Are Consecrated Virgins Alone Brides of Christ?

[[Sister Laurel, I saw a longish post from you on Facebook in which you claimed that religious are, properly speaking, Brides of Christ. You argued your position with Therese Ivers, a canonist and Consecrated Virgin whose position is that only Consecrated Virgins are Brides of Christ in a proper sense. Have you posted about this here? If not, I wondered if you would. Thank you!]]

Yes, I have definitely written about this in the past, but not for some time. I noted a post from Ms Ivers which came to my email from Facebook and decided this time to respond because of a specific line in Therese's post. She wrote: [[Religious, be proud of your identity. Sacred virgins, be proud of your identity. Those who belong to secular/religious institutes AND the Order of Virgins, be proud of your two vocations! But for goodness sake, learn to embrace your proper vocational identity, whatever it is, instead of identifying as something you are not (if that's what you are doing!).]] Therese is someone I consider a friend, and we are in agreement on many things; for instance, I generally agree with much of what she writes on eremitical life (and vice versa), but in this matter we disagree with one another. Here is the text of the post I put up this morning:

[[Therese, you well know that the Rite of religious Profession identifies the one making vows as spouse of Christ and Christ as Bridegroom (the rite uses this term at least four times) and again refers to the professed as "betrothed to the eternal King" and accompanies this with the prayer that they may come to the wedding feast of eternal joy. At the giving of the ring, [[ receive this ring for you are betrothed to the eternal King; keep faith with your bridegroom. . . I am betrothed to the Son of the Eternal Father. . .]] I see nowhere in any of this where the Church says, "but of course we don't really mean any of this except in an improper/non-proper or highly poetic/metaphorical sense." If we look at the readings the Church allows for religious profession, these numbers could be multiplied and would be underscored.

Meanwhile, during the prayer of solemn consecration the Church prays, [[may he make those bonds with which he has bound you to Christ on earth endure forever in heavenly love.]] Apparently, it is her intention that these bonds (real and proper bonds by the way) be eternal. I rejoice in my vocation, and it is to be a bride to my bridegroom. You have every right to rejoice in your own similar vocation, but to say religious have no right to consider themselves, properly speaking, to be brides of Christ, is a mistake. The church teaches as she prays so she believes (lex orandi, lex credendi), and in this matter, she prays, and so she believes religious women are brides of Christ.]]

In all of this a couple of things Therese Ivers argues (and we have discussed this either by phone or ZOOM or even in person) make no sense to me. The first seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, namely, the use of "in a proper sense" when that is contrasted with the quality of the consecration of Religious Women. I honestly cannot get either my head or my heart around what it means to say that she, as a CV, is a Bride in the proper sense, while I and other religious women perpetually professed according to the Rite of Profession of Religious Women (or rites that preceded this one), are not. More, I cannot read the Rite with its multiple references to espousal or betrothal (used in a Biblical sense to refer to actual marriage, not to something like "engagement" as some CV's -- not Therese Ivers, so far as I know --- have written in the past), to Christ as Bridegroom, or to the one making profession as spouse, and attribute some merely metaphorical meaning to it. 

Secondly, my understanding is that Therese Ivers speaks of the bonds associated with religious profession and consecration, and those associated with the consecration of the Consecrated Virgin as qualitatively different from one another with only the latter being a truly eternal or indissoluble bond. (Another way of saying this is to assert that the espousal of one Rite is qualitatively different from the espousal in the other Rite -- apparently a minority opinion of those revising these Rites.) But I can't read the text of Religious Profession with its prayer that this bond [[endure forever in eternal love]] as indicating the bond is not intended to be insoluble. Instead, I hear it as a prayer for the religious woman's faithfulness to this bond be maintained even beyond death. This is empowered by the love of God in Christ, of course, but it seems clear that the Church, through the grace of God, intends this be an everlasting bond. 

My essential argument in what I first wrote in response to Therese Ivers' post is that the law the Church has always taught is lex orandi (as we pray), lex credendi (so do we believe). The Rite of Religious Profession (revision of 1970) is normative in the Catholic Church for all Religious Professions including those made by hermits under c 603 who use this Rite. She prays this way, and so she permits (and, in fact, expects) us all to believe in this same way. Moreover, this Rite picks up what Religious have traditionally believed about their consecrations and espousal to Christ. Unless Therese Ivers is arguing the Rite of Profession misuses language and misleads the entire Church and especially those making Religious Professions, I can't see where her argument that, "religious aren't Brides of Christ in a proper sense" (again, what does that even mean?) holds together. More, I am beginning to believe it misses the point of this vocation and its emphasis on the proper nature of its betrothal entirely.

Circling Around Again to Find a Way Forward:

You see, as I try to move forward in the way I see the problem, it is not merely that I can't get my head or my heart around the notion that CV's are Brides of Christ in a proper sense, and Religious Women (or men!)** are not. I can't understand what is gained for the vocation of c 604 consecration by arguing this. More, is it really necessary to take something away from the nature of religious profession and consecration in order to do justice to the consecration of the CV? That seems to me to denigrate the very vocation folks arguing this way are attempting to praise. 

So, what does the vocation of CV gain by believing CV's are more properly "betrothed" than religious women are? Nothing that I can see. It seems a petty and divisive argument which fails to appreciate the rule lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. After all, both Religious and CV's are consecrated (an eternal reality established by God even if one leaves one's vows), both  are professed (though one uses vows for this and the other does not). Both Rites of perpetual profession/consecration uses the same imagery of espousal, the same giving of rings, the same veiling, the same imaging of the Church as Bride of Christ. The major difference in all of this is that one calling is to a degree of separation from the world (or a qualification of these things via the evangelical Counsels) and the other is identified as a unique form of sacred or eschatological secularity. This is the pivotal point of distinction, I believe and the reason for the heightened emphasis on betrothal in the Rite of Consecration of Virgins for Women living in the world.

What I mean by this is that CV's are called to an eschatological or sacred secularity which can change (purify, sanctify) the way the entire Church sees and relates to the realm of the saeculum including every secular vocation. With religious women, CV's are Brides of Christ, but they need not embrace religious poverty, or religious obedience which qualifies religious women's relationship to the world around them in some significant ways in order to live this. Instead, they live it [[in the things of the Spirit and the things of this world]] reminding us all in a powerful way of the divinization of all things the Incarnation made real in the Christ Event. No longer need secular vocations be thought of as second (or third!) class. More, they cannot be thought of in this way. Instead they become paradigmatic of real and critical calls to holiness and union with Christ. The Kingdom of God/Heaven interpenetrates this world even now and CV's say (or are called to say) this in a unique way with their vocations. 

More and more I am beginning to believe the nuptial language of the Rite of Consecration of CV's living in the world, is meant to underscore not a distinction from religious consecration and its language of espousal per se, but rather the incredible nature of this vocation's secularity. No one, I don't think, would have renewed a long-lost vocation to women living in the world simply to contrast that vocation's consecration with that of religious (e.g., "By this rite we show what a true or proper espousal is as we show at the same time that religious' espousal is not a proper one!"). No vocation is essentially negative in its thrust nor established to denigrate another vocation. That is simply silly --- and in fact the majority members of the commissions that wrote both Rites refused to take out the language of espousal in the Rite of Profession of Religious Women. But what is not silly and what needs to be established strongly in light of a history of the Church denigrating the secular despite the witness of the Incarnation, is a vocation that shows the sacred nature of secular vocations and the way they truly image the Church as Bride of Christ --- just as really and powerfully as religious life and "leaving the world" does.

Generally speaking, the members of the Church were used to thinking of women Religious as Brides of Christ even if not all Religious women could personally relate to this language and imagery. What they were NOT used to at all, was the idea that a woman living in the world, a woman living a secular vocation, even a vocation which served the Church, could also truly be considered a Bride of Christ, nor that such a vocation could and should be esteemed as highly as the call to religious life. What do authors of a Rite of consecration do then to bring home the message that such women are called to an espousal every bit as real and significant as that of Religious Women? They make the Rite explicit in its emphasis on espousal, clear and unambiguous in its language of betrothal, and also, entirely clear on the fact that this creates a secular vocation no one in the contemporary Church expected to be possible. Now Bridal imagery is used to speak of a sacred or eschatological secularity which witnesses to the fact that the Kingdom of Heaven has interpenetrated our world in a new an awesome way.

There is no constructive need to emphasize betrothal or espousal and the Bidal imagery of this consecration unless one is doing so to change the way we see the Kingdom, the world around us we call secular, or the potential of secular vocations. Yes, the betrothal is real; the CV's espousal to Christ is every bit as true and significant as is the espousal of Religious in the Rite of Profession. But not more so. The language is weighty and there is emphasis on the proper and indissoluble nature of this espousal, as Therese Ivers rightly argues. But I would argue that it is done this way precisely because such language and imagery had seemed to be reserved for Religious Women and withdrawn (in the 12th Century) from women living secular vocations. The Kingdom of Heaven is present here and now in the religious and in the secular, the sacred and the profane. All is sacramentalized in the Incarnation, all of this world has become our God's proper medium of revelation. It seems to me this is the message underlying the spousal language of the Rite of Consecrated Virgins living in the World and the way we take it absolutely seriously.

I don't think this is new from what I have written in the past, though perhaps it more clearly links the explicit emphasis on Bridal imagery and identity with the secularity of the vocation. However, it is 9 years since I last posted on this issue, and I haven't re-read everything I wrote @2012-2013. For older writing on this topic, please see the label "eschatological secularity", and especially the following post from 2013: Consecrated Virgins vs Religious as Brides of Christ

** I focus on religious women in this piece because the Rite of Religious Profession of Women Religious seems so clear in this matter. The Rite of Religious Profession for Men is less clear in this, but I believe that Religious Men also are Espoused or Betrothed to Christ. After all, it is the Church which is properly the Bride of Christ. 

Pentecost!!! Come Holy Spirit!!!

I have written in the past about a significant prayer experience I had where I had the sense I had God's entire attention, where God was absolutely delighted that I was "finally" there, and where I was completely assured in some indefinable way that, paradoxically, the rest of God's creation enjoyed his entire attention as well. I have also written that from time to time I return to this prayer experience to tap into it again, to drink from its living waters, and to breathe in the strength of its Spirit. I do this because it still lives inside me; it is part of my living, daily memory and has not yet and (I strongly suspect) will never be exhausted of its riches. It serves still as a gateway to a "place" where God is waiting with much to show me and thus, as a gateway to real wisdom. More, it serves as a gateway to that "place" where God is allowed to be completely attentive to me, the place created when he loves me as he wills to do and I am truly myself. And yet, for all of our clamoring and self-centeredness, our love of being at the center of attention and acclaim, it is hard to let ourselves be the center of God's attention because it is hard to let God himself be the center of our own attention.

Over the past weeks I have been thinking about the part played by Jesus' Ascension in our faith. It has been enriched by a focus on the Bridegroom's return to his Father's home to prepare a place for all of humanity in his Father's own life. Especially I have come to see more clearly how it is that through the mediation of his Christ God not only comes to dwell among us exhaustively but that he also opens his own life to us; Divine descent is balanced or matched by Human ascent.

This means that in Christ humanity and all of the experience of humanity including death itself is taken up into the life of God and yet does not destroy God. It also means that the Spirit which hovered over the waters in creation, while not a different Spirit, is also not precisely the same Spirit that exists after the Christ Event and the Ascension of Jesus. The Risen Christ and the Eternal Son are now entirely one. The Spirit (as was always true) is the single eternal Spirit of love that courses between Son and Father; still, because of the Christ Event, including the Ascension of Christ, the Spirit whose coming we celebrate today is not only the Spirit of Divinity, but also the Spirit of authentic humanity. The courage, wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, reverence for God, etc, which come to us today and everyday are also the courage, wisdom, understanding, etc of Jesus' himself --- the one who has suffered our pain, borne the burden of our sinfulness, felt the frustration of our weakness, celebrated the same joys and loves which we do, and persevered in prayer and his acceptance of his Father's commission as he grew to the fullness of "grace and stature" in the power of the Spirit.

But it really is hard sometimes, I think, to be wholly and exhaustively loved by God. It calls for our whole selves to be illuminated by that attention and healed by that love so that we may truly be human beings who center our lives on God's own life.  And yet, this is one piece of today's Feast. Today God showers us with gifts and they are the gifts of God's very self but also the gifts of Jesus and our own truest humanity. God in Christ gives us his full attention and pours out upon us all the riches that attention implies so that we ourselves might likewise give God and his Reign in our midst our full attention.

Today God empowers us with the gifts which make us truly human and commissions us individually and communally to be his People in a world which hungers for this desperately. As a part of this feast it is personally important for me to tap into that prayer experience again as I must do from time to time so that it may continue to renew me. In doing so I am not merely indulging a past memory of something that took place 30 (or so!) years ago nor do I either need nor try to feel what I once felt there; those things are mere shadows of the reality itself. Instead it involves opening myself to a continuing reality which enlivens, nourishes, inspires, challenges, and commissions right here and now. It is to open myself to an experience of God where there is a genuine forgetfulness of self and what delight there is is living delight in God's own delight.

I am reminded in all of this that Sister Rachel, OCD (Ruth Burrows) strongly affirms that the real experience of mystical prayer is always far broader and deeper than the mere (and often misleading) things we feel, hear, see, etc in such prayer; the real "experience" of prayer, the true mystical grace, is the wisdom that grows in us as a result of God's work within us,** the authentic humanity and capacity for all those gifts of the Spirit that not only allow us to grow in grace and stature as Jesus did, but to grow more and more into the image of Jesus who gave himself completely to and for others and thus discovered and embraced his truest home in the very heart of God. We ask that God open us to this fire that burns beneath and beyond all the transitory and illusory things we feel or see in prayer so that one day that same God might, in the power of His Holy Spirit, be all in all. Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in us all the fire of your love!
_____________________________

** In Guidelines for Mystical Prayer Ruth Burrows writes:  [[When all is said and done, the long line of saints and spiritual writers who insist on "experience", who speak of sanctity in terms of ever deepening "experience", who maintain that to have none is to be spiritually dead, are absolutely right provided we understand "experience" in the proper sense, not as a transient emotional impact but as living wisdom, living involvement. . . .So often, however, what the less instructed seek is mere emotion. They are not concerned with the slow demanding generosity of genuine experience.]] GMP, "A Look at Experiences," p 55, emphasis added.

Another look at Ascension: Jewish Marriage as Analogy to Christ's Role as Mediator

I have been asked by a regular reader to try and say more about what I meant in the post on Ascension. She actually asked if I could simplify it some, not to dumb it down, but to try and say it in a way which is simpler and clearer. Her point is well-taken and I want to try to do that. Unfortunately, that may take a couple of posts. In this one I especially want to remind us all of the Jewish marriage ceremony and the way the gospel writers uses it to symbolize all of creation and redemption history --- the whole history of God's relationship with humankind --- especially as these are mirrored in the dual movements of divine descent and ascent, divine self-emptying and then God's welcoming created, embodied life back into himself in Christ so that he might be all in all. In this dual "movement" Christ is the mediator and Bridegroom.

The Two Stages of Jewish Marriage

The central image Jesus uses in Friday's Gospel lection is that of marriage. His disciples are supposed to hear him speaking of the entire process of man and wife becoming one, of a union which represents that between God and mankind which is so close that the two cannot be prised apart or even seen as entirely distinguishable realities. Remember that in Jewish marriages there were two steps: 1) the betrothal which was really marriage and which could only be ended by a divorce, and 2) the taking home and consummation stage in this marriage. After the bridegroom travels to his bride's home and the two are betrothed, the bridegroom returns home to build a place for his new bride in his family's home. It is a better place than she had before. When this is finished (about a year later) the bridegroom travels back to his bride and with great ceremony (lighted lamps, accompanying friends, etc) brings her back to her new home where the marriage is consummated.

This image of the dual stages in Jewish marriage is an appropriate metaphor of what is accomplished in the two "stages" in salvation history referred to as descent and ascent. When we think of Jesus as mediator or revealer --- or even as Bridegroom --- we are looking at a theology of salvation (soteriology)  in which God first goes out of himself in search of a counterpart. This God  'empties himself' of divine prerogatives --- not least that of remaining in solitary omnipotent splendor --- and in a continuing act of self-emptying creates the cosmos still in search of that counterpart. For this reason the entire process is known as one of descent or kenosis. Over eons of time and through many intermediaries (including prophets, the Law, and several covenants) he continues to go out of himself to summon the "other" into existence, and eventually chooses a People who will reveal  him (that is, make him known and real) to the nations. Finally and definitively in Jesus he is enabled to turn a human face to his chosen People. As God has done in partial and fragmentary ways before, in Christ as Mediator he reveals himself definitively as a jealous and fierce lover, one who will allow nothing, not even sin and godless death (which he actually takes into himself!)** to separate him from his beloved or prevent him from bringing her home with him when the time comes.

With Jesus' ascension we are confronted with another dimension of Christ's role as mediator; we celebrate the return of the Bridegroom to his father's house --- that is to the very life of God. He goes there to prepare a place for us. As in the Jewish marriage practice, that Divine "household" (that Divine life) will change in a definitive way with the return of the Son (who has also changed and is now an embodied human being who has experienced death, etc.) just as the Son's coming into the world changed it in a definitive way. God is not yet all in all (that comes later) but in Christ humanity has both assumed and been promised a place in God's own life. As my major theology professor used to say to us, "God has taken death into himself and has not been destroyed by it." That is what heaven is all about, active participation and sharing by that which is other than God in the very life of God. Heaven is not like a huge sports arena where everyone who manages to get a ticket stares at the Jumbo Tron (God) and possibly plays harps or sing psalms to keep from getting too bored. With the Christ Event God changes the world and reconciles it to himself, but with that same event the very life of God himself is changed as well. The ascension signals this significant change as embodied humanity and all of human experience becomes a part of the life of the transcendent God who is eternal and incorporeal. Some "gods" would be destroyed by this, but not the God of Jesus Christ!

Summary

Mediation (or revelation) occurs in two directions in Christ. Christ IS the gateway between heaven and earth, the "place" where these two realities meet and kiss, the new Temple where sacred and profane come together and are transfigured into a single reality. Jesus as mediator implicates God into our world and all of its moments and moods up to and including sin and godless death. But Jesus as mediator also allows human life, and eventually all of creation to be implicated in and assume a place in God's own life. When this double movement comes to its conclusion, when it is accomplished in fullness and Jesus' commission to reconciliation is entirely accomplished, when, that is, the Bridegroom comes forth once again to finally bring his bride home, there will be a new heaven and earth where God is all in all; in this parousia both God and creation achieve the will of God together as it was always meant to be.

** the Scriptures recognize two forms of death. The first is a kind of natural perishing. The second is linked to sin and to the idea that if we choose to live without God we choose to die without him. It is the consequence of sin. This second kind is called variously, sinful death, godless death, eternal death or the second death. This is the death Jesus "takes on" in taking on the reality and consequences of human sinfulness; it is the death he dies while (in his own sinlessness) remaining entirely vulnerable and open to God. It is the death his obedience (openness) allows God to penetrate and transform with his presence. The resurrection is the sign of the defeat of this death and the first sign that all death will one day fall to the life and love of God.

Canon 603 as Male Counterpart of Canon 604?

[[Hi Sister O'Neal. Is it the case that Canon 603 is the male counterpart of Canon 604? I read recently that that was the case, but you are professed under Canon 603, right? So, how can that be? Are males admitted to consecration under Canon 604? Is there a male option similar to Canon 604 if they are not?]]

Hi there. I read the same thing about a year ago in a newspaper article about the consecration of virgins citing an associate professor of religious studies at a Catholic college. The passage read: [[While men wishing to affirm their vows of celibacy cannot be consecrated virgins, they can become diocesan hermits, a lay group of men similar to the consecrated virgins said (name), associate professor of theology. The archbishop has the power to deny this sacrament from candidates who he may not deem mature or independent enough. . .(name), said.]]

Assuming the paper is citing accurately (and I am not sure they are), it is an astounding mistake (or series of mistakes!) to make, not only because Canon 603 is used to profess AND CONSECRATE hermitesses or female hermits, but also because the life governed by Canon 603 is vastly different than that of Canon 604 (Consecrated virginity). I suppose there are some stereotypes about hermits that suggest they are male, but history disproves this from the very first years of the Desert Fathers and MOTHERS. So, the notion that men become hermits and women become consecrated virgins is just silly. Also, calling this consecration (Canon 604) a Sacrament is misleading and just plain wrong. So is referring to canon 603 men as lay hermits when they are consecrated hermits and so, no longer lay in the vocational sense of that word. (These particular errors convince me that the paper is not citing accurately here for the professor associated with the comments is knowledgeable about consecrated life and would not, I don't think, make such egregious errors!)

As for Canon 604 itself, no, men cannot be admitted to this consecration. Perhaps that seems unfair, but the canon represents a recovery of the very ancient Order of Virgins from the first years of the Church (men were generally called ascetics) and at this point the Church, despite discussing doing so has not opened this or a similar vocation to men. Today also, Canon 604 is for women in the world despite the fact that a version of the Rite is for nuns at solemn profession who are called to a strictly contemplative life; CV's living in the world (saeculum) may be drawn to contemplative prayer, but generally their entire lives as such are not separated from the world (meaning mainly that which is resistant to Christ and only secondarily to the saeculum and God's good creation) and involve direct apostolic service to the church and to the world to a much greater degree than a hermit's can ever do; nor are they therefore strictly contemplative.

Further, their vocation, no matter the tenor and intensity of their prayer lives, is not primarily characterized canonically as the hermit life is by stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance. What I mean is these are NOT the defining characteristics of the life of the consecrated virgin living in the world per se. Instead, what defines their lives is a consecration by God and a commissioning to serve God and his Church in the things of the spirit and the things of the world as paradigms of the Church as eschatological Bride of Christ. Neither do consecrated virgins make vows (chastity as a commitment is affirmed in the Rite of consecration itself but is not a vow), nor do they necessarily live according to a Rule of Life they write as do diocesan hermits.

Finally, as relatively uncommon as it still is today and will probably always be, consecrated virginity is much less rare a vocation than the eremitical call. Setting the two off against each other as male and female counterparts --- especially since there are female hermits --- completely neglects this reality. The comments cited above make it sound as if any male who wishes to consecrate his virginity in the service of God and his Church simply needs to approach a diocese about consecration and profession under Canon 603, never mind all the distinctions between the two calls. I suppose that is what is most frustrating about the comments cited. They show no sense at all that these two vocations are different in character and charism. It is for this reason the Church needs both --- not because they are male and female counterparts of one another, but because they are distinct vocations witnessing to different realities.