Public vs Private vows: Questions on the Nature and Breadth of Eremitical Commitment

Dear Sister, When a person commits to being a Consecrated Hermit/Hermit Sister, are they also making a commitment to being attached to a particular Church, to the Church in general, etc.? In other words, does it go beyond a marriage to God? I do realize that formally being under the obedience of a bishop would create that sort of tie. So, is the difference between being a private hermit and not “official” according to the Church mainly that those ties do not exist in the same way? This could be a deciding factor, down the road, with whether I might make private vs public vows. ]]

Good question. yes, diocesan hermits or other canonical hermits are embracing an ecclesial vocation in which they are granted certain rights while taking on specific obligations and expectations on the part of both the local and universal Church. The ties, however, are not simply those of obedience to one's bishop; obedience to one's bishop symbolizes deeper or more extensive ties within the Body of Christ.

You see, while one’s vows and espousal to God are very significant they are necessarily and profoundly embedded within a specific ecclesial context, namely that of the diocesan church (on behalf of the universal church), which both mediates and structures the vocation itself. This contextualization makes a very specific and profound kind of sense of the vocation. When one is consecrated in the RC Church, for instance,  one is initiated into a stable state of life. Stability here indicates more than the permanence and nature of one's relationship with God or the essential irrevocability of being set apart as a sacred person by God; it indicates all of the elements which help mediate and structure the divine vocation to this state: Rule, superiors (bishop and delegate), stability within the diocesan church (meaning one may not simply move to another diocese and remain a diocesan hermit without both Bishops' permissions), parish membership as a consecrated person (which gives other members the right to certain appropriate expectations), being subject to canon law re religious life or vows in ways lay persons are not, etc --- all of these and more are involved in what we call a “stable state of life” under canon 603.

One way of thinking of all of this is to understand that the vocation to consecrated eremitical life belongs more fundamentally to the Church than to the individual. The consecrated hermit lives eremitical life “in the name of the Church” who mediates God's consecration and thus she becomes a “Catholic hermit”. The Church discerns with but also admits to profession and consecration those she determines may have truly been graced with this call; she then mediates God's own call to the person in the Rite of Profession and she does so as an instance of the way the Holy Spirit is working in the life of the Church through this individual's vocation. The call is divine in origin but it is fundamentally ecclesial in nature. In other words, espousal to God (or consecration for that matter) is never an individualistic reality but ALWAYS shares in and reflects or images the more foundational and primary bridal identity and nature of the Church.

Personal espousal is thus always “derivative” in the way being a daughter or son of God in Christ is derivative. Christ is the only begotten Son and we are given a part or share of that identity in him within the Church. For instance, I and other c 603 hermits are espoused to Christ under c 603 (cf Rite of Religious Profession) and thus given a unique share and place in the Church's own espousal which we image in some way for the whole People of God. (That espousal, while real is ordinarily less explicit in terms of mission and charism than, for instance, the vocation of the consecrated virgin living in the world. Instead the hermit's charism is the silence of solitude and, while the two are profoundly bound together in her life, she is, I believe, called to witness to the silence of solitude more primarily than to espousal with Christ. In other words her espousal is revealed primarily in an ecclesial life of the silence of solitude while this eremitical charism is the gift she embraces on behalf of the Church whose espousal she thus shares and reflects.) If one wants to live eremitical life apart from specific ecclesial commitments and requirements then seeking consecration under canon 603 would not be the way to go.

It is true that a person with private vows is not initiated into the consecrated state of life. This means they are not espoused nor admitted to a stable state of life in the senses described above. Their commitment is entirely private and, while of course the person might never desire or decide to do so, they may walk away from their commitment at any time without in any way modifying or otherwise affecting their standing or various relationships in the Church; this is so precisely because there are no attendant ecclesial rights, obligations or expectations, no canonical standing --- beyond that associated with baptism itself --- neither is there ecclesial discernment or validation of eremitism as a vocation nor does one represent or live the eremitical vocation “in the name of the Church.” All of this is part of what we mean when we say one's vows are private.

Some hermits, however, in imitation of the  desert Fathers and Mothers (who were lay persons), want to live eremitical life with a private vow or vows as an expression of the traditional and profound prophetic character of the eremitical vocation. Their reasons are good ones, their decision to live eremitical life via a private commitment can be inspiringly courageous, and their vocation can make real sense in these terms. Some of us choose (and are chosen) instead to live the traditional  prophetic character of the eremitical vocation in a public ecclesial vocation as part of the Church's own gift and call to witness to the radically countercultural Gospel --- not only for the Church's  own sake but for the sake of a needy world. There are significant pros and cons to both.

I hope this is helpful. If it raises more questions or failed to answer your own please get back to me.

More on the Roman Catholic Canon 603 versus the Anglican canon 14.3

[[Dear Sister, I understand you feel the Anglican Canon is inadequate to guide those living an eremitical life. Do you think maybe the Episcopal Church doesn't mean it to guide eremitical lives? Maybe they only wanted to allow for individual religious without the interference of others. Maybe their solitaries don't think of themselves as hermits or at least maybe this doesn't happen a lot.]] (Second set of questions included below.)

I don't really know what most Episcopalian solitaries think of themselves. However, besides the criticism by an Anglican solitary regarding 95 % of solitaries who misleadingly call themselves hermits that I referred to here before, I have read blogs by those who think of the terms solitary and hermit as synonyms. (See also the references to one Anglican solitary and an Orthodox solitary who disagree with the notion that the two terms are synonymous at the end of this question's response.)

Hermits and Solitaries as Synonymous:

One Episcopal solitary, for instance, in responding to the question, [[What is a Solitary?]]  writes, [[ A Solitary is the modern name for a Hermit. . . . They are monks and nuns who are under vows held by a bishop instead of the superior of a community, and they are professed to be single [religious] and not a part of a community. Since the married state is a form of community, Solitaries are, by definition, celibate.]]  In this passage I think it is clear that the author sees hermits simply as "single religious", that is religious who do not belong to a community.

Later, when asked how one received training as a solitary he responds that it is the novitiate (that is, in religious community) which is indispensable. When he notes that one may then decide that one is called to go in a solitary direction, there is absolutely nothing implied in the use of the term "solitary" besides being a religious who then goes apart from a community, nor that (once one has sufficient human formation in community of whatever kind) one can only be prepared for eremitical life in solitude itself. Even later he does write that a hermit needs to ALSO spend some significant time in solitude during formation but the sense given is that this is additional to the more critical novitiate and optional, not integral to the life of a hermit. Unfortunately, a hermit is defined by this solitary as a religious who is single, that is, not part of a community. (In fact, this blogger writes that hermits are professed to NOT belong to a community --- as though this negative criterion is the real point and content of their profession! He opines this means ANY community including a parish community and thus, in this way too he underscores the individualistic character of the Anglican vocation.)

Maggie Ross (Sister Martha Reeves), a well-known Anglican solitary and fine writer, writes somewhat similarly when she observes that we are all solitaries or that there is nothing particularly unusual about hermits. [[We have made everything about the church much too exotic and the solitary life is an extreme example of this. The solitary is saying, "everyone is a solitary; in that inner solitude is the kingdom of heaven; don't be afraid, behold." ]] While I agree completely that solitude is the most universal vocation in the sense that we are each and all of us irreducibly solitary in our historical existence and while I think we are pretty close together with regard to her comments on inner solitude, where we differ is in her application of the terms "a solitary" and hermit.

While we may all be solitary, not everyone is "a solitary" in the vocational sense. Neither are all of us called to be hermits nor can we all be called hermits despite the ontological or existential solitude that marks us or the inner solitude of our hearts.**  Nor is it the case then that hermits are common-place, or that eremitical life and solitariness itself are identical realities. A piece of the desert vocation of the hermit is certainly its witness to the ontological solitariness of human being and even more fundamentally it witnesses to the communion between (union of) God and human beings that constitutes the human person. Beyond this, however, it witnesses to the redemption that occurs when human aloneness or solitariness is completed by that communion and is thus transfigured into eremitical solitude; further, it does so in a life wholly dedicated to God in the silence of solitude --- something few are called to do with their lives. In this way especially, the hermit represents a special and relatively rare commission to participate in the ministry of reconciliation to which every Christian is called.

In these two cases it appears that Anglican usage treats the terms  solitary and hermit as synonyms. Sister Reeves also seems to agree with you that solitary life is one which is so autonomous that there should be no interference from hierarchy or the Church at large. Apparently she argues this to support the freedom of the "hermit" and the prophetic character of the vocation (which seems to mean the person is in a position to criticize the Church in various ways.) It does seem to be fairly individualistic in her conception --- and even adverting to the role of the Holy Spirit in such a life, critical as that is, does not really compel one to believe the Episcopalian model of solitary religious or eremitical life is other than individualistic. The way the two terms are collapsed into one another, whether one starts with ontological solitude as Sister Martha does, or with "single religious life" as Br Randy does, simply underscores that fact.

Ignorance of the Nature and Charism of Eremitical Life:

Even more startling to me are Br Randy's following comments. Despite identifying himself as a canonical hermit with more than ten years in perpetual vows and a number more in temporary vows he writes, [[I know absolutely nothing about what a hermit is and don't claim to. I have experience of what it is for me to live the life of a hermit, but no imperical (sic) knowledge. What I claim to believe may change from time to time.]] How can this be the case? How can, even in what may really be a confusing nod to Apophatic theology, a publicly professed, or canonical hermit claim to know absolutely nothing about what a hermit is? From my perspective such a confession is genuinely stupefying. How, after all, can a person claim to be living as a hermit, be professed to live into this vocation more and more fully and yet have absolutely no idea what it means to BE a hermit? More troubling yet, how can a Church perpetually  profess someone in this situation --- or not dispense their vows if, over such a significant period of time, this is the confession the person is forced to make??

It is one thing to say, "I know in general what a hermit is; I know what this vocation expects of me and what I am professed to live and I both grow in and fall short of this vision every day of my life." It is another to say, "I have absolutely no idea what a hermit is!" Even the confession of having fallen short of one's profession depends on one knowing what it means to BE what one is professed to be! Imagine that a priest (or a candidate for ordination!) said this about his vocation. Would we ordain him? For that matter, what if I came to my Bishop, asked him to perpetually profess me as a solitary hermit under c 603 and then, as he asked me to discuss the gift this vocation would be to the church and world, I confessed I actually had no clue what a hermit actually was? Likewise, what if someone asked to be professed under canon 603 and, when asked about the canon she proposed to live her life by, showed no sense of ever having read it, much less having allowed it to define and shape her entire life! In this confession the author not only underscores the completely individualistic nature of his vocation but, in something I find even more troubling, he seems especially unaware of the charismatic nature of the eremitical vocation. What I mean is there is simply no indication in his comments that he possesses an understanding or appreciation of the very specific gift of the Holy Spirit this calling is to the Church whose mission is to proclaim the Gospel to our contemporary world.

At the very least I think we have to conclude the Anglican canon #14 is not generally used to profess individuals who have experienced and can actually witness to the gift (charisma) or specific gift quality (charism) of eremitical life. That is especially true if, as I argue often here, the charism of eremitical life is "the silence of solitude". There is evidence that generally the Anglican (Episcopal) Church treats the term hermit as a synonym for solitary and even for "single (non communal) religious". As such they build a basic misunderstanding into their use of Canon 14 to profess lone individuals as "hermits." In a world where exaggerated individualism is a critical problem that betrays the very nature of humanity, this basic misunderstanding is a correlative betrayal of eremitical life's witness to a solitude defined in terms of personal completion and rest achieved in union with God alone. Such a solitude differs radically from individualism or individual isolation. If this skewed portrait is NOT the vision of eremitical life they wish canon 14.3 to govern it does seem to me they are failing to provide a normative vision which would serve them better. As I understand the situation there is no other canon (norm) which does provide such a vision.

(I find the posts of one Anglican religious solitary under c14 refreshing here. Amma Sue, the author of the blog www.singleconsecratedlife-anglican.org is such a solitary and is very clear that she is not a hermit while she writes some about the "qualitative distinction" between herself and hermits. (She claims to quote me in this article but to be honest, except for the term "silence of solitude," and a reference to solitude as communion, I don't find my own words in what she writes.) She is cited in the exceptional blog City Desert (cf CityDesert on Solitary religious Life ). CityDesert (named after the classic by Derwas Chitty) focuses on solitary life in its variety of forms, especially as these are translated into contemporary situations and terms, and is always a wealth of information. Its author is a priest in the Oriental Orthodox Tradition who lives as an urban solitary in a city in Australia)

[[Should the Roman Catholic Church add a canon like the Anglican Church? Do you think it's a good idea to have [single] religious? I am thinking that if the RCC did this we could increase vocations and also those who don't feel called to eremitical solitude could still be professed.]]

One thing I think should be clear. When the Roman Catholic Church establishes a vocation to the consecrated life she does so because she has recognized a way of living which is a specific and significant gift of the Holy Spirit. A charism is the result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit meeting the needs of the contemporary world. When these two dimensions intersect, individuals may recognize that their own lives replicate the same needs and the same inspiration. Alternately, a person may perceive that their own gifts and talents are such that they may help the Church mediate the Spirit's Presence in ways which heal and transform the world into one shot through with the presence of God. In other words, these individuals recognize they are called to embody this specific charism (or gift) in ways the world urgently needs it. At times the Church re-establishes vocations or specifies them as states of perfection because of their value in proclaiming the Gospel in the contemporary world. She does not do so otherwise.

Remember that when the Church reprised the eremitical vocation and decided to admit solitary hermits to public vows and the consecrated state she did so in part because at Vatican Council II Bishop Remi de Roo published an intervention listing about a half dozen positive reasons for doing so, a half dozen ways in which the vocation represented the work of the Holy Spirit and was a gift to the Church and world. When the Church and her hermits look at the individualism rampant in the world or the growing isolation of so many elderly, bereaved, chronically ill, etc, they are also able to see that hermits (those who live the charism of the silence of solitude and the rest of the vision of c 603) speak to these persons with a particular vividness. They proclaim the redemption of isolation and its transformation into solitude in Christ.

Similarly, when the Church reprised the vocation of Consecrated Virgins living in the world she did so in part as a reflection of a newer (and more Biblical)  eschatology where heaven and earth interpenetrated more and more, where secular vocations were being re-valued, and where there was a serious need for a vocation of eschatological or consecrated secularity which reflected all this in ways religious life per se could not. Thus, the Church did not ask CV's to make religious vows which distanced them from or qualified their relationship with the secular world in significant ways. Instead she consecrated them as Brides of Christ and icons of the whole Church; she consecrated them to embody the relationship with Christ every person is ultimately called to, but commissioned them to do so here and now in every possible way and arena, i.e., "in the things of the world and the things of the spirit." Likewise, in a world whose nearly entire approach to sexuality involves its trivialization and profanation, CVs living in the world are called to be a witness to a counter-cultural reality in which sex is held to be sacred (and even sacramental) and the whole person is to be given to Christ for the sake of others. 

While both eremitism and consecrated virginity are ancient vocations the Church did not restore them for this reason alone, nor because, relatively speaking, a few people felt called to them. She did so because they represented gifts of the Holy Spirit which spoke powerfully to the needs of our contemporary Church and world. This is the way the Church always determines authentic vocations. Numbers per se are not the issue nor are the private vocational senses of individuals. Discernment of ecclesial vocations is always a mutual matter with both the Church and the candidate discerning such a vocation and this mutual discernment always includes an assessment of the charismatic significance and impact of the vocation.

Therefore, to answer your questions, unless the Church determines "single religious" (who are non-eremitical) represent a similar vocation representing a significant charism, there is no reason to think the Church should or will establish it canonically. Since canon 14.3, seems, in a clearly individualistic impulse, to be merely meant to create "single religious" with no necessary commitments to others in community, no intrinsic, much less defining sense of ecclesial responsibility or relatedness ("a solitary is professed to NOT be part of any community including a parish community"), and no sense of living a very specific and specifically valuable gift of the Holy Spirit either, I would argue that this is not an example the Roman Catholic Church would want or feel much drawn to follow.

** Sister Martha has apparently been questioned about this position that we are each "a solitary". She also wrote at another point in her blog, [[I have, for a long time, been saying that 'we are all solitaries'. And this is true: communities of all kinds are only as healthy as the solitudes that make them up; and those solitudes have the responsibility to the community to do the work that will help them to be spiritually mature. But that does not mean that everyone who likes their solitude should take vows. You can be ihidaye, have singleness of heart, within a marriage, community, and even alone in the woods. It does not mean you are 'a solitary' or should or, more importantly, could, from an eremitical point of view, make vows.]] I believe Sister Martha is right here and should retain the vocabulary of solitudes v solitaries. We are all existential "solitudes" --- a philosophical term reflecting our ontic state, but only some of us are solitaries --- a religious term which can include hermits, anchorites, and recluses.

Consecrated Virginity, Eschatological Secularity and the Descent and Ascent of the Bridegroom

[[Sister Laurel, when you talk about consecrated virginity as a form of eschatological secularity you are talking about it in terms of this same eschatology you have been explaining the Ascension in aren't you? The bridal imagery Jesus uses to explain the Ascension applies directly to this vocation then doesn't it? It is an icon of this new creation and this new heaven and earth the Scriptures talk about. Is that right? If that is the case then I understand better why you have insisted this is a "significantly qualified secularity" defined in terms of eschatology and consecration. It is not only that CV's are icons of something still to come but that they are icons of something already here; both consecration and secularity are essential dimensions of this. . . .]] (Paraphrase and transcription of part of a conversation I had with another Sister on this matter. It builds on the following article among others: Consecrated Virgins and the Interpenetration of Heaven and Earth)

Yes, exactly.  When I write about consecrated virginity lived in the world as a form of eschatological secularity I am specifically thinking of the ascended Jesus and his mediation of God into the world as well as his mediation of the saeculum or created world into God. The new heaven and new earth we look forward to, that reality in which God is all in all has begun to exist but is not here in fullness. CV's living in the world are icons and apostles of this proleptic reality in a way which is unique not only because of the bridal imagery associated with the vocation but because of the vocation's secularity as well. Just like the Bridegroom CV's are called to mediate between heaven and earth by representing both fully. They are not to flee the world as some forms of religious life stress, nor do they represent an unchanged secularity. Instead they are icons of the ascended Christ and the new creation, the new heaven and earth his own life in God represents and mediates.

You see, when I think about Jesus as mediator there is an amazing symmetry about it. It is quite literally beautiful to me to see the way Jesus as God's Christ stands between two worlds and brings them together in himself.  All vocations participate in Christ and in his role as mediator but the bridal imagery used in the Gospel of John to speak of the Ascension and his "going to prepare a place for us" in the very life of God seems to me to be especially explicit in the vocation to consecrated virginity. So is the transformed secularity, that is, the eschatological secularity, of this new heaven and new earth. It may well be that any Christian consecrated in baptism can represent this kind of secularity but because of the explicit bridal imagery associated with it it seems to me that consecrated virgins represent this is a more vivid, explicit, and perhaps too, a more integrated way than other forms of consecrated life.

In the early Church folks were in greater touch than we are today with the fact that they belonged to an earth which was objectively different than it had been prior to Jesus' death and resurrection. They lived and breathed a truly eschatological secularity because they saw the new heaven and new earth both now present and its coming in fullness being right around the corner. We have lost touch with this sense but the renewal of this vocation, it seems to me, could represent a completely new (and very ancient) approach to the cosmos which is profoundly eschatological. Christ as Bridegroom models the movements of descent and ascent, kenosis and pleroma, self-humbling and glorification. It is in Christ that things which were once separated and alienated from one another are reconciled so that God might be all in all.

Remember that it was typical of religions to believe these things did not belong together in God or in the Divine (God could not be associated with kenois, humbling, sin, death, godlessness, suffering, etc); thus it was similarly typical to believe that created reality or material reality did not belong to the spiritual realm or vice versa. The Christ Event changed all that and it is Jesus as mediator and bridegroom that makes the reconciliation and eventual transfiguration of these both real and vivid. Christ mediates the sacred to the secular and the secular to the sacred, so to speak; the reality that comes to be in him, whether proleptically or in fullness, is an eschatological secularity --- a new heaven and a new earth. His Bride (the Church) shares in this mediatory vocation. It should not be surprising then that consecrated vocations serve to demonstrate a similar paradoxical "belonging together" of those things which were once seen as incompatible and rightly alienated.  So you see, I continue to believe CV's living in the world are called to demonstrate this in a privileged way. Those who reject the eschatological secularity of their vocations seem to me to have missed this central piece of what the NT bridal imagery is really all about.

On Appropriate Perspectives: Loving Chastely vs Protecting One's Virginity

[[Dear Sister, with respect, why would requiring a manifestation of conscience in someone seeking something as important as consecration as a virgin be "problematical" as you put it? If a woman is not physically a virgin or if she has been lustful or involved in immodest activities and things like that, how can she represent this vocation? don't we have a right to know that the persons we admit to consecration really are virgins? Didn't you have to pass some kind of screening to become a hermit? Isn't this just part of the discernment process in determining who is called to this vocation or not?]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me talk about some of the concerns these two related ideas (1. more detailed physicalist definitions or focus (including the more scrupulous definitions of the meaning of the terms "public" and "open") and 2. the requirement that there be a manifestation of conscience in cases of personal doubt) have raised for me with regard to the vocation to consecrated virginity --- especially as these more physicalist definitions seem to me to be linked with larger elitist attitudes or tendencies among some CV's which assert things like "Religious should not be allowed to call themselves brides of Christ" or the notion that "in heaven some who were consecrated will wear the virgin's crown or aureole" while others, because of physical  or biological criterion, will not, and so forth. Perhaps that will help answer your question about why I consider the whole thrust problematical. I will try not to merely repeat what I have already said.

My first concern has to do with the nature of the vocation itself and what we are saying with it. Is it merely the consecration of physical virginity per se, a virginity defined in mainly physicalist terms, or is it the consecration of a person to a life of virginal (single-hearted) and spousal love? While these two things belong together we change the emphasis significantly when our focus is on establishing ever-more-detailed definitions of what it means to be virgin rather than on what instead constitutes violations (especially public violations!) of chastity in the virginal state. Once we cease measuring virginity (within this vocation) primarily in terms of love or the generous, sacrificial, and risky (by which I do not mean reckless) self-giving this entails and instead focus on the necessary avoidance of emotional and physical interactions or activities which might lead to a loss of physical virginity we have made a fateful move. I argue this is especially so given the more detailed ways in which these are being defined and which are confusing folks to the point which may actually require a woman check with her Bishop to see if she has violated them or not. Specifically, it seems to me that in introducing this whole issue we have significantly shifted the mindset with which a woman approaches the vocation, and therefore too, the nature of the vocation itself from one of generous self-gift to one of scrupulous self-protection. Perhaps paradoxically this is true because the canon seems to me to confuse virginity with any serious violation of chastity in the first place. Once that is done the definition of virginity needs to be continually and retroactively continually expanded in the way some are attempting to do now.

Both virginity (including sexual or genital innocence or relative innocence) and a commitment to generous or sacrificial self-gift can be protected and encouraged of course, but the perspective required to do so is different than this practice encourages. What it takes to do this is a perspective which defines (a life of consecrated) virginity in terms of self-gift and singleness of heart, a perspective which sees virginal love as a goal, not as a static or "starting" state one simply preserves; its achievement must be perceived as something which demands a woman engage profoundly with others --- not that she avoid such engagement. If the focus is on loving and singleness of heart, on generous and sacrificial self-gifting in ways which are graced and motivated by Christ and empowered by the Spirit, then one will not need to do detailed examinations of whether this activity or that experience actually violated one's physical virginity. One will generally be successful at preserving this physical state because they are striving for something more transcendent which will also include lesser or more limited  concerns.

However, if one's focus is instead on merely preserving a physical state, then one may very well fail to love --- and to miss opportunities to love while identifying them as "dangerous" or "near occasions of sin" or simply being blind to them altogether. It's a little like riding a bicycle between two posts. If a person looks at the posts, first one then the other, then again, etc., she will invariably crash into the posts. If, on the other hand a person sights along the top of the wheel to gauge its projected  movement along the path or, even better,  focuses as well as one can on the path beyond the posts --- that is, if she looks at where she wishes to go and is actually heading rather than where she does NOT wish to go --- she will pretty much sail through the posts without concern. If I look at what it means to love --- God, myself, and others --- and if I try to do so with greater compassion, sensitivity, generosity, sacrifice, and so forth, I am not likely to violate chastity; if, however, I am constantly concerned with my own chastity it will only be by luck or the sheer grace of God alone that I do not violate it because I have set my sights on violation. (By the way, we ought not tempt the Lord our God in this matter! Grace is necessary but so is the perspective it provides) Meanwhile there is no doubt that I will also fail to grow sufficiently in loving as fully as I am called to because love implies self-forgetfulness and risk while this perspective is not only relatively self-centered but is defined by the words, "Caution" and "Danger!". In this analysis perspective is everything and the approach suggested by some CV's seems to me to foster the wrong perspective.


Another example, this time from the history of Judaism might be better. Consider the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath. This was ordinarily interpreted to mean that one rested from work but it also meant to rest in God as well as to worship him. It allowed the whole of creation to rest on that day. Sabbath rest allowed one to foster an attitude of thanksgiving or gratitude for God and his gifts. It allowed one to foster a mindset in which an instrumental and even exploitative approach to reality (including people) was relinquished along with workaholism and all the ways we measure ourselves in terms of wealth, success, power, etc,  so that one might just be oneself with God and one's loved ones.

This broader and more demanding goal was stated as "keep Holy the Sabbath". Eventually, Judaism developed detailed lists of what was and was not allowed on the Sabbath. Sixty-nine forms of work were delineated as prohibited on the Sabbath. Throughout history, of course, developed even further in response to a changed culture.  In contemporary culture observant Jews had do ask themselves "May I turn on a light switch after the Sabbath has begun?" Drive or ride in a car? Etc, etc. In other words the focus or perspective shifted away from the goal to limited and delimiting notions of the means to that goal. It also fostered the hardening of a sacred/profane dichotomy. Is this what the commandment is about? I don't think so. And yet, this is invariably the direction things move when we are concerned with what we should avoid rather than with exercising the freedom and love of the children of God. (Remember Paul's Conclusions on Law vs Gospel.)

I think the Church herself saw this clearly in creating what seems to me to be a threshold definition of virginity rather than a highly detailed and physicalist one. (Again, it seems to me the canon confuses loss of virginity and violations of chastity since not all violations of chastity --- even if flagrant -- cause one to cease being a virgin; thus, I am instead suggesting the church created a threshold definition here.) While she clearly expects the woman never to have been married or participated in the marital act, in every other way the canon, rite of consecration, formal homily, etc seems to focus on loving others and witnessing to an all-embracing, demanding, challenging spousal love to which all are ultimately called. Again, when we keep our focus on the latter we are almost assured of remaining chaste in whatever state of life to which we are called. When our focus is drawn to the former, the detailed "thou shalt nots" ---- especially if this is linked to a sense of confusion or uncertainty --- we are more apt to fail at the larger task, the true call. In terms of the parable of the foolish virgins we might put it this way:  If attention is drawn away from Christ and his call to love others in the exhaustive way he loves us,  if our attention is drawn away from waiting on him to focus instead or even primarily on preserving physical virginity, if, that is, CV's shift their perspective from the love that gives freedom (and espcially freedom from fear) to an anxious, fearful and protective concern that, in Scriptural terms, brings "death", then CV's are apt to find their lamps are clean and shiny but empty of oil and unable to light the way to the wedding banquet. They may even find they have missed the Bridegroom altogether. Again, at bottom this is paradoxically at least partly a result of conflating any serious violation of chastity with a violation of one's virginity.

Manifestation of Conscience, a dangerous Precedent

The second concern I have is that if we allow (or require) women who are confused about the matter of their personal virginity (not least because of the previously mentioned confusion) and do not know whether they have ALSO violated chastity to make a manifestation of conscience so their bishop can decide matters, then unless the church refuses to consecrate such women or subsequently locks the consecrated virgin up in something equivalent to a medieval anchorhold we will need to require subsequent and regular manifestations of conscience to continue to protect such women's virginity. We will really not be able to adopt this idea of requiring a manifestation of conscience in cases of personal doubt only as a pre-consecration step. There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, if the woman --- whom we presume to be relatively intelligent and at least well-catechised if not theologically well-educated --- is confused or uncertain before consecration it can only be because 1) the definition of virginity is too difficult (or too narrow) for her  to grasp or the list of things which are violations are too complex or too vaguely defined for her to determine things on her own; there is no reason to think this will change after consecration --- especially since cultural and societal changes, physical changes in the woman herself, and the demands of ministry focused on loving engagement with others will assure this detail-oriented definition does not remain static, or 2) the woman is not really suited to the vocation or is really too immature to be admitted to consecration. In either case if such a woman is admitted to consecration there is no reason to think she will not need to be questioned and checked up on regularly.

One alternative, of course, is as you say, to treat the first manifestation of conscience as a screening procedure used in the discernment process alone and then presume the woman will never need this again. But this is inadequate; it is either naive or it sets a double standard. You see, once we set the precedent of having another person determine FOR a woman if she is really a virgin when she herself is doubtful we have taken what I called earlier a fateful step on a slippery slope that can only lead to more of the same. For the moment this women is presumably is a virgin but what about six months from now? A year? Tomorrow? How will she "protect her virginity" if she (and perhaps the church herself) is unclear on what constitutes an irreparable violation of that in the first place? This is, after all, what that confidential pre-consecration "talk" with her Bishop signaled. And how about those CV's who claimed to know what they were committing to? Do they really know what it means to remain chaste or was their focus insufficiently detailed and physicalist originally (as some CV's seem to believe the Church's working requirements for admission to consecration have been for the past 31 years)? Who decides? Best just call them all in regularly for a "confidential chat" with the bishop!

Obviously I am being a bit facetious here, but only a bit. Setting a precedent regarding the manifestation of conscience for a woman who is unsure she is really a virgin in order to consecrate her to a life of virginal, spousal love is a terrible and destructive idea which fosters the wrong perspective for generous, single-hearted, and selfless love. There are a number of other questions raised by you and also by other readers including: what happens to women who are already consecrated but cannot NOW affirm virginity in the face of more stringent (and also less demanding) definitions? How about those who fall into essentially private violations of these definitions? I will leave this here for now until I have more time, but I hope this has been helpful in clarifying some of my concerns.

Cyril of Jerusalem on Espousal to Christ

I have written a few times now on the fact that the vocation lived under canon 604, consecrated virginity of women living in the world, is a specification of a universal vocation to espousal that every Christian receives in baptism. I have tried to deal with misguided arguments which make this vocation elitist, which posit for instance, that Religious do not have the right to call themselves Brides of Christ unless they also receive this specific consecration in conjunction with solemn vows and that CV's have a right to ask them to stop doing so! I have argued that marriage and religious life as well as the life form of CV's serve to remind us all of our own baptismal espousal to Christ -- though they do so in different ways. I have argued that consecrated virginity serves as an icon of the eschatological fulfillment of this espousal and its secularity makes it clear that heaven and earth will interpenetrate one another. In saying all of this in the main I have merely been repeating a theology which has been present since the earliest years of the Church's life.

Much of this was underscored in the Office of Readings (Vigils) last week. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (d. 386) speaks in a way which should be instructive to every CV who desires or attempts to make of their own consecration something elitist and completely unique.  The text is included below. Please attend to whom Cyril is addressing  ("My brothers"!); the wedding language or imagery is emphatic and unequivocal without exclusive gender reference. Neither is espousal in this matter linked to sinlessness or physical purity prior to baptism. Cyril says just the opposite. It is linked instead to the recreation by the Holy Spirit and new relationship with God that occurs in Baptism.

I will be writing more about some questions I recently received re canon 604 and what constitutes virginity or precludes one from receiving the consecration just as soon as I can (perhaps a week or so). However, after rereading what I have already written, I have decided that for the moment there is little I can add to either my own posts or to Cyril's instruction here regarding the universality of the call to espousal:


[[From the Instructions to Catechumens by St Cyril of Jerusalem
Prepare for the Holy Spirit

Let the heavens sing for joy and the earth exult! For these people who are about to be sprinkled with hyssop will be cleansed spiritually. His power will purify them, for during his passion the hyssop touched his lips. Let the heavenly angels rejoice! Let those who are to be wedded to a spiritual spouse prepare themselves. [N.B., as noted, Cyril is speaking of those who are preparing for Baptism, not for another consecration.] A voice cries in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord And so, children of justice, follow John’s exhortation: Make straight the way of the Lord. Remove all obstacles and stumbling blocks so that you will be able to go straight along the road to eternal life. Through a sincere faith prepare yourselves so that you may be free to receive the Holy Spirit. Through your penance begin to wash your garments; then, summoned to the spouse’s bedchamber, you will be found spotless.

Heralds proclaim the bridegroom’s invitation. All mankind is called to the wedding feast, for he is a generous lover. Once the crowd has assembled, the bridegroom decides who will enter the wedding feast. This is a figure for baptism. Give your name at his gate and enter. I hope that none of you will later hear the words: Friend, how did you enter without a wedding garment? Rather may all of you hear the words: Well done, my good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in small things, I shall put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your Lord.

Up to this point in the history of salvation you have stood outside the gate. Now I hope you will all hear the words: The king has brought me into his chambers. My soul rejoices in my God. He has clothed me in the garment of salvation and in the cloak of joy. He has made me a bridegroom by placing a crown on my head. He has made me a bride by adorning me with jewels and golden ornaments. I do not say these things so that your souls will be found without stain or wrinkle or any other defect. Indeed, before you have received this grace, how could this happen to you who are called to receive forgiveness of sin? Rather, I ask that once you have received his grace you do nothing to deserve damnation. Even more, I ask you to hasten toward the fulfillment of his grace.

My brothers, this is a truly great occasion. Approach it with caution. You are standing in front of God and in the presence of the hosts of angels. The Holy Spirit is about to impress his seal on each of your souls. [It is important to remember he is speaking here of a sacramental seal.] You are about to be pressed into the service of a great king. And so prepare yourselves to receive the sacrament. The gleaming white garments you are about to put on are not the preparation I am speaking of, but rather the devotion of a clean conscience.]]

Followup on Reserved and Preferential Seating at Mass

[[Dear Sister, thank you for answering my question on reserved seating for religious and other conse-crated persons. My interest came from reading a post which suggested Consecrated Virgins attending the renewal of ministers commitments as EEM's should either not attend or be seated with religious. The author was emphatic that they should not be seated with the laity who were renewing their commitments.  She also made the point that Religious and CV's did not need to make or renew such commitments since they were serving the Church and acting as an EEM was a part of this already. The link to this post is: Real Life Scenarios.]]

Ah, thanks for the link. I know this blog and have some fundamental disagreements with its author about the vocation she writes about.  Even bearing that in mind (for it and cultural differences in particular make me more cautious with my opinions), I'm afraid the entire story still makes me think of the presumption and squabbling that went on between some of the disciples regarding who would be seated at Christ's right hand and who at his left. (You recall the story. The Mother of James and John, Sons of Zebedee, asked if her Sons could occupy these privileged places and Jesus said it was not up to him to pronounce on this; that was God's purview alone.) It is precisely this kind of ambition and resultant squabbling that is encouraged by preferential seating: "If religious get preferential seating then CV's who are also consecrated should also have preferential seating, etc". (And of course there WILL be an etc in this as preferences within preferences establish themselves.)

Though I appreciate that it is entirely appropriate to be recognized within the church for the place one has in her life and ministry (something which is true for everyone, by the way), it also makes me wonder if those who argue for (or accept) preferential seating as a matter of course, etc, can really drink of the cup of kenosis, suffering, and humility that Jesus himself has offered all disciples. Jesus seemed especially to question whether his own disciples knew what was being asked for; the cup of privilege for the Christian is the cup of self-emptying. The idea, for instance, that a CV should simply not attend such a Mass rather than accept seating with the laity seems particularly wrongheaded to me. In the referenced blog piece the liturgy being described is a commissioning to ministry by the local Church, not merely a renewal of commitments; everyone has a part in such commissioning and in the reception of a minister's recommitment to this ministry. Surely a consecrated person with a public ecclesial vocation --- especially if they share in this ministry themselves --- is called to support and participate in such an action no matter where they are seated!

The author of the blog you are referring to raises some difficult and important questions then --- not least about the wisdom of routine preferential seating per se. Another of these, however, is the best way to gain recognition of the nature or essence of the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world in the given circumstances. Some might cogently argue that the CV's should be seated with the religious both because they are consecrated women and because they are not actually making a recommitment either. I don't agree. In part that is because I see elitism as counter productive to really being known and understood and in part it is because I understand a central piece of the vocation of the CV living in the world to be a prophetic call to all those living secular vocations to understand and accept that they are called to an exhaustive and eschatological holiness as well as to being a missionary presence in the midst of the world.

After all, this is the vocation of the Church herself and consecrated virgins living in the world exemplify it in a vivid way. Similarly, and this is my third reason, if religious misguidedly insist on (or accept) the anachronism of preferential seating, then someone has to begin to break down this barrier to unity; Consecrated virgins, it seems to me, might well be the ones to do so. It would be a particular service to the local and the universal Church in and for which they serve as icons. During special liturgies they might well wear the veil (and perhaps the garb) they wore at their consecration along with the wedding band they wear every day to mark their state of life, and they should probably request and continue to request that local clergy appropriately recognize their presence and service; but these things said, they should sit in the assembly with everyone else --- just as religious should. I don't see this as a betrayal of the public nature of the vocation, but an expression of it. It does, however, refuse to confuse notoriety or elitism with the vocation's public rights and obligations. It seems to me that this is also one of the things Pope Francis has been modeling for us so clearly.


While it will take time for the Church to fully recognize and appreciate canon 604 vocations a veiled (or not-so veiled) elitism will not help in this. Instead it can only encourage resistance to yet another vocation which suggests (or seems to suggest) that lay life is an "entry level" or second class vocation which is somehow inferior to vocations to the consecrated state. This would be a serious disservice to the Church and is what I referred to above as counterproductive. From my perspective what is needed, besides continued efforts to instruct clergy (and all they minister to) regarding the nature and charism of this vocation,  are consecrated women who live this vocation out by humbly bringing the special graces attached to their consecration to the very situation in which they live and are also  called to embrace --- namely, the everyday world.

It is true that vocationally speaking consecrated women and men are not lay persons, but hierarchically speaking unless they are clergy they ARE lay persons. Religious are not a third level of vocation standing between the laity and the priesthood. One of the graces I suspect CV's are called to bring to the Church is the grace which levels distinctions signifying differences in SOCIAL status. (N.B., This is NOT the same thing as differences in legal standing or "canonical status.") It is part of witnessing to a universal call to holiness, and, again from my perspective, is part of the mission and charism of CV's living in the world and committed to God in both the things of the spirit and the things of the world.

Preferential or Reserved Seating at Mass?

[[Dear Sister, does your parish or your diocese use reserved seating for religious? How about for visiting priests or other consecrated persons? If there was the renewal of a commitment to serve as an EEM, would your parish ask all those renewing their commitment to sit apart from the rest of the assembly? Do you have an opinion about this kind of practice?]]

What a surprising series of questions. I am curious about what prompts them for you! In any case, neither my parish nor others I know of in my diocese generally use reserved seating for religious, priests (i.e., for those who are not concelebrating), or other consecrated persons except of course in  special Masses (Ordinations, installations of Bishops) where all ordained are expected to be present, or in funeral, profession, or jubilee Masses for religious; in these cases members of the persons' congregations or the Presbyterate sit together and their seating is reserved. It is true that in our parish the first 2-3 pews are reserved for families and friends when a child is being baptized, for instance. For First Communions each child sits on the aisle of one pew and the rest of the pew is filled with immediate family and friends. (Each pew is marked with a banner with the child's name.) The rest of the assembly sits behind the section with the children and their families. However, in daily, Sunday, or otherwise normal Masses everyone including visiting priests (who are not concelebrating), deacons, and religious or other consecrated persons sit dispersed throughout the assembly as equally significant members of the Church by virtue of their baptism.


Renewal of commit-ments to serve as EEMs (or other ministries for that matter) are handled in my parish by calling all EEMs to come forward and stand together facing the altar. Every person who serves in this way, lay, consecrated, or religious, does this and renews their commitment in front of the entire assembly while the assembly prays for them as well. They then return to their original seats with friends, family, Sisters or Brothers, etc. Generally this means they are scattered throughout the assembly. I am unaware of any parishes in my area that reserve seating for religious or other consecrated persons as a matter of course though there tends to be an informal similarity with seating as folks take the same seats week after week and folks accede to this. This is not the same thing of course.

Past Practices:

In the late sixties (when I came into the Church) it was true that religious tended to sit together in groups and pews were reserved for them --- not least because they were seen to be separated from "the world" and did not mix with "seculars". It is also the case that in Masses using the extraordinary form religious are given preferential seating even today. Personally I despise the practice and believe it is unChristian. It treats those in the consecrated state as though they are more favored by God than the rest of the assembly and it makes the goal of true unity -- even within a single assembly -- impossible to achieve. Vatican II was very clear: the laity are NOT second or third class citizens in the Kingdom or in the Church and we should not be routinely giving preferential seating to those who are in the consecrated state of life because doing so is a betrayal of the truth of the Kingdom.  ALL are called to an exhaustive holiness and all are called to be disciples of Christ in a whole-hearted way. ALL have an equal place at the table of the Lord. In our parish ministers, who are there to serve and who are required at only one point in the service (EEMs, Lectors, etc) come forth from the assembly as a whole and return to it when their service is finished. (Some participate in the entrance procession and those serving throughout remain near at hand throughout.)

 Scriptural Lessons:

You may recall that in today's first reading James speaks compellingly of God showing no preference or partiality for persons and noted that if we do this we are guilty of sin. This position is emphasized in Romans as well. In these texts the immediate reference is to giving the wealthy priority over the poor, but remember that wealth was seen as a sign of God's favor in the society in general so it can be extended to imply we cannot treat persons as though one vocation is more favored over another. In the Church in Corinth this destructive, disedifying, and entirely worldly approach to persons and status led to the wealthy receiving Eucharist (or eating) before the poor. Paul denounced the entire practice as contrary to the will of God and the example of Jesus.

Meanwhile, throughout the Gospels we are told  that the Kingdom Jesus proclaims turns on its head our tendency to measure reality in terms of status and social distinctions. In a world where it was entirely inconceivable that the last should be first, or the poor should be privileged in any way, the Kingdom represents the inconceivable. It does not substitute a new social hierarchy for an old one but instead does away with social organizing on the basis of status. When Scriptural texts use paradoxical statements like the first will be last or blessed are the poor, we are speaking of something inconceivable, not setting up another hierarchy. In its place is a new equality based on love and unity which is rooted in the chosenness of Baptism.  Eucharist is the place where we celebrate this in a paradigmatic way; it simply does not allow for preferential seating of the kind you are asking about.

Denying the Uniqueness of the CV vocation lived in the World??

[[Dear Sister, do you think the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world is valid? Do you think it is unique or special? Sometimes I wonder if you do because you seem like you would like to take away the thing which makes it special. CV's are Brides of Christ really, not just symbolically like Religious women. They are married, not just engaged. They are consecrated by God, not by themselves making vows as is true for religious and they are consecrated as individuals not as part of a community. I think their uniqueness in these things is a gift to the Church. It is what makes their vocation valid. You seem to deny all this. . . .[repetitive bits omitted]]]

First, thank you for your questions. I do believe the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world is a valid vocation and, like all vocations, I believe it has a special place in the Church. In fact, I am coming to believe that it is one of the most significant vocations existing in the Church today. (All vocations are more or less timely.) However, I also sincerely believe that like every vocation in the Church it is a gift only insofar as it is iconic of something all persons are called to in some way. It is charismatic only to the extent it meets needs which other Christians (and non Christians as well) have and yearn to be fulfilled --- and too, only to the extent that the Holy Spirit uses it to meet these needs in some focused way. Vocations are charismatic because they are gifts of God which people receive with joy as a way to God --- and not for themselves alone, but for others!! Two often when CV's or would-be CV's speak in the terms you have, the sense I have is that canon 604 and the consecration it provides for is a gift to the virgins themselves which they seem to expect folks to set up on a shelf and admire as precious and wonderfully wrapped, but not really useful or relevant to the lives of non CV's.

I remember that one CV once responded to a comment I made about the charism of CV's living in the world by essentially saying she would be quite surprised to find the pastoral need for a strongly secular AND consecrated witness to be present, much less relevant to the vocation. (The sticking point here was secularity.) But the simple fact is that determining whether something is charismatic, that is, whether it is a gift of the Holy Spirit or not involves determining whether there is a pastoral need or not.  What makes icons really iconic is not that they can be gazed at like a work of art, but instead that they are capable of drawing others into the world shared by both the icon and the one reading it and empowering them to serve similarly. For that matter, the really beautiful is only beautiful to the degree it grabs hold of and resonates with something shared by the one experiencing it. CV's are icons of a universal vocation and the identity of the Church herself. It should not surprise CV's then that to serve in this way means they must reflect characteristics all Christians share and are called eschatologically to share perfectly while also empowering others to take hold of this vocation with an ultimate seriousness.


It would be refreshing to see CV's writing about virginity and its place in our world, especially in terms of quality of commitments, trivialization of sex, the fraudulent and distorted nature of so much that passes for love today, etc. It would be wonderful to hear CV's speaking of the universal call to spousal union with God and the way in which their own vocations are iconic of this and complementary to the iconographic nature of marriage in this regard. It would be refreshing to hear CV's writing about the maternal nature of their vocations and how their virginity allows this to be lived out in a world  which is often so desperately in need of real maternal figures --- women who set aside their own needs, ambitions, personal prestige, etc for the sake of the life of others. It would be wonderful; to hear CV's writing about their place in the new theologies of secularity and mission which affect the way we see the Church and live out our Christianity. But, in the main, I do not hear that. Instead, the dominant topic is how CV's are Brides of Christ while others (Religious women and men) are not REALLY that or "only symbolically" that, etc.

On the use of the term Symbol:

Well, let's get a couple of things clear theologically and philosophically. First, it is not accurate to contrast symbolically with really. I know that Catholics are used to doing this in regard to Protestant notions of Eucharist but it has been almost 150 years since theologians articulated clearly that Symbols are the way the really real is made present; symbols participate in the reality they symbolize. Symbols are not merely arbitrarily agreed upon signs. They are living realities which are born, have a life span, and eventually die. They are not created by human beings but are instead recognized in the same way we always recognize participation in the transcendent and mysterious. They take hold of us with their power and we surrender to that. Thus, we do not say that something is "merely a symbol" anymore than we say a women is "partly" or "sort of pregnant." With regard to the Eucharist, saying that the bread and wine symbolize the risen and ascended Christ is not to say the species are not REALLY the Christ. Instead it is to say that this is one of the true and powerful expressions of his presence amongst us; it also suggests that it is capable of grasping everyone with its universality. To suggest one person is "only symbolically espoused" to God in Christ whereas another is "really espoused" is theologically and philosophically naive and wrong.

Secondly, to the degree something is made utterly unique (and thus robbed of its universal or symbolic value), that thing becomes more and more irrelevant and incapable of truly speaking to or empowering people. If the only way CV's consecrated under c 604 can take seriously their own consecration is by denying the very real spousal vocation of every person, the more iconic and eschatological espousal of Religious, and so forth, they ought not be surprised when people respond to the statement, "I am a Bride of Christ" with looks of incomprehension or shrugs amounting to a "so what?" attitude which is an appropriate comment on the irrelevance of the vocation. My own immediate (and entirely tacit) response to most of the writing I see by CV's (I know a couple of CV bloggers whose work is quite fine) is ordinarily a combination of "So what?" and "Oh, get over yourself!" My secondary response is something like, "No wonder people in the Church generally say this vocation makes no sense, is too precious, or simply lacks relevancy!! When will you say something about what this vocation means for the rest of us? For our world in need? For the Church's decision to renew it now when she is recovering a sense of the importance of the secular, the universal call to holiness, and the nature of the Church as missionary?"

Watch out for Assertions Which Absolutize Uniqueness!

I am not denying the need to reflect on the vocation, of course. But part of this reflection means looking carefully and prayerfully at the theological underpinnings of the call and at what the Church and the Holy Spirit are doing in renewing (or reprising) it now. It means adopting a necessary humility in regard to the vocation's specialness and uniqueness and appreciating that these MUST serve others and lead them to understand the similarity of call and dignity which they share. Vocations are never absolutely unique; instead they are like facets on a gem where each is both unique and yet possesses and underscores a similarity to and identity with the others while thus contributing to the overall beauty of the gem. Each facet catches and reflects the light differently at different times and places but they do so without depriving other facets of the same characteristics. In fact, a gem where one facet was utterly unique would be a seriously flawed gem. It might be worth something as a curiosity but not as a work of art with balance, complex inner relatedness, or complementarity and harmony.

I would thus disagree with your assertion that it is the uniqueness of the vocation which makes it valid. It is the Holy Spirit's impulse and the Church's discernment of the vocation's pastoral significance which make it valid. For instance, even with the eremitical vocation it is not enough to have the sense that some few individuals are perhaps inspired to this way of living by the Spirit. There must also be a sense that this call serves the Church and world in some significant pastoral way. Even the Desert Fathers and Mothers reflected a profoundly pastoral sense in withdrawing to the desert. Certainly it served their own personal holiness, but it also had a strongly prophetic quality which said to the Church:"You are too strongly allied with the world. You are called to be counter cultural! Leave this behind!!"

Today, in a world which is often too individualistic the strongly pastoral nature of the eremitical call to "the silence of solitude" and a life "lived for the salvation of others" is undoubted if ironic -- or if paradoxically expressed. I think there is no doubt that hermits say to everyone, "You too are called to this foundational relationship with God; this union or covenant with God is who you are most fundamentally. You too need silence and solitude; you too need less "friending" and a focus on true friendships instead." Consecrated Virgins, especially those living out their consecration in the world and in the things of the world as well as in and of the spirit and things of the spirit, will find the vocation's validity not only in its uniqueness but in its ability to call for its commonalities with others. Most often in Christianity it is the latter quality which makes something really special!

Regarding your other assertions about Religious, the way they are consecrated, supposed engagement vs marriage, etc, I have already responded to these notions several times and refer you to other posts which discuss the nature of religious profession, consecration, and espousal. If those raise questions for you or you disagree in some substantive way, please write again and I will be more than happy to respond.

Followup Questions: On the Supposed Difference Between the Espousal of Religious and Consecrated Virgins

[[Dear Sister, if both religious and consecrated virgins are called to a similar espousal with God, then why are some nuns consecrated as virgins and some not? This seems to argue that there is something different in these two vocations. Why would nuns also want to accept the consecration of virgins if they are already espoused to God as Brides of Christ? Since some Sisters eschew the identity of "Bride of Christ" doesn't this also suggest they are not Brides in the same sense as CV's consecrated under c 604?]]

Thanks for your questions. I think the question of why we continue using the Rite of Consecration of Virgins for nuns is a really thorny one today. It will take some real thinking to deal with the problems it creates as well as the good it represents. However, I don't think it allows us to conclude there is necessarily any conflict nor substantive difference here. Remember that the Church specifies that for a nun eventually ALSO receiving the consecration of virginity after solemn profession --- even some limited time (e.g., several days or weeks) after the rite of profession --- the symbols of espousal usually given at solemn profession along with the solemn prayer of consecration are withheld until the Rite of consecration of virginity. The idea here is that these are not substantively different consecrations and therefore they are not to be repeated. (If profession of vows were merely an "engagement" and consecration of virginity represented the actual marriage as some CV's naively and erroneously argue, then this specific withholding of ring and solemn prayer of consecration would not make much sense. Similarly if profession were the way in which someone consecrates herself while in the Rite of consecration of Virgins it is God doing the consecrating --- as some CV's also sometimes argue erroneously --- then this division would not make much sense either.)

Why do Some Nuns use the Rite and others do not?

Some religious do not receive the consecration because their congregations are not permitted to use the Rite.  (The use of the rite by Religious is restricted to Carthusians and maybe one of two other congregations of cloistered nuns.) Cloistered communities that are allowed to use the Rite may consist of women who were once married as well as virgins but only the virgins among them might receive this consecration; these congregations may also have  nuns whose prayer lives are explicitly nuptial and who wish to formalize that through the Rite. My own impression is that this could be done through the readings, imagery, prayer, and homilies associated with solemn profession and consecration (profession is the dedication piece of things; it is accompanied by a solemn prayer of consecration) --- especially if the house is only professing one or two nuns; with a larger group the chances of needing to accommodate differences in prayer lives and personal sense of mission increases. Though I appreciate that these congregations have kept alive a form of ancient vocation which is traditionally very significant and while they also serve today to remind CV's consecrated under canon 604 that their own vocation by way of contrast is a call to a renewed form of secularity, I don't think we can argue that the Rite of consecration of virgins used for nuns marks the nun as someone called to a different consecration than her Sisters who do not use the Rite. And yet, some CV's seem to believe this is exactly what it suggests.

For me this uneven practice within houses of nuns actually raises the question of the appropriateness and fruitfulness of continuing to use the Rite of Consecration of Virgins for nuns who are solemnly vowed and whose rite of  definitive profession already includes a solemn prayer of consecration and Bridal significance, imagery, and insigniae. This is especially true since the earliest consecrated virgins did not have to be physically intact, but were women who had given themselves wholly to Christ and were therefore considered "virgins" and more, consecrated virgins. Today we really do need consecrated virgins to whole-heartedly accept their own call to an eschatological secularity and it occurs to me that too often the existence of nuns who add the Rite of consecration of virgins to their own solemn profession (minus its usual solemn prayer of consecration) diminishes the sense that secularity is an appropriate form of espousal to Christ. This is also true because these nuns became the group that eventually completely co-opted the use of the Rite among those living secular lives and led to an end of the secular expression. Certainly it can lead to the idea that religious life is tiered and that some are made to experience Christ's love more intimately than others because they are "chosen" by God to be consecrated in a way substantially different from their Sisters (and Brothers!). We have to be cautious of any interpretation of the use of the rite of consecration of virgins which leads in this direction.

Because of the tendency by some today to treat the consecration of religious and that of CV's as being of different weights or degrees, a further piece of my answer to your questions comes from a consideration of the fact that the French Bishops have made it clear that hermits being consecrated under canon 603, for instance, should not add the consecration of canon 604 to this. They have noted that each consecration is complete in itself. One does not add anything by adding the consecration of virgins to consecration under canon 603. Dioceses in the US have adopted this policy (i.e., today we do not see canon 603 professions and consecrations of diocesan hermits accompanied, much less "completed" with consecrations  of virginity under canon 604) and it seems that canonists generally tend to find it a wise policy.  Were one consecration so different in character from the other that the other could be added (for instance if one were  "constitutive" and one was not), or if one were a fuller or more complete form of the first, none of this would make sense.

Religious Eschewing the Designation Bride of Christ

Meanwhile contemporary Religious who have shunned the identification, "Brides of Christ" have done so for several legitimate reasons. The most important one is that the identification was used in an elitist sense and also one which stripped or tended to strip it of its eschatological meaning. It was seen as indicating marriage in an incredible and mainly "this-worldly" sense by many; at the same time ONLY religious associated this imagery or vocation with themselves --- married people, for instance, though they should have seen themselves as imaging the ecclesial call to espousal to Christ as well, did not. Single persons had no sense at all of being participants in this eschatological call by virtue of their baptism. In general the Church per se was not easily seen as the Bride of Christ with, for instance, religious and married people serving as related but differing icons of this identity.

Further, many Sisters' prayer lives were not similar to those of persons with mystical experiences of union with God. This, coupled with an exaggerated emphasis on religious as Brides of Christ, led to unnecessary self-criticism of their own prayer lives, and unwarranted doubt about the quality of their own vocations; in short, it was destructive. Finally, most Sisters today find the Bride of Christ imagery less helpful than imagery of Sisters or Brothers who identified with everyone and  resonated with imagery that spoke clearly of their availability to all as well as to the universal call to holiness so very important to Vatican II. None of this detracts from or obviates the espousal of religious to Christ, but it does remind us that the reality of espousal can be lived and witnessed to in various ways -- some less legitimate or edifying than others. Especially it reminds us that espousal is not elitist. It is not primarily about the one who is espoused but rather it is about the One who loves them with an everlasting love just as it is about the person's commissioning to bring others to imagine and accept their own call to a union with God which is also spousal. If someone feels the need to proclaim they are "a Bride of Christ" in a way which is elitist and does not open others to accept a share in espousal with Christ, then perhaps the need they are evidencing is too-self-centered  --- too exclusively this-worldly and not sufficiently theological, ecclesial, or eschatological.

Patterns of Exclusion and Elitism

At the present time some in the Church are over-emphasizing the Bridegroom imagery of priesthood in a literal way which requires male gender and mandatory celibacy. (Advocates of this over-emphasis seem to forget that the Church, both Roman and Eastern, also has married priests today and has historically had at least women deacons. They also seem to be forgetting that in baptism we all become Brides to the Bridegroom even as we all image  the risen Christ.) This has led, I believe, to an unfortunate correlative emphasis on Consecrated virgins as the female counterpart to male clergy and even more especially to the Bishop.

Unfortunately, in order to argue this position, advocates have to omit the fact that both male and female religious have been considered Brides of the Bridegroom throughout the entire history of the Church; they must tacitly deny the early history of the Church that defined virginity in terms of giving one's whole self to God in Christ and included both women and men (usually called ascetics); as a consequence they have also embraced a notion of consecrated virginity that focuses on females and physical intactness only. Finally, they are now stripping the eschatological dimension from the symbol Bride of Christ when used for individuals thus turning it into a too-this-worldly marriage. All of this seems to me to  involve neglecting the fact that the Church as a whole, male AND female, married AND celibate, is the Bride while the Bridegroom is the risen and ascended Christ, that is the Christ whose eschatological identity is therefore more cosmic and less culturally derived or merely historically defined.

This pattern, of course, reprises several of the valid reasons contemporary religious have shunned the designation, "Bride of Christ" in the past 50-60 years or so. It should be clear that they did not do so because they are not espoused to Christ in the same way that CV's consecrated under canon 604 or cloistered nuns receiving the consecration are. Both are espoused (and both represent the espousal we are all ultimately called to), one group as religious, whether cloistered or ministerial) and the other as consecrated secular persons. In this way they once again reflect the same two forms of the vocation that existed side by side until the 11th century.