of criticism and rigidity and a lack of a sense that "Men judge by appearances but God sees the heart."  In this thread I am especially referencing the Communion on the Hand topic, the women must follow Padre Pio's standards for dress in all circumstances topic, and the insinuation that it is irreverent for me as a lay woman to worship God without a head covering.  First of all these are side topics and tangents that will lead to nowhere good and second of all the Church Herself does not say any of these things.  

 

This is certainly not the first troubled CV thread.  I wish that I could say that the fact that I have yet ever to see a CV thread here that did not devolve has not shaped my opinion of the value of the vocation, but alas, to say so would not be true.  If a CV wants to wear a veil, fine by me and likewise if not, fine by me.  If a CV wants to be critical of the rest of us average Catholics going to mass in a manner in accordance with the norms set by our bishops, not so fine.   

 

I realize that my "Don't judge!" stance is in itself a judgment.  Heaven help me!

In transubstantiation, we remember that even in the tiniest crumb, miscroscopic fragment or particle, the Lord is contained in its entirety. He is not more present in a bigger particle than a small one. For this reason, the CV, who is espoused to Him, should be particularly aggrieved by abuses of the Holy Eucharist, and vigilant against the risk of profanation.

Re St Padre Pio - this is an example which I felt it is good to follow - and I do question WHY a woman would want to show her legs or chest. But as soon as I cite this saint, everyone says I am being judgemental. 

You say " If a CV wants to wear a veil, fine by me and likewise if not, fine by me. " - I agree, and I wish everyone including the USACV would have the same view. Everyone should have the right to veil or not veil outside of mass as they wish.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 ...CVs (according to the vocation info) are meant to live in the world as subtle witnesses.
 

.... I mean, isn't that the whole point- to blend in with everyone else? 

 

 

Actually, this is sort of a disputed point. This tends to be the USACV and Cardinal Burke's interpretation of this vocation (but even so, in other places they do talk about the importance of being a witness, so this might be an over-simplification).

 

However, other good arguments could be made in favor of the idea that consecrated virgins should bear a more public, visible evangelical witness, even in a way similar to that of religious Sisters.

 

In any case, I think one reason why veils tend to be such a hot topic among CVs is because it does allude to this deeper issue of exactly what sort of witness we should be bearing within the Church and within society generally. And in turn, the question of the nature of our witness has other implications for our way of life.

 

I personally do tend to disagree with the USACV on a lot of things, including their thoughts on veils. But over the past several years, I've come to a much greater appreciation of the fact that they are for the most part (i.e., because of course none of us are perfect) good women doing the best they can in good faith---just like in my own efforts to live my vocation, I am doing the best that I can in good faith.

 

Pioneering the lived reality of a "new" vocation is very challenging, and I would hope that people getting to know me would listen to my ideas with an open heart; speak to and about me respectfully even if they disagreed with me; and be charitable towards me in situations where I may have made an honest mistake in interpreting something. So in turn, I feel it's only right that we consecrated virgins---no matter where we stand "ideologically"---relate to the USACV in the way that we ourselves would want to be treated.

[Catherine Therese]

---brief invitation to hit "pause" and join me in prayer---

 

Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful - our hearts - and kindle them in the fire of Your love.  

 

As we express our views on this topic in which so many of us differ, help us to rejoice that on the day You came as tongues of fire over the heads of the Apostles, people of different languages, cultures and world views all UNDERSTOOD those who spoke in the name of Jesus, He who had prayed to the Father that all would be one.

 

Help us to seek not to be understood, but to understand, and help us to accommodate those differences in others that we don't understand with generous hospitality. 

 

On this Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, awestruck by the supreme mercy and love by which the Eucharist is possible, we ask that our conduct always be merciful and that only words spoken in love ever pass our lips, after the example of Our Saviour. 

 

Amen. 

 

--- I normally lurk during these discussions and listen and learn, but felt that maybe a little prayer across oceans and timezones might be life-giving here. I hope some of you joined me. Please forgive my interruption! Pressing "play"... ---

 

 

[GraceUk]

I think if women want to wear a veil then fine.  But I do think that there is a bit of this looking down on people who don't starting to creep in.  My own experience is this. Many many many years ago when I was in In my late teens I got myself a quite large black lace mantilla and felt very holy indeed.  (Looking back certainly the sin of pride was there.)  Not saying that applies to everyone of course.

[Perigrina]

 
Well, of course, I certainly don't want to be hurtful and I apologise to Oremus1 if I have caused her pain. But I do believe that her negative comments about receiving in the hand and EMHCs while also positioning these things next to a sarcastic description of 'clap happy' Masses was deserving of a response about judging others (like the Pharisees). 
 

 

I think I misunderstood her at first because I was interpreting her comments in light of my personal experience of delaying veiling.  Rereading, I think that Oremus is making a case that the USACV is "taking sides" on the issues that tend to cause division along trad/non-trad lines.  An organization with their mandate ought to remain neutral.

 

I have the impression that, if I were qualified and considering becoming a CV, this organization would discourage me because I cover my head at Mass, dress in a way compatible with Padre Pio standards, and receive Communion from priests and deacons only, on the tongue, while kneeling. If the USACV is being insensitive to the choices of more traditionally inclined women, that is a legitimate concern, and it is not being judgmental to discuss it. 

 

 

 

 

 

And with that incredibly complex perambulation, I leave the field of battle, bloodied but not beaten. any comment I could make from now on will be seen as hostile and a debate. Adieu.  :)

 

I am not happy to see you withdraw from a thread.  I see your posts as generally insightful, kind and helpful.  I am always pleased to see a post from you appear on the screen.

[Perigrina]

I dont see why we cannot have a discussion about veiling here?

Indeed there is more to life than veils, and many more important things too. but that is what this thread is about. if that does not interest you, then why are you posting??W

 

Why can women not be veilied and we cannot even DISCUSS veiling? how has 'veil' become such a bad word when the CV vocation used to be known as the velatio - the veiling of virgins? woe o woe how far we have departed from the traditions of our ancestors, woe o woe.
 

 

I do not see it as a problem with veils, but with ourselves, that we are not able to discuss the topic without turning it into a debate.  The VS section does not allow debates, so it makes sense to avoid raising topics here that in the past have led to debate.

 

I can see advantages to having this discussion in another section of the forum.

[freedomreigns]

I think I misunderstood her at first because I was interpreting her comments in light of my personal experience of delaying veiling.  Rereading, I think that Oremus is making a case that the USACV is "taking sides" on the issues that tend to cause division along trad/non-trad lines.  An organization with their mandate ought to remain neutral.

 

 

 

 

I actually agree with this statement for sure!  This organization should be neutral and not discourage people's piety.  I just don't think that CVs should take a rigid stance to the rest of us.  It is strange that for a thread that is against the organization "taking sides" that in the same breath there is judgment about what the average mass-going Catholic woman "should" be doing.  Just doesn't make sense...

[Perigrina]

I actually agree with this statement for sure!  This organization should be neutral and not discourage people's piety.  I just don't think that CVs should take a rigid stance to the rest of us.  It is strange that for a thread that is against the organization "taking sides" that in the same breath there is judgment about what the average mass-going Catholic woman "should" be doing.  Just doesn't make sense...

 

I am not a CV, but, because I am a trad, I often face these sorts of accusations of of being rigid and judgmental.  I have adopted certain practices and, in discussion, I will explain why I have done so.  Time after time, people have told me that I am judgmental for doing this.

 

Deciding that certain practices are good and ought to be recommended to all is not a judgment on anybody.  Is it judgmental to recommend devotion to the Sacred Heart and explain why it is a good thing?  Is it judgmental to recommend that people pray the Rosary and explain why this is a good thing?  Having an opinion on the value of various religious practices is not a judgment of anyone.

 

I do not judge people for choosing different practices than my own.  I know that I do not have the authority to say that anyone is wrong when she is within Church teaching.  It is unpleasant to face these constant accusations and implications that I am rigid and judgmental.

[Sponsa-Christi]

I actually agree with this statement for sure!  This organization should be neutral and not discourage people's piety.  I just don't think that CVs should take a rigid stance to the rest of us.  It is strange that for a thread that is against the organization "taking sides" that in the same breath there is judgment about what the average mass-going Catholic woman "should" be doing.  Just doesn't make sense...

 

Just to add some clarification from the own experiences as an American CV: the USACV actually does not take sides along Trad vs. non-Trad lines. At their retreats and gatherings, the Mass is celebrated as a reverent Novus Ordo, but nobody is given a hard time if they happen to share that they have a preference for/devotion to the extraordinary form. Also, at USACV gatherings, it's equally acceptable to wear a chapel veil or mantilla at Mass as it is to choose not to wear one.

 

I haven't asked around about this, but my sense is that the American CVs choose to wear or choose not wear a head covering at Mass for a wide variety of different, personal reasons. E.g., some CVs who veil at Mass do so for more "traditional" reasons of wanted to show reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, where others do so as a sort of acknowledgment of having received the veil at their consecration. CVs who choose not to veil might to do because they want to blend in with the rest of the parish, or because veiling simply never appealed to them, etc. However, if the CVs at these gatherings are judging each other for their choices in this regard, it's not anything I've ever noticed!

 

Where the USACV does take sides is in very specific "in house" issues regarding the nature and purpose of the Order of Virgins. That is, the USACV is concerned with how consecrated virgins should best live out their vocation to consecrated virginity, and not with how well other Catholic women are living out their Catholic faith in general.

 

To paint with a very broad brush, the USACV tends to promote the ideal of consecrated virginity as being de facto lived in a very similar way to a private vow. So they would argue that consecrated virgins can live their vocations fully by being a subtle Christian witness in purely secular spheres (e.g., such as in the context of a career in a secular workplace), and that CVs are not called to have any special standing in the Church which would set them apart from laypeople.(However, this overall paradigm for understanding the vocation of consecrated virginity is something that others can and do disagree with.)

 

The debate in question here was with a continuing discussion in the USACV members' newsletters regarding whether or not a chapel veil could be somehow incorporated into a subtle sign of one's vocation which could be worn in daily life. In the most recent newsletters, some individual opinions were shared. I personally did think that some of the individual members' opinions seems a bit insensitive to things like cultural differences and the possibility of different yet legitimate interpretations on issues like veiling. But, to me it didn't seem like the USACV was trying to make any official pronouncements here.

 

For those interested, you can find the actual USACV newsletters here: http://consecratedvirgins.org/newsletters (the newsletters which started the debate are the two most recent ones).

[Perigrina]

Just to add some clarification from the own experiences as an American CV: the USACV actually does not take sides along Trad vs. non-Trad lines. At their retreats and gatherings, the Mass is celebrated as a reverent Novus Ordo, but nobody is given a hard time if they happen to share that they have a preference for/devotion to the extraordinary form. Also, at USACV gatherings, it's equally acceptable to wear a chapel veil or mantilla at Mass as it is to choose not to wear one.

 

I am glad that I was wrong in my impression.