Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[JReducation]

Br. JR, I would disagree that virgins = religious men and women. Virgins are known by tradition and by history as female virgins. Religious are by definition celibate but not necessarily virgins. In other words, they make vows to henceforth observe continence… whereas virgins have maintained their virginity. Consecrated virgins have been consecrated in their virginal bodies and souls to be brides of Christ through a rite reserved to bishops. The conferral of the sacramental of the consecration of virgins is considered the crowning glory of consecrated life for religious women if they are eligible. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is the basic requirement for the consecrated state. For religious men and women and diocesan hermits, this celibacy is vowed to be observed from that time on. For consecrated virgins, true virginity (not merely celibacy) is required, and this it is the bishop’s conferral of the consecration of virgins (analogous to ordination) which constitutes the female virgin a “sacred person” and a bride of Christ in the most direct sense and places her into the consecrated state (if she is living in the world and is not already in the consecrated state by means of religious vows). A virgin living in the world makes no vows in the ceremony, public or private, but that commitment to maintain perpetual virginity is made.

I see where you’re going here. You’re going with the rite for the consecration of virgins. There is such a rite as you described it.

The documents that have come out of the councils and from different popes were not written to address that population. They were written to address two questions:

1 To define the state of celibacy.

1. To make a clear distinction between the consecrated life and the priesthood and married life.

The question that often came up was what was the place of consecrated religious in the Church, since the consecrated life is not a sacrament. The Church has tried, over the years to explain that this is a doctrine that the Church receives directly from Jesus Christ and that Paul reinforces.

The term virgin slips in there, because at the time women religious were divided into two groups: choir nuns and lay sisters. The choir nuns had to be virgins. Those are the virgins to which they are referring. The issue becomes more complex, because choir nuns make the same vows and have the same canonical and theological place as monks and friars. Therefore, the law was applied equally to the three: choir nuns, monks and friars.

Later, this becomes a problem, because the Churhc forbids the founding of new religious orders… The Jesuits were the last religious order founded and they were not allowed to have a rule of their own. But that’s an explanation for another day.

After the porhibition, which is still in force today, the only kind of religious institute that you could found were congregations with simple vows. Religious in simple vows do not have to be virgins. That’s when the separation came in that there were virgins who are not members of the religious life and others who are. It was also decided that nuns would no longer go through the rite of consecration of virgins. Today, no nuns is a consecrated virgin, though many are virgins an of course they are consecrated religiuos in solemn vows, whereas sisters are consecrated religious in simple vows. All men reliigous founded after the Jesuits are also consecrated religious in simple vows. Only nuns, friars and monks are consecrated religious in solemn vows.

All make a vow of chastity that includes celibacy, just like the clergy in the Roman Church. However, the Church continues to teach that the Consecrated Religious life has the primacy among vocations, because of the form in which celibacy is lived, which is different from how a diocesan priest or bishop lives celibacy and because the call to religious life is not a call to ministry (though many of us are in ministry), but it religious life is a call to live for Christ and in Christ alone.

Holy Orders is a call to act in Persona Christi. But it is not a call to the same degree of intimacy with Christ as that of a religious. Of course there are many priests who are both. They are priests and religious. Usually people call them religious priests. The proper translation is Regular Priests or Brother Priests.

Pope John Paul II captured it best in our contemporary language, because he avoids the all the different canonical distinctions, some of which ceased to exist after the Council of Trent. Though Trent’s positon on the anathema has never been revoked. From what I gather, this makes many lay Catholics very angry. But we can’t revoke what the Church proclaims to be a doctrine revealed by Christ himself. The best that we can all to is to be faithful to the call that God has given us. In the end, it is fidelity on which we’re going to be judged.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

You mean the Church decides what isn’t your vocation? Also, is this related to “the power of the keys?”

The Church prefers to put it into the affirmative, because in the case of those to be ordained or those who are to make vows as religious men or women, it is the Church that says whether you have a call to be a cleric or a religious. You do not make that call. You postulate yourself to the Church, meaning that you present yourself either for ordination or religious vows. After a period of formation and testing, the Church decides whethere Christ has indeed called you.

The same applies to marriage. The determination of the validity of the sacrament of marriage belongs to the Church. The couple actually performs the rite of marriage. The cleric is only the witness. But the Church decides who has a call to the married life by establishing criteria for a valid marriage. If you do not meet that criteria, then you have not been called to marriage, at least not with that person, maybe with someone else or no one at all. That’s what the deacon or priest is supposed to help you figure out before your wedding. If you or your partner do not meet the criteria for a valid marriage, then you are not called to be married to each other or to be married at all. It really depends on the individual.

But as you can see, it is the Church who decides whether you can be ordained, make vows or be married. That is a power that the Church withholds for heself, because it is an act of Christ and only the Church can speak for Christ. It’s very interesting. If you ever get a chance to sit with a canon lawyer, it would be a very interesting conversaton.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SerraSemper]

I see where you’re going here. You’re going with the rite for the consecration of virgins. There is such a rite as you described it. YES. I intend to cover it below in my response…

The documents that have come out of the councils and from different popes were not written to address that population. Not of consecrated virgins per se but of Virginity AND consecrated life. Remember, religious brothers never qualified for the consecration of virgins. They were written to address two questions:

1 To define the state of celibacy.

1. To make a clear distinction between the consecrated life and the priesthood and married life.

The question that often came up was what was the place of consecrated religious in the Church, since the consecrated life is not a sacrament. The Church has tried, over the years to explain that this is a doctrine that the Church receives directly from Jesus Christ and that Paul reinforces.

The term virgin slips in there, because at the time women religious were divided into two groups: choir nuns and lay sisters. The choir nuns had to be virgins. Those are the virgins to which they are referring. The issue becomes more complex, because choir nuns make the same vows and have the same canonical and theological place as monks and friars. Therefore, the law was applied equally to the three: choir nuns, monks and friars.

Later, this becomes a problem, because the Churhc forbids the founding of new religious orders… The Jesuits were the last religious order founded and they were not allowed to have a rule of their own. But that’s an explanation for another day.

After the porhibition, which is still in force today, the only kind of religious institute that you could found were congregations with simple vows. Religious in simple vows do not have to be virgins. That’s when the separation came in that there were virgins who are not members of the religious life and others who are. It was also decided that nuns would no longer go through the rite of consecration of virgins. Today, no nuns is a consecrated virgin, though many are virgins an of course they are consecrated religiuos in solemn vows, whereas sisters are consecrated religious in simple vows. All men reliigous founded after the Jesuits are also consecrated religious in simple vows. Only nuns, friars and monks are consecrated religious in solemn vows.

All make a vow of chastity that includes celibacy, just like the clergy in the Roman Church. However, the Church continues to teach that the Consecrated -]Religious/-] life has the primacy among vocations, because of the form in which celibacy is lived, which is different from how a diocesan priest or bishop lives celibacy and because the call to religious life is not a call to ministry (though many of us are in ministry), but it -]religious /-] consecrated life is a call to live for Christ and in Christ alone.

Holy Orders is a call to act in Persona Christi. But it is not a call to the same degree of intimacy with Christ as that of a religious. Of course there are many priests who are both. They are priests and religious. Usually people call them religious priests. The proper translation is Regular Priests or Brother Priests. Agreed.

Pope John Paul II captured it best in our contemporary language, because he avoids the all the different canonical distinctions, some of which ceased to exist after the Council of Trent. Though Trent’s positon on the anathema has never been revoked. From what I gather, this makes many lay Catholics very angry. But we can’t revoke what the Church proclaims to be a doctrine revealed by Christ himself. The best that we can all to is to be faithful to the call that God has given us. In the end, it is fidelity on which we’re going to be judged.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother JR, again, I must again disagree with you here as both a canon lawyer specializing in the law and the theology of consecrated life, and as a consecrated virgin. Throughout the centuries **until the present time **religious women in solemn vows if they were virgins and if it was in the tradition of the Order were allowed to receive the consecration of virgins. Again, there are religious women in both solemn and simple vows who are consecrated virgins who received the consecration of virgins for religious (often years) after their final/solemn profession of vows. This is considered the crowning glory of consecrated life for women. It was only in the 1900s that the consecration was not bestowed upon virgins living in the world (that is, not religious). This was revised in 1970, and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law which permitted the consecration to be conferred both upon religious and virgins living in the world.

part ii coming as I’ve run out of characters allowed for a post

 

[SerraSemper]

Part II

There are probably about 2000 consecrated virgins living in the world, and they are members of the consecrated state, along with religious men and women (some of whom are religious** with the consecration of virgins**, and diocesan hermits. Our Holy Father received about 500 of them from 52 different countries in a private audience in 2008. I was there and privileged to witness that beautiful gathering.

The consecration of virgins living in the world constitutes the virgin a “sacred person”, a “bride of Christ”, and places her in the consecrated state canonically. Such a virgin does not make vows of poverty, chastity, or obedience. Rather, the consecratory prayer ontologically changes her into the bride of Christ through the power of the Church. It is similar to the sacrament of ordination in which a man presents himself and the bishop confers the sacrament of orders upon him… So too, the virgin presents herself before the bishop and he confers the sacramental (not sacrament) consecration upon her and it ontologically changes her being and relationship. Again, this is the one (and ancient) instance in which the person is placed within the consecrated state without having made vows.

Hence, the wording of Vita Consecrata which designates that chastity is the underlying common factor of consecrated life. [The Church has always taught the pre-eminence of perfect chastity for the sake of the Kingdom,and rightly considers it the “door” of the whole consecrated life. VC 32] It is not the vows (which when made by a hermit or member of a religious institute and accepted by the competent authority constitutes a person in the consecrated state) which is the underlying foundation of consecrated life, but the commitment to lifelong celibacy/chastity. The consecrated virgin is a virgin and maintains perpetual virginity/chastity.

 

[JReducation]

Part II

There are probably about 2000 consecrated virgins living in the world, and they are members of the consecrated state, along with religious men and women (some of whom are religious** with the consecration of virgins**, and diocesan hermits. Our Holy Father received about 500 of them from 52 different countries in a private audience in 2008. I was there and privileged to witness that beautiful gathering.

The consecration of virgins living in the world constitutes the virgin a “sacred person”, a “bride of Christ”, and places her in the consecrated state canonically. Such a virgin does not make vows of poverty, chastity, or obedience. Rather, the consecratory prayer ontologically changes her into the bride of Christ through the power of the Church. It is similar to the sacrament of ordination in which a man presents himself and the bishop confers the sacrament of orders upon him… So too, the virgin presents herself before the bishop and he confers the sacramental (not sacrament) consecration upon her and it ontologically changes her being and relationship. Again, this is the one (and ancient) instance in which the person is placed within the consecrated state without having made vows.

Hence, the wording of Vita Consecrata which designates that chastity is the underlying common factor of consecrated life. [The Church has always taught the pre-eminence of perfect chastity for the sake of the Kingdom,and rightly considers it the “door” of the whole consecrated life. VC 32] It is not the vows (which when made by a hermit or member of a religious institute and accepted by the competent authority constitutes a person in the consecrated state) which is the underlying foundation of consecrated life, but the commitment to lifelong celibacy/chastity. The consecrated virgin is a virgin and maintains perpetual virginity/chastity.

I believe that we’re in agreement, but we’re just talking about two different populations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SerraSemper]

I tend to agree with a lot of what you write. The only point I was trying to make here is that there are two senses of the word “virgin”, (and that you can’t replace the word virgin with religious because although religious can be virgins, not all virgins are religious).

One and the primary and technical sense of the word virgin is that which our Church tradition has reserved to indicate those females who have never *voluntarily *lost bodily integrity. Only such women were known as virgins in ancient times. Only they qualified for the solemn consecration of virgins/veiling conferred by a bishop even in ancient times. Only such females are eligible for the consecration of virgins (whether as members of religious institutes or as women living in the world) today. To this day, in our liturgy, the Church honors with the title of virgin those who have perpetually preserved their virginity **and ** were in one or more of the following categories of women: 1) those who were consecrated as a virgin/veiled by their bishop; to this category belongs ancient virgins such as Agnes and Cecilia and we will probably see more contemporary ones consecrated in the new 1970 rite 2) those who took vows/promises as a member of a religious institute, secular institute, or as a diocesan hermit 3) those who made a private vow of lifelong chastity for the sake of the kingdom such as Bl. Kateri Tekawitha or 4) those who were martyred in the state of virginity such as Bl. Pierina.

The secondary sense of the word virgin is that of those who are more like ascetics in that they vow/promise chastity, regardless of whether they are virgins in the primary sense or not. It is to such individuals that most of the encyclicals have been mainly directed, including religious and priests.

My point is that when the objective superiority of the state of virginity/celibacy was upheld by the Councils/Popes, those envisioned in this state were both groups of celibates, the virgins in the primary and strict sense, and the virgins/celibates in the looser secondary sense. What unites both groups is the conscious willed lifelong commitment to either preserving virginity or vowing/promising lifelong celibacy/chastity. The consecrated state is entered either through vow/promise of perfect chastity accepted by the competent authority or by the conferral of the the consecration of virgins.

St. Agnes, although a consecrated virgin, did not take religious vows. She is honored as a virgin. It is interesting to note that St. Scholastica, St. Frances Cabrini, and St. Elizabeth Seton were foundresses of religious orders. St. Scholastica was both a consecrated virgin and a religious. She is honored as such. St. Frances Cabrini is honored as a virgin religious and although she was a virgin and a religious, she was not a consecrated virgin. St. Elizabeth Seton was a religious but not a virgin. She is honored as a religious celibate, but not as a virgin since she obviously had marital relations.

 

[angelic06]

This is in conflict with the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church. The dogma is that the call to religious life, as lived out by those who are members of religious orders and make vows to live the evengelical counsels: chastity, poverty and obedience, have responded to the most sacred and highest call of all. The priesthood and married life do not involve require the public profession of the evangleical counsels in a stable religiious family.

In addtion, the Church believes and teaches that those with legitimate authority in the Church have the final word on whether you have a vocation or not. If a bishop reject you for the priesthood. then you do not have a vocation. If the religious superior rejects you for vows, then you do not have a vocation to that way of life. The same would apply to marriage. If you are turned down, then you do not have a vocation.

In the case that you mentioned, if a mans has been allowed to be ordained, then he has a vocation to the diaconate or priesthood, not the married life. *** God does not call you to the married life and allow a bishop to approve you for ordination*** or a suerior to approve you for religious vows. It does not work that way in the law of the Church.

The Church decides what is your vocation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

To be fair, for the eastern Catholic churches, a calling to marriage and the presbyterate can exist in the same man, and in the Latin church a calling to marriage and the diaconate. Or are we to say that such men were not intended to be married but the Church merely permitted said ordinations to proceed?

Paul R. Viola
(a layman not entirely sure what his calling is, be it to remain single or to be married, but who is convinced that God does not want him to be either a priest or a brother)

 

[JReducation]

To be fair, for the eastern Catholic churches, a calling to marriage and the presbyterate can exist in the same man, and in the Latin church a calling to marriage and the diaconate. Or are we to say that such men were not intended to be married but the Church merely permitted said ordinations to proceed?

In the Eastern Churches the rule is that married men can be ordained to both the diaconate and the presbyterate. In the Roman Church married men can be ordained to the diaconate and only in exceptional cases to the presbyterate. However, all 22 Catholic Churches hold celibacy and consecrated chastity to be a superior calling to marriage. The Eastern Catholic Churches hold religious and secular clergy who are celibate in very high esteem. In some of the Churches the men go as far as to wear a different head covering as a sign of their celibacy. For example, the Greeks will wear a veil and the married clergy will wear a hat without the veil. They Easern Catholics and the Orthodox look upon celibacy as a mystery between God and man. Celibates are considered among the elect. Therefore, only a celibate man can be bishop. Celibacy is one of the signs of the vocation to the episcopal state in all of the Apostolic Churches. Even in our own Roman Church, a married priest cannot be ordained a bishop.

[Paul R. Viola
(a layman not entirely sure what his calling is, be it to remain single or to be married, but who is convinced that God does not want him to be either a priest or a brother)

I’m confused here. What is the message? HELP!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
[/quote]

 

[JReducation]

I tend to agree with a lot of what you write. The only point I was trying to make here is that there are two senses of the word “virgin”, (and that you can’t replace the word virgin with religious because although religious can be virgins, not all virgins are religious).

My point is that when the objective superiority of the state of virginity/celibacy was upheld by the Councils/Popes, those envisioned in this state were both groups of celibates, the virgins in the primary and strict sense, and the virgins/celibates in the looser secondary sense. What unites both groups is the conscious willed lifelong commitment to either preserving virginity or vowing/promising lifelong celibacy/chastity. The consecrated state is entered either through vow/promise of perfect chastity accepted by the competent authority or by the conferral of the the consecration of virgins…

The population that I’m trying to explain is the consecrated religious and the ordained, because that’s the population that most lay people are familiar with. I understand about the consecration of virgins that originated in the early Church. But that’s not a well known population today, even though tye exist.

The other point that I always try to help people on the forum understand is the theological and canonical difference between the promise of celibacy made by a cleric and the vow of chastity made by a religious. Most people think that the two are interchangeable. They’re not. Chastity includes celibacy, but celibacy does not include consecrated chastity. The vow of chastity goes over and beyond purity. The best way that I can explain it is that the evangelical counsels are really one vow of which consecrated chastity is one part of the total package.

Since you’re a canonist, you may be able to explain it in less abstract terms. My field is Mystical Theology. I can get into the whole theology of chastity and celibacy. But trying to explain the difference and similarity of the two, in observable language, is more difficult. Even the Church has a difficult job explaining it. The best explanation that I have seen is actually written by the Orthodox. They approach the vow of chastity as a participation in the mystery of the incarnation of the chaste Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

Where would a person who has taken a private vow of celibacy fit in to this question of the “blessedness-of-the-state-of-life” continuem? Also, what about people who do not have a vocation to marriage or to priesthood/consecrated life? Do they have a vocation and how does the Church view them?

 

[JReducation]

Where would a person who has taken a private vow of celibacy fit in to this question of the “blessedness-of-the-state-of-life” continuem? Also, what about people who do not have a vocation to marriage or to priesthood/consecrated life? Do they have a vocation and how does the Church view them?

If I’m understanding the Council of Trent correctly and the documents that followed, I would have to say that a private or public vow of celibacy are not in question. The documents seem to deal with the virtue of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. It was only after the Council of Trent that the Church began to speak more directly to consecrated life. However, from my understanding of the documents voluntary celibacy is always a virtue to be desired. Therefore, whether the vow is private or public, it is equally meritorious.

The Church makes a distinction between celibacy and consecrated life as it is lived by religious, because religious live in a public manner. That’s the difference.

People who are not called to marriage, priesthood or the religious life do have a vocation to live the Gospel according to their state in life. There are many people who are not clergy, religiuos or married. Some are members of secular institutes, others are hermits, others are consecrated virgins and others do not fall into any of these categories, but are still faithful Catholics. They share in the same universal call to holiness as everyone else. But they achieve holiness through their state in life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Those must be schismatics, then. Priests are married to the Church, not to women. Priests who are not celibate, except for very grave reasons, are polygamous; they have two wives: the Church and a woman. Why have three divided loyalties: between the Church, the world, and God instead of one with virginity (God) or two (wife/world & God) with marriage? Why is celibacy not preferable (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 7:33)?

St. Peter was married.

Note, I said “Catholic” and not “Roman Catholic” – there always have been married Catholic priests. If you doubt, read any reputable history of the Catholic Church.

 

[angelic06]

In the Eastern Churches the rule is that married men can be ordained to both the diaconate and the presbyterate. In the Roman Church married men can be ordained to the diaconate and only in exceptional cases to the presbyterate. However, all 22 Catholic Churches hold celibacy and consecrated chastity to be a superior calling to marriage. The Eastern Catholic Churches hold religious and secular clergy who are celibate in very high esteem. In some of the Churches the men go as far as to wear a different head covering as a sign of their celibacy. For example, the Greeks will wear a veil and the married clergy will wear a hat without the veil. They Easern Catholics and the Orthodox look upon celibacy as a mystery between God and man. Celibates are considered among the elect. Therefore, only a celibate man can be bishop. Celibacy is one of the signs of the vocation to the episcopal state in all of the Apostolic Churches. Even in our own Roman Church, a married priest cannot be ordained a bishop.

I’m confused here. What is the message? HELP!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Og, ignore the signature part of it. There is no message—I just didn’t want people thinking that I was an expert in things that I am not personally part of. My apologies for the confusion.

 

[diggerdomer]

In the Eastern Churches the rule is that married men can be ordained to both the diaconate and the presbyterate. In the Roman Church married men can be ordained to the diaconate and only in exceptional cases to the presbyterate. However, all 22 Catholic Churches hold celibacy and consecrated chastity to be a superior calling to marriage. The Eastern Catholic Churches hold religious and secular clergy who are celibate in very high esteem. In some of the Churches the men go as far as to wear a different head covering as a sign of their celibacy. For example, the Greeks will wear a veil and the married clergy will wear a hat without the veil. They Easern Catholics and the Orthodox look upon celibacy as a mystery between God and man. Celibates are considered among the elect. Therefore, only a celibate man can be bishop. Celibacy is one of the signs of the vocation to the episcopal state in all of the Apostolic Churches. Even in our own Roman Church, a married priest cannot be ordained a bishop.

I disagree that Catholics consider celibacy and consecrated chastity as superior to marriage. Where does the Church teach this?

As I understand it, if this were true, then if everyone in the Church pursued the “higher path” (which would seem to be laudable, by this argument) the Church would cease to exist (i.e. once all these celibates and consecrated religious died…no more Catholics).

Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

Those must be schismatics, then. Priests are married to the Church, not to women. Priests who are not celibate, except for very grave reasons, are polygamous; they have two wives: the Church and a woman. Why have three divided loyalties: between the Church, the world, and God instead of one with virginity (God) or two (wife/world & God) with marriage? Why is celibacy not preferable (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 7:33)?

GOOD GRIEF, NO!

There are 22 Churches that make up the one Catholic Church. Do confuse the Eastern Churches with the Orthodox Churches that are in schism. There are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches and one Western Catholic Church, bettern known as the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest of the 22 Catholic Churches; therefore, it is better knoan than the other 21 Catholic Churches.

But the Roman Catholic Church is one of two Catholic Churches that has mandatory celibacy. The other Catholic Churches will ordain married men to both the diaconate and the priesthood. In all 22 Catholic Churches, you must be celibate to be ordained a bishop.

The reason for the discipline of celibacy int he Roman Catholic Church is that it was instituted by St. Paul. The other Apostles founded the other Catholic Churches in the East, but they never introduced celibacy. The Eastern Catholics always had celibate men, but these were monks, not secular priests. Today they have celibate and married secular priests, but not a tthe beginning.

The Roman Church always had both, celibate and married secular priests. But married priests died out rather early, because of the strong Pauline influence. All of the Catholic Churches agree that the Roman Church must keep celibacy, even for secular priests. Obviously religious must be celibate in all the Churches.

All the Churches agree that the Roman Church, which is the one that most of us know well, must keep celibacy, even though they do have mandatory celibacy in the East. The reason behind it is the belief that God inspired Paul to introduce it to the Christians of the Roman Empire for a purpose. We should never tamper with God’s designs. Even though the Eastern bishosp ordain married men, they also feel very strongly that the Roman Church should only do so in exceptional cases, such as converts who were priests in other Christian churches.

Even though the Eastern bishops do not require that all the candidates to the secular priesthood be single, they actually do teach that the celibate state is a higher calling than the married state. This was a teaching of the Council of Trent where both Roman and Eastern Bishops participated. They agreed on a number of doctrines, but two are very pertinent to this thread. 1) They agreed on the objective superiority of the celibate state. 2) They agreed that religious life takes its roots from Christ’s life and is a higher calling, because the religious lives the life that Christ lived: chaste for the sake of the Kingdom, poor and totally dependent on God’s Providence, obedient to the Will of the Father, in a structured apostolic brotherhood. Apostolic is being used here referring to Christ’s life with the apostles, not the apostolate.

But there is nothing schismatic about the Eastern Catholic Churches. They have secular priests who are married and some who are celibate. They also have religious who are always celibate, just as the Western Church does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I disagree that Catholics consider celibacy and consecrated chastity as superior to marriage. Where does the Church teach this?

As I understand it, if this were true, then if everyone in the Church pursued the “higher path” (which would seem to be laudable, by this argument) the Church would cease to exist (i.e. once all these celibates and consecrated religious died…no more Catholics).

Thank you.

**Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32

“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority. Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)”

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32

“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Council of Trent

“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 916

“The state of the consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a “more intimate” consecration, rooted in Baptism and dedicated totally to God. In the consecrated life, Christ’s faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more nearly, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come.”

I Corinthians Chp. VII

“It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. [v.1] Indeed, I wish that everyone were like I am [celibate]. [v.7] I should like you to be free from anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord; how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world; how he may please his wife, and he is divided. [v.32] Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.” [v.28] (see also Mark 12:18-27, Mtt 19:10-12, 2 Timothy Ch. 2:3**)

What is “Consecrated Life”?

The term consecrated life refers to a state to which men and women take public religious vows to the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity, and obedience), ordinarily within the context of religious communities; monasteries, convents, friaries, etc. By taking religious vows, such men and women follow the Jesus’ counsels in a more perfect way. As Our Lord expressely stated, they are counsels for those who desire to become “perfect” (cf. Matt. 19:10-12, Matt. 19:16-22; Matt. 5:48; Mark 10). Such a life is considered an act of supererogation, that is; exceeding the minimum necessary for salvation. It is thus that the Church gives “preeminence” to the religious vocation, and recognizes it as a supernatural calling (nb., CCC, p. 914-945)

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SerraSemper]

**Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32

What is “Consecrated Life”?

The term consecrated life refers to a state to which men and women take public religious vows to the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity, and obedience), ordinarily within the context of religious communities; monasteries, convents, friaries, etc. By taking religious vows, such men and women follow the Jesus’ counsels in a more perfect way. As Our Lord expressely stated, they are counsels for those who desire to become “perfect” (cf. Matt. 19:10-12, Matt. 19:16-22; Matt. 5:48; Mark 10). Such a life is considered an act of supererogation, that is; exceeding the minimum necessary for salvation. It is thus that the Church gives “preeminence” to the religious vocation,** and recognizes it as a supernatural calling (nb., CCC, p. 914-945)

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Dear Br. JR,

Once again, I would beg to differ. The consecrated life loosely speaking encompasses all forms of life in which one is a committed single for the sake of the kingdom. The consecrated state has three forms (religious life for men and women; consecrated virgins; diocesan hermits) and of those three forms only two take public religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Consecrated virgins do not take vows. They do not take religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Just as you try to dispel the myth that all priests are consecrated, so I try to dispel the belief that all consecrated life is religious. Sure, it may be the most commonly known form, but it is not the only form and one should not equate the vows when it is not the most essential element. Personally, I felt gyped that people only speak about religious life when touching on the consecrated state, because I did not discover my own vocation until I was in my 20’s for that very reason. I have heard that there are about 600 consecrated virgins in Paris, France. That would say that is probably the fastest growing vocation in the consecrated life there.

 

[Geremia]

If you doubt, read any reputable history of the Catholic Church.

I don’t doubt this. Just because it happened in the Church’s infancy, doesn’t mean that celibacy is useless or not ideal now. Has not the Church matured since Her infancy, grown more fully in the Holy Spirit? I suppose if you’re a Protestant, you don’t believe in the Holy Spirit working through tradition of the Church but just your private judgment and the Scripture only.

 

[JReducation]

Dear Br. JR,

Once again, I would beg to differ. The consecrated life loosely speaking encompasses all forms of life in which one is a committed single for the sake of the kingdom. The consecrated state has three forms (religious life for men and women; consecrated virgins; diocesan hermits) and of those three forms only two take public religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Consecrated virgins do not take vows. They do not take religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Just as you try to dispel the myth that all priests are consecrated, so I try to dispel the belief that all consecrated life is religious. Sure, it may be the most commonly known form, but it is not the only form and one should not equate the vows when it is not the most essential element. Personally, I felt gyped that people only speak about religious life when touching on the consecrated state, because I did not discover my own vocation until I was in my 20’s for that very reason. I have heard that there are about 600 consecrated virgins in Paris, France. That would say that is probably the fastest growing vocation in the consecrated life there.

I understand what you’re saying. But you’re addressing the wrong person. I’m using the term “consecrated life” as it is used in Church documents. It is more commonly applied to religious. There are consecrated virgins. I realize this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

**Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32

“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority**. Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)”

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32

“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Council of Trent

“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 916

“The state of the consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a “more intimate” consecration, rooted in Baptism and dedicated totally to God. In the consecrated life, Christ’s faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more nearly, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come.”

I Corinthians Chp. VII

“It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. [v.1] Indeed, I wish that everyone were like I am [celibate]. [v.7] I should like you to be free from anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord; how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world; how he may please his wife, and he is divided. [v.32] Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.” [v.28] (see also Mark 12:18-27, Mtt 19:10-12, 2 Timothy Ch. 2:3)

What is “Consecrated Life”?

The term consecrated life refers to a state to which men and women take public religious vows to the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity, and obedience), ordinarily within the context of religious communities; monasteries, convents, friaries, etc. By taking religious vows, such men and women follow the Jesus’ counsels in a more perfect way. As Our Lord expressely stated, they are counsels for those who desire to become “perfect” (cf. Matt. 19:10-12, Matt. 19:16-22; Matt. 5:48; Mark 10). Such a life is considered an act of supererogation, that is; exceeding the minimum necessary for salvation. It is thus that the Church gives “preeminence” to the religious vocation, and recognizes it as a supernatural calling (nb., CCC, p. 914-945)

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you.

I guess, what I’m asking is, do you think or do you interpret these statements as saying that objectively married people are less holy than those in religious orders/consecrated life?

If so…do you really think that’s coherent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Having an “objective superiority” is ok…depending on what that statement is referring to. Is it referring to a superiority to Christian marriage? Or merely some more anonymous superiority to some secular state in life (which of course may include marriage, secular or otherwise)?

Is there anything you find in the teachings of Vatican II or the Catechism that support your claim?

The Council of Trent citation is ok. I’m not claiming one state is superior to the other, which is what Trent seems to be teaching against.

Thank you.