Questions on Male version of Canon 604

[[Dear Sr. Laurel, I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. I know about Canon 604 and how certain women can be consecrated virgins, and this consecration can never be dispensed with. But can laymen be consecrated celibates? Is there such a thing? Or would they just make a private vow of chastity? E.g., I know someone who was promiscuous for a number of years, came back to the Church, and made a private vow of chastity. I don't know if he took it a step farther and went through any ceremony with a bishop or priest, but he is a layman and not married, and plans on remaining unmarried. He refers to himself as a "consecrated celibate."]]

The answer to your first question is no. At this point in time there is no vocation for individual lay men who would like to be initiated into the consecrated state in a way similar to consecrated virgins. Rome is said to be talking about reprising the vocation which existed in the early Church (men consecrated in this way were generally called Ascetics), but as far as I know, no steps have been taken to do this. (By the way, a similar vocation has been proposed for widows, and a few Bishops have "consecrated" Widows in this way, but as yet, the vocation has not been ratified by Rome and c 605 which refers to new forms of consecrated life and  demands Bishops' openness to these requires that this ratification occur before it can be considered a new form of consecrated life. Until it does, we do not have consecrated widows either.) Canon 603 governs eremitical life and it is possible for a single lay man to discern an eremitical vocation, but again, this would be vastly different from the vocation of canon 604 or that of ascetics in the early Church. It is emphatically not, as some have reportedly said, the male counterpart to c 604.

If a person decides to remain celibate they may make a private vow. In such a case, they are, for the length of time the vow is kept, dedicated celibates, but not consecrated ones. Despite the wide misuse of the terms consecration or consecrate today as actions referring to one's self-disposition, it remains the case that only God consecrates, only God makes holy or sets aside as holy, only God through the public mediation of the church initiates one into the consecrated state of life. Vatican II was very careful to refer to the human action in profession with terms like dedication, etc and reserved the term consecration for the divine action in such a commitment. Additionally, therefore, its usage is reserved for initiation into the consecrated state of life. To use it otherwise is confusing at best. You see, since initiation into the consecrated state implies public rights and obligations along with new legal relationships as well as necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church (this is one of the reasons this is considered a public commitment), it is unhelpful to use it to refer to someone who has not been formally and publicly called to or accepted those rights and obligations. (By the way, it can and has been argued that no consecration can be dispensed, but the public obligations, rights, and legal relationships attached to the vows and to the consecrated state of life can be dispensed.)

Finally, your friend might have had a priest or Bishop witness his private dedication (or even receive these vows AS PRIVATE), though this is not strictly necessary,  but there is no provision in canon law for the public reception of such a vow by an individual. For this reason, their presence would not change or have changed the entirely private and dedicatory nature of the vow itself. It remains a significant but still-private act of personal dedication.

I hope this is helpful.

Consecrated Virginity and Separation from the World

[[Dear Sr Laurel, Thank you for answering my e-mail in the past. I have read your comments on phatmass about consecration to both hermit and consecration (sic) virgin with interest - especially the possiblity (sic) of a call to both a spousal relationship with Christ and the call to contemplative solitude. Just to take things a little further... do you think it is possible that a vocation to consecrated virginity can include an element of separaton from the world (whilst in the world), living a life with a great degree of solitude and contemplative prayer ?]]

If one is very careful in delimiting how one uses the term "world" (the Johannine usage has three senses and canon law reflects these in c 603 for instance), if one is not attempting to mitigate much less do an end run around the essential secularity of the vocation, and if one is careful not to actually be embracing (or attempting to embrace) eremitical solitude, then yes, I believe one could integrate a secondary "separation" (i.e., not being of the world which is supported by contemplative prayer) with the secular (being in the world) character of one's vocation as well as integrating the contemplative dimension of one's life with one's active and ministerial life. Besides being profoundly Christian this is the only way I can see what you are referring to actually working for a canon 604 CV. For that matter, it is probably also the only way one can genuinely maintain a profoundly eschatological secularity.

You see, while the hermit embraces stricter separation from "the world" primarily in the sense of "that which is resistant to Christ", she ALSO embraces a stricter separation from the things of the world which are more ambiguous (qualified goods and realities which are mixtures of (the) godly and godless) than even other Religious, and thirdly, in her call to remain within her cell living a life of assiduous prayer and penance, she often maintains a stricter separation even from elements of God's good creation per se. (These unqualified goods are often sacrificed in order to maintain custody of the cell, an even greater good for the hermit.) A consecrated virgin, like every other Christian, is called by canon 604 to embrace "separation from the world" in the first sense but in relation to the other senses of the term she is entirely secular. Thus, unlike religious whose relationship with the things of the world are qualified by their vows and hermits who are called to stricter separation from the world than even most religious, the CV under canon 604 will live, work, and minister in the world which is ambiguous and freely relate to the world which is God's good creation. If she negotiates this division in senses of the term "world" and integrates contemplation with a ministerial life in and to the world she will actually be living the very thing which distinguishes secularity from secularism; she will be refusing to allow the secular a place of ultimacy in her life and will, moreover, be modeling an appropriate (eschatological) attitude toward the secular.

What remains primary for the c 604 CV, however,  is the fact that by definition her vocation is a secular one (that is, it is lived out in the world and exercised in the "things of the spirit AND the things of the world"). This does not allow her to opt out of engagement with or ministry to the world and it means her contemplative life serves her secularity. Frankly, many people live (or attempt to live) as lay contemplatives today; they combine responsible secular lives with a strong contemplative prayer life and, apart from the consecration of the virgin per se which they do not share, this actually seems to be what you are describing. Remember that it is the Virgin's consecration under c 604 itself which obligates her to and makes her capable of  an eschatological secularity the world needs very much. However, the moment one's description of the CV's life veers into eremitical or semi-eremitical solitude (for instance with references to "great degrees of solitude") one may actually be speaking of a betrayal of c 604's essential call. Thus, the subject line of your email to me refers to a "hermit element" in the OCV vocation. I would say that description is illegitimate and should never be used with the c 604 CV. Every significant Christian vocation should probably have a contemplative dimension which requires a degree of  physical solitude and silence and contemplative prayer, but these are not "eremitical elements" nor are they specifically eremitical at all. Something more is required to make them eremitical --- which is why I argue that living a pious life alone is, of itself, not essentially eremitical.

You write: [[ I know that the Rite refers to the CV living in the world, but I always thought that this referred to the fact that the CV was not in the monastery and therefore in the world. My reasoning came partly from my understanding that the CV vocation originally was lived in solitude or within the family context, and later CV's started to live in community which led to the formation of monasteries. Therefore, it could be said that the same vocational call to a consecrated spousal relationship with Christ was lived both in the world ( i.e., alone or with family), and in the monastery. ( I would see the main difference being that in the monastery there is the addition of religious vows). ]]

But in this I would argue you are mistaken at several points. First, as I have written several times in response to Jenna Cooper's "secular lite" position, the Rite which was renewed by the Church in c 604 does not merely say "living in the world" as though this merely means "rather than living in a monastery." It says (cf. the homily) that one is called to live in the world and serve one's brothers and sisters "in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world".  As I have said a number of times in posts on this topic there are two forms of consecrated virginity today, one lived in the world (a secular form), and one lived as a religious in a vowed expression of separation from it (a specifically cloistered form). I would argue that Canon 604 very specifically reprises a secular form of the life which existed into the 12th century (until 1169 CE) side by side with the cloistered Religious form and was, unfortunately, eclipsed by it. This is really the charism and more immediate source of canon 604, the form of the life the Church sought specifically to re-establish in a world crying out for witnesses to consecrated or eschatological secularity. 

Even if one seeks to move back behind this fact to the early Church, it is important to remember that in the early Church, worship was done in house churches; it was homes that were the center of ecclesial life and consecrated virgins were a central part of this life. Public and private life interpenetrated one another and their boundaries were blurred. The same is true of lives of prayer; folks lived integrated lives of profound prayer AND profound secularity. The entire Church community described in Acts of the Apostles embraced the values later associated specifically with the evangelical counsels of Religious life. This did not make them monastics or other than secular. When folks decided to embrace solitude and rejected "the world" (as in the desert Fathers and Mothers) they left this more integrated life behind and traveled into the desert. Monastic life grew directly out of this desert/eremitical movement as lauras were transformed into monastic communities per se. Meanwhile religious profession via the vows qualifies one's relationship to the world in at least two and sometimes three senses of the word and creates a form of relative separation from it, especially in the senses of 1) that which is resistant to Christ, and 2) that which is ambiguous, the realm of power, wealth, and so forth. The monastery setting is an appropriate physical way of accommodating this entire pattern of qualified relation to the world as is life in community more generally. It is a symbol of a life which is NOT the original form of consecrated virginity, that is, not secular, and not given over to both the things of the spirit and the things of the world.

[[b) - Also, can it be understood that the main service of a CV could be prayer? ( The Rite distinguishes service and prayer, which suggests a form of service on top of prayer as service - or is that not necessarily the case? ) I wonder, because the Rite does suggest that the lifestyle is adapted to the gifts of a person, which could include a predisposition to a life of contemplative prayer and a degree of solitude) ]]

No, I don't think so. Again CV's are consecrated to serve the church and world in the things of the spirit and the things of the world. They are called to a form of eschatological or consecrated secularity.  While prayer is a central and critical component of the CV's life, it is not the defining characteristic, at least not to the extent where it could be said to detract from or replace service in more direct ways. If a person has the necessary gifts and a predisposition to contemplative prayer, this is wonderful and certainly serves any authentic active ministry, but if you are speaking of the gift and predisposition to a contemplative life and vocation per se then  it is unlikely you are speaking of a vocation to canon 604 for women living in the world; again canon 604 very explicitly articulates a secular life of service in the things of the world as well as of the spirit.

If a woman truly feels called to a contemplative life and even to one of eremitical solitude, then I personally believe she should pursue these in a specific and conscious way, either in a monastery, a semi-eremitical community, or perhaps, in rare cases, as a diocesan hermit. These avenues as well as religious life more generally are open to her in the contemporary Church as is lay contemplative life so, unless her original discernment and formation were completely inadequate or skewed and her consecration premature or ill-advised, I wonder why she would want to formally embrace a specifically secular vocation and then fail to live it (or even seek to redefine it as an essentially contemplative or even semi-eremitical one) because she has now discovered different gifts and a different sense of call. This does raise the question of adequate discernment however, and it argues for consecrating only mature vocations, rather than allowing the consecration of women whose spirituality is not yet well-defined. (Note well that I am not ruling out elderly CV's embracing a life of prayer in their post-work years, but this is a different question I think.)

You also write: [[To explain my question further: c) - My impression is that some if not most of the early virgins lived lives of prayer, lived at home, and were not so involved in apostolic service - which was more the domain of deacons / deaconesses. I don't have ready literature to support this view, it's more of an impression that I have gained with time and general reading, although I would like to follow this up if I have the opportunity.

d) - While I intend to be loyal to the teaching of the Church, and seek to understand it more fully, I wonder how interpretations have developed historically... In the light of Vatican II which encouraged a return to roots of consecrated life, it does seem to me that some of the modern interpretations of CV, (perhaps including the Rite itself ), do not always make room for the expression of the vocation as it was in the early Church. ]]

Unfortunately, from what I have seen and read, there is not a lot of direct evidence regarding the nature of the lives lived by virgins in the early Church supporting this. I have seen nothing that indicates they lived essentially contemplative or eremitical lives, for instance.  Again, I think it goes without saying they were women of both deep prayer and significant service. I say this in part because categories were not so sharply drawn at that time so the lives of deaconesses and virgins probably overlapped, especially given the domestic focus or locus of local churches as well as the sense that virgins dedicated to Christ became "men" in a spiritual sense and that they specifically argued for the opening of ministry in ways that would not have been possible otherwise. What I am also suggesting here is that the evidence of what virgins who had given themselves wholly to Christ did in the face of being barred from certain ministerial roles suggests this limitation was more a function of cultural biases than it was the acceptance of a true charism. Thus, St Perpetua et al argued for their essential "maleness" and struggled to be allowed to minister in all the ways men did. This hardly suggests they saw the original charism of their lives as one of separation from the world or of being given over to contemplative prayer except to the degree this supported direct ministry and witness in and to the world.

However, this seems to me to also be somewhat beside the point in looking at c 604 vocations. As I noted above, in promulgating canon 604 the Church seems very clearly and deliberately to have been recovering the secular form of the life that not only pre-dated but also had developed side by side the cloistered form and, again, which was first subverted by the cloistered form of it (cf Sharon Holland, IHM's essay on Consecrated Virginity today) and then was completely eclipsed by it in a Church which came to value Religious life and devalue the secular. It seems to me that contemporary CV's must be keenly aware of and honor not only these more immediate roots of her vocation, but also the correlative reasons the Church established canon 604 when she did as well as the limitations she imposed by removing references to a habit, living in community, vows of obedience, etc. In particular the contemporary CV under c 604 must be able to see her vocation in light of Vatican II, the emphasis on the new evangelism and missiology, and a growing esteem (and need) for a consecrated secularity which is in necessary contrast to both secularism and to (non-secular) Religious life as it is institutionalized today. It would be nice to see CV's who have read the proceedings leading to the promulgation of canon 604, for instance. If we want to understand the mind of the Church in reprising this life that surely seems to me to be a primary source of understanding the authentic charism of this vocation.

There are a number of posts I would refer you to here which have already covered these points more adequately. One of them is Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Minimized Secularity, a Legitimate Development? Another is Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Secular vs Secularism and Consecrated Virginity but others would also be helpful, I think. I hope you will look at these (cf the labels below as well as the links). 

Followup on Legitimate Developments of the Vocation to Consecrated Virginity

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for answering my last question. You have written that one indication the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world is secular is that the Church does not make candidates for the consecration to live anything other than secular lives as they discern or prepare for consecration. Some are arguing that the vocation is growing into a kind of maturity and that by requiring changes in this they are just arguing for a more radical form of the life --- something that should have been required all along. I think someone asked you if some CV's wanted to live a more radical form of the life then why shouldn't they be able to? Could you comment on these two things together?]]

Thanks for your questions. The post you are referring to where someone asked me about developments of the life is either  Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Radical Secularity?, or Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Minimized Secularity, A Legitimate Development? In those I think I answer the question about legitimate developments and non-legitimate developments as well as what constitutes radicality in ANY vocation. What is critical to remember is first, that there have, in the main, been two forms of the vocation, one religious and one secular. The secular form (which was the initial form of the vocation) died out in the 12th Century and was wholly supplanted by the religious (cloistered monastic) form of the life. What canon 604 does is recover a valuable and consecrated secular vocation that had been entirely lost nine centuries ago. Secondly, we must remember that all vocations call one to follow Christ with one's whole self or wholeheartedly. Religious poverty is not necessarily more radical than the poverty embraced by a parent who sacrifices to give her child a college education or the advantages which lead to that, for instance.  These are different kinds of poverty, different expressions of it, but one is not necessarily more radical than the other. Other posts that speak to the radical nature of this secular vocation are, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Followup to "Radical Secularity?", and Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Eschatological Secularity and CV's living in the World.

Given these and other posts I think we have to say that Canon 604 calls for a radical secularity lived in whole-hearted discipleship to Christ. As I noted in earlier posts, a vocation does not become more radical by changing its very nature. Thus, a more radical vocation to eschatological secularity does not become more radical by diminishing the element of secularity. Only by making it a more whole-hearted response to the One who issues the call does it become more radical. Both elements, the eschatological and the secular must be deepened and made whole-hearted in this response. Thus, one's life of prayer needs to grow and mature so that God is more and more sovereign in one's life, but so also does one's life of service to others --- something which is extended at least in part by one's life amongst and work with them. Also, in regard to c 604 we have to be very cautious in suggesting that some CV's,  by the very fact that they lived secular vocations, have not been living radically enough, especially if that suggestion is linked to notions that "younger CV's" are recovering the radical nature of the vocation while "older vocations" failed to live it. (I mention this because I have heard this argument made by some CV's and it sounds like it may be implicit in your question. My apologies if it is not.) This is simply not true and the Church's own documents and liturgy stresses the profoundly secular (but not secularist) nature of the vocation.

It is, of course, perfectly understandable then that CV's will try to live more and more radical lives of prayer and service in response to God and the needs of God's people. Faith leads to faith; deep calls to deep. Conversion is part of every vocation.  They might well choose to pray the LOH (more hours than the recommended Morning and Evening Prayer --- Night Prayer is a logical addition) especially since this is not the prayer only of Religious, but instead is the official prayer of the entire Church; they should already be building in time for contemplative or quiet prayer (what person of prayer does not?). But beyond this it seems to me the Church has been wise in not specifying other requirements, especially those which could be mistaken for the commitments of Religious which separate from the world or mitigate the secularity of the vocation. Any other tailoring of an individual CV's life of prayer (or service) should probably be left up to the virgin and her spiritual director; the Church has largely done this just as she has consecrated women living secular lives rather than Religious ones.

I hope this is helpful. If the links don't provide what you are looking for, please get back to me and try putting your question another way.

The Eschatological Nature of the CV's Betrothal

[[Dear Sister, are you saying that consecrated virgins are not married to Christ? Also you claim to have a spousal relationship with Christ. Can you truly say your first experience of being with Christ once you were espoused to Him was not a unique experience for you? How can you say this was not dependent on your own virginity? My impression is that women DO image the relationship of bride better than men. I think the Church teaches this, doesn't she? Women are receptive and a CV images the receptivity required by the Church as a whole. Plus we DO refer to the Church as "she" don't we?]] (Questions culled from longer email)

Mary Magdalene

Thanks for your questions. First, in Notes From Stillsong: On Consecrated Virginity and the Nature of this Espousal I am not saying CV's are not espoused to Christ. Instead I am saying it is the risen and ascended Christ to whom they are espoused, not to the historical Jesus. For this reason I am also saying that we cannot speak of an "experience" which is directly analogous to the consummation of a human, historical marriage. The Christ to whom Religious men and women as well as CV's are espoused is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father and whose bodiliness is qualitatively distinct from anything we have known or can describe. We do not experience it in the same way as did the disciples who were privileged to experience the risen but unascended Christ, much less the historical Jesus. One clue to this is found in the Gospels themselves when Jesus warns Mary Magdalene not to cling to (or touch) him for he is not yet ascended to his Father. I believe this is applicable to each of us in our faith journey and reminds us that the Lord we put first in our lives is completely consistent with the Jewish Jesus of history, but that he is also very different than that; it therefore occurs to me that it just might have a particular application to CV's today who speak as the CV in the passage the questioner last quoted and I responded to. In other words, we who are espoused to Christ as Religious or CV's must not cling to the unascended Jesus and our espousals must not reflect such a temptation.

What I have therefore argued is that the CV's espousal is eschatological. It is real, of course, but it must not be narrowed or trivialized by romantic or sentimental notions of what such an espousal will be like in an overly-simplistic similarity to the historical marriage of man and woman. Remember that the CV is supposed to serve as an icon of the Church as Bride of Christ. The CV lives this out in space and time, but this does not lessen the transcendent nature of the ascended (and cosmic) Christ or the espousal itself. Every person is meant to assume a place in the very life of God. Every person is meant ultimately to live a spousal union with God. The Church as (literal!!) Body of Christ reminds us of this destiny, where her true life is in God and God is in her. Consecrated Virgins are a special gift to the Church because they remind us all of this eschatological destiny and call. They are paradigms of it and reflect the graces which are especially characteristic of such a Church, namely, that it is maternal, virginal, and spousal. that its Lord is Jesus Christ and that it lives these realities out proleptically here in space and time. For a single vocation to be an icon of such a calling I think is pretty awesome.

Because the Church is not really female, because throughout her history male as well as female religious have also  been espoused to Christ, because God is the source and model of both Fatherhood and Motherhood (God's Fatherhood is maternal as well as paternal), and because this espousal is eschatalogical and reminds us of a "time" beyond time when men and women will not be given in marriage nor be embodied as they are historically, I can't agree that women image this identity as "Bride of Christ" better than men. It is not that CV's represent human marriage pushed to the nth degree; rather it is that human marriage is a more or less limited reflection of the Divine espousal and fecundity in God which all are called to. We risk getting this all backwards if we start speaking of women as imaging the Bridal identity of the Church better than men do.  There have certainly been statements about the special fitness of women to image this Bridal identity better than men but my own sense is this does not rise to the level of Church teaching.  Again, the Church is not female, nor is the Kingdom of God, while Brides of Christ (or those espoused to Christ) are both male AND female.

Finally then, as far as my own experience of espousal goes, I honestly don't know how to speak of my "first being with Christ" after consecration (espousal) being any more unique than any other experience of Christ. This is partly because there is always newness about this relationship; it always brings me in contact with the eternal and ever-new (kainotes) God. Similarly, I gave my entire self to God in Christ and continue to grow in that giving. There was certainly a moment of definitive profession and consecration. Still, in this perpetual profession and consecration I gave myself to Christ as I had done in preparing for this moment and he gave himself to me in the same way he had always done so that together we might be a continuing gift to the Church and world. In fact I have to say that it is Christ's self gift to me that enabled my own profession; that self-gift did not only come after definitive commitment. None of this, I don't think, would have been different if I had once been married or once lived in a public state of unchastity. What differed significantly was the public nature of the mutual gift, the assumption of new rights and obligations, the establishment of other life and legal relationships which would guide and govern my vocation. In other words, I had been given and accepted a new ecclesial identity which colored the way I related to everyone and everything. Though part of that "everything" is the Body of Christ (the Church), of course, my own  personal experience of Christ was the more familiar still point in all of this.

I sincerely hope this is helpful.

On Consecrated Virginity and the Nature of this Espousal

[[ Dear Sister, in writing about the vocation to consecrated virginity one CV argued the following in order to establish the importance of physical virginity. [[Only a virgin can treasure her first experience with her spouse. A non-virgin or a reformed sinner who has regained spiritual virginity – although never second-class in God’s eyes , will never be able to receive that same gift . This could be the reason why Physical virginity is essential for the vocation of Consecrated virgins.]] You wrote that in the early church consecrated virginity was not only associated with physical intactness. Does [the above] argument make sense in light of that? ]]

Well, I do have problems with the quote you provided but it does not have to do with the felt need for physical virginity being required to become a CV per se --- at least not primarily. It has to do with the assertion that only a virgin can "treasure" her first experience with her spouse." In fact this is untrue when we are speaking of Christ as spouse. What is true is that a virgin who is physically virgin can only give herself to another human being (and receive their mutual gift of self) in this particular way (sexually) "for the first time" once. But in this case we are speaking of the risen Christ; a person gives him or herself entirely to Christ, body and soul, heart, mind and spirit, as part of any consecration by God. 

More, one wonders what can be meant by suggesting only a (physical) virgin can treasure her first experience with her spouse when that spouse is the Risen and ascended Christ? What "experience" is being referred to here? Is it the fresh wave of gratitude one feels for being called to serve in this way? After all there is NO competition for one's heart involved, no diminution in giving of self even if the person was married before. (Or are we truly supposed to think that Christ gives himself more fully or more intimately to a woman who is physically virgin than to one who has been married, for instance?) Neither is there a similar physical (or sexual) experience in such giving of self or receiving the Risen/Ascended Christ as spouse "for the first time" despite the erotic imagery some mystical experiences utilize. Despite the common language of betrothal or espousal there are serious qualitative differences between the gift of virginity (or the "experience" of Christ as spouse) in this situation and what occurs in a literal and temporal human marriage. But THIS espousal is an eschatological one; it occurs on a different level than human marriages. We must keep that qualitative distinction very much in mind or theologically we will be spouting romantic or sentimental nonsense which, beautiful as it initially sounds, can only serve to distort and disedify.

Consecration Always Involves the WHOLE Self:


Your related point therefore is a good and important one. The early Church did NOT always require physical intactness in those she considered consecrated virgins (or "virgin martyrs") and she never spoke of these persons as though their experience of Christ was different or somehow less significant or less total than those whose virginity was also physical. I do personally believe that requiring physical virginity today is an important part of the counter-cultural witness of this vocation, especially in a society like our own which often seems sex-saturated and capable only of trivializing sexual love.

Still, this qualitative difference (eschatological betrothal v temporal marriage) is being obscured at points in what you have quoted. For instance, as you noted at another point in your email, the person you cited also wrote: [[The virgin’s body is constituted as sacred /set apart exclusively for Jesus Christ in His divinity and humanity as affirmed by the Fathers of the Church. It is a marriage covenant between Christ and the virgin and is essentially indissoluble and ordered to the spiritual growth of the Church in Christ’s salvific paschal mystery.]] To my mind this reference to the body being constituted as sacred and "set apart entirely for Jesus. . in his humanity," is really problematical not least because again, in any consecration (including the consecration of religious men, women and hermits) it is the WHOLE person who is set aside by God as sacred; there is no dividing body from soul. One could never say, for instance, that a CV's body is sacred while that of a religious (or anyone else for that matter) is not sacred or is less so. Further, one must never engage in the kind of dualism implied here by suggesting something other than the whole person is consecrated in ANY ecclesial profession and/or consecration. A related second problem then, namely, the narrowing of the transcendent and eschatological witness and meaning of espousal which occurs in such dualism, will be discussed below. First, however, we need to make a necessary detour to prepare the way.

Excursus: The Meaning of Being a "Sacred Person"

When we speak of a person becoming a sacred person we are speaking of their lives being made uniquely symbolic or sacramental of the grace (the sacred presence and power) of God. We are also speaking of their obligation to be such a sacramental sign or symbol in an exhaustive way. We are speaking of them being given to the purposes and Gospel of God in a similar way and serving as a paradigm of some dimension of the church and her relation to Christ for others and for the vocation to holiness to which all are called. In other words we are speaking of persons who have been commissioned to SERVE others in unique and visible ways. We are NOT speaking about someone being automatically made subjectively more holy than the next person or who should be treated as though their bodies are objectively more holy than the next person's. While growth in personal holiness (one certainly hopes) should and probably will come in time, and while the reception of God's consecration (God's setting apart in this way) always graces the recipient, being made objectively more holy than the next person is not what consecration or becoming a "sacred person" actually means.

Your question about the comments on the literal bodily/sexual virginity making sense in light of the early Church's varied use of the term "virginity" --- sometimes for a person who has given themselves entirely to Christ even if they have been married and borne children is also a very good one. The early practice of the Church was not univocal and it can help us to avoid the kinds of dualism found in the quotes included here, especially that between body and spirit or soul. It certainly precludes an understanding of a consecrated virgin's experience of Christ's self gift (or his acceptance of her own self gift) as differing qualitatively from another woman's if the CV, unlike this other woman, has never been married or is merely physically intact. Likewise the usage demands we be cautious about certain kinds of literalism  What I mean here is that this practice  of considering women like St Perpetua a "virgin martyr" and image of the consecrated virgin because she gave her entire self to Christ in martyrdom makes it clear that we are dealing with espousal on a whole different level than that of literal human marriage. Our language of espousal is being stretched here to speak to a transcendent and eschatological reality just as is the case in calling the Church the "bride of Christ."

Import of the Narrowing of the Original Meaning of Consecrated Virginity:


Today the Church requires the physical virginity of women being admitted to the consecration of virgins  (except in cases of rape) and this makes sense, especially, as I already noted, in our sex-soaked-and-trivialized culture. The ability to make a life commitment, to love another exhaustively in God, along with the corresponding capacity to wait until one is ready to do this, is critically important to our world. So is responding to the call to give the whole of oneself (not just one's soul or one's body), to stand symbolically or sacramentally for a transcendent and eschatological reality which demands the whole of oneself while also promising complete fulfillment. The associated capacity and commission to remind all persons of their own vocations to a similar and exhaustive holiness is itself hugely important. But this contemporary requirement also represents a narrowing of the early Church's own usage and it has drawbacks and dangers for this reason.

For instance, it currently limits the consecration to women despite the fact that men were similarly consecrated in the early church (they were far fewer and were sometimes called ascetics but they existed nonetheless); it tends therefore to reinforce certain relationships in the church as feminine and certain roles as masculine despite Paul's theology in Galatians 3:26 and the praxis of the early church where both males and females were espoused to Christ and symbolize the whole church as bride. (The idea that a woman images the Church as Bride better than a man does is a serious theological misstep; when carried to its logical conclusion it unravels Paul's theological insight as well an ecclesiology which recognizes and celebrates the fact that the capacity of human beings to be Church is based on our baptism, not on gender.) In the present context it especially draws or tempts some to have their attention drawn away from the transcendent and eschatological nature of the espousal.

When this happens a body/soul dualism, an accent on physicality and gender, along with simplistic or this-worldly notions of marriage (for instance, speaking in ways which focus on a wedding to a temporally delimited Jesus as opposed to an eschatological espousal to a risen AND ascended  or "cosmic" Christ) can supplant the notion of CV as paradigm of the universal call of the whole Church and a Kingdom in which no one will be given or taken in marriage. This, again, is a serious theological misstep and is the second problem I have with the focus of the comments you quoted on "marriage to Jesus in his humanity" and the virgin's "body being made sacred." Meanwhile, the Church has spoken seriously of reprising the vocation for men in some way and this could go a long way in undoing any untoward narrowing or attenuation of the eschatological nature of the vocation.

Misunderstandings Revisited

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I wrote you the post about CV's as brides and religious as engaged and about your not esteeming the CV vocation and calling it secular because of that. I think you understood my questions. Could you please answer them for me? Is this direct enough? I don't understand what you mean by "passive aggressive nonsense." Thank you.]]

First, thanks for trying again. I appreciate the fact that you dropped the assumptions you were making about my motivations and attitudes. Thank you for that.

 According to the post I put up a couple of weeks ago, the questions I outlined were as follows: [[ 1) Are CV's Brides of Christ in a sense different from Religious women and should they be esteemed for that identity? (In your post I think this boils down to the elitist, "Shouldn't we esteem them because they have been chosen for such a special identity?") 2) Am I reacting negatively to CV's living in the world either because they are REALLY Brides and I am "only engaged" to Christ (assuming this is even the case), or because I don't care for the bridal or spousal imagery attached to both vocations? and, 3) have I actually somehow said that the vocation of the CV living in the world is not wonderful and worthy of recognition because I consider it a secular vocation?]] I also want to briefly add something about Religious tending the eschew the spousal imagery and identification because your post referred to that.

First, is there a difference between CV's as Brides of Christ and Religious as Brides of Christ? Are they Brides or espoused in a different sense from one another?  Is one a Bride and the other not? To begin with then, I think we have to understand that the spousal language and imagery in both the Rite of Consecration and the Rite of (Perpetual) Religious Profession is strong and rooted in Baptism. Both speak of Christ as the person's only Bridegroom and there is no sense given that one reference is metaphorical while the other is literal. Further, both rites include a prayer of consecration and the giving of a ring; there are other elements of the rite which have specifically nuptial significance as well. Thus, in the case of nuns ALSO being consecrated as virgins all of these specific elements are omitted from the Rite of Perpetual profession so that they are not duplicated. (cf. Rites, v. II, Chapter III, Consecration to a Life of Virginity, par 7.) This signals to me that the spousal nature of these elements is explicit and identical in both Rites. Were they different in significance duplication would not be a problem and the Church's caution about doing so would be unnecessary. (This is especially true were the spousal elements to indicate "engagement to Christ" in the (prior) Rite of Perpetual Religious Profession and actual marriage in the (subsequent) Rite of Consecration of Virginity, as one CV has mistakenly argued in her blog.)

From all of this two things seem clear to me then. First, the Church does not allow a duplication of consecrations (thus, there is ONLY one prayer of solemn blessing or consecration used, even when the two Rites are separated in time) which suggests they do not differ essentially. Neither, then, does she treat the Religious' profession of solemn vows as the equivalent of the prayer of consecration as though "Religious consecrate themselves" with the vow formula itself. She clearly expects the effective (mediatory) prayer of consecration to be included in some way which "completes" the dual movement we identify as dedication/consecration in the Rite of  Perpetual Profession itself --- whether with the additional use of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins or without it.  Thus, if the nun is not receiving the consecration of virgins, the prayer of solemn blessing or consecration (the meaning is the same for these terms) as well as the giving of the ring, and all of the nuptial language throughout the Rite, are definitely used during her liturgy of solemn/perpetual profession. Secondly then, it seems clear to me that the nuptial imagery and language are similarly significant and essential  in both Rites;  for that reason, while they are not to be duplicated, neither are they to be ultimately omitted; that is, they are only omitted temporarily in anticipation of their use in the additional Rite when it is used.

Because of this I would have to argue there is no essential  or fundamental difference in the senses in which Religious and CV's are espoused to Christ. Where there may be some qualitative differences however, are in the graces and charisms of the two vocations --- at least in the directness and explicitness of these. For instance, it is the call of CV's to live out the graces of spousal, maternal, and virginal love and to do so recognizably and explicitly. The CV is graced in ways which allow these forms of love to be specifically fruitful in her life and, I would think, explicit in her ministry; doing so is the distinct gift she brings the Church and world --- but not because she is wed to Christ and Religious are not. In living these forms of love out explicitly she serves not only as an icon of the Church (which is Bride of Christ) but of the generosity of Mary in regard to God and those he loves, as well as a witness to the Kingdom of God in which we each and all live in unbroken union with God so that no one will be given in marriage.

Religious are also called to live out spousal, maternal, and, if not also virginal, then celibate love. (In the early Church the term virginity did NOT refer only or even primarily to physical intactness. Instead it referred to a kind of wholeness and undividedness of person which allowed the virgin to dispose of herself according to her own free choice. Note well that we still call St Perpetua a virgin martyr despite her marriage and childbearing.) Throughout the history of religious life the vow one made was one of viginity and the spousal theme was "elaborately developed" (Schneiders, Selling All, 121). The recovery of the Rite of consecration of virgins living in the world does not change this part of the Church's Tradition nor does it deprive Religious Profession of this character. Rather, it extends it explicitly into the secular realm and underscores the value of physical virginity (as well as purity of heart) in a sex-saturated world. Today we find that despite this history most Religious today prefer the language of chasity or consecrated celibacy and tend to accent remaining "unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom" rather than "marriage to Christ"  in part because this accent expresses their availability and the charism of their vocation better than the term marriage.)

Even so, as Sister Sandra Schneiders writes: [[The life option expressed by profession is the commitment to love Jesus Christ totally, absolutely and forever, and to express and embody that love (which is the calling, of course, of all the baptized) in the complete and exclusive self-gift of consecrated celibacy (which is not the calling of all the baptized).]] and again, [[The commitment to religious life is a commitment to a person, Jesus Christ, in irrevocable love expressed in a particular form, namely, lifelong consecrated celibacy analogous to marriage, which is a commitment to the spouse in irrevocable love expressed in the particular form of lifelong and total monogamy. This commitment is a total self-gift that has an absolute priority in one's life and begins with no qualifications or loopholes or "ifs" and "only ifs". ]].

Thus, Religious too are graced in ways which make their relationship/union with Christ primary and model Mary's own obedience and fecundity. They too live lives which are icons of the Church's relationship with Christ the Bridegroom (the Rite of Religious Profession makes this clear). However, ordinarily they are commissioned to live these graces out differently and oftentimes less explicitly than CV's. (Obviously some Religious feel called to live these out in more explicit ways than others so this is not a distinction carved in stone. It is merely generally so.) Still,  the bottom line seems to me to be that CV's living in the world are called to live these graces out in a life of eschatological secularity while Religious are not. Again, I have to say both Religious and CV's are similarly espoused to the Christ as Bridegroom but the variety of graces, commissions, and charisms attached to this foundational identity differ.


Your second question is based on a misconception I already addressed both above and in the earlier post. It is NOT THE CASE that Religious are "engaged" while CV's are "really married." Certainly the Church has NEVER held this to be so. It may be based on a misunderstanding of the two stages of Jewish marriage in which betrothal means marriage already. (cf other posts on this.) Beyond this, my own relationship with Christ is subjectively nuptial, that is, I experience myself completed by Christ both as a person generally and as a woman more specifically in a relationship which has a singular (or, better, what seems to me to be an amazing or literally awesome) mutuality about it. This relationship is presupposed in all I am and do. So no, no sour grapes here.

However, what is also the case is that I do not feel any call to identify myself primarily or publicly as a "Bride of Christ". Instead, despite the fact that this status is both objectively and subjectively real for and precious to me, I feel a call to allow this to be foundational to my identity but to remain mainly implicit in my vocation.  What is explicit is my call to solitary eremitical life, the life of the vows, and my service to the Church and world through these. There is nothing I do or am that is not profoundly affected and qualified  by my nuptial relationship with Christ or the graces of spousal, maternal, and virginal love which stem from and accompany it (some, I think, more than others and at different times of course), but I do not feel called to identify these graces explicitly or publicly as the essence of my vocation nor are they the specific or explicit gift or charism I am called on to bring the Church and World.  For my own vocation they are ordinarily an entirely private intimacy I share with God alone. So, once again, no sour grapes here.

Regarding your third question, I have absolutely NOT suggested that the vocation of the CV living in the world is somehow unworthy by referring to its secularity.  As I have noted before, I sincerely believe that it is ONLY in accepting this vocation's secularity that it can be properly understood and esteemed by the entire People of God. Otherwise it can come across to people as half-baked ("why didn't you go 'all the way' and become a nun?") badly motivated, ("is this just for nun wannabe's who were unsuited to religious life or who simply were unable to embrace  a call to sexual intimacy and "real" marriage?") or anachronistic ("Why is reprising this vocation important for the contemporary Church? It seems irrelevant and a step backwards.").

I also sincerely believe that the vocation is esteemed by the Church (though it remains less than understood by the majority of Catholics whose only or at least primary experience of consecrated life is Religious life) and the only thing which could turn it into a second class vocation is the belated imposition of requirements which make the vocation quasi but not fully Religious and which therefore, minimizes, mitigates, or even wholly rejects its secularity. Doing this would ensure the vocation continues to be misunderstood as half-hearted or half-baked and invite seeing it as a stopgap or fallback vocation  just as some (e.g., the LA Province) were originally concerned would be the case.

P.S., there are several significant reasons Religious generally eschew the spousal imagery so long exclusively associated with their vocations. (Obviously for some this imagery is as central and explicit as it is for the CV living in the world.) All of these reasons are significant, but for the time being I want to leave this matter with the reason I mentioned above, namely, the sense that linguistically the phrase "unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom" better expresses their availability and call to a non-exclusive love for all of God's own than does the term "Bride of Christ." I am not arguing whether this is the case or not; I am merely stating a well-established general sense of the matter among contemporary women Religious.

Misunderstandings re Distinctions Between Religious Profession and Consecration of Virginity

[[Sister O'Neal, I have read most of what you have written about CV's and it really seems to me that you don't believe they are Brides of Christ or should be esteemed for that identity. I know this may be because you are a religious who doesn't esteem the idea of a spousal relationship with Christ and don't like being called a Bride of Christ yourself. It seems to me most religious today do not accept that designation. But just because you don't accept it why knock it down as something secular rather than something religious which makes it truly wonderful and worthy of recognition? One CV points out in her blog that Religious profession only makes one engaged to Christ, not an actual Bride like consecration makes CV's. She says that the meaning [of the terms betrothed and/or espoused] in the Rite of consecration is different than that in the Rite of Religious [Profession]. Why not give up the sour grapes attitude for not being called to actual marriage?]]

Thank you for writing. As I read what you have written, gratuitous assumptions, conclusions, and tone aside for the moment, it seems to boil down to several questions, including: 1) Are CV's Brides of Christ in a sense different from Religious women and should they be esteemed for that identity? (In your post I think this boils down to the elitist, "Shouldn't we esteem them because they have been chosen for such a special identity?") 2) Am I reacting negatively to CV's living in the world either because they are REALLY Brides and I am "only engaged" to Christ (assuming this is even the case), or because I don't care for the bridal or spousal imagery attached to both vocations? and, 3) have I actually somehow said that the vocation of the CV living in the world is not wonderful and worthy of recognition because I consider it a secular vocation? If I am correct in my reading of your questions and you would like me to answer these,  please get back to me and ask them again in a direct and civil way. In the meantime the following seems important to me as the basis for further conversation and you need to consider it.

The Language of Marriage in the Scriptures:  Espousal and Betrothal

First, a bit about language. In the Scriptures (and Jewish tradition) Jewish marriages take place or are "completed" in two steps, 1) espousal (or betrothal --- the terms are essentially synonymous) which is NOT the same as the contemporary notion of engagement and 2) home-taking and consummation. Despite these two steps, the espousal/betrothal is much more than an engagement and is formally ended by divorce. (The equivalent of shunning also happens but incurs serious censure and fines.) In espousal/betrothal an actual exchange of marital consent occurs and the two persons are thereafter called husband and wife. If one person transgresses the covenant agreement by becoming intimate with another, it is considered adultery and the penalty is stoning. It is thus possible to speak of a non-consummated marriage as an espousal or an espousal as an unconsummated marriage--- but one is speaking of a marriage nonetheless.

In light of this language and because both the Rite of Religious Profession and the Rite of Consecration of Virgins refer to both espousal and betrothal with regard to the persons making their commitments, it is not accurate to say that Religious women are "engaged" (or "only engaged") whereas Consecrated Virgins are actually married to Christ. The use of "engagement" in this analysis is wholly anachronistic and untrue, especially when used to contrast with another's life commitment which is supposedly a true marriage. One example of a CV speaking this way (perhaps this is the blog you saw) reads: [[Another Latin term in the code is mystice desponsantur which has been translated as mystical betrothal / espousal in various English versions. However the term desponsantur is best translated as espousal meaning that it speaks of a Marriage and not an Engagement like it is in the Rite of Profession of Religious women.]] (emphasis added.)

I have both heard and read CV's making this specious as well as liturgically and theologically meaningless distinction; I admit it underscores my impression that the only way these persons conceive of doing justice to their own vocation is by attempting to demean or diminish the vocation of another. That is especially true when coupled with a resistance to the vocation's eschatological secularity. In particular it sounds like these CV's are trying to convince themselves (rightly of course) that the vocation to consecrated virginity is not of secondary value to Religious vocations and so (wrongly), denigrate the Religious vocation in the process. It is a variation on the, "I am a Bride of Christ and you are not" assertion I have spoken of before, but in this case it is made explicit and buttressed with naive linguistic and historical arguments rooted in bad scholarship. One should not need to misrepresent another vocation in order to demonstrate esteem for one's own.

Other Misunderstandings: Religious Consecrate Themselves

A similar misunderstanding which gives a similar impression regarding some CV's need to denigrate Religious life in order to esteem their own vocations is the notion that Religious use vows to consecrate themselves during the Rite of  (Perpetual) Profession while CV's are consecrated by God. In fact, while ordinarily Religious USE vows as essential to structuring and framing their consecrated lives, and while it is the form of dedication used in the Rite of  perpetual Profession they too are consecrated by God. The general or basic structure of the two Rites is the same: 1) call, homily and examination, 2) Litany of Saints (prostration) and profession of perpetual/solemn vows (Religious) or propositum (CV's living in the world reaffirm their resolution to remain virgins at this point), 3) solemn prayer of consecration, 4) granting of insigniae.  As I have said many times here, despite commonly misused language only God consecrates; that is, only God who is holy and the source of holiness makes holy or sets a person apart as a "sacred person" --- though this certainly occurs through the mediation of the Church. Human beings DEDICATE themselves to God, whether this occurs through vows, other sacred bonds (allowed by c 603), propositum or (solemn) act of resolution (as in the case of CV's living in the world), etc. In any case, if CV's are consecrated by God through a prayer of solemn consecration and not through their propositum, then so are Religious consecrated by God through the prayer of solemn consecration and not through their perpetual vows. Of course BOTH vows (or other sacred bonds, or propositum) and prayer of consecration are required for entrance into the consecrated state. They are integral parts of a single call/response event mediated by the Church.

The Basis for Esteem of Various Vocations:

There is one thing you have gotten exactly right and which I can respond to right now. I do not believe CV's (or hermits, cenobites, priests or married persons, etc) should be esteemed simply because they are called to live out their vocations to authentic humanity in one path rather than another. As I think I was very clear about in my post about Matthew 22:14-17, "chosenness" is more about response than it is some higher call, etc. Every vocation has an immeasurable dignity because every vocation is the gift of the infinite God who esteems each of us infinitely. If you are suggesting that we should esteem persons for responding wholeheartedly to the vocation they are gifted with, then I agree --- whatever the vocation. If you are suggesting that one should be esteemed or regarded for the degree of generosity they demonstrate in living out a vocation or the degree of responsibility they assume in Baptism, profession, ordination, marriage or consecration, then I agree. If, however, you are saying that someone should be esteemed simply because they are called to be a "Bride of Christ" (or priest, etc) and have gone through the Rite of consecration (etc.) without reference to the lives they live, then I emphatically disagree.

I esteem a person not only because they have accepted the gift of a vocation initially but because they have responded in a way which allows that vocation to make them truly loving, truly human, truly of Christ. I rejoice WITH them that they have been called in a way which enriches them and the faith community of the Church, but my regard is a function of  someone's continued responsiveness to their vocation. It is dependent on their integrity and growth in generosity, faithfulness, and love. Because vocations are not given once, responded to initially, and then treated as though one has accomplished all one needs. I am one of those who, when confronted by the statement, "I am a Bride of Christ!" sometimes thinks, "So what?" or "What exactly does that mean and for whom?" It is not that I do not esteem the vocation; actually I think I have shown here in the past year and more that I esteem it quite highly. Instead it is the case that I recognize a label, title, or statement of status is NOT identical with one's vocation and certainly not necessarily with one which is well-lived. I need to hear what the actual call is, what value it is pastorally, who will benefit from the conferral of this designation or title, and so forth.

In the past decades we have all seen more than our share of betrayed vocations and the parable of the vacant house in Luke should come to mind here.  Baptism, profession, consecration, ordination. matrimony, etc all effect a change in the persons involved, much as cleansing a house of demons effects a change and makes the house capable of something much much more than it was heretofore. Still, unless one subsequently continues to respond to that call and continues to give one's heart more and more completely to Christ and those he loves, one betrays one's vocation and gives one heart to other things (for instance, to status) or persons. I esteem well-lived vocations and I regard those who work assiduously to do so. Unfortunately, the title "Bride of Christ" is easily misunderstood, and more easily distorted into merely a matter of a privileged identity rather than the CV's actual call, charism, and mission. Your own question to me seemed that it did that very thing by demanding I regard CV's because they have a specific identity, rather than because of the lives they live in the power of God's love.

I hope this has been helpful. Again, if you have questions you would like me to respond to, please feel free to email again but directly and without the passive aggression.

On Specific Vocations as paradigms of Universal Calls

In the past three weeks I have been mainly writing about the secular nature of the vocation of the consecrated virgin living in the world. In part that took place on Phatmass, but partly it has occurred here and via email with CV's and CV candidates I know. This post, and the one immediately prior were the result of a conversation shared by email. I am grateful to the CV who allowed me to post her own sharing on some of this --- especially the difficulty of honoring the specialness of one's vocation without denigrating the vocations to union with God ALL others are called to.

[[Dear Sister Laurel, Much as I regret that you've been sick all this time, I'm grateful that you were unable to respond publicly to my question before now. The delay gave me a chance to grow into a space where I could see what you were saying in the post that gave rise to my concern and accept your position that everyone is called to spousal love as being completely true. Today's post is a fine exposition of this truth which my own heart has been intuitively reaching towards in the last several days.

And yes, my question was largely rooted in the need to feel "special", to feel that I had been called to a deeper intimacy with God than others. Even as I was writing the original email, I was asking myself if this might be the case. At the risk of repeating something that I've written to you more than once already, it can be extremely difficult to distinguish between making a claim to a "higher" vocation and claiming a vocation that is distinctive from that of someone else. When I'm thinking rationally, I no longer believe there is any vocation that is higher than any other. When my emotions get in the mix, however, it can be a different story!]]

Many thanks for your emails! You know I enjoy your own insights on your vocation as well sharing how we each grow in our respective paths. Sometimes the struggles we deal with are identical and that is certainly true in this case. I am often struck by how frequently those of us with vocations to the consecrated state substitute elitism for paradigmatic service in our attempts to do justice to the specialness of our vocations. Thomas Aquinas wrote carefully to esteem religious and priestly vocations and to do justice to their specialness without denigrating others. While I think he was mainly successful in this, he was also constrained by a (Greek) way of thinking which did not easily allow for paradox, and so was not as successful as he might have been. Those who followed him, far less brilliant than Aquinas, were also far less successful and bought into distortions of his thought and notions of a hierarchy of vocations which were all too worldly and reminiscent of the disciples' disedifying clamoring to be the ones sitting at Jesus' right hand, etc! For too long the Church validated what was really our own capitulation to temptation, pride, and egoism in these matters.

I think though that we must say that the spousal aspect IS a (or even the) key distinguishing mark of the CV vocation. It is also  the essence of its eschatological witness. I don't think we are dealing with two different things here. If, however, you mean that the spousal bond does not distinguish the CV by indicating a relationship few are called to ultimately (because ultimately all are called to it), then I do agree. Still, the truth is that very few persons are graced in the way a publicly consecrated virgin is graced to witness to and help others imagine or embrace what is a universal destiny and so, part of their own calls as well. 

Perhaps this distinction between call and destiny is an important and clarifying one. We are all meant and destined for spousal union with God. Few are called to witness to this in the way a CV is called to do. Few are graced in the precise way the Holy Spirit graces her to do this effectively and prophetically. Another way to draw this distinction is by speaking of Vocation with a capital V and vocation (or vocational paths) with a small v. We all share a single Vocation, namely a call to authentic humanity which is marked by and achieved in our union with God; however, there are many many vocational paths to that ultimate goal and each pathway illuminates a different aspect of a mystery that is incomprehensible and ineffable. The eschatological Vocation to this bond is not unique, but the graces together with the secular context of CV's living in the world which constitute her vocational path certainly are.

When we speak of ourselves as members of the Body of Christ we underscore this truth. All members are essential and interrelated. All witness to both the humanity and the divinity (and the continuous dialogue between these) which constitutes the living whole. There are specialized functions, of course, but all are meant to work in harmony with and serve the whole or they become something ugly, dysfunctional, and even crippling.  As a musician in an orchestra I know how impossible it is to randomly privilege one instrument over others --- even though they all shine in their own ways and are allowed to do so by composers. (Getting players who are used to playing "solo" instruments like my own to play as an ensemble is one of the hardest tasks conductors and section leaders --- or their musicians, for that matter, deal with.) Still, even competent soloists play WITH the orchestra (and the orchestra with the soloists)  in a way which allows the music to be produced and heard most clearly and effectively. In a well-composed and well-performed piece, no musician feels their parts are relatively unimportant to the composition or the ensemble as a whole. There is an essential humility involved in music (and in vocations) which allow one to honor the specialness of their instrument precisely as one creates a truly orchestral sound in which ALL are valued equally.

I suppose in some of the discussions I have heard or participated in on the nature of your own vocation I have heard a number of CV's say things like "I am a bride of Christ" in ways which make me think the sentence is meant to be completed, "and you are not." In one sense that complete statement would be true just as it would be true if I said, "I am called to be a hermit and you are not." But if it means, "I am called to a spousal bond with Christ and you are not" or "I am called to spousal love of God and you are not" then we have real problems just as we would have if I said, "I am called to the silence of solitude (the shalom, quies, or hesychia of true communion with God) and you are not." Certainly the way I experience, fulfill, and image this eschatological call and destiny in and for the Church differs from the way most folks will do it in their own lives but it doesn't change the fact that we are all ultimately called to it.

Again, thanks for sharing and allowing me to share your journey in this very public way.

On Charges that I am Changing the Charism of the vocation to Consecrated Virginity lived in the world.

[[Dear Sister, I think that what some CV's meant by changing the charism of the vocation had to do with suggesting that CV's were mandated to embrace political roles. For instance, one CV wrote the following in response to comments you made about openness to participating in the political, economic, and so forth.

[[Canon 604 speaks of a vocation that has a clear Hallmark [distinguishing characteristic or trait ] as follows :
Consecration to God, Mystical Espousal to Jesus Christ , Son of God, Dedication to the Service of the Church. All the CVs posting on this thread , the writings of All the Fathers of the Church, all the Popes , the response from the CICLSAL to me on this question , all the resource material on websites of Associations of CV all over the world in all languages agree that CV is compatible with living in the world and is indeed lived in the world in its original form and post Vat II form by most CV , without being set apart or consecrated to politics, economics , in the world. . No one has said that secularity is the Hallmark of the virginal consecration.

There is a big difference between saying that - a CV can / or is not stopped from-- involvement in politics, economics - saying that all CVs all over the world SHOULD involve themselves in politics, economics as a special vocation . This is actually changing the Charism itself.]] I don't think you actually said any specific CV SHOULD involve themselves in politics, etc on Phatmass. I saw that you recently spoke about the freedom to do so however.]]

Thanks for sending this on to me. It was another statement I missed or paid insufficient attention to in the last couple of weeks. I have now responded to it on the forum and am posting my response here as well. (Note there are a couple of  minor redactions in this version)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Church goes further than an assertion of CV's and living in the world being "compatible" with one another. She does not hesitate to say that the non-cloistered expression of this vocation IS secular. The homily during the Rite of Consecration says very clearly that CV's are to be given to the service of the Church and all their brothers and sisters in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world. This is much more than telling a CV she is okay if she does not live in a monastery but instead in an urban dwelling. It says she is sent as an Apostle and Bride of Christ graced in all the ways anyone in such a vocation is graced and is commissioned to act out this role (ordo) and mediate those graces in every sphere of secular life. This would include the political, corporate, academic, domestic, economic, etc etc --- the realms and spheres characteristic of the secular, the spheres which (through the grace of God or its rejection) transform that world into either the Kingdom of God or that of the anti-Christ.

Of course this does not mean that EVERY CV MUST do all of these things herself. I don't think anyone here has said it does; neither has anyone spoken of being "consecrated to politics, etc". One is consecrated BY God to serve his needs and those of the church and world he holds as precious. They are called especially to live an incarnational love that does justice --- as God's love always does. Most CV's will discern they are called to serve according to their own unique gifts and interests in less uncommon ways. But the bottom line is that ANY CV living in the world is FREE and, in fact, commissioned to carry our her vocation in whatever secular realm or venue she feels called and competent to serve. The homily also says, [[Help the poor, care for the weak, teach the ignorant, protect the young, minister to the old, bring strength and comfort to widows and all in adversity.]] and again, [[Sing a new song as you follow the Lamb of God wherever he leads you.]] It would be hard not to see how such a commission might necessarily include a call for some CV's to political activism or participation beyond simply voting in elections. It would be difficult not to imagine a CV using her freedom, her eschatological perspective and graces, and her various gifts in the economic sphere to acquire and even to amass wealth which was then used to ease the situations of so many in need today, or her education in law to do something similar in a project like Network, etc.

There are two expressions of the CV vocation today. The first is cloistered (and so, a hallmark or defining characteristic of that expression is separation from the world supported and defined by vows, enclosure, Rule, constitutions, legitimate superiors, and Canon Law); to call it cloistered or Religious does NOT mean the CV merely lives a quasi-secular vocation but on monastery grounds. The second expression is lived "in the world" (and so a hallmark or defining characteristic of it is its secular character along with the fact that it is not constrained by vows, enclosure, Rule, constitutions, legitimate superiors, or canon law which moderate or mitigate this secularity); it certainly does not mean merely that the CV lives a quasi-religious life but off monastery grounds. WHEREVER the charism of this vocation is lived out the person witnesses to the Kingdom of God and the covenant relationship God is seeking to reconcile all creation to so that he might truly be all in all. If this occurs in the nun's cell, then well and good; if it occurs in the halls of the Capitol building, judiciary, board room or CFO's office, then equally well and good. No one is speaking of changing the charism or the graces of this vocation.

I am sorry to say that I get the impression sometimes that some CV's are okay with CV's living in the world having a "secular" vocation, so long as this does not mean they actually have to live their eschatologically graced lives of prayer and service in the ways an authentically secular life actually demands. (Hence my use of the term "quasi-religious" for such half-hearted, half-baked vocations.) We would not tolerate such half-heartedness or superficiality in a nun living in a cloister. Such an approach to the phrase "living in the world" seems to point to a "vocation" free of all the constraints of religious life and at the same time, too "holy" or "precious" or "consecrated" to actually, much less wholeheartedly give themselves to anyone "in the things of the world." The phrases "In the world" and "In the things of the world" contradicts this "secular-lite" stance towards reality. The parable of the talents comes to mind for me. A master called his lead workers to him as he was leaving on a trip. The first he gave a talent, the second five talents, and the third 10 talents. Two of the lead workers risked losing what they had been given and invested their talents using secular means and multiplied what they had been given. The third worker buried his talent, risked nothing, but achieved nothing either. It was a betrayal of the commission given him by his master. 

For CV's the talents they have been entrusted with include not only the graces and identity mentioned, but the FREEDOM and commission to serve the Church and world "in the things of the Spirit and the things of the World." After all, Charisms are given not merely so a person can swell with pride that they have been given such a gift or have others admire their new standing (Look, look! God chose ME to be Christ's Bride and an icon of the Church!), etc, but so the world can receive this gift through them in the innumerable ways it is TRULY needed. To do this means dirtying one's hands in something other than the soil used to bury the gift safely. It means investing in the structures of the secular simply so one may ultimately affect and transform these structures. The Church does not consecrate virgins living in the world to serve as plaster statues or gilded "icons" to be set in stands outside a monastery AND apart from the secular. She does so so that the saeculum can be transformed by someone uniquely graced by God and risking their very lives to bring the Kingdom to the halls and structures of secular influence and power.

Remember that another central shift in ecclesiology brought about by Vatican II was an end to the fortress mentality of the Church. Instead of being closed to the world, she opened to it, not merely to serve it, but to hear the Word of God it was actually capable of mediating to her as well. Suddenly the Church had to risk genuine engagement with and in the world in an attitude not of condemnation but of openness and even appropriate docility. The teaching Church had also to be a learning Church or betray her entire identity and mission.Those who truly wish to be icons of this post-Vatican II Church need to allow themselves to be secular in this demanding sense. Probably only a minority will have the courage or faith to be virgin martyrs in the arenas of politics, industry, etc, but those are certainly authentic vocations to the eschatological secularity canon 604 has reprised. In no way do they change the charism of this vocation any more than SS Perpetua and Thecla (for instance) changed the charism of this vocation by their highly politically influential  and Kingdom inspired deaths in the arena.

Eschatological Secularity and CV's Living in the World

[[Hello Sister O'Neal, I have appreciated what you have written about secularity and non-secularity. It seems to move us away from ways of seeing these vocations which leads to evaluating them as second-rate or called to a less than exhaustive holiness. Am I right in thinking that besides the influence of Gaudium et Spes and the call to universal holiness from Vatican II the key issue is the way we look at the relation of heaven and earth and the coming of God's Reign in fullness? Also, have you read the Phatmass comments of one CV who wrote she cannot see how the universal call to holiness is really pertinent to the discussion on the sacred secularity of the vocation to consecrated virginity of women living in the world? She calls the two things "distinct ideas."]]

Hi there. Thanks for your patience in waiting for my answer to your question.  As you know, I have been sick for the past couple of weeks and am just now beginning to feel better and catch up with some of the emails I received regarding this discussion. (Being sick was a kind of gift in that it allowed me to participate in the Phatmass discussion by freeing me from other obligations, but it also kept me from doing everything I would have liked to do in a more timely way.) In particular I have your own email and two others to respond to publicly. The others have really already been addressed in what I have already written and in brief private replies, but your own and the remaining two require some public clarification and  perhaps even some more careful thinking through things I have already said.

Yes, I think you have two of the key issues I have mentioned exactly right. Because of the interrelated nature of these issues and my own desire to more clearly stress the integral relationship between heaven and this world in the secular call to holiness, I have also referred in this recent series of posts to eschatological secularity rather than my older terms from a year ago, sacred or consecrated secularity.  Both of these key issues are raised in the comments you also allude to so I am going to cite those here and respond to all of this as a piece. In the discussion on Phatmass, Sponsa Christi (Jenna Cooper) wrote: [[Writing in a spirit of respectful discussion...I’m not sure that the Church’s teachings on the universal call to holiness can be directly identified with Sr. Laurel’s concept of “sacred secularity.” To me, these would actually seem to be two distinct ideas. As I am understanding it, “sacred secularity” would seem to be the idea of relating to God primarily in and through mundane things; whereas the universal call to holiness is the teaching that every Christian, regardless of his or her state in life, is called to be holy.]]

Because two ideas can be distinguished does not necessarily make them completely distinct from one another. Meanwhile, sometimes insisting ideas are entirely distinct can, even unintentionally, also be a way of rendering them "safe" and refusing to allow them to effect the radical change they are meant to bring or proclaim the Gospel message in the powerfully transfiguring way it needs to be heard. My own sense is that Vatican II's "universal call to holiness" is intimately related to the Church's reevaluation of the secular in our vocational schemata. Every person I have read or spoken with about this has appreciated this almost instinctively. After all, the call to universal holiness is not simply a call to individual holiness regardless of state of life. It is also a call to participate exhaustively in the Reign of God and to further implicate that Reign via whatever state of life the person is called to. Beyond this, it is not simply a notion that one can become holy in spite of  or regardless of whatever state of life one occupies, but more, that one can both become holy and transform the world IN and through that specific state of life. It includes the notion, therefore that  the secular itself mediates God's call to holiness and thus to exhaustive participation in God's Kingdom --- in this case because essentially the secular is and is meant to BE the Sacrament of God's exhaustive Lordship and presence. 

As Sponsa Christi (Jenna Cooper) rightly says,  part of my speaking of a call to "sacred (or consecrated) secularity" affirms that one can relate to God through the mundane, but it goes much further as well. It says that a life which is really,  formally, and canonically "set aside" by and for God, and which is an icon of the eschatological Reign of God, can realize its ultimate potential within the secular; similarly it says that the secular is an entirely appropriate context for lives which are truly set aside by and for God. More it says that vocations to an eschatological or sacred secularity are significant for the realization not only of the individual's call to holiness, but for the world's realization of its own potential as well. Such persons are called to be secular because the secular is called to be the ultimate realm of God's exhaustive holiness and dominion.  Until Vatican II it was simply not possible to say most of this. Prior to Vatican II and her emphasis on the "universal call to holiness" a call to secularity was not only a second-rate vocation, but the secular itself was unworthy to serve either as an adequate context for holiness (or, in particular, for vocations to the consecrated state); neither was it understood to be worthy or capable of being the raw material for the Kingdom of heaven --- the bread and wine which can, should, and will become the Body and Blood of Christ.

My own sense in all of this is that last year my thought (and so my posts) did not go far enough. They rightly reflected the truth that CV's living in the world are called to a secular vocation, and assuredly one which is significantly qualified by the virgin's consecration. That was necessary not only to honor what the Church clearly teaches about this vocation in historical terms,  or in her liturgy, theology, and praxis, but also to make sense of it and it's imagery as things which were compelling in contemporary terms. This year, I think linking the idea that heaven is not merely pie in the sky by and by, but that it involves the ultimate transfiguration of this world here and now deepens or radicalizes the ideas I dealt with last year. At the same time it allows this vocation to appropriately witness to a theology of the eschaton very few Catholics are sufficiently familiar with and to underscore the whole of VII's teaching on the universal call to holiness and essential goodness and goal, the sacramentality of creation.

 Beyond these things, linking these ideas helps provide a systematic theological underpinning which demands we no longer use canon 604 as a charismatically, theologically, and pastorally insignificant "fallback vocation" which women (or dioceses!!) automatically turn to when another vocation fails or, for instance, they simply cannot accept that a lay vocation is a radical call to discipleship. Instead this linkage underscores the fact that the call of CV's living in the world is significant in all of these ways and, in its character as both eschatological and  truly secular, is a more radical gift to Church and world than any quasi-religious (etc) vocation can ever be. Consequently, those discerning and being professed (via propositum) and consecrated into this vocation must be able to appreciate and honor both dimensions of the call, the eschatological and the secular. Otherwise there is significant reason for believing they should be discerning a different vocation or that they have merely embraced this call as a stopgap or fallback vocation --- just as the Province of LA was so concerned about after the promulgation of canon 604 that they refused to consecrate anyone accordingly.