Celibate priests and religious “married to...”

[Tis_Bearself]

Continuing the discussion here from another unrelated thread where “spouses of Christ” came up.

We’re all familiar with religious sisters, nuns, and consecrated virgins who describe themselves as “married to Jesus”. Like St Catherine of Siena and this more contemporary sister:

What Is It Like Being Married to Jesus?

I found it interesting that this next sister rejects the idea of herself being “married to Jesus” and just says she’s committed to her order, but she concedes that some other orders do use the “bride of Christ” concept although apparently her own does not (because theology “changed”? I don’t get how it apparently changed for her order but not others, however that’s a topic for a different thread maybe).

Debunking five myths about nuns - U.S. Catholic

But in any event, it still seems pretty common and permitted in many cases for a female religious, or consecrated virgin, to describe herself as “married to Jesus”, “bride of Christ” etc.

However, I’m not getting clear info on how this is expressed for priests.
So my first question is:
What is the correct way of expressing the status of a celibate priest (who may or may not also be a member of a religious order like Franciscans, Jesuits etc)?

The options would seem to be:

1. The priest is “married to Jesus”. While this isn’t the type of language most priests today would use because it would give an impression of gay marriage, St John of the Cross expressed (in a time when people weren’t automatically thinking “gay”) that a male priest could have a mystical marriage to Jesus. More recently, author Fr Dwight Longenecker has said that an unmarried, celibate priest is “married to Jesus”.

Talking Sex with a Married Catholic Priest | Sojourners

1. The priest is “married to the Church”. This seems to be widely accepted as we see it all over the Internet and on CAF. The priest is seen as emulating Christ by taking the Church to be his bride and being committed to her. This is also socially acceptable today because the Church is seen as female. However, we have a past post by a Carmelite friar who said, without going into detail, that the concept that priests and religious “marry the Church” is not correct. I note that a second priest posted in that thread and didn’t dispute the point with the Carmelite.

priest's ring Liturgy and Sacraments

The ring is a sort of tradition some priests and religious have taken up. I do not know when it started. I do not wear a ring for the fact that it gives the mistaken impression that a priest or religious is “married” to the Church. Which is not true. It has been my experience that wearing a ring attracts advances as much as not wearing one does.

So my second question is: If this is truly not correct, then why do we see statements about “The celibate priest is married to the Church, just like Jesus” everywhere? Is this something that certain orders or groups embrace and others don’t, same as for female religious and the “Brides of Christ” idea? Did theology ‘change’?

1. The third alternative is that the celibate priest isn’t really “married” to Christ or to the Church, and is simply committed to his vocation, to his diocese, to his order, etc.

I would appreciate answers to my 2 questions, either from priests or religious speaking from first hand experience, or from anyone backed up by reliable source support.

 

[Jen7]

So my brother is in the seminary - that’s my source. He explained to me that the whole “married to Jesus” or “married to the Church” reflects a type of relationship. It reflects that a) the nun or priest has given up intimacy with others to focus on intimacy with God, and b) the nun or priest actually does have a different relationship with Jesus than those in other vocations. He explained that a father could have many children and be very close with them all. They could have a loving, warm, and fabulous relationship with their dad. Think about the most ideal father-child relationship. But that man’s relationship with his SPOUSE would still be different. And that difference is what nuns and priests have. They are in a different relationship with God. Which does NOT mean the rest of us are left out in the cold. But we are God’s children whereas religious are spouse-like in what they have forsaken for God and in the responsibility they have to God’s children (the rest of us). It’s not sexual it’s responsibility-related. I’m not sure I’m explaining it well.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thanks. A couple questions just so I can drill down on my original questions:

1. Is your brother in a diocesan seminary or in a religious order seminary? You don’t have to give the location or order, I’m just trying to match up views with entities in view of the source I posted, given that so far from my sources one Benedictine sister and one Carmelite friar have rejected the “marriage” concept.
2. I presume your brother would describe himself as “married to the Church” rather than “married to Jesus” - is that correct?

I would note that I understand the basic concept of their vocation being the most important, most primary commitment in their life. I’m just asking about the terminology in which they express it, which would seem to relate in some manner to an underlying theology embraced by the order or seminary in which they are formed.

 

[Jen7]

My brother belongs to one of the religious orders you mentioned & yes I’m sure he’d see himself as married to the Church vs married to Jesus. Incidentally I have several friends in female religious communities and all describe themselves as the bride of Christ. Setting aside that phrase likely has to do with an individual community & not a whole order. I very very familiar with both the Carmelites & Benedictines as I have family members in each order. But communities have some autonomy (or quite a lot of autonomy depending on various factors!)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thank you for the helpful insights.

I wish the people from orders who in my sources said they didn’t use the spousal analogies would have explained the theology behind why they or their order or particular group within the order had made that choice. I can’t seem to find any article online explaining the different perspectives that drive that thinking.

 

[Jen7]

Yes I would be curious about that too. A friend of mine who used to be a Poor Clare was in a community where they seemed to often refer to “Mary has chosen the better part” terminology. I know some women feel grumpy about this concept - as if it’s “less than” to join an not-cloistered community or to stay in the world. So I could see a community setting the spousal phrasing aside for reasons of not accidentally appearing, I don’t know… spiritually exclusive? But if that’s the case I think it’s be too bad since I think there is a real spiritual truth to the phrase.

 

[Cloisters]

This could be because the Consecrated Virgins are considered “Brides of Christ” and the religious life theology had to be re-articulated.

As for Vincentians, the Daughters of Charity were never “brides of Christ” but “servants of the poor.” Since St. Vincent de Paul was making every effort to avoid having the DCs forced into cloister like their contemporaries, the Visitandines, they downplayed all aspects of “religious life.” Novitiate was known as “Seminary,” which simply means “school.”

Here: The Vincentian Consecration of the Daughters of Charity - Vincentian Encyclopedia

My new congregation is presently researching the DC ceremony for the reception of the habit. We have three entering the Seminary phase of our formation this weekend. Please pray for them.

Blessings,
Cloisters
My new congregation:
http://cloisters.tripod.com/charity/
My particular ministry promoting the cloisters and contemplative life:
http://cloisters.tripod.com/

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thanks, the historical context for Vincentians makes sense. I imagine that applies to other orders who serve the community too, maybe.

I don’t quite get how Consecrated Virgins affect the theology of established orders though?

Also, why would a Carmelite friar say that speaking of a priest as “married to the Church” is not correct?

 

[tablecorner]

Not sure if you would find it useful but perhaps it would. Page 88-89 of Dr.Brad Pitre’s, " Jesus the bridegroom."

edit: Pg 88-89

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1202/2816/files/jesus-the-bridegroom-class.pdf?2240472771892195035

 

[nunsuch]

There is a difference between “custom” and “dogma.” The “bride of Christ” or “married to the church” concepts are metaphorical to a great extent, but they are not dogmatic teachings of Catholicism, and never have been.

I think the “theology changes” thing might be better understood if it were expressed as “theology evolves.” Again, dogma doesn’t change, but customs and disciplines can and do. So, for example, some communities still have their members wear a habit; others do not. Some adopt religious names at the beginning of novitiate or profession; many do not. The latter change (no religious. names) is based largely on a renewed and strengthened appreciation of the baptismal faith commitment.

Most of the sisters I know, in an extensive range of communities (active and contemplative) do not consider themselves “brides of Christ,” or find spousal metaphors particularly helpful or characteristic of their faith commitments. This is not “right or wrong,” “better or worse” than the other. It is different.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus tells us: “My Father’s mansion has many rooms.” One way of interpreting this is that some of us may feel more at home in one room rather than another–and God is loving and generous enough to appreciate our differences. While most of my friends are more “at home” in a room that doesn’t mandate a habit, a change of name, or spousal understandings, others DO find spiritual nourishment in those customs (not dogmas). That is great. We are all welcome. And God’s love is expansive enough to allow us to respond in the ways that are most helpful to our spiritual vitality.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thank you, I appreciate the good explanation from one with a wealth of experience.

I can definitely understand how “Bride of Christ” might be a turn-off to some. I myself am not that comfortable with it because it suggests Jesus has billions of “Brides” and furthermore he’s married to the Church as well, so it doesn’t fit into our human conception of marriage. But if that concept is helpful to someone else, like St Catherine of Siena or the sister in the article I posted, and the Church permits the metaphor, I’m not going to object.

I prefer to think of Jesus as my beloved brother and friend, since to me a spouse has a sexual connotation, especially since I’m not a young virgin but rather an old widow, plus Jesus is the High Priest and in my culture, priests do not marry. So he’s like my super awesome priest/ brother/ best friend.

 

[SerraSemper]

consecrated virgins who describe themselves as “married to Jesus”.

The Roman Pontifical describes the consecrated virgin as Bride of Christ. Repeatedly. This is her very identity. This is not the case for religious sisters who merely describe themselves as such. I suggest you read the liturgical ritual for the consecration of virgins contained in the Roman Pontifical (bishop’s ceremonial book; read the entire ritual not just the section for virgins living in the world) and the liturgical ritual for religious profession contained in the Roman Ritual. If you want more info on this, my upcoming doctoral dissertation does discuss this in detail.

I would appreciate answers to my 2 questions, either from priests or religious speaking from first hand experience, or from anyone backed up by reliable source support.

I am not a religious, I am a sacred virgin, canon lawyer, getting an advanced degree in canon law, with a specialization in the theology and law of consecrated life. I also have a diploma from the Vatican on the theology and law on consecrated life, and as such, am considered by the Holy See as an “expert”. Hopefully that suffices for not being a religious.

The priest is “married to the Church”. This seems to be widely accepted as we see it all over the Internet and on CAF. The priest is seen as emulating Christ by taking the Church to be his bride and being committed to her. This is also socially acceptable today because the Church is seen as female. However, we have a past post by a Carmelite friar who said, without going into detail, that the concept that priests and religious “marry the Church” is not correct.

The priest is not married to the Church. There is a new fad out there in which some priests sport rings and consider themselves the bridegrooms of the Church. They are not. They must be unaware of the fact that traditionally, mere priests were forbidden to wear rings. Bishops were given rings at their ordination as bishop, because they were “espoused” to the local Church. Not so their helpers, the priests. Bishops are described by St. Thomas in diverse ways, sometimes as “bridegroom” and sometimes as “friends of the Bridegroom”. Priests are explicitly excluded from the notion of being a bridegroom by St. Thomas when he speaks of vows (somewhere in IV Sent… not going to look it up)

If you want more info on this, my upcoming doctoral dissertation does discuss this somewhat.

 

[Jen7]

Is this because the fullness of the priesthood is in the bishop, not the priest?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

We’re all familiar with religious sisters, nuns, and consecrated virgins who describe themselves as “married to Jesus”. Like St Catherine of Siena and this more contemporary sister:

First, I think it is important to draw a distinction because of the invocation of Catherine of Siena. Catherine experienced a vision wherein she was mystically espoused to Christ. She had, in another vision, an experience of she and Christ exchanging their hearts for each other’s. These are both an extraordinary occurrence but both are not unique to her in the history of Catholic mystical phenomenon. Those who have this experience should really be set aside in a unique category…with no offense to whoever the more contemporary Sister in this article might be.

Similarly, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila address the concept of the transforming union / mystical marriage. This is a particular grace in the mystical life of a soul and, similarly, should be treated as a distinct reality, which it is in the field of mystical theology.

St John of the Cross expressed (in a time when people weren’t automatically thinking “gay”) that a male priest could have a mystical marriage to Jesus

Saint Bernard Clairvaux wrote on this fairly extensively…he always articulated the soul in terms of bride and of having a bridal relationship to Jesus. For Bernard, the soul is individually what the Church is in her total extension…the Bride of Christ. That is why in his writing, whether man or a woman, the soul is referred to according to a feminine vision or image…there is no concept in this literature of Jesus wedding a male qua male. But He is espoused, betrothed to a soul, whether the soul of a man or the soul of a woman. It is an image Bernard uses to convey a profound truth of the soul’s relationship to Christ…but it is also an analogy that is expressing a reality that transcends human life an human experiences on earth.

Personally I find these writings of the various writers quite useful and quite helpful. Having said that, these are concepts I would weave into retreat conferences for male and female Religious…I don’t know that I could or would even attempt to effectively integrate them into a retreat for soldiers, sailors, and marines. In such cases, I would turn to other images and concepts, frankly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

continued

The priest is “married to the Church”. This seems to be widely accepted as we see it all over the Internet and on CAF.

You may see it all over the Internet and CAF but I would not say it is “widely accepted”…it is an image that is used by some writers and by some priests. I remember when @(name removed by moderator) spoke of her priest using it with some enthusiasm. On the other hand, if someone were to address me in that fashion or evoke it in my regard, I would grimace…not to say frown or simply declare that is not something I would say in my own regard…at all. I don’t think of myself as married to the Church…Rather, I am an unmarried man “busy with the Lord’s affairs, concerned with pleasing the Lord” to use Saint Paul’s words in first First Letter to the Corinthians.

I know some priests…I must say they are of my generation and even older…who speak of the Liturgy of the Hours – that is to say the Breviary – as “my wife”. As in “I am looking for my wife” or “my wife is missing” or “I lost my wife.” Priests of my era understand the expression…I don’t really know what young priests writ large know about this usage…but I imagine many Catholics, seeing and hearing such a sight, would think the priest saying this was senile or mad. I have joined in this banter when I am with other priests but never would I actually think of the breviary as my wife – or that I am the husband of my breviary! It is an expression that is, or at least was, used – but these sorts of images and metaphors and analogies may have some utility and may also be problematic when they are focused upon more than they were ever meant to be…such as an evocation that has a man wedded to what is in actuality a hardcover book.

In sum…When we are speaking of relationships to the Three Divine Persons or our relationship to the Church, we are again in the realm of relationships that utterly transcend human relationships and human experience. We can use analogy and we can use images…but they really only begin to express in the most superficial way a reality that is completely beyond human expression.

For example, as a priest, when I confect the Eucharist or absolve a penitent, I am acting in the person of Christ as I pronounce the sacramental form and Christ, by the medium of the ontological character imposed on my soul when I was ordained, is effecting the changing of bread and wine into His Body and Blood or forgiving the sins of a penitent, who is hearing my voice as Christ is acting. This action occurring is of a far more profound interpersonal oneness of Christ and His priest than what is imaged in the marital relationship. It is, at the ontological level, one of profound and really unimaginable intimacy. Words fail in the face of it.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

continued

The ring is a sort of tradition some priests and religious have taken up. I do not know when it started. I do not wear a ring for the fact that it gives the mistaken impression that a priest or religious is “married” to the Church

Well…this can quickly become a dissertation length treatment, which I want to avoid! Traditionally, many Religious women would receive a ring when they made their profession of vows. In some cases, this was at the time of temporary vows or first profession and for others, it happened at the time of perpetual vows or final profession…these things being determined in the constitutions of the institute of perfection. It was not normal in the case of male Religious with a notable exception: the Religious Institute of the Clerics of Saint Viator. The Viatorian Fathers were, in my generation, famous when it came to classes in canon law for the privilege they had of wearing their rings, which were an anomaly.

Today, beyond Religious Orders and Congregations, we have Secular Institutes whose members are not Religious but are truly Consecrated and are under the oversight of the same dicastery of the Holy See that oversees Religious Life. They, too, make vows or other bonds of commitment and may use a ring as an outward sign of their commitment. Some tertiaries do the same. As do people who profess private vows.

In my day, priests would not normally wear a ring. If they were elevated to the rank of Monsignor with the grade of Protonotary Apostolic, they had the privilege of a ring. Abbots wore a ring. Canons – which do not exist in the dioceses of the United States – often had the privilege of wearing a ring. Doctors of theology or of canon law had the privilege of a ring. But, except for the doctors which was an academic ring, the others were wearing a prelate’s ring…not a wedding ring.

The discipline has relaxed and priests today wear rings for a variety of reasons and motives. Calling it a tradition is a bit generous…although the years are passing. Still, it is of relatively recent occurrence.

This by the way are the words said to the Bishop when he receives his episcopal ring at his ordination:
“Receive this ring, the seal of fidelity: adorned with undefiled faith, preserve unblemished the bride of God, the holy Church.”

This is the formulation for the presentation of the prelate’s ring at the blessing and enthronement of an Abbot:
“Take this ring, the seal of fidelity. Wear it as the symbol of constancy and maintain this monastic family in the bond of brotherly love.”