Consecrated virgins - why only females?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Digitnomy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As I understand it the woman must be physically a virgin (having never had sexual intercourse), with an exception made only for the rape victims who are able to demonstrate that they are blameless.
 
I’ve never heard of a requirement that a candidate needs to prove that they are blameless. “Prove” suggests evidence, but you may mean something else.
In cases in which the loss of physical virginity was not intended by the woman, for example in case of rape or involuntary incest, she remains eligible for the consecration of virgins.
Click to expand...
 
According to the website of the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins (USACV):

https://consecratedvirgins.org/QA_who_can
Who can be consecrated?

The 1970 Prænotanda to the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity states the following requirements for women living in the world to receive the consecration:

1. that they have never married or lived in open violation of chastity;

2. that by their, prudence, and universally approved character they give assurance of perseverance in a life of chastity dedicated to the service of the church and of their neighbor.

3. that they be admitted to this Consecration by the Bishop who is the local Ordinary.

It doesn’t say anything about “physical virginity” or rape.
 
The part I quoted above is in the paragraph after what you quoted.
 
Bruised_Reed said:
The part I quoted above is in the paragraph after what you quoted.
Click to expand...
Ah, you are right…it is explained rather well here, I think:
http://canonicallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/09/physical-virginity-as-requirement-for.html

In 2007, the CDWDS responded (Prot. n. 231/06/L) concurring with Burke’s interpretation that those who “have knowingly and deliberately engaged in sexual relations should not be received as consecrated virgins, but may be encouraged to make another form of personal consecration.” Notice also that rape would not be considered a violation of physical virginity.

This would imply that a girl or woman who was not able to give consent wouldn’t have “deliberately” engaged in sexual relations. I don’t mean in a mere legal sense, but if she were to examine her conscience and with certainty know herself to have been coerced.
 
Last edited:
are you pro or anti women priests

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
But why? I am pretty sure that it is the voluntary part that matters.
 
Why they made the distinction I can’t say but even if incest is “voluntary” there are concerns of consent. It’s more obvious in the direct line but even in the collateral line there can be subtle coercion.
 
That is irrelevant to my argument that it is discrimination. Again, my personal beliefs are not implicit in my argument and are also only my business unless I make them otherwise.

I will say that I know a female Anglican priest and it seems to me she does a fine job. I believe her congregation is on the road to salvation and I think even the Catholic Church would agree.

I don’t think women priests will ever be possible in the Catholic Church, so whether I believe we should have them is also irrelevant for that reason.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not they do a fine job is irrelevant, though. Neither men nor women can confect the Eucharist in the Anglican Church sonit matters not which sex acts as priest. Are you sure that you understand that if God wanted women to be priests, an infallible declaration wouldn’t have been made by the Church on the matter?
 
The Catholic Church does believe Anglicans can get to Heaven. That is the only purpose of a religion as far as I’m concerned.
 
That is irrelevant to my argument that it is discrimination
Click to expand...
Is it discrimination against women if they can’t actually be priests?

St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said “Feed my sheep” only to Peter. “Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church… let the entire female sex retire.” And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: “Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it.”
The Catholic Church does believe Anglicans can get to Heaven. That is the only purpose of a religion as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...
E X T R A E C C L E S I A M N U L L A S A L U S
X
T
R
A
E
C
C
L
E
S
I
A
M
N
U
L
L
A
S
A
L
U
S
 
That isn’t the only purpose of a catholic priest though. Yes it’s awesome that women can be good Protestant ministers but a priest in the original Christian sense definitely needs to be able to confect the Eucharist for mankind. I am assuming you aren’t Catholic then?
 
My apologies. I’ve never seen a (practicing at least) Catholic on here that didn’t care about or prioritize the body and blood of the lord so I jumped to that conclusion.
 
And yes I agree that Protestants can definitely get to heaven so I am not arguing that. I’m speaking of Priests and a religion in the fullness that God intended. You can’t have that without a priest validly ordained.
 
You assume wrongly on what I personally care about. Mine is not an ad hominem argument, so any assumptions about me are irrelevant.

As to your other point, they believe they have that “fullness God intended” just like we believe we do. Neither side has objective proof either way. I’m sure that as a result, their lifetime subjective spiritual experience is like ours. So if they can get to Heaven, I think they are in pretty good shape spiritually, even without all the things we say they don’t have.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been hesitant to bring this up but I believe we’ve neglected to discuss a serious possibility. It’s been mentioned before and to great controversy… :frowning_face_with_open_mouth:

Dare I mention, 😬
Male Consecrated Virgins?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top