http://www.ewtn.com/
library/ENCYC/P12SACRA.HTM

Book Review: Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery by Fr. Richard Butler, O.P..

Cordelia’s Theology of Vocations.

Cordelia’s Theology of Vocations, Part II

A Vocation Received at Mejugorje?

http://cornell-catholic-circle.blogspot.com/2005/12/book-reviewreligious-vocationan.html

First of all, I must apologize, because it’s clear that this conversation has been upsetting to you. I didn’t at all mean to make you feel attacked, but obviously you did. In truth, I have plenty of admiration for your earnest desire to submit to God’s will, and your struggle to find an orthodox religious order to join could not fail to inspire sympathy.

But I think you’re being a bit unfair to me and some other participants in this conversation, particularly when you suggest that asking questions about the nature of consecrated virginity might indicate that we are not in communion with the Church! I think three points should be mentioned here.

First, regarding the nature of vocations. We’ve actually discussed this a lot on this blog, if you care to browse through the archives. I don’t think everyone here would fully sympathize with your understanding of the subject. It’s a very complicated question, and gets into tricky philosophical puzzles about free will and foreknowledge. But some among this blog’s contributors are inclined to think that, in fact, ALL people are called to the religious life (though not all are able to answer the call for practical reasons, and not all need to in order to achieve salvation.) I’m not fully satisfied with that view, but it certainly might be the case that people can have genuine alternatives in life, and that God might be prepared to bless and ratify more than one good choice. You seem to be picturing a vocation as a sort of pre-set assignment that God has for each person, which we’re expected first to discover, and then to fulfill. You may be right, or partly right, but your ideas about this are certainly open to dispute.

Even if you are right, though, the question, “why be a CV and not a nun?” would still be perfectly sensible. When a teacher asks a student, “why did you write X answer on the test?” she is not satisfied with the reply, “because I thought it was the correct answer.” That’s taken for granted; the teacher really wants to know why the student thought it was the right answer. Similarly here, it is assumed that a consecrated virgin believes herself to be following God’s will in entering that state. But the more interesting question is: what would lead a person to think that? And that gets us back to the question of the purpose of Consecrated Virgins in the world.

This brings me to my second major point, about the nature of this discussion. You seem to think it irreverent for us to be discussing this at all. Well, to begin with, this rite for consecrating virgins in the world has only been around since 1970. As I understand it, the Vatican considered establishing such a rite in the 1920’s and decided not to (but I haven’t been able to find much on the debate that took place at that time.) Apparently this is a debate that has taken place within the Church in the very recent past, so it seems entirely appropriate for us to discuss it here, and accusations of schism are quite unnecessary.

You should further note that I did not, as you imply, declare consecrated virginity to be “pointless.” In fact, I spent the opening two sentences of my original post clarifying that the question “What’s the point?” was sincere and not rhetorical, and I myself, in my last post, suggested some reasons for having the rite (which just didn’t seem sufficiently important or distinctive to you.) I’m really not opposed to the consecrating of virgins; I’m just asking questions about the practice and its purpose.

It’s quite true that I sometimes push the envelope, and try to further develop a position by pressing possible criticisms against it. You’re not the first person to be irked by this, and I really am sorry to cause anyone irritation, but I have to note that this same method of investigation was highly favored by the great Doctors of the Church in the high Middle Ages, including St. Anselm, whose famous formula you quoted with approval. The Scholastics loved to develop an objection to its fullest extent, in order that it might more convincingly be answered. Following their example, we should realize that raising questions is not tantamount to denying the authority of every bishop who has ever consecrated a laywoman to a virginal state.

But this leads to the third and most important point. You have chastised me for speaking in ignorance, and you have insisted that consecrated virginity is a unique vocation whose contribution to the Church is quite distinct from that made by religious orders. But you still haven’t really tried to answer my original question: what IS that unique contribution? Why would it ever be better for a woman to be a CV than to be a nun? If you’re considering becoming a CV, you presumably have ideas about this, and sharing them would be the easiest and kindest way of dispelling any skepticism about the matter. To answer a real question with, “Stop thinking about it and just have more faith,” is, well, not very Catholic.

If I may make a gentle suggestion… if you do become a consecrated virgin, a lot of people are going to ask you to explain what you did and why. Many or most of them will be less sympathetic to your reasons than the audience you’ll get here, where virginity and vocations are already respected. Perhaps you should take this little online discussion as an opportunity to further refine your explanation of what consecrated virginity is, and why it’s good to have consecrated virgins in the Church, in addition to nuns.

Looks to me like the “single” vocation or consecrated virgins want a mix of both, and no responsibility to a superior. In other words a lone ranger, they decide and make their way.

It’s unfortunate you can take such a strong position on the Order of Virgins with such limited knowledge, especially when it is in the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vita Consecrata by Pope John Paul II and much more.

Unless….this blog is made up of commenters who are not in communion with Rome.

Some of the most orthodox priests and bishops today support the Order of Virgins.

There might be progressive-minded women among the CV’s, but then again, that is a reflection of today’s Catholic culture.

I haven’t seen any promoting eneagrams and labyrinths, but I have seen them promoting adoration.

We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others…. This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.–St. Ambrose

Precisely. A married person is simply following their vocation to be married. A priest is following his vocation, as is a brother or sister. And, a Consecrated Virgin is following their calling.

God gives to each the graces necessary to fulfill their role in life.

We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others…. This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.–St. Ambrose

Here is a segment of the code of Canon Law that is cited repeatedly in material at the USACV website, but first I include that of Hermits. Note that the very next code pertains to the Order of Virgins.

Can. 603 §1. In addition to institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance.

§2. In order to observe their own resolution more faithfully and to perform by mutual assistance service to the Church in harmony with their proper state, virgins can be associated together.

All: My point is that whether one understands it or not, Holy Mother Church does not make “pointless” Orders. The Order of Presbyterate (priests) is not pointless. The Order of Deacons is not pointless. The Order of Hermits is not pointless. Religious Orders are not pointless. Hence, the Order of Virgins is not pointless.

Why was St. Francis a brother and not a priest?

Answer: He was not called to be a priest and his call to be a brother was far from pointless.

In the case of single women, they may be called to religious life OR they may be called to the Order of Virgins OR they may not be called to either.

Order of Virgins is not for outcasts or rejects

Furthermore, one does not become a Consecrated Virgin because she is some kind of misfit for religious life, incompatible with religious life, or incapable of marriage. It is a calling - a specific vocation witin the Catholic Church.

The Bishop is involved

When a diocesan bishop consecrates a woman to the Order of Virgins it is already assured that the woman worked with a spiritual director who helped her discern if God was calling her to religious life or not. The Consecrated Virgin candidate meets with the bishop during the discernment process. Then, she meets with him once yearly after Consecration. If she moves, she must notify the new diocesan bishop and meet with him. She has no specific job within the diocese, but may take on volunteer work. A CV within a diocese is a positive thing for that diocese because it can produce similar graces that a cloister can for a diocese (which is why Bishop Thomas Olmstead gave the Poor Clares a home in AZ).

Since one cannot be called to the Order of Virgins AND a religious order, the question of “Why not just become a religious” is answered: Because God does not call them to religious orders, but to the order of virgins.

More on the Order of Virgins from Vita Consecrata by Pope John Paul II.

More on the Order of Virgins from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Understanding is not a prerequisite for the validity of anything. Faith seeks understanding. So far, I have pointed out many errors by several commenters within the combox of this post.

If people are genuinely interested in understanding the Order of Virgins, it would seem prudent to spend more than 5 minutes skimming the USACV website then drawing conclusions.

Only God Himself knows why he prompted the Pope to bring back to life this most ancient rites, which goes all the way back to apostolic times.

I am sympathetic to things Diane said, and I can see that there might be reasons why it would be impossible for some to join religious orders, either because they are too old to be accepted, or because there aren’t any that are sufficiently orthodox, or perhaps because other obligations prevent them (to care for aged parents, for example.) It really doesn’t bother me if such people are consecrated to their virginal state. But the literature seems to suggest that this is some special vocation with its own particular function within the Church. And I still just don’t understand why that would be; why would it ever not be optimal for someone to live a life of prayer within a religious order, and not in a secular life? I can understand the special place of hermits or anchorites, but I still don’t see it for Consecrated Virgins in the world.

I’m not much moved by Tobias Petrus’ suggestion that virginity is better “all else being equal.” What we really want to compare is two very different sorts of lives, of which both are good and one is better, but many things within them are not equal. Because both lifestyles have so many ramifications, we have to work pretty hard to construct an “all else equal” example, but here’s my best attempt: suppose Sharon and Jill are co-workers in the same office. We’ll say they’re both doctors, both equally talented, around the same age, both doing about the same amount of good in their professional lives. Both are good Catholics, and generally nice people. Sharon is married but she and her husband are infertile and so have no children. Jill has never married and so is virginal, but she has never taken any vows to remain so; she just hasn’t happened to meet a good Catholic man whom she wanted to marry. Sharon goes home to her husband at night; Jill goes home to an empty apartment. Both spend a reasonable amount of time each evening reading the Bible and praying, though Sharon normally does this with her husband and Jill by herself.

Is Jill more noble or virtuous, or otherwise better than Sharon, just because she is virginal while Sharon is not? It doesn’t seem so to me, and I’m not at all sure Church teachings would support that interpretation. Giving one’s life to Christ, including binding oneself in “marriage” to him or his Church, is a great thing, but the mere fact of virginity, absent that radical self-gift, is not necessarily noble. If it were, wouldn’t marriage be submitting to a kind of degredation? But the Church has consistently said that that is not the case.

I would appreciate any references to writings he has on the subject, be they online or from hard copy books.

Spend some time reading the documents on that site and you will find that Consecrated Virgins are not permitted to wear a habit, nor a veil (except during the ceremony which is performed by the diocesan bishop). They are not members of a religious order and the Church does not want people to be misled in this direction. In fact, the association of virgins (the site the original post links to) is not even required for Consecrated Virgins to belong to. They are independent brides of Christ, living as virgins in the world. They live a life of sacrifice, not only in remaining celibate, and chaste for life, they don’t partake in things that are normal and good for everyday folks going about life. That is because of the demands of prayer time.

When a man gets married, his buddies suddenly feel they have been ostracized by the man who no longer has an interest in being with them. He is interested in spending his free-time with his wife (at least in a healthy marriage and setting aside an occassional outing with the guys).

In the same way, consecrated virgins desire to spend their time with their beloved - the Lord.

The pants issue is a non-issue. I’m very traditional and very orthodox, yet I am in the vehicle engineering sector and wear pants daily (nothing like getting down on my knees at a plant in a dress). Keep in mind that one will not be accepted by the diocesan bishop if she cannot demonstrate the means to support herself. She cannot depend on Holy Mother Church for one penny. Therefore, work is required, unless one is very rich.

Aside from that, I am much more comfortable in pants because it’s all I’ve ever worn. It has no bearing on my orthodoxy, appreciation for tradition, or devoutness. Besides, if you saw how I take some of the photos posted on my site (all with permission of my pastor), you would understand why I don’t wear a dress even in Church. In fact, in my highly orthodox parish, there are many devout Catholic women who do not wear dresses or skirts.

Some think this is for men or women, but it is only for women. As the decree on this page explains:

Canon 604 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides for the establishment of the Order of Virgins as a form of consecrated life in the Church. The word, order, is used in the sense of a distinct group of persons in the Church, for example, the order of presbyters, the order of deacons, the order of penitents or the order of widows. It is not used in the sense of a congregation of consecrated religious, for example, the Order of Saint Benedict, the Order of Preachers, or the Order of Friars Minor.

Actually, that link has a pretty good explanation of the ancient rite.

What made me first begin to consider it is that as many times as I’ve dated, there was a flame burning in my heart for the Lord that was so strong, I found myself unable to give any piece of that heart to a man, even though I sought it and wanted human companionship. Instead, I continually learn how to seek my consolations in Him, and in Him alone. Hence, my discernment dilemma - is he calling me to this?

At 44, most religious orders won’t even consider me (except those progressivist pant-suit orders). There are a few traditional orders - among them some cloisters which will do so on a case by case basis.

Actually, I successfully lived in a community abroad for 2.5 years straight out of high school, but had to leave while in the novitiate because I could not acclimate to the food and water of the area. I was very sick when I returned, and the community provided me with a letter of recommendation. However, when I got back stateside and met up with the Novice Mistress, I was very uncomfortable with what I felt was an emphasis on psychology. Today - 20 years later, I now know exactly what was going on and I am so grateful that I let go.

The 70’s, 80’s and even the 90’s were a terrible time for anyone, but most especially females who felt called to religious life. That is why I went abroad - in search of orthodoxy.

Today, young women, under 35, have many orthodox, and even traditional options for religous orders.

All that having been said, one still cannot use the Order of Virgins as a “last resort”.

Also consider that many do not understand cloistered or monastic life either. Does that make cloistered or monastic life pointless? The answer is no - that is, for those who understand the need for prayer for souls who need it, and penance for offenses against Our Lord.

In the same way, a CV lives a life of prayer, and often has some kind of apostolate.

Could she do these things as a single, chaste person without being a CV? Yes. However, note what the Church teaches on the subject…

From a set of online “excerpts” in the information packet:

The Consecration of a Virgin for a lay woman living in the world (Canon 604) is a call from
God. It is a definitive vocation in the Church. No one can presume to take it on herself, nor
should she ever deem herself “worthy” of it. Most importantly, it is a call of love, and love alone should be the motivation. Love of Jesus makes everything have sense, meaning. It is the love of Jesus that calls a lay virgin to become a bride of Christ, a bride of the Lord Jesus, an living image of the Church.

and…something else of interest….

Am I willing to endure persecution – the persecution that inevitably comes from being a “sign of contradiction” to the world? Virginity in today’s world especially is ridiculed in the media, in social life, in one’s workplace. Am I willing to be misunderstood because of my vocation of consecrated
virginity? Am I willing to accept that I cannot live and recreate like others in my profession
because of evangelical poverty? Am I willing to turn down some activities, legitimate for
others, but ones that would cut into my time for prayer, time that I need to spend with Jesus?
This is the virgin/martyrdom of our century, and we must be willing to live through it as our witness
(and “martyr” means “witness”) for Jesus.

Authentic Catholicism is not a comfort religion, but one that understands the Cross.

I know more than I can make in one post, but I’m willing to talk more on it for those interested. I am discerning, but have not submitted an application because I am still exploring religious communities. There are communities that may accept me, but I have health conditions. However, the clincher is that even if I am healthy, I am not so sure the Lord is not calling me to the Order of Virgins. I would love nothing more than to go into obscurity and into a cloister where I can seek the face of God 24-7. But, I feel he wants me in the world in order to bring souls to him through contact - at work, on the street, the store, or wherever I may be.

The information packet also points out:

If I had been called to a vocation other than consecrated virginity lived in the world, could I have followed it in my life and been successful? For example, if I had been called to marriage, could I
have married and made a success of the marriage? If I had been called to Religious Life, could I
have entered a congregation and been successful in community interaction? If a woman can answer
Yes to these questions, then she can be fairly sure that she is not seeking the Consecration of Virgins as a “last resort,” but rather that she is seeking an intimate bond with Jesus as a consecrated
virgin.

Looks to me like the “single” vocation or consecrated virgins want a mix of both, and no responsibility to a superior. In other words a lone ranger, they decide and make their way.

Now granted, if the person is very holy this can work. But we all know what usually happens when we are on our own dont we? Pride sneaks in, we get comfortable, vices develop, etc… So it is not their work I am worried about, its their holiness and salvation.. it would be better taken care of in a religious order. This takes humility and counters that pride..

My thoughts…