Cloisters, it is not up to a CV to determine if she is eligible. It is the bishop who must decide who to consecrate and he must follow the rules in the Rite of Consecration of Virgins.
This is partially correct. There are offenses against chastity that do not involve “an act” another person that can prevent eligibility such as being a topless waitress. St. Thomas’s definition is helpful for people who have masturbated as opposed to simply having had impure thoughts.
Being topless isn’t an act against chastity. It’s an act against modesty. Her lifestyle choice would make her intelligible. Cardinal Burke has consulted Rome for clarification and they have clarified that “public and manifest acts are committed with another, …] an act contrary to chastity in what pertains to the state of virginity is the conscious and deliberate giving of one’s body for sexual union…]”. For the sake of receiving the consecration, St. Thomas’ definition does NOT apply. If you don’t believe me, contact Cardinal Burke.
I read the clarification as I am a canon lawyer I know exactly what was said and what was not said. In fact, I read the copies of the actual letters exchanged between Burke and the Congregation. I know the difference between internal and external foras. I also happen to know Cardinal Burke and have talked with him on many occasions about my vocation of consecrated virginity. What you are saying is only partially correct. Cardinal Burke was seeking clarification on ONLY ONE aspect of chastity, namely, whether consensual intercourse that is not known to anyone but the two parties a “public violation of chastity”. A public violation of chastity is not LIMITED to that scenario. Sins against chastity include impurity/immodesty; hence a topless waitress would be immodest and publicly sin against chastity. These things are normally taught in moral theology classes and should be taught to people who are taking a vow of chastity in religious life or the promise of celibacy such as priests.
For a consecrated virgin, you sure have a lack of humility.
Well, I am surprised you would be privy to internal forum material. I would love to hear how you handle the gift of discernment of spirits as nobody in my social circle has it. Do you do spiritual direction?
I only read a list of objectively verifiable facts from SerraSemper–helpful context on an anonymous forum–followed by an explanation of the question under discussion that directly adressed the nuances that had been raised.
I wasn’t aware a rather stern lecture constitutes a lack of humility.
Never forget that your vocation, whatever it turns out to be, is given to you from GOD, and his will will be done–whether the end result looks like what you initially discerned for yourself or not. Trust in Him, and follow where He leads you, fortis in fide.
You do not have to make a manifestation of conscience to the bishop, especially outside of confessional. I implore you to not inquire for yourself, which would involve you revealing matters of conscience that the Church does not require you make in the external forum.
Agreed. In a case like this, a person doesn’t have to reveal her conscience externally to the bishop (she can internally in confession or in speaking to her spiritual director) but she does have the responsibility of not making a mockery of the Church’s intention to consecrate only virgins in Her own image. This would be like the seminarian who is always falling into sins of impurity or who has deeply rooted inclinations to homosexuality. He doesn’t have the obligation of revealing this to the bishop but his spiritual director and confessor have the serious obligation of asking him to leave seminary because of not being a suitable candidate for the priesthood. I wrote about this in my thesis on the manifestation of conscience (available via Amazon) because it is a delicate balance.