Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[JReducation]

I’d feel the monastic way of life was the better way than being a priest or living a virginal life out in the world, but that’s if I was inclined to believe that.

I don’t believe that it is a better way of life, even though St. Jerome would disagree with me on that for the post part. I feel it’s on equal footing because both ways of life are doing something that was cherished in the bible.

Actually the Church places them in this order of hierarchy:

Consecrated Virgin

Hermit

Monk or Nun

Active religious

Married person

Notice that the priesthood is not on that list. The reason is that Holy Orders is a sacrament, not a way of life. Marriage is very unique, because it’s both: sacrament and way of life.

Holy Orders includes: deacons, priests and bishops… We call them clerics or clergy.

Clerics can be any of the above, except consecrated virgins or they can be secular men who are celibate, but not consecrated religious.

You can’t compare Holy Orders to any of the above, because it’s not a way of life. It’s a call to service. Before a man is ordained a deacon, he must first settle into that way of life to which God is calling him. He must choose to be secular and celibate, married, active religious, monk, or hermit. When he has made his commitment to that way of life, then he can proceed to Holy Orders.

The function of dacons, priests and bishops is essential to the existence of the Church. Thus they are not expendible. They alone can administer the sacraments and dispense grace. Their role in the Church is of the utmost importance to the Church.

Their way of life is a different call from the ministry. That’s why you have clerics who are secular, but celibate; clerics who are secular and married; clerics who are celibate and religious; clerics who are celibate and monks, clerics who celibate and hermits. You can combine Holy Orders with any way of life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Actually the Church places them in this order of hierarchy:

Consecrated Virgin

Hermit

Monk or Nun

Active religious

Married person

Why is the hierarchy ordered in this way?

Also, I have some other questions. Isn’t a monk or a nun a consecrated virgin too, since they have vows of chastity? If they already are consecrated virgins in addition to the rest of their vows, why is being a consecrated virgin alone higher on the list than people who have taken these vows in addition to others?

Also, some monks and nuns, like the Carthusians, essentially are hermits. I’ve heard that some Carthusians have even taken a vow so extreme that they never speak a word to anyone throughout their lives, from the first time they take the vow to the end of their lives. One doesn’t get much more secluded than that!

Also, some monks and nuns are active religious, aren’t they?

So I don’t understand the distinctions between these roles or the ordering very well. I would appreciate understanding more about this.

 

[JReducation]

Why is the hierarchy ordered in this way?

Also, I have some other questions. Isn’t a monk or a nun a consecrated virgin too, since they have vows of chastity?

A consecrated virgin is a woman who is literally a virgin. A monk is male. Consecrated virgin does not apply to him, because this vocation is for women only. A nun can be a consecrated virgin, if she is a virgin. Some nuns are widows. Or a woman may be a consecrated virgin, but never become a nun. A woman who is a virgin has a choice. She can be either a virgin, a nun or both. A woman who has been married can be a nun, but not a consecrated virgin.

If they already are consecrated virgins in addition to the rest of their vows, why is being a consecrated virgin alone higher on the list than people who have taken these vows in addition to others?

A vow of chastity is not a vow of virginity for the reaosns that I explained above. A religious (male or female) makes a vow of chasity whereby he/she promises celibacy and embraces a rule of life as part of a new family. It makes not difference if he/she is a virgin or not. From that moment on he/she lives as a celibate person who is a member of a religius family.

Also, some monks and nuns, like the Carthusians, essentially are hermits.

hermits are not monks or nuns. A hermit lives a solitary life. A person can be a hermit within an order such as the Carhusians or he can be an independent hermit who makes vows to the local bishop. Hermits to talk. For example, the Carthusians have a community day once a week, usually on Sundays. They eat together, pray together and recreate together on tha tday. Also on high holy days such as Easter, Christmas and the big solemnities of their order, they do spend those together.

A monk or a nun lives in a monastery, but he/she lives with a community and they do everything together every day. Not like hermits who only get together once a week and holidays. Monks and nunds have a daily period of recreation when they talk to each other. They can also talk to each other during work, it’s necessary. They work together, unlike hermits who work alone.

Also, some monks and nuns are active religious, aren’t they?

There are communities such as the Franciscans, Carmelites, Missionaries of Charity who live what is called a mixed life. We are both monastic and active. For example, my community works outside the house about 30 hours a week. Divide that by seven and you’ll get a rough idea of how many hours a day we spend with the laity. The rest of the day is spent in silence, Liturgy of the Hours, doing manual labor, spiritual reading, community meals, community recreation, and other community activities or activities alone, such as what I’m doing right now. These communities are called mendicants. The men are usually called friars.

There are other active communities like the Jesuits, Salesians, Christian Brothers, Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of St. Dominic who are full-time active religious. They spend from 50 to 60 hours a week in the apostolate. They come together or mass, morning and evening prayer, mediation, an evening meal and a weekly community meeting. They recreate on their own schedule. Some houses usually have at least one night a week when they do something together, some have more than one night. These are known as active religious.

The mendicants are the bridge between the monks and the active communities. We have a shorter work week and a shorter week of solitude, silence and prayer. When we put them together that gives us a full week. But the Church classifies us as active, because we do leave the religious house for ministry. Even though we do not do other things that the active communities do.

For example, in my community we have one day a week when we are all home. It’s a light day. We have our usual prayer time, mass, meals and recreation. The rest of the day we can do whatever we want. We can talk, walk, play games or be alone. The other six days we split between five hours of ministry and the other hours are for prayer, community functions and solitude. We visit our families once every five years for 10 days. They can visit us up to three times a year.

The reason that the consecrated virgin is at the top of the pyramid is because if you notice, her life is totally dedicated to God. She is a person who has never had intimacy with another being. And her consecration cannot be dispensed. Once a woman makes an act of consecration before the local bishop, she is bound for life. A religious in vows may be dispensed by the Holy Father. A virgin cannot be dispensed.

For example in my case, besides the fact that I’m male, if I were female, I still couldn’t be a consecrated virgin. I’m a widower and father of two children. I’m a mendicant or a friar, which ever one you want to call me. I no longer belong to my family, including my children. My family is my religious community. When I make the vow of chastity I not only vowed to stay single, but I also vowed to love and care for my brothers as my new family and I gave up my biological family. I also gave up my children. I visit them every five years. They can see me three times a year.

My son lives about 3/4 of a mile north of me, on the same road. But we can’t visit each other. Sometimes we’ll run into each other at mass,or at the grocery store. Of course we greet each other all the stuff that people ask when they meet. You’re detached, but you’re not enemies. I still love him an he loves me. My daugher lives 1,000 miles away in another state and city. She and I stay in touch via e-mail.

Now do you see the differences?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SerraSemper]

All of us who are religious know this and are aware of this document. But it does not take away from the bishop’s authority to decide what he wants in his diocese. These bishops are not saying that the religious must do what is contrary to their statutes. They’re saying, if you don’t have a veil (women) and a habit of some kind (both), I don’t want you working in my diocese. This the bishops may say and they have done it. I just remembered the other bishop, I’m almost sure he was from Philly, Cardinal Crowe. He won. Religious has to leave his diocese. Bishop Torres made religious leave his diocese. The bishop of Arlington, who is now deceased and I can’t recall his name, also made religious leave his diocese.

They were not telling anyone to change their statutes. They were saying who could work in their dioceses and who could not.

I believe that this is the point that many religious fail to remember. The institute has its rights, but so does the bishop. If you’re in his parishes, his schools, his institutions, you work on his terms. One of the groups that had to leave the Ponc diocese were the Missionary Servants of the Blessed Trinity (sisters). They are an institute of Pontifical Right. Another group that had to leave were the Sisters of Divine Providence, another institute of Pontifical Right.

In Arlington, the De la Salle Brothers had to leave. They ran one of the diocesan schools. The bishop said that he would prefer to hire lay people to run the school.

I don’t know who may have left Philadelphia. But I know that it was the talk of the Mid-Atlantic for a long time. I am more familiar with Ponce and Arlington because I was stationed in both dioceses when the bishops put these requirements on the table. They would only grant permission to communities who met their criteria. And we were told that we had no voice over the matter, because the bishop was not involving himself in internal matters. He was being very explicit out ministriesin his diocese that were diocesan.

We can quote canon law, but so can the bishops. I have yet to see a bishop lose a battle to a religious community except in matters that are out of his jurisdiction. Most bishops are prudent enough to know what is outside of their jurisdiction. I believe most of these men are good men and mean well for their dioceses, even when I disagree with them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Certainly if you are limiting your comments about the veil to women religious in diocesan run ministries or apostolates I would agree that the bishop has the authority. He could declare that women need to wear hats and gloves or green slacks if they wish to be employed in diocesan work, which might limit the pool of women willing to work under such conditions. What a bishop could not do is kick out a religious order of Pontifical Right from his diocese (otherwise known as suppression - the canonical term for closing down an institute) on the basis of the women religious whose constitutions do not mandate the veil for not wearing a veil, particularly those who are not engaged in diocesan apostolates, and I seriously doubt that a member of such a community could be banished per canon 679 for not wearing a veil when it is not in the constitutions.

Don’t misread me. It could be different if the constitutions mandated both a veil and a habit and the religious were wearing neither one nor the other. If the wearing of a veil were such a priority on the part of Rome (which is what you were implying with the ongoing Apostolic Visitation), why hasn’t Cardinal Rode asked that Sr. Enrica Rosanna who works at the CIVCSVA don both a veil and a habit regardless of whether her constitutions demand one or not?

As a side note, interestingly enough, by requiring habits to be worn, the bishop would automatically exclude the brothers of charity founded by Blessed Mother Teresa as they are forbidden to wear a habit. I will not continue on this topic of veils because it is tangental to the op.

 

[JReducation]

Certainly if you are limiting your comments about the veil to women religious in diocesan run ministries or apostolates I would agree that the bishop has the authority. He could declare that women need to wear hats and gloves or green slacks if they wish to be employed in diocesan work, which might limit the pool of women willing to work under such conditions. What a bishop could not do is kick out a religious order of Pontifical Right from his diocese (otherwise known as suppression - the canonical term for closing down an institute) on the basis of the women religious whose constitutions do not mandate the veil for not wearing a veil, particularly those who are not engaged in diocesan apostolates, and I seriously doubt that a member of such a community could be banished per canon 679 for not wearing a veil when it is not in the constitutions.

Don’t misread me. It could be different if the constitutions mandated both a veil and a habit and the religious were wearing neither one nor the other. If the wearing of a veil were such a priority on the part of Rome (which is what you were implying with the ongoing Apostolic Visitation), why hasn’t Cardinal Rode asked that Sr. Rosanna Enrica who works at the CIVCSVA don both a veil and a habit regardless of whether her constitutions demand one or not?

As a side note, interestingly enough, by requiring habits to be worn, the bishop would automatically exclude the brothers of charity founded by Blessed Mother Teresa as they are forbidden to wear a habit. I will not continue on this topic of veils because it is tangental to the op.

I know about the Missionary Brothers of Charity. We don’t have them here, but we do have the Marianist Brothers who have never had a habit either. But they don’t work for the diocese. They run their own school. The bishop does not get involved with the ministries and institutions that are not diocesan. His rule applies to diocesan ministries and institutions. He will only “hire” those religious who wear some kind of habit. He’s not too particular as to what it looks like. We have a group of sisters that don’t really have a habit. They wear black and whtie and a veil. But each one wears something different. They are Franciscans. He’s ok with that. He’s not OK with non habited religious staffing diocesan institutions or running diocesan programs. He’s not going to chase you out of town. He just won’t hire you.

This was the same precedent that was set in Ponce, Philly and Arlington. People found themselves out of a job. Those religious who had a ministry of their own stayed in the diocese and those who did not left the diocese. As I said, I was not in Philly. I just know about that one. I was in Ponce and I was in Arlington when the two bishops, years apart, made these policies.

I heard a rumor, but I won’t repeat the name of the diocese, because rumors can also be gossip. I heard a rumor that some bishop in the mid-west has given people a year to do the same, put on a habit or find another ministry that’s not with the diocese.

When I went to the conference of major superiors of men it was explained to us that a bishop can set up any policy he wants and make it very difficult for you without having to suppress you. We’ve never had a problem with the habit, because we wear one 24/7. We did have a tough time when we first came into a diocese that I shall not name, because we do not use the title Father, except for the superior of the house, who may or may not be a priest. Everyone is Brother. The bishop was not too excited about that. But that’s the way our constitution is written, because we were founded as a lay order with some clerics for our needs. We have kept that status to this day. We never changed the titles. We use the same titles that are in the original rule of 1223.

The bishop was concerned about confusing the faithful. But they caught on very quickly. Since we do not do parish ministry, we do full time Pro-Life ministry, it did not make much of a difference. We have one ordained brother in a community of seven. The bishop got a good deal, because Brother helps out at a local parish on Sundays and when they need him for confessions, he helps then too and several of us volunteer in Rel Ed and youth ministry once a week.

That did raise some questions about the OP in the parish. The whole concept of celibacy and a vow of chastity was cofusing to people, because they had never had religious. The parish is 25 years old, but has always been run by secular priests. When the questions began about the difference between celibacy and chastity, it ws a little difficult to explain that one includes the other, but the expression between that of a secular priest and that of a religious is very different when you throw in the detachment from family and embrace the community as your family. I remembe one person asking if that was not a mean thing to do, to detach from our family. Because in our rule and our constitution our life in chastity is defined as our life in a brotherhood. The way that the rule is written and the constitutions interpret celibacy is that we surrender the right to marriage to embrace the fraternal life for the sake of the kingdom. That fraternal element was very foreign to a parish that had never met a male religious, priest or not. But fraternity is a very strong Franciscan trait for all the male obediences.

So there were many questions about which is higher a celibate secular priest or a chaste religious. LOL. The complexities of canon law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Let’s clarify here. Doctrine and dogma are equally binding on the faithful. They come to us differently, hence the difference in terminology.

A doctrine is something that is taught as truth. It is usually part of a bigger truth. For example, everything in the bible is doctrine. Celibacy is taught in scripture first by Jesus and then by Paul. The Church does not have to define doctrine that comes from scripture as being truth, because the sriptures are inerrant. Even though a doctrine is divinely reveald, if it is clear in the scriptures, nothing more needs to be said about it.

A dogma is also something that is taught as truth and is based on revelation. An example is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There are hints to this in the scriptures. It was a doctrine of the early Church and was always believed. But to close the discussion, the Church makes a dogmatic declaration that Mary is conceived without sin. Like this, there are other dogmas that are taken from scripture, but where the meaning has been debated, often because of a lack of clarity and the Church has settled the debate with a dogmatic decree.

In the end, doctrines and dogmas are truths and all truths are binding on the faithful. We know that they are truths, because the Church cannot teach falsehood.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Of course all truths are binding, but typically the two different terms denote two different approaches to how authoritatively binding the teachings are. Otherwise, why two terms?

Dogmatic truths are essentially connected to Divine revelation.

Truths that are taught definitively but not dogmatically are doctrine. There is a subtle difference here.

 

[diggerdomer]

I believe the problem here is the title of the thread is misleading. The question should not be whether the priestly state is moer blessed. The Church has always placed priesthood, marriage and religious life on a horizontal line.

The question should be the celibate state. Then we can think vertically.

In terms of hieararchy, the priesthood is at the top, religious the step below and the laity the step below that. But that’s a hierarchical paradigm. It has nothing to do with grace. Each state has its own special graces.

When you ask the Church which is objectively superior: consecrated celibacy or marriage, that’s a very different question. The doctrine of the Church is that consecrated celibacy is superior and the Church takes this from the Gospels and the teachings of Paul. It does not have to be declared a de fide dogma, because it’s already revealed in scripture. It falls under the category of doctrine, meaning a teaching that has been handed down from Christ himself. We don’t need to declare Christ’s teachings to be dogmas. They are infallible, because the source is scriptural. When the Church looks at Matt’s Gospel and Paul’s writings on the question about whether or not it is better to be married or to be celibate, the answer is given there, very clearly.

But it must be understood that the answer given by Christ and by Paul does not take away from the sacredness of the marriage vows. Christ is very clear on the bond of marriage. Peter is too. The point that Christ and Paul are making is that if one can be celibate for the Kingdom of God, then that’s the better way to go. It’s not a matter of important and insignificant. It’s a matter of a hierarchy of intimacy with the Divine. Celibacy is a greater intimacy with the Divine.

That being said, the celibate person must work at that intimacy. God is not going to do all the work for you. It’s an uphill battle. If you drop the ball, you’re not doing anyone any favors. This takes away from you as an individual, but not from the call. Christ is calling you to be in a covenant relationship with him and to begin here on earth what will continue in the next life. But if you do not persevere and you are unfaithful, you’re not a holy person. You have been blessed with a very high calling, but you have not stepped up to the plate.

Another way of looking at it is from the temporal point of view. Marriage comes to an end at death. The celibate state does not. It it brought into its fullness at death. The soul that has lived in this intimate relationships with Christ is finally free to see him and be eternally with him.

For the married person, the one-on-one intimacy with Christ begins at death. For the faithful celibate it begins when he makes the vow. Therefore, the celibate has already entered into the kingdom in an invisible manner. It is his job to remain in that covenant through fidelity so that it can be brouth to its fullness after this life.

There is the superiority of which the Church speaks. No other state in life is a temporal extension of eternity into time, except celibacy. Do you see what I mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks. I’m going to have to spend more time with this, it’s very interesting.

Regarding celibacy, initially I want to note that on one hand, God is “celibate” and so, celibacy can be seen as a valued path as an imitation of God, or closely adhering to God as an individual human.

On the other hand, humanly, “celibacy” only has meaning with regard to gender…and God is without gender.

I’ll keep pondering. Thanks again.

 

[diggerdomer]

Read it again carefully:

“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.”

Whether or not Trent really defined this as dogma is open to theological interpretation.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

How are any Catholics not “bound” to the Bishops? I don’t think there are any “autonomous” Catholics?

 

[JReducation]

Of course all truths are binding, but typically the two different terms denote two different approaches to how authoritatively binding the teachings are. Otherwise, why two terms?

Dogmatic truths are essentially connected to Divine revelation.

Truths that are taught definitively but not dogmatically are doctrine. There is a subtle difference here.

Dogma is usually applied to a truth that has been decreed by the Church either via a council or Ex Cathedra. Doctrine is all truth. There are truths that are binding, but have never been decreed dogmatically decreed by the Church, such as the 10 Commandments. There is no need for a dogma of the 10 Commandments. They have been part of the Judeo Christian tradition and there is no confusion about them.

In the case of celibacy, the council of Trent was trying to clarify a confusion regarding a doctrine that had been handed down by Christ and explained by Paul, but was still being debated. That’s where the language of dogma and doctrine differ.

I’m talking about doctrines of faith, not political doctrines or other doctrines in our world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Whether or not Trent really defined this as dogma is open to theological interpretation.

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

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thanks for the explanation, Brother JR .

I think I can now understand somewhat better the reason for the ordering. It seems to be ordered in degrees of self-abandonment to God.

The hermit has abandoned everything in a more strict way than monks and nuns have, because they lack human company almost all the time.

Monks and nuns have abandoned the world more fully than the active religious in the sense that they don’t go out and deal with other people outside their particular religious family.

Active religious are less in the world than people in the married state.

The one category I can’t understand still is the Consecrated Virgin. I agree with you that men are not women and thus we can’t make vows for women. But if one of us has never had sex and takes the vow of chastity, and perhaps also an act of consecration similar to that which Consecrated Virgins take, I don’t understand why this wouldn’t be a role that’s accessible to men. Though I certainly don’t mind women having a special role at all – in fact, I love it that they are honored in this way – I am curious as to the reason.

This confuses me a lot less, though, than does the Consecrated Virgin being placed in the hierarchy above hermits. Consecrated Virgins can live in the world, have lots of secular friends, lots of money, a good job and their natural family. Hermits are out there. Gone. Known only to God.

The degree of self abandonment seems much higher in a hermit than in a Consecrated Virgin who’s living in the world still, even though the Virgin’s vows of abstinence can never be dispensed.

I’m looking forward to learning more about why the Consecrated Virgin is on the top, and if there is more to learn about the rest of the hierarchy (or I was wrong in my above guess as to why it’s ordered the way it is), I’d be glad to learn it!

 

[simple_soul]

In the end, what benefit is it to the person to be in one state or the other, regardless of which is more desireable? The benefit really depends on the person’s fidelity. The more faithful one is to one’s state in life, the closer one is to God. God does not ask for perfection, he asks for fidelity.

If you are faithful in your state in life, there is nothing to be sad about. Fidelity comes through the presence of grace in our lives and at the same time, the more faithful we are the more grace we receive. What is the definition of grace? Grace is the working of the God in our lives. That’s intimacy. Grace is the expression of God’s intimacy with us. He gives it freely and we can earn more if we respond to it faithfully.

Does that make sense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

*Dear Br. JR,

As always this makes Beautiful sense?

 

[rachael_maria]

Thanks Br.JR. It does make sense. God bless you.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the explanation, Brother JR .

I think I can now understand somewhat better the reason for the ordering. It seems to be ordered in degrees of self-abandonment to God.

The hermit has abandoned everything in a more strict way than monks and nuns have, because they lack human company almost all the time.

Monks and nuns have abandoned the world more fully than the active religious in the sense that they don’t go out and deal with other people outside their particular religious family.

Active religious are less in the world than people in the married state.

The one category I can’t understand still is the Consecrated Virgin. I agree with you that men are not women and thus we can’t make vows for women. But if one of us has never had sex and takes the vow of chastity, and perhaps also an act of consecration similar to that which Consecrated Virgins take, I don’t understand why this wouldn’t be a role that’s accessible to men. Though I certainly don’t mind women having a special role at all – in fact, I love it that they are honored in this way – I am curious as to the reason.

This confuses me a lot less, though, than does the Consecrated Virgin being placed in the hierarchy above hermits. Consecrated Virgins can live in the world, have lots of secular friends, lots of money, a good job and their natural family. Hermits are out there. Gone. Known only to God.

The degree of self abandonment seems much higher in a hermit than in a Consecrated Virgin who’s living in the world still, even though the Virgin’s vows of abstinence can never be dispensed.

I’m looking forward to learning more about why the Consecrated Virgin is on the top, and if there is more to learn about the rest of the hierarchy (or I was wrong in my above guess as to why it’s ordered the way it is), I’d be glad to learn it!

Lief has this very well figured out. The question about virginity is a very good one. The answer is historical as well as ontological.

Let’s go with the historical first. Consecrated virgins have always been women from the first century of the Church. Men like John were virgins. But at the time, men did not consecrate their virginity to God, whereas women did. I won’t go on a limb here and say Paul was a virgin, because I highly doubt it. We know that he was celibate. But what he did when he was a soldier, before his conversion, is not known to us.

But women were martyrd for their virginity: Angnes and Cecilia, as well as many others. Women made a public profession of virginity. That vow could not be dispensed. That’s why it ranks at the top. Because you can’t be dispensed from the vow.

Let’s go to the ontological. A consecrated virgin is changed. This belief comes down to us from the Virgin Mary. She was changed and could never go back to being simply Mary of Nazareth. She was a virgin by God’s design, not by human design. So perpetual virginity is understood to be an act of God on the soul. It cannot be done by man alone, but it is an interaction between the will of God and the desire of man to fulfill God’s will. God not only claims that soul for himself, he claims the entire person, body and soul, for himself. Once given over to God, it cannot be withdrawn from God without grave sin.

Another way of looking at it is the consecrated virgin is walking in the footsteps of Mary the Mother of God. Mary outranks all others. Yet she was never a hermit, nun, or religious sister. However, here is an interesting detail. Mary was a perpetual virgin, but she was validly married. The reason is that she and Joseph werre Jewish.

The requirements for a valid marriage is that both parties share the same faith. They do not have to be married in the Catholic Church. The marriage is not a sacrament, but it is valid. Only a marriage in the Church is a sacrament. But all marriages between people of the same faith are valid and undisoluable.

In the Jewish faith, intercourse is not a requirement for validity, as it is in the Catholic faith. The reason is that the Jews do not have the notion of union between Christ and the Church. So, it was possible for Mary and Joseph to be married and remain virgins. The union was not a sign of Christ and the Church. There was not Christ and no Church. This is still the rule today. If there is no belief or knowledge of Christ and the Church, then the union of the couple is governed by the faith that they practice.

Why are these marriages valid, but not sacraments? Because to receive a sacrament you have to be baptized.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

*Dear Br. JR,

As always this makes Beautiful sense?

This is what Pope Benedict has often referred to as faith enlightening reason. When we look at our logic through the eyes of faith, we make the adjustments necessary to accomodate to faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nsper7]

In the Jewish faith, intercourse is not a requirement for validity, as it is in the Catholic faith. The reason is that the Jews do not have the notion of union between Christ and the Church. So, it was possible for Mary and Joseph to be married and remain virgins. The union was not a sign of Christ and the Church. There was not Christ and no Church. This is still the rule today. If there is no belief or knowledge of Christ and the Church, then the union of the couple is governed by the faith that they practice.

What about Josephite marriages?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

This is a choice tidbit to keep filed in my mind if I ever fall to wrangling with feminists! consecrated virgins are the highest vocation in the Church, and they can only be women, because of their union with the highest saint in the Church, who is Queen of the Church and is also a woman!

I appreciate the historical argument for women being the only consecrated virgins, and I also have been fascinated to notice in my studies of Early Church history how many virgins the Romans killed, and how horribly. Many Christians were killed, but it sometimes comes across to me as though they were especially vindictive against our consecrated virgins, and our consecrated virgins tended to represent fidelity to Christ with the most glorious and pure fortitude. This reminds me also of how Revelation 12 describes the Devil chasing the Virgin Mary, targeting her repeatedly and vengefully. I think he targets her virgins in a similar way, and that comes across when reading Early Church history. It also comes across in modern society, where so much of the immorality in this culture of death is aimed at corrupting women’s virginity.

I would never try to change Tradition and give men the ability to take such a consecration. I love it that women have the most honored vocation in the Church in union with the Virgin Mary.

I think I understand the historical evidence better than I do the ontological point.

I can see that a consecrated virgin is given body and soul to God. However, a consecrated virgin can still be deeply attached to the world in possessing material goods and family, whereas a hermit has nothing but God. I know the virgin cannot be dispensed, but to me that doesn’t seem to be that much more than the other religious give, for a hermit, monk or priest never takes a vow of chastity in the hope of being dispensed in the future, and they only very rarely are dispensed, I would imagine. I just don’t understand how the consecrated virgin is much more self-abandoned, in view of this. I mean, it looks to me (though I know I’m wrong) that abandoning all your possessions and leaving the world completely is far greater self-abandonment than is making a consecrating vow that cannot be dispensed, in view of the fact that the religious make the vow of chastity too and they don’t expect or intend to be dispensed, and almost all of them never are.

I didn’t even know until this last week or so that a religious could be dispensed. I was expecting to take those vows and never have any possibility of being dispensed. I still don’t expect to ever be dispensed. I expect that just about all the religious take the vow without any intention of ever seeking a dispensation, and just about all of them never will receive one, so the consecrated virgin doesn’t appear to offer that much more than they do. On the other hand, a hermit abandons everything completely, whereas a consecrated virgin can have thousands of worldly attachments (family, money, a plasma TV, etc.) of which the hermit is devoid. If a consecrated virgin had to give up everything a hermit does without possibility of dispensation, then that I would see as definitely a higher sacrifice. But the consecrated virgins are only giving up one thing, sex, without possibility of dispensation, whereas the hermit gives up everything.

So I still don’t understand this, though I do honor it greatly and look forward to understanding.

 

[JReducation]

This is a choice tidbit to keep filed in my mind if I ever fall to wrangling with feminists! So I still don’t understand this, though I do honor it greatly and look forward to understanding.

The place of honor given to the consecrated virgin is not because of what she gives up, but because of what she represents. If truth be told, many of the virgin martyrs in the early Church were part of the nobility. But what they represented went far beyond the material. As you so well put it, they are in the same league with the Virgin Mother of God. The divine espousal is what is so special about the consecrated virgin.

While we often refer to women religious as brides of Christ, the term is really a metaphor. Women religious are no more married to Christ than male religious. If it were literally true that women religious are married to Christ, then how would the Church explain male religious to whom that expression has never been applied, yet we make the same vows and live the same life?

Consecrated virgins are actually brides of the Holy Spirit as was Mary. That is the ontological change. Their identity is changed forever.

A hermit, monastic or active religious does not change his or her identity in the same way. We become a new creation by virtue of our vows, but we also remain the same. In other words, our vows are really a commitment to change, to become a new person. We are vowing to walk this path, take this journey toward achieving the perfection of charity be it as a hermit, monastic, mendicant or active religious. The consecrated virgin becomes a new person at the moment of consecration. It’s not a journey toward something. It’s an achievement of something. She has become a bride.

You also mentioned priests. Priests are not in that lineup because the priesthood is not a consecrated way of life. Holy Orders is a sacrament, not a way of life. It has three levels called orders: deacon, presbyter and bishop. The bishop has the fullness of the priesthood. The deacon and presbyter (priest) do not have the fullness of the priesthood. Therefore only the bishop is an Apostle.

However, men who have been ordained can choose any way of life that they wish. They can remain secular men and live in the secular world, which is the case with most priests. These priests who remain secular men usually join a diocese and are called diocesan priests or they join a society of priests such as the SSPX, FSSP, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Institute of Christ the King. All these men are secular men, like any other secular man. They make a promise (not a vow) of celibacy and they make a promise (not a vow) to obey their bishop or the superior of their society. They do not have a special way of life that they follow as do members of a religious institute. Each one is free to choose his own spiritual path. They have posessions and can inherit money and property. They continue to belong to their biological families, because they have not made a vow of chastity.

The vow of chastity, made by religious, is a vow to be celibate, but it also severs your ties with your biological familly. You no longer belong to that family. Your brothers in community replace your biological family. For example, I’m a widower and I have a son and daughter. But by virtue of my vow of chastity, I no longer belong to them and have no obligations to them nor they to me. My religious community is my family. As St. Francis so aptly put it, “if you love your brothers according to the flesh, so much more must you love your brothers in the order, because they are your brothers according to the Spirit.” The bond with the religious community is a divine bond. The bond with the biological family is just that, a biological one. Secular priests do not have a divine bond between them. They have a divine bond with the bishop, not with each other. Though they are encouraged to see each other as brothers and to cooperate in a fraternal spirit. But they do not live as a family; whereas, religious do.

Obedience vowed by religious is absolute. It is obedience to God, the Church, the founder, the rule, the constitutions and to the community when it speaks in one voice. We even obey each other when the community makes a decision. It is morally binding on the members.

The secular priest promises to obey his bishop. But the authority of the bishop is limited to pastoral matters. The bishop of a diocese may not dictate the spiritual life of the bishops, priests and deacons under him. He may not dictate to them how to live their daily lives, the choices they make, the schedule they follow, the activities in which they engage unless it has an impact on the ministry.

The religious superior does govern every dimension of our life. He can demand to know where we’re going, when we’re leaving and arriving, what we are wearing, etc. He decides when we pray, how we pray. We have nothing without his permission. Some superiors allow you to take money from petty-cash to buy what you need. Others require that you ask for everything you need, even a tooth brush. That is his perrogative as long as he is in office. Some superiors read your mail, listen in on your telephone calls, others do not. It depends on the constitutions of the order and on the superior how much control he feels that he must have for the good of the community and the individual. The superior shares your responsibility for your soul.

The bishop does have these rights nor does he share responsibility for the souls of the bishops, priests and deacons under him. His resonsiblity are the faithful of his diocese. Therefore, the secular priest has much more autonomy, even though he has promised obedience to the bishop.

A priest can remain a secular man or be a hermit, monk, mendicant or active religious. That’s why he’s not on this lineup.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

What about Josephite marriages?

I don’t know the answer. I’ll have to find out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF