What is the vocation of same-sex-attracted Catholics?

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

Consecration isn’t a sacrament.

While it may not have, it came very, very close.

In what sense can something be closer to, or further from, the yes/no switch of being a sacrament or not?

MNathaniel:

It doesn’t actually require a bishop

Why, because it’s not a Sacrament?

No; in context I am referring to the generic act of consecration qua consecration. I agree with you that there are regularized ways in which specific consecrations are often practiced in a given time/place (e.g. a nun will make her vows in front of a bishop, or a lay Dominican makes promises in front of a bishop, etc) – but I am saying, and do believe, that the most significant part of the underlying reality of what the raw fact of consecration qua consecration is, does not require a bishop.

For example, I and many others (perhaps you as well, on top of being a lay Dominican) have consecrated myself to Mary. This was a private act, not public in front of a bishop. But I’m still consecrated.

I think you are confusing consecrated virginity with a general vow of celibacy.

I am open to the possibility that there is a difference between a consecrated virgin and a virgin who vows herself to celibacy. (Though I would like to please hear the specific, meaningful difference, before assuming that there indeed is one.)

But when I hear people claiming that a person who experiences SSA is categorically excluded from being a consecrated virgin… honestly, that sounds to me so pharisaical and inward-turned that it disgusts me. Such a private opinion about one’s own heterosexual attractions enhancing one’s experience of consecrated virginity, may indeed enhance one’s own experience of that path. Fine. But attempting to categorically exclude others from consecrating their virginity, on the grounds that they experience homosexual attraction… if I ever meet anyone in real life who talks like that, I will stay so far away from them and counsel everyone I know to stay far away from them. I can think of few more seemingly self-righteous and ugly counter-witnesses to the gospel for my loved ones with SSA.

 

[Fauken]

In what sense can something be closer to, or further from, the yes/no switch of being a sacrament or not?

I don’t remember the exact history behind it. But I know that at one point it was under serious discussion on whether or not it was a Sacrament. While it may not be one, that’s how gravely the Church treats this particular consecration.

but I am saying, and do believe, that the most significant part of the underlying reality of what the raw fact of consecration qua consecration is, does not require a bishop.

For example, I and many others (perhaps you as well, on top of being a lay Dominican) have consecrated myself to Mary. This was a private act, not public in front of a bishop. But I’m still consecrated.

But Consecrated Virginity does in fact require a bishop. It is not a general consecration of one’s virginity to Christ, it is far more narrow. It is by its very nature public, as public as an ordination and a wedding is. The CDW document I linked is from the Vatican.

I am open to the possibility that there is a difference between a consecrated virgin and a virgin who vows herself to celibacy. (Though I would like to please hear the specific, meaningful difference, before assuming that there indeed is one.)

There is a difference. Here’s an example of the description of Consecrated Virginity (the vocation) as @SerraSemper has been describing from the website of the Archdiocese of St. Louis:

https://www.archstl.org/office-of-consecrated-life/consecrated-religious/consecrated-virgins

Note the piece linked to the page where the Consecrated Virgin specifically says she’s married to God.

 

[sealabeag]

Just a thought - if same-sex attraction doesn’t exclude one from marriage, difficulties aside, why should it exclude one from a spiritual marriage to Christ? Surely if there are men or women who are willing to accept this cross in their spouse’s life and love them and commit to them nonetheless, wouldn’t Christ be all the more likely to accept in spiritual marriage such a person, if they chose to give themselves entirely to Him? I’d think so.

 

[MNathaniel]

Just a thought - if same-sex attraction doesn’t exclude one from marriage, difficulties aside, why should it exclude one from a spiritual marriage to Christ? Surely if there are men or women who are willing to accept this cross in their spouses life and love them and commit to them nonetheless, wouldn’t Christ be all the more likely to accept in spiritual marriage such a person, if they chose to give themselves entirely to Him? I’d think so.

100% this.

If SSA doesn’t categorically exclude a person from entering into a valid, sacramental marriage with another mere human, it seems absurd to me to suggest that Jesus Christ, God himself, would be less capable of considering himself espoused to someone with SSA.

If espousal is really a word we want to use to refer to consecrated virgins. Which I find off-putting given that all Catholics are part of the bride of Christ which is the Church herself, and all of us participate in a spousal one-flesh union with Christ through Communion, so it’s weird to have one exclusionary group of women claiming they’re super-especially espoused to him though, like the most, dude – but fine, even if we use the word espousal – I refuse to believe that Jesus is lesser than other men, and less capable of being espoused to a woman with SSA than another man would be.

 

[MNathaniel]

I don’t remember the exact history behind it. But I know that at one point it was under serious discussion on whether or not it was a Sacrament. While it may not be one, that’s how gravely the Church treats this particular consecration.

I can confirm that when I was discerning monastic life with cloistered Dominican nuns, there was unanimous, consensus understanding among the Dominican nuns as well as the Dominican monks who visited them for teaching etc, that there is no sacrament involved in religious consecration.

This was something I actually asked about and really delved into, because it bothered me that while priesthood and marriage were sacraments, consecrated religious life isn’t.

I think I posted upthread about the counsel from a priest brother that helped me, about how the sacrament related to religious life is baptism. And it’s just that for a person ultimately called to religious life, that call is part of the total life path God called them to that started with baptism.

But there is categorically, definitively (apparently) no separate sacrament related to consecrated religious life. A consecration is (apparently) not a sacrament. This is what I was categorically, definitively told while I was discerning consecrated religious life.

So while there may have been serious discussion in the past, the conclusion seems definitely resolved by the time the present came to be.

 

[Fauken]

so it’s weird to have one exclusionary group of women claiming they’re super-especially espoused to him though, like the most, dude – but fine, even if we use the word espousal

I know you feel incensed, but Consecrated Virginity is a legitimate vocation of the Church, not some exclusionary club that sneers their noses at people. The Sacraments of Service are exclusionary in some way. Religious Life is exclusionary.

I can confirm that when I was discerning monastic life with cloistered Dominican nuns, there was unanimous, consensus understanding among the Dominican nuns as well as the Dominican monks who visited them for teaching etc, that there is no sacrament involved in religious consecration.

Correct. Not all religious nuns are Consecrated Virgins. They are separate vocations. Neither of which is a Sacrament. But, regardless, Consecrated Virginity is a vocation and the requirements are defined by the Church.

 

[MNathaniel]

But, regardless, Consecrated Virginity is a vocation and the requirements are defined by the Church.

And the Church does not seem to “require” that people be categorically excluded from this particular consecration if they experience SSA.

Which is what one consecrated virgin on this thread seems to be arguing, and I and others are arguing against.

To be clear, if the Church did definitely make a ruling on this, I wouldn’t be arguing about it. But the Church hasn’t. A random internet stranger is just claiming her opinion as fact, and doing so in a public way that goes beyond what the Church has actually said, and in a way that may scandalize or wound the hearts of people who experience SSA.

I know you feel incensed, but Consecrated Virginity is a legitimate vocation of the Church, not some exclusionary club that sneers their noses at people. The Sacraments of Service are exclusionary in some way. Religious Life is exclusionary.

There is exclusion which is appropriate (because categories must have meaningful boundaries; distinctions and clear lines are helpful for seeing truth and living well) and there is exclusion which is inappropriate. My argument here is that certain individuals are attempting to publicly push inappropriate exclusion under the guise that it’s merely a matter of appropriate exclusion.

 

[Fauken]

And the Church does not seem to “require” that people be categorically excluded from this particular consecration if they experience SSA.

Which is what one consecrated virgin on this thread seems to be arguing, and I and others are arguing against.

To be clear, if the Church did definitely make a ruling on this, I wouldn’t be arguing about it. But the Church hasn’t. A random internet stranger is just claiming her opinion as fact, and doing so in a public way that goes beyond what the Church has actually said, and in a way that may scandalize or wound the hearts of people who experience SSA.

I’ll leave that for her to argue, but if one doesn’t care for the marital aspect of Consecrated Virginity (as I assume from what you’ve said up-thread), whether it’s due to SSA or otherwise, why pursue this vocation to begin with?

 

[MNathaniel]

I’ll leave that for her to argue, but if one doesn’t care for the marital aspect of Consecrated Virginity (as I assume from what you’ve said up-thread), whether it’s due to SSA or otherwise, why pursue this vocation to begin with?

For the record, I’m not pursuing this vocation.

But also for the record, who says a woman who experiences SSA can’t also “care for the marital aspect of Consecrated Virginity”?

If a woman with SSA can validly and sacramentally marry a man (for whatever reasons), and some women with SSA do in fact choose to do this, why would we categorically suggest that experiencing SSA excludes someone from the possibility of caring for the marital aspect of consecrated virginity?

My own distaste with the ‘spousal’ phraseology aside, I don’t see why a person with SSA should be excluded from participating in it if they discern a call from God in that direction.

 

[Fauken]

But also for the record, who says a woman who experiences SSA can’t also “care for the marital aspect of Consecrated Virginity”?

If a woman with SSA can validly and sacramentally marry a man (for whatever reasons), and some women with SSA do in fact choose to do this, why would we categorically suggest that experiencing SSA excludes someone from the possibility of caring for the marital aspect of consecrated virginity?

For the sake of argument, I would not suggest that (and I admit this is a narrow case) someone with deep seated exclusive homosexual attractions to marriage nor Consecrated Virginity. While they may not be impediments to either, I’d think they’re imprudent considering the aim of marriage. If one cannot view a man as a spouse, then I don’t see how they would view Christ, a man, as a spouse. That may be partly why @SerraSemper objects to the idea of those with deep-seated SSA becoming Consecrated Virgins.

 

[catholiclala]

Exactly. This is an example of inserting sex in the equation where it shouldn’t be. There are also marriages like Joseph and Mary, no sex involved and that is allowed, so thinking that a woman who is to be a consecrated virgin must be sexually-orientated in a way that implies a sexual marriage with Jesus, I feel odd even typing it TBH. Seems like a very far stretch. I’ve done some more reading and everything that I see that prohibits SSA from anything has to do with the occasion of sin being in living accommodations with other of the same sex. That seems to be the primary concern, allowing for an occasion of sin.

 

[catholiclala]

Now I’m curious what people think the implication is for an asexual woman.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

so it’s weird to have one exclusionary group of women claiming they’re super-especially espoused to him though,

They did make a special vow and commitment that others do not and sacrificed a spouse, so I think it is only fair.

 

[Rau]

Except that StudentMI appears to think that Courage itself is flawed with its 12 step approach which treats homosexuality like an addiction.

It is undoubtedly a persistent affliction, at least for those moved to seek assistance. I can’t speak to the real meaning of “addiction”, but there would at least seem to some elements of commonality - perhaps suggesting some merit in a similar approach to managing the situation.

If the program is flawed, then would “Go to Courage” ever be an appropriate answer?

Here we lack facts to comment.

Nice to hear from you Thor…been a while!

 

[SerraSemper]

The vocation to sacred virginity is a very unique one. It is centered around espousals to Christ and motherhood of souls. It is like an ordination in the sense that a bishop confers the consecration and no vows are made by the virgin. This mirrors the first consecration, of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is a vastly different reality than a private, self-dedication in chastity (virginal or otherwise) of a layperson of any sexual orientation. A consecration can only be conferred and received, not self-created. A person can dedicate his/her life to Christ but the Holy Spirit confers consecration in specific vocations in the Church through the ministry of the Church.

The virgin is constituted a spiritual mother in addition to being “elevated” to being a bride of Christ [cf. the Rite]. St. Augustine waxes eloquently on this in On Virgins, how the virgin is a mother. The Rite, which it appears nobody is reading, although a copy was linked earlier in this thread, also says this:

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.

Again, one cannot approach this vocation with the assumption that it is a “singles” vocation or from the viewpoint of it being “like religious life”. This is a truly unique vocation that is reserved to women because only women can image the Church most perfectly.

 

[Rau]

Note the piece linked to the page where the Consecrated Virgin specifically says she’s married to God.

I see no need to link the legitimacy of that claim to having exclusively opposite sex attraction.

 

[MNathaniel]

For the sake of argument, I would not suggest that (and I admit this is a narrow case) someone with deep seated exclusive homosexual attractions to marriage nor Consecrated Virginity. While they may not be impediments to either, I’d think they’re imprudent considering the aim of marriage. If one cannot view a man as a spouse, then I don’t see how they would view Christ, a man, as a spouse.

My primary point here is that if the Church does not declare this factor a categorical and un-overcomable obstacle to either, we shouldn’t step in and tell each other otherwise.

I’m not, incidentally, in the camp that would advise a woman (or a man) to try to marry someone they’re not sexually attracted to. I just don’t think I have the right to tell someone not to, if they prayerfully decide to. Their walk with God (and the people in their life) is theirs to walk, not mine.

I also don’t think that viewing Christ as a spouse requires thinking of Christ as a sexual partner.

The most marital thing any Catholic does with Christ is the one-flesh union of receiving his body in the Eucharist, wherein he joins our body to his. This is spousal, but it does not require heterosexual attraction in women or homosexual attraction in men. We also spousally love Christ when we care for him in the bodies of the aged, the impoverished, the suffering. A heterosexual woman spousally loves her bedridden husband with whom sex will never again be possible because of accident or medical condition, and her spousal love for her husband does not require the sexual attraction that perhaps played a role in their bonding when they were youths.

I think the waters have been clouded here over what any of us mean when we say “spousal love”. But I think that especially when the possibility of sexual activity is taken out of the picture (as, say, when entering an intentionally Josephite marriage, or marrying someone who becomes incapable of completing the sexual act… or, say espousing ourselves to God himself whose human body was celibate in his earthly life and is now in heaven where there is no more marriage or sex at all)… spousal love can more clearly be seen as something that is not inherently synonymous with sexual attraction, and therefore does not exclude a SSA woman from experiencing it for Jesus.

 

[SerraSemper]

Why don’t you readd the Rite, which has been linked here, and give us your rebutal to the virgin being named a bride of Christ? Along with how to explain away our belief in lex orandi, lex credendi?

 

[Fauken]

I see no need to link the legitimacy of that claim to having exclusively opposite sex attraction.

I wasn’t talking about SSA or OSA. I was addressing what I saw as mixing a general vow of chastity with Consecrated Virginity, hence why I drew attention to her marital language.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The idea of vocation had only been presented to me as a choice to marry or become religious.

Vocations are what God calls us to do and a single person has a lot of freedom to dedicate themselves to Christ and help others depending on what the persons talents and aspirations are. There are plenty of lay ministries and there are secular orders too saints did take in that did not involve religious life or marriage. In this case, secular third orders are good, since there is a community, but not the close living that would make things unsuitable.