CVs don't have to be Virgins?

[Gertabelle]

One thing that annoys me with this thread is the almost complete disregard for God and His role in calling the Virgins to a bridal relationship with Him. If the appropriate persons discern that the lady is being called to consecration as a virgin, then who are we to clip the wings of the Holy Ghost?

Thank you so much for posting this!

I have been following this thread in something of a cross between shock and bewilderment.

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that there are different vocations with different physical requirements within the Church?

As a woman, I cannot be ordained a priest, because I am a woman! I’m fine with that. I get that God cannot call me to the priesthood. No problem there.

So why is it that people get all up-in-arms that one would need to be a physical virgin to be a Consecrated Virgin?

If someone like me – a single mom – feels called to make vows to the Lord (and it is actually something I am considering), there are wonderful avenues for this offered by Mother Church. I could join a secular institute (when my son is no longer a minor). I could make private vows to my pastor or bishop (no idea how that works, only that it is an option). I could join a religious community (again, when my son is independent, and provided I find a community that takes “late” vocations).

But God cannot call me, at this point, to be a Consecrated Virgin any more than He could call me to be a priest. I do not meet the physical requirements.

To repeat, however, the Church already offers a multitude of public and private means for one to make vows to God. Rather than eliminate vocations that are not all-inclusive (bye-bye priesthood), each person who feels called needs to use their physical limitations as a means of discernment.