Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[Lief_Erikson]

I understand what you’re saying about secular priests and the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Thank-you for clarifying it!

I LOVE your description of what sets the consecrated virgin apart! Thank-you so much for sharing that! It is exquisitely beautiful, spiritually.

Thank-you, God!

 

[SerraSemper]

Okay, I guess I can jump in with a few clarifications.

We recognize the validity of marriages:

1. Between the unbaptized. This is called a natural marriage. It can be dissolved by death or by the Pauline/Petrine privilege.
2. Between a baptized person (if a Catholic, validity depends upon the bishop’s permission) and unbaptized person. This is called a natural marriage. It can be dissolved by death or possibly by the Petrine privilege.
3. Between two baptized persons. This is called a sacramental marriage. It is valid but dissoluble if it is not consummated. For instance, if after the wedding vows, a spouse immediately takes off and is never heard of again, the remaining spouse could apply for dissolution on grounds of non consummation. If a sacramental marriage is consummated, it is not dissoluble by any power whatsoever.

Concerning the marriage of Joseph and Mary- it was valid because both gave over to the other the right over the body for acts apt for the generation of children. Neither of them intended to deny that right to the other, but asked that it not be requested. The marriage would have been invalid if Joseph or Mary had demanded consummation and the other maintained a right to refuse. If a person today makes an agreement not to consummate, that would be normally unwise, but permissible. However, if the other spouse got tired of living as a brother/sister, then he/she could demand the conjugal act and that would trump any private agreement they might have had to live as brother/sister.

---

Now for consecrated virginity. The consecrated virgin living in the world does not make any vows. By saying the ancient patristic era based consecration over the virgin, the bishop transforms the virgin into a bride of Christ. Again, the virgin makes no vows. She receives the consecration, so to speak, in the same way a man receives ordination- through the ministry of the bishop.

The effect of the consecration is to make the virgin a bride of Christ and a sacred person. She is directly a bride of Christ [not bride of the Holy Spirit like Our Lady], and this consecration changes her ontologically as such. The reason a virgin cannot be dispensed is because some vows can be dispensed, but a consecration [like an ordination] cannot be undone.

In her body and soul, the consecrated virgin represents the Church as bride/virgin/mother most perfectly. She is directly bride, unlike religious, who are metaphorically “brides”. She has a direct spousal relationship with Jesus Christ. This requires maturity on her part because she is a married woman and her Husband is Jesus… I personally don’t know of any consecrated virgins with plasma tvs. They take being wedded to the poor, crucified Jesus very seriously, although in accordance with their stations in life.

A religious (or hermit) on the other hand, takes the vows, proffering vows to God. These vows are to live in a certain style so as to get to heaven more easily while living in a group or in solitude (hermit). Thus, they do not have that spousal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is indirect, in the sense that they have totally dedicated their lives to seeking to do His will, but as religious or hermits. This is not spousal in its nature.

Historically, the reason that women religious were known as brides of Christ was because consecrated virgins grouped together (St. Scholastica was a consecrated virgin) and eventually founded convents. They eventually added vows (it’s easier to govern with the vows) and at some point the process was reversed. The consecration was seen as the crowning glory of consecrated life and so women virgin religious began to receive it only after they made religious profession of vows. For centuries, many women religious received the consecration of virgins. Thus, the titles of sister and “spouse of Christ” became synonymous, although they were distinct realities. Only some sisters/nuns who received the consecration were strictly speaking “brides of Christ” and the others were vowed women religious who were in the consecrated state, but not consecrated virgins properly speaking.

The religious woman or hermitess who is not a consecrated virgin lives out her dedication to Christ in a manner consistent with the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, according to a particular charism granted to a community or individual (hermitess). Think of it this way- a religious or hermit is vowing to observe a certain form of life incorporating the evangelical counsels. Those are not directly spousal vows.

The consecrated virgin living in the world lives out the reality of being a bride of Christ as a true married woman. Her distinct manner of life is that of bride to the Son of God. The formula for religious and hermits does not apply to her because she is in a direct spousal relationship with the Lord God. Obviously she lives out the evangelical counsels in a manner appropriate for her state in life. The vows that religious take help a person reach holiness, but they are not the only paths to holiness. Consecrated virgins have a spousal vocation. What they do to live up to their dignity as brides of Christ is up to discussion between the virgin, their Spouse, and their bishop. The dynamics of spousal life is obviously going to differ from that of religious life. Just as a married person will wake up to a crying baby - the baby is not going to observe “grand silence”; so too, the consecrated virgin living in the world lives a life that is more flexible. Her apostolates can change at the call of her Spouse. Just as Mary took off to her cousin Elizabeth, so too, a consecrated virgin can respond to God’s will by taking time off from doing one work of charity in place of another. Again, this is not a cop out from vows, it’s another form of consecrated life, and the original form for consecrated women.

 

[JReducation]

I understand what you’re saying about secular priests and the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Thank-you for clarifying it!

I LOVE your description of what sets the consecrated virgin apart! Thank-you so much for sharing that! It is exquisitely beautiful, spiritually.

Thank-you, God!

That’s why I feel that the title of this thread is a little misleading. Blessed applies to everyone. Eveyone is blessed. There is not such thing as being more and less blessed. You are blessed in the measure of your spiritual needs.

The question should be: Is the state of consecrated celibacy more desireable? In reality, if you read the first post and the subsequent ones, that’s what people are discussing and to which many married people object. Some people feel that it’s offensive to think of consecrated celibacy as more desireable.

But if we understand the two extremes, marriage and consecrated virginity, with consecrated virginity as the most intimate union with the Divine, then consecrated celibacy makes sense, because it is the state in life that most closely approximates consecrated virginity.

It is not a matter of which is more blessed or which is more difficult. It is a matter of which one most closely resembles the life of Christ and his mother. The consecrated virgin wins hands down. Obviously the consecrated virgin is celibate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Okay, I guess I can jump in with a few clarifications.

We recognize the validity of marriages:

1. Between the unbaptized. This is called a natural marriage. It can be dissolved by death or by the Pauline/Petrine privilege.
2. Between a baptized person (if a Catholic, validity depends upon the bishop’s permission) and unbaptized person. This is called a natural marriage. It can be dissolved by death or possibly by the Petrine privilege.
3. Between two baptized persons. This is called a sacramental marriage. It is valid but dissoluble if it is not consummated. For instance, if after the wedding vows, a spouse immediately takes off and is never heard of again, the remaining spouse could apply for dissolution on grounds of non consummation. If a sacramental marriage is consummated, it is not dissoluble by any power whatsoever.

Concerning the marriage of Joseph and Mary- it was valid because both gave over to the other the right over the body for acts apt for the generation of children. Neither of them intended to deny that right to the other, but asked that it not be requested. The marriage would have been invalid if Joseph or Mary had demanded consummation and the other maintained a right to refuse. .

Thanks for the canonical expertise here. I’m not a canon lawyer. I can only explain these things from my own area which is Mystical Theology. That being said, I would add one thing that is not in canon law. The Jewish understanding of marriage, especially at the time that Joseph and Mary lived, was different from our understanding of married. They had a different understanding of the conjugal act. Whereas we understand it to be exclusive to married persons and also the right of both spouses, they did not have this same theology. Even today, though we no longer practice sex with slaves in order to produce an heir, my people do not subscribe to the idea that a woman has the right to demand the conjugal act. The husband has a right to the conjugal act, but not the wife. The fact that woman can and do expect the spouse to engage in the conjugal act, it not considered a change in theology, but a social change.

I share this because I’m a Hebrew Catholic. I was born and raised Jewish until my conversion 40 years ago. But my entire family is still Jewish. The idea that a woman has the right to ask for the conjugal act is abhorrent to an Orthodox Jew. This has become acceptable among Reformed and Reconstructionist Jews. This of course colors the whole idea of divorce and remarriage among Orthodox Jews, but that’s a topic for another thread, yet a very interesting one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That’s why I feel that the title of this thread is a little misleading. Blessed applies to everyone. Eveyone is blessed. There is not such thing as being more and less blessed. You are blessed in the measure of your spiritual needs.

The question should be: Is the state of consecrated celibacy more desireable? In reality, if you read the first post and the subsequent ones, that’s what people are discussing and to which many married people object. Some people feel that it’s offensive to think of consecrated celibacy as more desireable.

When I first read the hierarchy of vocations, I too felt a flush of aggravation, anger and jealousy that “active religious” (what I feel called to) were near the bottom of this hierarchy of vocations. That was the result of pride, wanting to be up at or around the top. I was able to identify the source of those ugly feelings and mercifully the Lord quickly provided me with grace to escape them. Now, purely as a result of His grace, I feel great happiness and contentment to be called to a lower vocation than several others.

Truly, the desire to be loftier than one is called to be is a form of pride. If we were humbler, we would be quicker to rejoice for those that are called to a higher vocation and would then share in their joy, as Elizabeth did when she met Mary, “Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb!” Mary was called to a higher vocation; Elizabeth saw it and rejoiced. And now Elizabeth too is a saint . That reflects what St. Therese was talking about when she said perfection lies in embracing God’s will for us.

Besides, anyone can receive perfection in any vocation, and canonized saints that were married men and women ascended into far greater heights of union with God than the vast majority of religious. For perfection consists in the union of souls with God’s will, not in our vocation, gifts or state in life. And God calls everyone, in all vocations, to perfection, though perfection is the end of a journey and not the beginning. Praise be to God for His Mercy and gentle Fatherhood.

JReducation:

But if we understand the two extremes, marriage and consecrated virginity, with consecrated virginity as the most intimate union with the Divine, then consecrated celibacy makes sense, because it is the state in life that most closely approximates consecrated virginity.

It is not a matter of which is more blessed or which is more difficult. It is a matter of which one most closely resembles the life of Christ and his mother.

Definitely makes sense to me .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thank-you very much for the clarifications about consecrated virgins, SerraSemper. I very much appreciate them. You’ve certainly added a good deal to my understanding, particularly in your descriptions of how consecrated virgins abandon the world, live for the poor and suffering (Jesus in them) and are perfect representations of the Church as bride/virgin/mother.

I’d like to ask you a bit more about the following.

SerraSemper:

She is directly bride, unlike religious, who are metaphorically “brides”. She has a direct spousal relationship with Jesus Christ.

How is this a direct spousal relationship? I feel like I’m being dense, but if it was a direct spousal relationship, wouldn’t that make Jesus a polygamist? I’m trying to understand in what way this relationship is direct for the consecrated virgins where it’s a metaphor for the religious, since it’s obviously not a sexual union. I don’t understand the nature of the supernatural change in their souls (and bodies?) that occurs.

I can see that all these “brides of Christ” are truly part of one Bride, the Church, and through His union with Her sacred person, the relationship is monogamous. However, I’m having trouble understanding in what sense the relationship is directly spousal.

Another couple questions, on different matters.

If a consecrated virgin was raped, would she still be canonically a consecrated virgin? Seeing as she’s physically not a virgin anymore.

A related question is, if a consecrated virgin fell into sexual immorality, could she ever recover her identity as consecrated virgin through the Sacrament of Confession or anything else?

My guess is, considering you said the change is ontological and the consecration irrevocable, these circumstances would not alter her new identity, and she would remain a consecrated virgin regardless. However, I’m not sure, so I thought I’d ask.

 

[JReducation]

When I first read the hierarchy of vocations, I too felt a flush of aggravation, anger and jealousy that “active religious” (what I feel called to) were near the bottom of this hierarchy of vocations. .

You can always go for the middle, the mendicants. When St. Francis founded our family he had a very clear idea of the consecrated life. It was not a horizontal idea. It made no difference to him how the Church classified them for the purpose of canon law. In the end, we are not sanctified by the law. Church law exists to help us understand and to make sure that the Church stays on course. Francis was not that concerned with how canon law defined or classified his way of life, as long as he was within the law.

When he founded his mendicant order he was thinking a little differently from most people. I would venture to agree with Chesterton who said that no one in Church history has been more clear in his understanding of religious life.

Francis understood the life of the hermit. He had been a hermit. He understood the life of a soldier. He was one of those too. He understood the life of a monk. He was educated by Benedictine monks and had a very close relationship with the Benedictines. There was a mutal respect and admiration between Francis and the monks.

Francis looked at the life of the monk and he did not want that life. The monk had the privilege of property. Their cells and meals were simple. Their lives were uncomplicated by ministry and other worries. They had a roof over their head. They had a steady income from their land holdings and their work. They always knew that they would have food on the table. Their lives were made holy by their separatioin from the world, silence, solitude and continuous prayer.

Francis wanted all of that: separation, silence, solitude and on-going prayer. But he did not want the confines and the security of the cloister. He took these characteristics of the monastic life out of the cloister. Our brothers were to live among the faithful, but maintaining a healthy separation between them and the world. It was to be a challenging existence to be surrounded by power, wealth, sex, money and all that secularism had to offer and take advantage of none of it. That was the separation.

He also wanted the poverty of the hermit. The hermit depended on the generosity of others to survive. Unlike the monk, ther hermits did not have large land holdings or were very enterprising. They depended on charity. Only the Carthusian hermits had property that produced income. To this day they are the only community of hermits. Most hermits to not live in community. The Carmelties were hermits in a loosely bound brotherhood, but they quickly became mendicants when they moved from the Middle East to Europe. They also became a clerical order.

Francis embraced holy poverty. To him poverty was not a virtue or a discipline. Poverty was a person whom he married. He called his bride, Lady Poverty. He transmitted this to his brothers. Poverty was to be protected as a husband protects his wife. Today, there is a renewal taking place in the Franciscan family, because we lost that notion of poverty as a person. It became an economic practice. Unfortunately, many friars allowed themselves to be influenced by law, which said that as long as they did not have personal property, they could own property in common. This opened up a Pandora’s Box that led to the purchase of and construction of what we now call White Elephants. Now the friars are up in arms about what the friars did between 1500 and 1900. Franciscan became land owners, parish priests, school masters, and more. All completely contrary to the original spirit of poverty.

to be continued

 

[JReducation]

conclusion

The renewal is about getting back to that original spirit. There is nothing wrong with what canon law allows. The argument in our general chapters has been that just because canon law says that we can do it, it does not mean that we have to do it. A former superior general of the Capuchins made an off the cuff remark one day, that made me laugh. He said, “Canon law was designed to save our souls, not our vocation. That we have to do on our own.” I never thought of it that way. Our effort today is to save our vocation by returning to the original idea of what a mendicant was. He was a man who depended on Divine Providence to provide, even when the Church said that it was OK to be enterprising. Francis refused that idea and simply said that each brother must work and when he does not earn enough to buy food and pay for shelter, he should recourse to the table of the Lord, begging.

The other interesting part of Francis vision was the place of the priest. Priests were to be loved and venerated, because only through them did we receive the Eucharist and absolution. But those priests who joined his family were to give up all forms of clericalism and all the privileges and honors that came with being a priest. They were to become anonymous within the brotherhood. Interestingly enough, the number of priests attracted to the brotherhood was large. Later the number of brothers requestion ordiantion grew. The superiors allowed the number of ordained brothers to get so large that they clerics took over the order and began to impose on all the brothers the same demands for special treatment that they imposed on the laity.

Today, all of the General Chapters agree that this was a tragic mistake and a serious violation of justice against the other members of the order. They alll agree that the first vocation of every Franciscan is to be a brother and that the call to be a priest is for a few within the order, but it is a call within a call. They are not to be direspected, but they are not to govern and control their brothers either. We are seeing renewal movements where the number of priestly ordinations is being deliberately controlled and the fraternal life is being restored where there is only one category of brother where all have the same rights and duties. Francis vision was a brotherhood.

This takes me to the last and final characteristic of Francis’ view of religious life. The monks referred to each other as brother because they were part of a community. The penitent movements of the day referred to each other as brother, because they shared a common way of life and were members of the same faith. Francis taught his men to be brothers because they were a family with a common mother and father. God is the Father and Francis was the mother. It was his role and that of his successors and delegates to look after the brothers and their well-being as a mother takes care of her family while her husband is away working. She sees to it that her family has enough food on the table, is warm in winter, is educated and that all the children get along. She sits up at night with the sick children and she engages the help of the other children in caring for the home, the elderly in the family and the very young. Thus the Franciscans were a different kind of brotherhood, because they were always accountable to their Heavenly Father and to their founder, long after his death. Just as any family treasures the memory of their mother.

Francis set the presedent for the mendicant movement to be a blend between the hermit, the monk and the active religious who goes from place to place proclaiming the Gospel, but calls no place his own. Today there are several renewal movements in the Franciscan family. I came from the Capuchin Franciscans and am now in the process renewal. There are other friars in other groups doing the same thing. Some are older and others are newer movements, but all going in the same direction, back to the 13th century in order to go forward.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That sounds wonderful . I love it that you all are working to get the order en masse back to the original spirit of self-abandonment so dear to St. Francis. I expect that this is part of the New Evangelization that Pope John Paul II started, only it’s within the Church.

That feeling I had, that I mentioned, was purely a matter of pride, not calling. I don’t know whether I’m called to be a mendicant or not, but what I am sure about is that I am called to evangelism and/or ecumenism, especially of Protestants. As a former Protestant, I yearn for the reunification of the Catholic Church with her Protestant brethren. So many Protestants are ignorant of the basics of what Catholics believe, as well as all the reasons why we believe what we do and why Catholicism makes sense. They truly should understand, and I am convinced that prayer is the key to this victory. Mary goes to her Spouse, the Holy Spirit, when we ask her, and then the Spirit changes hearts. Then when the hearts open, the minds become interested in the truth and begin to drink it in, quickly in some cases and slowly in others. Souls then become filled with the Holy Ghost and are most beautiful to see as they receive the fullness of what they already possess!

I’m looking for the right order. I’m actually feeling a bit disappointed right now because one of the two orders I was most focusing on is apparently emphasizing outreach to lapsed Catholics, not to Protestants, and their outreach to Protestants is too indirect for me to want to pursue it.

I am looking through the orders listed in the Institute of Religious Life, because those orders are reliably confirmed to be strongly orthodox. I’m having trouble finding one that seems focused on bringing Protestants home.

I really like the Brotherhood of Hope, for they are reaching out in a powerful way to lots of people of all faith backgrounds here, not just in foreign countries. However, I don’t think they have either a seminary program or a writer’s apostolate, and I would like to be both a priest and a writer, so I don’t know if that’s a good idea. Maybe I’ll get in touch with them and find out for sure, though.

I’m also trying to find out more about the Oblates of Mary, as they interest me very much.

The Dominicans have always had a strong attraction for me, but I hesitate for two reasons. One is that I haven’t seen any emphasis or even mention of contemplation in their prayer life, and the other is that I haven’t seen evidence that they have a strong outreach to Protestants. Most of what I think I saw them talking about doing was preaching to fellow Catholics, something deeply important, but not what I personally want to focus on as a primary goal.

If you or anyone else here has any good suggestions of orders for me to look at, I’d love to hear your recommendations! I’m hungry for souls and have gifts at writing, preaching, and teaching the truths of the faith. I’m sure God is calling me to evangelism, and I believe that a large field ripe for the harvest is here among conservative Protestants. When they join the faith, they often become towers of light, towers of David! I feel sure that I’m called to the active religious life. Or maybe mendicant; I haven’t thought about that. If the mendicants do a lot of evangelism or ecumenism, I’ll be very inclined to check them out carefully . Do you have any thoughts about religious orders I might do well to consider?

 

[JReducation]

That sounds wonderful . I love it that you all are working to get the order en masse back to the original spirit of self-abandonment so dear to St. Francis. I expect that this is part of the New Evangelization that Pope John Paul II started, only it’s within the Church.

That feeling I had, that I mentioned, was purely a matter of pride, not calling. I don’t know whether I’m called to be a mendicant or not, but what I am sure about is that I am called to evangelism and/or ecumenism, especially of Protestants. As a former Protestant, I yearn for the reunification of the Catholic Church with her Protestant brethren. So many Protestants are ignorant of the basics of what Catholics believe, as well as all the reasons why we believe what we do and why Catholicism makes sense. They truly should understand, and I am convinced that prayer is the key to this victory. Mary goes to her Spouse, the Holy Spirit, when we ask her, and then the Spirit changes hearts. Then when the hearts open, the minds become interested in the truth and begin to drink it in, quickly in some cases and slowly in others. Souls then become filled with the Holy Ghost and are most beautiful to see as they receive the fullness of what they already possess!

I’m looking for the right order. I’m actually feeling a bit disappointed right now because one of the two orders I was most focusing on is apparently emphasizing outreach to lapsed Catholics, not to Protestants, and their outreach to Protestants is too indirect for me to want to pursue it.

I am looking through the orders listed in the Institute of Religious Life, because those orders are reliably confirmed to be strongly orthodox. I’m having trouble finding one that seems focused on bringing Protestants home.

I really like the Brotherhood of Hope, for they are reaching out in a powerful way to lots of people of all faith backgrounds here, not just in foreign countries. However, I don’t think they have either a seminary program or a writer’s apostolate, and I would like to be both a priest and a writer, so I don’t know if that’s a good idea. Maybe I’ll get in touch with them and find out for sure, though.

I’m also trying to find out more about the Oblates of Mary, as they interest me very much.

The Dominicans have always had a strong attraction for me, but I hesitate for two reasons. One is that I haven’t seen any emphasis or even mention of contemplation in their prayer life, and the other is that I haven’t seen evidence that they have a strong outreach to Protestants. Most of what I think I saw them talking about doing was preaching to fellow Catholics, something deeply important, but not what I personally want to focus on as a primary goal.

If you or anyone else here has any good suggestions of orders for me to look at, I’d love to hear your recommendations! I’m hungry for souls and have gifts at writing, preaching, and teaching the truths of the faith. I’m sure God is calling me to evangelism, and I believe that a large field ripe for the harvest is here among conservative Protestants. When they join the faith, they often become towers of light, towers of David! I feel sure that I’m called to the active religious life. Or maybe mendicant; I haven’t thought about that. If the mendicants do a lot of evangelism or ecumenism, I’ll be very inclined to check them out carefully . Do you have any thoughts about religious orders I might do well to consider?

There is a branch of the Franciscans that was founded by converts and whose primary mission is reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics. They are called the Society of the Atonement or sometimes called the Greymore Franciscans. Their motherhouse is in Greymore, New York.

I don’t suggest my community, because even though we work with people of all faiths our mission is the Gospel of Life. We address the vulnerable of society. The Atonement Franciscans sound like what you may be looking for. Check them out and let me know what you think. I’d be curious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’ll do that, thanks!

 

[SerraSemper]

I’d like to ask you a bit more about the following.

How is this a direct spousal relationship? I feel like I’m being dense, but if it was a direct spousal relationship, wouldn’t that make Jesus a polygamist? I’m trying to understand in what way this relationship is direct for the consecrated virgins where it’s a metaphor for the religious, since it’s obviously not a sexual union. I don’t understand the nature of the supernatural change in their souls (and bodies?) that occurs.

I can see that all these “brides of Christ” are truly part of one Bride, the Church, and through His union with Her sacred person, the relationship is monogamous. However, I’m having trouble understanding in what sense the relationship is directly spousal.

1. What does it mean to be directly spousal? Take a look at an excerpt from the homily for the Rite of Consecration of Virgins:

Our Lord himself taught us the high calling of such a life, consecrated to God and chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. By his whole life, and especially by his labors, his preaching, and, above all, by his paschal mystery, he brought his Church into being. He desired it to be a virgin, a bride, and a mother: a virgin, to keep the faith whole and entire; a bride, to be one with him for ever; and a mother, to raise up the family of the Church.

The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, through baptism has already made you temples of God’s glory and children of the Father. **Today through our ministry he anoints you with a new grace and consecrates you to God by a new title. **He gives each one of you the dignity of being a bride of Christ and binds you to the Son of God in a covenant to last for ever.

The Church is the bride of Christ. This title of the Church was given by the fathers and doctors of the Church to those like you who speak to us of the world to come, where there is not marrying or giving in marriage. You are a sign of the great mystery of salvation, proclaimed at the beginning of human history and fulfilled in the marriage covenant between Christ and his Church.

Make your whole life reflect your vocation and your dignity. Our holy mother the Church sees in you a chosen company within the flock of Christ. Through you the Church’s motherhood of grace bears its abundant fruit. Imitate the mother of God; desire to be called and to be handmaids of the Lord. Preserve the fullness of your faith, the steadfastness of your hope, the single-heartedness of your love. Be prudent and watch: keep the glory of your virginity uncorrupted by pride. Nourish your love of God by feeding on the body of Christ; strengthen it by self-denial; build it up by study of the Scriptures, by untiring prayer, by works of mercy. Let your thoughts be on the things of God. Let your life be hidden with Christ in God. Make it your concern to pray fervently for the spread of the Christian faith and for the unity of all Christians. Pray earnestly to God for the welfare of the married. Remember also those who have forgotten their Father’s goodness and have abandoned his love, so that God’s mercy may forgive where his justice must condemn.

Never forget that you are given over entirely to the service of the Church and of all your brothers and sisters. You are apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the Spirit and in the things of the world. Let your light then shine before men and women, that your Father in heaven may be glorified, and his plan of making all things one in Christ come to perfection. Love everyone, especially those in need. Help the poor, care for the weak, teach the ignorant, protect the young, minister to the old, bring strength and comfort to widows and all in adversity.

You have renounced marriage for the sake of Christ. Your motherhood will be a motherhood of the spirit, as you do the will of your Father and work with others in a spirit of charity, so that a great family of children may be born, or reborn, to the life of grace.

Your joy and your crown, even here on earth, will be Christ, the Son of the Virgin and the Bridegroom of virgins. He will call you to his presence and into his kingdom, where you will sing a new song as you follow the Lamb of God wherever he leads you.

With respect to why it’s directly spousal… the homily and the consecratory prayer itself makes it quite clear that this is a spousal vocation, and that consecrated virgins possess what earthly marriage represents. You can read it all here: consecratedvirgins.org/rite.pdf In this Rite, the bishop asks the virgin if she accepts solemn consecration as a bride of the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God. The consecratory prayer also talks about the virgin finding her comfort, her joy, her all in Christ Jesus her Spouse. This is a spousal relationship.

Religious men and women have as the essence of their vocation three elements: 1. evangelical counsels 2. communal life 3. separation from the world. They have community, that is, other persons as part of their vocation. Consecrated virgins have the Son of God “only”. The religious men and women are separated from the world. Consecrated virgins living in the world have “living in the world” as a specific part of their vocation. Finally, religious vow poverty, chastity, and obedience. These are NOT spousal vows. They are vows to live in a particular, communal manner as dictated by their charisms. Consecrated virgins by virtue of the consecratory prayer are created spouses of Christ. This is to be lived out, as noted above, in a spousal manner. Therefore, the vocation is directly spousal with God, as opposed to indirectly reflecting the spousal mystery of the Church as lived out by religious & hermits and even less directly by married men and women. Does this make sense?

 

[SerraSemper]

I’d like to ask you a bit more about the following.

How is this a direct spousal relationship? I feel like I’m being dense, but if it was a direct spousal relationship, wouldn’t that make Jesus a polygamist? I’m trying to understand in what way this relationship is direct for the consecrated virgins where it’s a metaphor for the religious, since it’s obviously not a sexual union. I don’t understand the nature of the supernatural change in their souls (and bodies?) that occurs.

I can see that all these “brides of Christ” are truly part of one Bride, the Church, and through His union with Her sacred person, the relationship is monogamous. However, I’m having trouble understanding in what sense the relationship is directly spousal.

Another couple questions, on different matters.

If a consecrated virgin was raped, would she still be canonically a consecrated virgin? Seeing as she’s physically not a virgin anymore.

A related question is, if a consecrated virgin fell into sexual immorality, could she ever recover her identity as consecrated virgin through the Sacrament of Confession or anything else?

My guess is, considering you said the change is ontological and the consecration irrevocable, these circumstances would not alter her new identity, and she would remain a consecrated virgin regardless. However, I’m not sure, so I thought I’d ask.

Question 2 A consecrated virgin does not lose her virginity because of rape. It may come as a surprise to you that some of the virgin martyrs such as St. Agatha were raped before they were martyred. This is because virginity is lost only when the marital act is done voluntarily.

Question 3. Those consecrated virgins who have lost their virginity by voluntary sexual experience are known as “fallen virgins”. They do not merit the crown of virginity in heaven but are asked to do penance for their “adulterous” acts. In earlier times, cv’s were stoned to death along with their lovers for adultery. St. Jerome says that God himself cannot restore virginity once lost. True, confession can remit the guilt, but the fact is that the woman is no longer a virgin and can never return to that state of innocence.

 

[emily123]

Brother JR,
I have a question for you. I have been wondering about this for a while. Can married people be consecrated? I am taking vows of poverty,chastity,obedience, and service to the poorest of the poor next year as a Lay Missionary of Charity(Mother Teresa’s movement). These private vows are according to my state in life. Will I be a consecrated person starting next year? I live a normal married life. There are a few groups in the Church in which married people may take the three vows. When married people take these vows, do they become consecrated? Mine are private, but there is a group in the Church (Holy Family Institute) in which married people take PUBLIC vows like religious do, but it is again according to their state in life. Would members of this group be consecrated? I also want to know if a married person taking public vows is in a better spiritual situation than a married person in private vows, as the Holy Family Institute claims? My confessor says there is no difference and both are equally good.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR,
I have a question for you. I have been wondering about this for a while. Can married people be consecrated? I am taking vows of poverty,chastity,obedience, and service to the poorest of the poor next year as a Lay Missionary of Charity(Mother Teresa’s movement). These private vows are according to my state in life. Will I be a consecrated person starting next year? I live a normal married life. There are a few groups in the Church in which married people may take the three vows. When married people take these vows, do they become consecrated? Mine are private, but there is a group in the Church (Holy Family Institute) in which married people take PUBLIC vows like religious do, but it is again according to their state in life. Would members of this group be consecrated? I also want to know if a married person taking public vows is in a better spiritual situation than a married person in private vows, as the Holy Family Institute claims? My confessor says there is no difference and both are equally good.

To be honest, that’s a canonical question and this is a very new phenomenon. I don’t know the answer. Let me ask one of our brothers who is Doctor of Canon Law. He’ll know the answer to this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The ranking goes like this, from top to bottom

bishop
presbyter
deacon
laity

The religious are not even in that list. We do not fit into the hierarchy of the Church, even with the superior vocation to the celibate life. We are outside of that list. There’s a good side and a down side to it. The good side is that we are not bound to the bishops or the laity, we are autonomous. The down side is that people often mistreat us. Oh well, you take the good with the bad.

Actually the ranking does include religious, this is seen in processions.

It is;

bishop
religious presbyter
presbyter
religious deacon
deacon
laity

 

[JReducation]

Actually the ranking does include religious, this is seen in processions.

It is;

bishop
religious presbyter
presbyter
religious deacon
deacon
laity

If we use this paradigm, we have to edit the bottom to include lay religious. However, canon law and Vatican II very clearly state that religious life is not part of the hierarchical structure of the Church, but it is essential to the holiness of the Church. As the doctrine on religious life states, the religious is the prophetic voice of what is to come in the Kingdom.

We don’t include religious life in the hierarchy, because the hierarchy is ministerial and ministry is accidental to the religious life. Religious life can exist without ministry and without Holy Orders as ancient Carmelite history shows us. I believe this is why canon law and Perfectae Caritatis did not want to include religious life in the hierarchy. Though it is true that there are religious who are part of the hierarchy by virtue of their orination, but not by virtue of their religious vocation. That must always be kept separate from the ordained state and from the secular state or the lines become blurred and religious life loses its identity, especially male religious life. This is what has happened to many orders of men.

It is better if we keep religious life in its own category to emphasize its uniqueness and its special role in the life of the Church, that it is not a pastoral role or sacramental role, but an eschatalogical role. You see where I’m coming from?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If we use this paradigm, we have to edit the bottom to include lay religious. However, canon law and Vatican II very clearly state that religious life is not part of the hierarchical structure of the Church, but it is essential to the holiness of the Church. As the doctrine on religious life states, the religious is the prophetic voice of what is to come in the Kingdom.

We don’t include religious life in the hierarchy, because the hierarchy is ministerial and ministry is accidental to the religious life. Religious life can exist without ministry and without Holy Orders as ancient Carmelite history shows us. I believe this is why canon law and Perfectae Caritatis did not want to include religious life in the hierarchy. Though it is true that there are religious who are part of the hierarchy by virtue of their orination, but not by virtue of their religious vocation. That must always be kept separate from the ordained state and from the secular state or the lines become blurred and religious life loses its identity, especially male religious life. This is what has happened to many orders of men.

It is better if we keep religious life in its own category to emphasize its uniqueness and its special role in the life of the Church, that it is not a pastoral role or sacramental role, but an eschatalogical role. You see where I’m coming from?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That’s right.

Religious precede their secular counterparts in processions due to a “primacy of honor” (<---- my words).

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually not among Catholics. This is still the official teaching of the Church, that this is a dogma defiend byTrent based on a doctrine handed down by Christ and Paul. What the Church has continued to try to do over the centuries is to explain what it means. Celibacy is such a mystery that man still has trouble grasping it. We tend to think of it as sexual. But sexuality and gender have nothing to do with it.

Celibacy is eschatalogiical. It is the anticipation of life in the Kingdom where men and women are not given to each other in marriage, but they are still male and female. We do not lose our gender or sexuality when we enter heaven. We simply no longer need marriage. It becomes obsolete. Because marriage is the sign of the union between Christ and his Church. Once in heaven, we will no longer need the sign. We will experience the reality of it without having it mediated for us through the sacrament of marriage.

What the consecrated celibate man or woman does is to embrace the life that is prepared for us in the Kingdom and begin to live it on earthy. That’s why there is no theological interpretation necessary, because the Kingdom is already self-explanaory. The reality of the Kingdome is a doctrine that has been handed down to us from the OT throuhg Jesus Christ, through the Church. Notice that we do not have a dogma about the Kingdom of God. We have a doctrine. We do not need such a formal pronouncement fromt he Church, because it is a reality that has been proclaimed through revelation and it is self-explanatory. There is nothing else that the Church can say to make it clearer or official. It is already accepted de fide by the faithful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Is there somewhere in the Catechism that notes this is the teaching of the Church?

 

[JReducation]

Is there somewhere in the Catechism that notes this is the teaching of the Church?

Here is a good Catholic site that gives a very good historical presentation on this teaching.

religious-vocation.com/

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF