Consecrated Virgins

[Graciela]

"It does seem somewhat salacious and sordid to be so interested in the physical state of another's hymen. I do believe, as was said above, that these matters are best left to the acting Spiritual Director/Confessor and/or Bishop, Cardinal, Abbot, Abbess, whomever. "

Thanks to Praexedes and TradMom for their comments that the emphasis on the bodily and physical aspect of the requirement makes them wary (my interpretation of their reactions).

The fixation on this one aspect reminds me somewhat of young women I have encountered as a nurse who are still "virgins" in some physically technical sense but whose range of willing behaviors has included everything but coitus. Both approaches reflect a "letter of the law" approach to the situation rather than the spirit of the law. I would attribute both to a stage of thinking in spiritual development that is very concrete, and not particularly helpful in care and compassion.

[TotusTuusMaria]

I disagree with the nature of the thread. The moderators said that "the discussion has been about the requirements of receiving the consecration, not about the personal lives of others," and it has. I don't see a fixation on this one aspect. The question was asked "does a woman have to be physically a virgin?" The question was answered by the poster who has been preparing for this consecration for the last nine years, the answer was, that yes, for the consecration to be valid, one must be a virgin, or at least not have willingly given that virginity away at another time. Then someone came and said, "well I don't think that is true." And then the original poster came back and said, "But it is true. It is what the Church has said." The reason the original topic has went into this is because posters cannot come to an agreement about the requirements to receive the consecration; I hardly think it has to do with some sick, fetish or desire others have about wanting to talk about "imaginary discerners" having or not having their virginity. I think both sides just desire for the truth to be said about the subject of the requirements of the consecration.

I cannot receive ordination as a priest because I am a woman. No one would say that I was being made to feel degraded or "less then" because I am a woman and someone has said the truth that I cannot receive ordination. Just as, if someone has lost their virginity by will they should not feel "less than" because they cannot receive consecration as a virgin. They can become a sister or a nun, if it be God's will. They can still give themselves to Christ in a very awesome way and become a saint. I don't see how the discussion about is virginity a requirement or not has been made out to be something sick and creepy that we shouldn't talk about or that will make people feel less than others.

[gloriagurl]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1600646' date='Jul 15 2008, 08:02 PM'][color="red"]The moderators agree that there has not been anything inappropriate about the general discussion in this thread. The discussion has been about the requirements of receiving the consecration, not about the personal lives of others. So we ask that everyone please stay on topic. If you have any personal objections to the discussion in this thread, please report it to the moderators, rather than discuss it here. Also, please keep the discussion general, and do not go into detail about mature subjects. Thank you.[/color][/quote]

I wrote to a moderator this morning but have not received a reply. Is there a moderator who will take a PM from me? I realize the moderator I picked to PM this morning may not be coming onto the forum every day.

Also, I think that some of the issue here might be that there is a considerable amount of disagreement and/or different interpretations out there in the "real world". For instance in speaking about this topic with a priest this evening, he informed me that one of his parishioners recently received the consecration with the full knowledge and approval a Cardinal Archbishop well known and respected as a conservative......he knows this because he participated in the consecration ceremony at the parish church where he is the pastor.....the woman has children.

If the Bishops don't agree....and certainly they don't seem to, I don't think we ought to take it upon ourselves to say what "is" or "isn't" a proper interpretation of the Canon.

Pax

[Guest Perpetualove]

Dear Margaret Clare,

The Carthusians go "all out!"

[i]The only surviving relic of the ordination of deaconesses in the West seems to be the delivery by the Bishopof a stole and maniple to Carthusian nuns in the ceremony of their profession.[/i] (Catholic Encyclopedia)

I was also at the Regina Laudis consecration (Praxedes...maybe we met?). I was in discernment with them for quite a while and learned much. Praxedes is right, they are an excellent resource of information. That was the only time I have ever witnessed a Consecration in such a manner. I believe their nuns were consecrated by Abbot Serna, with permission from their Bishop. I could be wrong, though. At that time, I had a "holding nun," and she was very, very good about explaining the entire process and what happened, and how they prepared for it.

This subject has always been interesting to me, and other than other Benedictine (and the Carthusians) communities, I have yet to find an Order that consecrates women in this manner. However, many communities will say that their nuns are consecrated as virgins at the time of solemn profession, and though I have attended many professions, the consecration does not in any match what I saw at Regina Laudis.

I have not had the privilege of witnessing an individual Consecration by a Bishop.

Perpetualove

[Guest Perpetualove]

TotusTuusMaria,

Unfortunately, the lines are not quite as clear as we would like to think, and it is my opinion, and obviously I am not alone, that the discussion has taken a turn. As others have pointed out, most recently gloriagurl, the Bishops have indeed taken different positions on this topic. It is not as cut and dried as "women cannot be priests." The criticisms have nothing to do with the Church, as it were, but with the focus on the physical aspect, which is an intimate and private matter, one which needs to be discussed thoroughly with one's spiritual director and then, the Bishop. Exceptions are made to the general rule, for a variety of reasons, and again, that is a private matter. It does seem sordid to discuss who is fit - based on a physical situation - when in fact it is not up to us to decide, as gloriagurl pointed out. Many communities have rules about who they will consider as suitable candidates and then find themselves making an exception. The same goes for the Church. Priests do it at the parish level all the time, and decisions are often made out of pastoral care rather than a strident adherence to the "rules." TradMom was right in pointing out the Merciful nature of our Church, for She does make exceptions for women who are lacking physically. My concern, and again, I think I shared this with some of the posters, is that anybody reading this thread would feel not able to go forward in the event they read into this that they are not suitable. On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable with a man's interest in this topic since this particular vocation has nothing to do with men and a woman's physical purity cannot possibly be of any legitimate interest to a man, unless he is in a position of directing someone spiritually. If that is the case, than I certainly hope he is exposed to better resources than the individual opinions of Phatmassers.
Finally, we are in a position today of being more open and verbal about our histories, in particular abuse and mental health. The Church has been very, very clear about not excluding a woman should she not be a virgin because of abuse, and this is an important point - and one that took a long time to come to the surface in this thread.
Gloriagurl, Praxedes, Graciela and TradMom all expressed my own feelings and thoughts much better than I am in a position to do. For that, I thank them....and I am glad that you were able to present your thoughts and feelings in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
Perpetualove

[SaviorsChild]

[quote name='praxedes' post='1600632' date='Jul 16 2008, 12:40 AM']To the poster who referenced the Abbey of St. Hildegard's website, I do not speak German, but I do know there is a Rite of Consecration for Widows. Perhaps this is what you are referring to when you mentioned another option. Also, as a means of correction, and in charity, that particular Abbey does not discriminate in regards to age, and accepts women who would not be considered "young" by American standards.[/quote]
The "Witwenweihe" is definately something else - It´s a totally different thing...

[quote name='praxedes' post='1600632' date='Jul 16 2008, 12:40 AM']Finally, there is an American woman at the Abbey of St. Hildegard named Sister Benedicta. She is very kind and recently (within the last ten years) professed. I have had a very productive correspodence with her over the years, and I would encourage any Americans who have an interest in Benedictine life and/or the history of the order in particular - in regards to Europe - to contact her via their website.[/quote]

You know Benedicta!!!!! We studied together - well, untill she unfotunately had to leave University because they needed her at convent...
She´s ever so kind and loving... :)

Edited July 16, 2008 by SaviorsChild

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Perpetualove' post='1600908' date='Jul 16 2008, 01:27 AM']TotusTuusMaria,

Unfortunately, the lines are not quite as clear as we would like to think, and it is my opinion, and obviously I am not alone, that the discussion has taken a turn. As others have pointed out, most recently gloriagurl, the Bishops have indeed taken different positions on this topic. It is not as cut and dried as "women cannot be priests." The criticisms have nothing to do with the Church, as it were, but with the focus on the physical aspect, which is an intimate and private matter, one which needs to be discussed thoroughly with one's spiritual director and then, the Bishop. Exceptions are made to the general rule, for a variety of reasons, and again, that is a private matter. It does seem sordid to discuss who is fit - based on a physical situation - when in fact it is not up to us to decide, as gloriagurl pointed out. Many communities have rules about who they will consider as suitable candidates and then find themselves making an exception. The same goes for the Church. Priests do it at the parish level all the time, and decisions are often made out of pastoral care rather than a strident adherence to the "rules." TradMom was right in pointing out the Merciful nature of our Church, for She does make exceptions for women who are lacking physically. My concern, and again, I think I shared this with some of the posters, is that anybody reading this thread would feel not able to go forward in the event they read into this that they are not suitable. On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable with a man's interest in this topic since this particular vocation has nothing to do with men and a woman's physical purity cannot possibly be of any legitimate interest to a man, unless he is in a position of directing someone spiritually. If that is the case, than I certainly hope he is exposed to better resources than the individual opinions of Phatmassers.
Finally, we are in a position today of being more open and verbal about our histories, in particular abuse and mental health. The Church has been very, very clear about not excluding a woman should she not be a virgin because of abuse, and this is an important point - and one that took a long time to come to the surface in this thread.
Gloriagurl, Praxedes, Graciela and TradMom all expressed my own feelings and thoughts much better than I am in a position to do. For that, I thank them....and I am glad that you were able to present your thoughts and feelings in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
Perpetualove[/quote]

Thank you for the reply.

God bless!

Edited July 16, 2008 by TotusTuusMaria

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote name='Era Might' post='1600646' date='Jul 15 2008, 05:02 PM'][color="red"]The moderators agree that there has not been anything inappropriate about the general discussion in this thread. The discussion has been about the requirements of receiving the consecration, not about the personal lives of others. So we ask that everyone please stay on topic. [b]If you have any personal objections to the discussion in this thread, please report it to the moderators, rather than discuss it here.[/b] Also, please keep the discussion general, and do not go into detail about mature subjects. Thank you.[/color][/quote]


[quote name='Graciela' post='1600723' date='Jul 15 2008, 06:41 PM']"It does seem somewhat salacious and sordid to be so interested in the physical state of another's hymen. I do believe, as was said above, that these matters are best left to the acting Spiritual Director/Confessor and/or Bishop, Cardinal, Abbot, Abbess, whomever. "

Thanks to Praexedes and TradMom for their comments that the emphasis on the bodily and physical aspect of the requirement makes them wary (my interpretation of their reactions).

The fixation on this one aspect reminds me somewhat of young women I have encountered as a nurse who are still "virgins" in some physically technical sense but whose range of willing behaviors has included everything but coitus. Both approaches reflect a "letter of the law" approach to the situation rather than the spirit of the law. I would attribute both to a stage of thinking in spiritual development that is very concrete, and not particularly helpful in care and compassion.[/quote]
[b]If you have any personal objections to the discussion in this thread, please report it to the moderators, rather than discuss it here.[/b]

this is not the debate table.

[Digitaldame]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1601055' date='Jul 16 2008, 05:41 PM']+J.M.J.+
[b]If you have any personal objections to the discussion in this thread, please report it to the moderators, rather than discuss it here.[/b]

this is not the debate table.[/quote]
Just my two cents worth. If you read French, Rene Metz, "La Consecration des Vierges dans l'eglise romaine" (1959) is still an authoritative guide to the historical development of the Rite (and incidentally very interesting). The rite we use is taken from the Ritual of the Abbey of Dourgne which is an excellent guide in itself, being full of explanatory notes. Perhaps reading some of this material would be helpful?

[gloriagurl]

[quote name='Digitaldame' post='1601087' date='Jul 16 2008, 01:32 PM']Just my two cents worth. If you read French, Rene Metz, "La Consecration des Vierges dans l'eglise romaine" (1959) is still an authoritative guide to the historical development of the Rite (and incidentally very interesting). The rite we use is taken from the Ritual of the Abbey of Dourgne which is an excellent guide in itself, being full of explanatory notes. Perhaps reading some of this material would be helpful?[/quote]

Digitaldame,

Is Metz's work available in an English translation?

Thank You

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='Perpetualove' post='1600896' date='Jul 15 2008, 11:06 PM']Dear Margaret Clare,

The Carthusians go "all out!"

[i]The only surviving relic of the ordination of deaconesses in the West seems to be the delivery by the Bishopof a stole and maniple to Carthusian nuns in the ceremony of their profession.[/i] (Catholic Encyclopedia)

I was also at the Regina Laudis consecration (Praxedes...maybe we met?). I was in discernment with them for quite a while and learned much. Praxedes is right, they are an excellent resource of information. That was the only time I have ever witnessed a Consecration in such a manner. I believe their nuns were consecrated by Abbot Serna, with permission from their Bishop. I could be wrong, though. At that time, I had a "holding nun," and she was very, very good about explaining the entire process and what happened, and how they prepared for it.

This subject has always been interesting to me, and other than other Benedictine (and the Carthusians) communities, I have yet to find an Order that consecrates women in this manner. However, many communities will say that their nuns are consecrated as virgins at the time of solemn profession, and though I have attended many professions, the consecration does not in any match what I saw at Regina Laudis.

I have not had the privilege of witnessing an individual Consecration by a Bishop.

Perpetualove[/quote]

That's interesting. Yeah, again I remember reading somewhere that the ancient rite of consecration was more often given to cloistered nuns, but not anymore. That's why it was something special that the Carthusian Nuns retained it, which is made something like 4 years after Solemn Profession.

A young women preparing to make the consecration once told me the difference is that religious professed vows, and consecrated virgins receive the rite of consecration.

In a Solemn Profession for the Discalced Carmelite Nuns, after the "Rite of Religious Profession" there is a "Solemn Blessing or Consecration of the Professed" which is a long prayer prayed by the bishop over the nun. But it's not specifically the rite of consecration of virgins. It's more like a blessing or prayer.

[quote]"Lord, may the glory of baptism and holiness of life shine in her heart. Strengthened by the vows of her consecration, may she be always one with You in loving fidelity to Christ, her only Bridegroom."[/quote]
But so anyway, it seems like the vows themselves are the consecration. But yeah, it's neat how some cloistered nuns actually still receive the ancient rite separate from their religious profession.

[Jennifer]

I thought it appropriate to post this in this thread.

A quote from The Daily Universal Register in today's Times newspaper :_

" SAINTS DAY...........St Marcellina is celebrated for her devotion to piety and ascetism. For her innocence and dedication to Christianity,she received the veil of consecrated virginity from Pope Liberius on Christmas Day around 353 AD "

Edited July 17, 2008 by Jennirom

[Rising_Suns]

If anyone is interested in what the Church fathers said about consecrated virginity, there are many good references on consecratedvirginity.org. As I was reading over a treatise by Saint Ambrose on virginity, I noticed he more than once described virginity as a state of being "unstained in spirit", which seems to shed some light on the meaning of virginity, that is; once something is stained in spirit (perhaps as a result of the will), then it is no longer what it once was. A single act, like a stain, alters its state.

He went on to later state this; [i]"And what is virginal chastity but purity free from stain? And whom can we judge to be its author but the immaculate Son of God, Whose flesh saw no corruption, Whose Godhead experienced no infection? Consider, then, how great are the merits of virginity."[/i]

The treatise can be found here; [url="http://www.consecratedvirgins.org/397-ambrose.pdf"]Saint Ambrose, On Virgins[/url]

And many more writings from the Saints can be found here; [url="http://www.consecratedvirgins.org/resources.html"]http://www.consecratedvirgins.org/resources.html[/url]

Edited July 17, 2008 by Rising_Suns

[puellapaschalis]

Sometimes when reading through discussions like this I have felt it may have helped to clear up some terminology issues.

I don't know if I can do that but I think it needs to be addressed. But I use words which some might consider inappropriate. I don't, partly because my mother is a nurse, and partly because I live in the Netherlands and we don't mince our words.

Whether this post is more debate table material is for the mods to decide.

What is a (female) virgin?
The definition I have always been taught was that a virgin was someone who had never had penetrative penile-vaginal sex.

The concept of a woman's virginity being tied, physically, to the hymen was something I only heard about later, and in the sense that the presence of the hymen is a [i]proof[/i] of virginity (i.e. a sufficient condition), but not a necessary condition - the hymen can be absent and yet the woman can still be a virgin (take, for example, anyone who's ridden horses straddle).

I understand that people will say that once the hymen is no longer present, the woman is no longer a virgin (thus making it equivalent).

I dare to say that unless everyone either agrees on a definition, or is aware of which definition each other uses, they will continue to talk at cross-purposes.

[Guest Perpetualove]

Margaret Clare....

More information regarding the Carthusian Nuns receiving the Consecration of Virgins...(from their website):

After her solemn profession or perpetual donation, the nun can, [b]if she wishes[/b], receive the Consecration of Virgins. This is a special rite where the Bishop gives the nun not only the veil and ring, external signs of an indissoluble union with the divine Spouse, but also the stole. This confers on the recipient certain liturgical privileges the most significant of them being the proclaiming of the Gospel on certain occasions.

I wish they were here in the United States!


Perpetualove


Note: Emphasis mine.