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

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

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

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


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

On the use of the term Symbol:

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

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

Watch out for Assertions Which Absolutize Uniqueness!

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

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

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

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

Consecrated Virgins vs Religious: Which are Espoused to Christ?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, a CV has written that in [in contrast to] the Rite of Religious Profession, consecrated virgins have a spousal mission. She also writes, [[Con-trasted to the mission of the religious to live a religious life according to vowed evangelical counsels and separation from the world, the consecrated virgin's mission is to serve the Church primarily as Virgin, Bride, and Mother]] and then [[It should be noted that the Rite of Profession of Religious emphasizes the evangelical counsels and communal lifestyle and barely touches upon a Bridal or nuptial theme whereas the Rite of Consecration to a life of Virginity does not reference the evangelical counsels at all except virginity and the emphasis is entirely upon the themes of virginal espousals and motherhood.]] Does this support the idea that CV's under c 604 are Brides of Christ but Religious are not? Why would this CV make such an argument?]]

Well, I don't know the conclusions drawn from these comments by the person you are citing, but in and of themselves, these comments do not support that idea, no. Does this writer actually argue this explicitly? The conclusions they do support are part of the position I have put forth before, namely, Religious and CV's are similarly consecrated by God and espoused to Christ but they live this reality out differently in most cases due to differences in context, charism, mission, etc. Most fundamentally, one group lives it out as consecrated religious and the other as consecrated secular persons.  Beyond that, one group (ministerial religious) ordinarily lives it out implicitly while the other group (CV's living in the world) do so, and are meant to do so, explicitly. (Cloistered religious may do so more explicitly and some apostolic religious also legitimately feel called to do so.)

The profession  of evangelical counsels effectively separates persons from or significantly qualifies their relationship to the world in fundamental areas (i.e., those of economics, power, and relationships). These religious may or may not be called to witness primarily to espousal per se; instead they may be called to live out this espousal in ways which make something else more directly the gift they bring to the Church and world. For instance, the Sisters of Mercy are consecrated Religious, espoused to God, etc,  but the charism they specifically bring to Church and world is the gift of ministering Christ's mercy to the poor, marginalized and ignorant with a special vow for that. Espousal to God in Christ in an underlying and foundational reality which is usually left implicit in this as they act as spiritual mothers and sisters to the world of the marginalized and poor. In other words, for ministerial religious, their commitment to others often tends to move espousal per se to the background even as it moves the resulting gifts associated with spiritual motherhood and sisterhood to the fore. The gifts and graces of spiritual motherhood and sisterhood however, stem from their espousal/consecration which is itself a specification of their baptism.

CV's on the other hand are called upon to live out their espousal explicitly in a secular way and context. They are Brides of Christ but not Religious Sisters. They are consecrated women,  icons of the eschatological espousal every person is ultimately called to and they are called to live this out explicitly in the world and in the things of the world right here and right now. At the same time, while they are not vowed to religious poverty, or religious obedience, they, like every Christian, are called to embrace the values of the Gospel; these include the counsels of poverty, obedience, and chastity according to one's state of life. The apparent absence of reference to the evangelical counsels in the Rite of Consecration however, is due to the absence of vows or life in community, and to the vocation's secularity, not to the absence of these values more generally.

Especially, neither does the difference in emphasis of the Rite of Profession of Religious from the Rite of Consecration under c 604 indicate one rite refers to espousal while the other does not. Nor does any difference refer to a different degree of espousal any more than this difference refers to a different degree of consecration. Again, one rite refers to the espousal of Religious who live out their consecration in terms of public vows and (diocesan hermits excepted) life in community, while the other refers to the espousal of virgins living exhaustively consecrated AND secular lives where their identity as Brides of Christ is explicit and the fundamental ecclesial gift they bring to the Church and world.

I think the passage you have cited says as much. What it does not (and cannot honestly) say is that the Bridal imagery or nuptial import is absent in the Rite of Profession/Consecration of Religious, nor that where it is present it is different in kind or degree from that of the Consecration of Virgins living in the world or vice versa. What differs is emphasis and context, charism and mission. Both Rites use Bridal language while the insigniae given in  Religious Profession and the Consecration of Virgins living in the world is the same as has always been the case in any consecration and/or profession. These are nuptial in nature: veils, rings, etc. (Cf, for instance the picture and prayer of the giving of my own ring where the Bishop said, according to the prescribed rite: [[ Sister, receive this ring for you are betrothed to the eternal King: Keep faith with your Bridegroom so that you may come to the wedding feast of Eternal joy.]] So again, in both cases -- Religious and CV's living in the world -- espousal is real and fundamental. Where these two groups differ is in the way they are called by the Church to live this out and symbolize it for others.

Attempts to Deny the Nuptial Reality of Religious Profession

Though what you have cited does not say so, there is indeed a movement afoot (possibly only composed of a minority of CV's) to say that CV's under c 604 have the right to be called Brides of Christ where Religious do not.  One CV actually (and erroneously) wrote that she has the right to ask a Sister calling herself a Bride of Christ to stop doing so! But the Church herself has traditionally understood her own identity as reflective of a spousal bond and vocation and has Traditionally recognized a special expression of that spousal bond and ecclesial identity in the vocations of Religious women and men.  There is absolutely no indication that by reprising the secular vocation of canon 604 the Church wishes to affirm that CV's are Brides of Christ while denying Religious are similarly espoused. The evidence is quite the contrary in fact.

Additionally, some CV's have actually asserted that if Religious Women and Men share in the charism of spousality it weakens or dilutes the charism of CV's! Of course since we (Christians) are ALL ultimately called to this espousal and since the Church herself is the Virgin Bride of Christ, it hardly makes sense to argue that a lack of exclusiveness "dilutes" the CV's charism. ALL vocations, and especially all ecclesial vocations share in and express this universal conjugal love between God and his own. Relative to other vocations Religious and CV's image this universal vocation in a more explicit way even if they differ from one another in degree of explicitness,  just as those called to marriage and the holiness and sacramentality of sexual love image different dimensions of this same universal call.

What remains true is that CV's consecrated under c 604 cannot change almost 2 millennium of Church tradition simply because they are themselves in search of a rationale for their vocations which fails to center on (or, in some instances, fails even to recognize) the foundational secularity qualifying the consecrated nature of the calling. Graces, mission, and even the charism (gift quality) of the vocation may differ from those of others also called to reflect the ecclesial vocation of spousal (all-encompassing and total or conjugal) love; what does not change is the underlying spousal call and bond. (This is equally true for religious who reject the nuptial imagery and trappings associated with their profession and consecration.) Though other things may be at play, the apparent need to argue a difference in the consecration and espousal of Religious in distinction from canon 604 CV's seems to me to stem first of all from an inability to accept the radical secularity of the vocation. Because they do not accept this, they must find something else which makes their vocation truly meaningful and distinct.

Additional Reasons for this Denial:

I think there are a couple of other related reasons as well. First, this minority of CV's seem to be impatient with the Church's (meaning here the whole People of God's) slowness in coming to understand and appreciate this "new" vocation. Admittedly, it is sometimes frustrating to give oneself to a little-understood or appreciated vocation! This leaves the increased hiddenness of the CV's vocation to rankle with some CV's. Instead of allowing time for the Church as a whole to establish and reflect on the unique gift quality of a consecrated vocation lived in the world and the things of the world (and therefore living without distinguishing garb, title, vows, or insigniae beyond the wedding ring each CV wears), there seems to be a need to establish themselves as special and "set apart" in a way which also actually betrays the fundamental secularity and the charism of the vocation. We ought not need to suggest we are special merely in referring to what distinguishes us from other vocations; sometimes we are special because we share a charism with others while our mission in extending or mediating this charism to others is quite different.

Once CV's become more secure in articulating the charism and mission of their vocation as both conse-crated AND secular, I believe and hope the need to redefine the consecration and espousal of Religious will cease. The same is true when CV's living in the world become completely comfortable with the paradox I mention below, namely, that being set apart FOR and BY God in their case does not necessarily mean being set apart FROM others; it does not ordinarily involve distinguishing garb or insignia beyond their ring. For the CV living in the world, being set apart for God as a consecrated person in the church means secular lives, secular dress, etc. Certainly I have spoken with mature examples of this vocation for whom elitism is unacceptable even as they understand and live out both the uniqueness and the universality of their vocation; they give me hope in this matter. What is true, I think, is that only as CV's live out the paradox of their vocations wholeheartedly will the Church as a whole become more accepting of it.

Secondly, it seems to be the case that a number of CV's really desire to be Religious, but for some reason are unable or even unwilling to enter a congregation and move through all the steps and formation required. For that reason there seems to be a movement afoot to take a secular form of consecrated life and transform it instead into a quasi-religious form which simply lacks, "all the bells and whistles." In such cases, where the radical secularity of the vocation is actually denied, the common  and usually misguided question, "Why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" actually has some cogency. Related to this is the too-facile distinction of Religious life from secular life in a way which treats secular life as less than truly devout, and certainly as not fitting to one who is consecrated by God. As I have written here before, today the Church is moving to reappropriate a more adequate notion of secularity, an understanding which is to be carefully distinguished from secularism and where, whether consecrated, ordained, or lay, persons can embrace the fact that they are called to live out lives of radical discipleship to Jesus in the world and in the things of the world precisely in order to call others to the same discipleship. CV's will especially call others to recognize that they too share in some way in the vocation of spousal union with God in the midst of secularity.

This means that CV's living in the world have actually been given a significant place in this dimension of the Church's mission. Paradox is often hard for people to appreciate or embrace but here CV's are called to embrace and live the paradox of consecrated or eschatological secularity. The Church seeks to hold these two things together as a piece of its own sacramental character; she consecrates virgins TRULY living in the world so that they might be icons of the Christian paradox where the divine is exhaustively revealed in flesh, the sacred is revealed in the ordinary and all of existence is called to be a living symbol of the reality of God's love which is poured out in the creation of ordinary life.

Can Consecration Ever be Undone?

One piece of recent developments in reflecting on the meaning and significance of c 604 vocations, and a piece which must be relinquished, is the notion that the CV is made Bride of Christ in a way which changes her ontologically. In saying this I do not mean that consecration does not change the person at all --- especially in her capacity to receive the grace of God which is specifically pertinent to her unique vocation.  However, I do mean that the person is not made "Bride of Christ" as though there is some sort of special form of humanity, some unique genus known as "sponsa Christi" into which the CV has been transformed which is unlike what happens to religious during their own consecration.

At her consecration the CV is uniquely graced and made especially capable of receiving the graces associated with bridal, virginal, and maternal love proper to the Kingdom or Reign of God; at the same time she is made legally and morally responsible for receiving and living out these graces as best she can on behalf of others in accordance with Canon Law and the Rite of Consecration --- especially as a consecrated person and icon of the universal calling of the whole Church to be Bride of Christ.  As with Religious who are consecrated by God at perpetual or solemn profession (this does not happen with temporary profession), the consecration per se cannot be undone; even so, what can be relinquished or undone are the legal and moral rights and obligations which attend and mark the CV's entry into the consecrated state of life.

Religious are dispensed from their perpetual vows in order to achieve this relinquishment. When dispensed in this way they do not cease to be consecrated but they are no longer consecrated persons in the Church. Since CV's have no vows they cannot be dispensed from them, but it does happen that CV's leave the legal rights and obligations enjoined on them with consecration and thus too, leave a state of life with its commensurate obligations, responsibilities, and public privileges and expectations. Such a CV does not cease to be consecrated, but she does cease to be a consecrated person (i.e., one in a public state of  consecrated life) in the church. She ceases, in other words, to be an iconic figure in the way CV's living in the world are called to be.

Is Christ the Consecrated Virgin's "Husband"?

Another way of  buying into extravagant and elitist ontological claims is by embracing the notion that Christ becomes the CV's "husband." I admit that I have never been comfortable hearing some use this term and I have become more uncomfortable with it as it is linked with increasingly elitist notions of the CV's consecration. We must always remember the analogical nature of our language when we are speaking of God; when the eschatological reality of the metaphor "spouse" or "Bridegroom" is replaced by the this-worldly legal and social term "husband" we are no longer taking significant care with our language or our theology. Further, we are talking about a change in Christ's own identity which is also exclusionary and I emphatically don't think we can do that.

Those who are espoused, betrothed, or (perhaps less appropriate linguistically) "wedded" to Christ become unique sharers in and witnesses to the CHURCH'S identity as Bride of Christ. We never say Christ is the Church's husband; it is simply not appropriate nor theologically accurate. We refer to him as the Bridegroom because it preserves the dimension of a real marriage which is not yet consummated or marked by home-taking. We do the same with CV's; the Church does so in all traditional, official, or authoritative documents referring to this vocation that I have seen. (See for instance par 18 of Pius XII's "Sacra Virginitas" where Pius carefully and consistently maintains the distinction between Christ as spouse and others as "husbands" --- even going so far as to speak of virgins as espoused to Christ and thus free of husbands!) Neither then do we say the Church (nor individual Sisters, Brothers (!), Friars (!), or CV's) are Christ's wives. Such language strips away the eschatological and ecclesial nature of the identity the CV or any of these others have accepted and makes claims of a spousal bond apparently ridiculous. I believe this usage is theologically naive and harmful to the actual witness the CV is meant to give.

To summarize then, because the vocation is ecclesial and makes the CV an icon of the Church's own identity, as well as because it is a share in an eschatological reality and points to a union which occurs in eternity when neither man nor woman will be given in marriage, it cannot make of Christ a "husband" in a this-wordly sense. Again, in Xtn theology we tend to keep the Scriptural language of espousal (Bridegroom, spouse, Bride) and eschew more common language of wife and husband in speaking of this dimension of consecration precisely to maintain the eschatological nature of the union and identity.  (Again, refer to Pius XII's usage in Sacra Virginitas.) Taking care in this way might also prevent some of the extravagant and elitist claims we are seeing  and hearing from some CV's. After all, I have called this vocation one of eschatological secularity; just as CV's cannot deny or diminish the secularity of it and be true to it, neither can they legitimately deny nor diminish its eschatological nature without betraying the vocation.

Is the CV really a Bride of Christ then? Yes, absolutely, but in a way which is representative, iconic, proleptic, and prophetic, rather than exclusive or elitist. The CV is a Bride of Christ in a sense which says, "I am what you are also called to be eschatologically, and I am this here and now so that you might know you are also called to this!" She is not a Bride of Christ in a sense which says, "I am a Bride of Christ and you consecrated Religious are not!" nor, "I am a Bride of Christ now and will be so in eternity in a way you will never be!"  Instead, the CV consecrated under c 604 lives out the specifically ecclesial identity of  Bride to the eternal Bridegroom in a particularly vivid and coherent way; she does so precisely so others may also do so (and aspire to do so) in the differing ways God calls them to share in this foundational ecclesial identity. The call and mission of CV's consecrated under c 604 is a tremendously significant ecclesial witness which serves the whole Church in reminding us of something fundamental which has been lost sight of, namely, the universal call to spousal love, the call of every person and God's Church as a whole to a union with God through Christ that is best seen as "nuptial."

Though I have focused on the nuptial character of this vocation, I should also say that this call is also profoundly significant in extending and clarifying the Church's new and evolving stances on secularity and mission! This too is part of its charism and a witness and challenge the world needs profoundly. This vocation reflects a form of "set apartness" which itself is only truly expressed when it is lived exhaustively within the culture; it is the "set apartness" proper to the Incarnation of the Word of God and to a Church whose very nature (like that of the God she worships and mediates) is missionary. The CV living in the world ministers and missions, not merely by going out to segments of the world preaching, teaching, healing, and so forth, but by manifesting the Kingdom of God here and now IN secularity --- albeit a wholly transformed secularity, an eschatological secularity proper to the "time" when God will be all in all.

Please also see: On Consecrated Virginity: the Nature of This Espousal

Consecrated Virginity in the Face of a Conciliar Ecclesiology and Missiology

[[Hi Sister, could you respond to this excerpt from a blog I ran across? (It is called Sacramentality [Sacramentality] and is by Shana Smith.) I don't think you have done this even though the post was written 2 years ago. Thanks.]]

[[Though Sr. Laurel has definitely brought up some things for me to process, especially the phrase in the homily for the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity where the bishop says to the virgin (s) that they are "apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the spirit and the things of the world." I can see how this can be read as indicating a distinction between the Church or the the things of the spirit "the sacred" and the things of the world "the secular" and a consecrated virgins call to embrace both these dimensions of life, bringing them together. I need to grapple with this in relation to this gut feeling of mine that a consecrated virgin is called to be given over to prayer and work that directly and inherently forwards the Church's charitable and evangelical mission- in the world. 

For an example I can appreciate a difference between being the manager of a Sears store and being a missionary. It seems that a if a consecrated virgin were hypothetically a manager of Sears her evangelizing would have to be done along side her professional work and not directly through it whereas if she were to work as a missionary of sorts to the poor of her diocese that that work would intrinsically be forwarding the mission of the Church in a more direct way and therefore be more fitting to her vocation to a public form of consecrated life. It will take some time for me to work out how I see all these points relating and to test and hold fast to what I come to believe to be good and true.

Another interesting point to add which Sr. Laurel brought up, is in expressing her desire that "Ms. Cooper...address arguments rooted in Christology (for instance, the notion that Christ was paradigmatically secular in the life he lived even as he incarnated God exhaustively and thus witnessed to transcendence at every moment and mood of his life)." I think this is interesting, though what I would like to see is a treatment of how Christ's more secular work as a carpenter related to his following years of ministry and how this could possibly be significant to this discussion.]]

Hi there! You are right. I never really responded to the blog entry from which you excerpted this. Time simply got away from me (as I recall, the original entry is more complicated than this excerpt and had some stuff about sacred vs profane art which I needed to spend greater time on); anyway time and discussions moved on.

I am honestly not sure what specifically you would like me to respond to in this excerpt that I have not already done indirectly in posts on the vocation to consecrated virginity but let me try to say something somewhat new by focusing on Miss Smith's concern with missiology. Recent events in the Church have underscored changes in the Church's approach to missiology which I have noted before, but it is on my mind not only because Shana mentions it but because a friend also spoke of it today during a conversation recalling what Francis is saying and doing regarding VII, the distinction between evangelizing and proselytizing, and so forth.

My own position on the contemporary vocation of Consecrated Virgin Living in the World is this: 1) the Church herself in her Rite of Consecration of CV's living in the World clearly and unambiguously refers to the vocation as both secular (done in the world and in or with the things of the world) and consecrated (given over to and in fact set apart by God for this secularity in a wholehearted and formal way). She calls CV's living in the world to be Apostles and thus too, to bring the Gospel into all of the nooks and crannies of our world as well as in the ways that nuns and priests cannot, and 2) this is PRECISELY the mission of the Church --- as, I think, we see Francis making so abundantly clear to us in every word and gesture. (Some who complain that he ought not be seen to eat and drink with others seem to ascribe to the notion that there is a separation between sacred and profane --- a position with which Francis apparently does not agree.) Further, it is a mission of the Church that has simply not been adequately undertaken and it is therefore important for consecrated persons living  unashamedly secular lives with the special grace of God to demonstrate how this is done.

What I am saying is that there is to be no artifical divide between Church and world, at least insofar as the Church is missioned to serve as leaven in the dough of the world.  Eventually the two are to be transformed into the Kingdom of God. When the dough has risen one cannot presume to cull out the yeast anymore than one can distinguish the bread and wine from the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Similarly the Incarnation destroyed the division between sacred and profane caused by sin but we have not worked hard enough to implicate this victory in our own world and lives. Too often we have strengthened it in the name of "protecting" the sacred from taint by the profane. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the power of holiness which transforms and sanctifies what it touches.

The paradox in all of this is that in being "set apart for God" the consecrated virgin is called to live out to this consecration in a way which is profoundly immersed in the world without being or becoming OF the world just as Jesus did in incarnating the Word exhaustively. Instead the world is itself to become consecrated and OF the Kingdom. She is called to transform the world with her presence --- as humble and apparently unremarkable or even relatively invisible as her presence there is. She is called to trust that her ministry produces profound changes and provides a profound witness precisely because and insofar she is both consecrated AND completely immersed.

You see, in my own vocation people do not always see a life of prayer as possible for them --- though of course it is. Instead they see I live the life of a religious and they still think that certain things they will never have or commit to are therefore necessary to live a life of true prayer and holiness, including vows of poverty, chastity and obedience which make my life something other than secular. While I value my vows and vocation more than I can say, and while I believe my vocation is incredibly important in today's world and church, I also understand that these elements of it represent a limitation on my ability to call people to the fullness of Christian secularity. Too often my standing as a religious is thought to suggest that whole-hearted commitment to Christ or the attainment of genuine holiness requires one BE a religious or otherwise separated from the world of ordinary reality (not, by the way, that anyone is accusing me of holiness of course!). On the other hand, the hiddenness of my vocation has sometimes left me tempted to undertake more visible and clearly-valuable ministries than one of  the silence of solitude. I must trust that God knows precisely what he is doing and precisely what  others need in calling me (or anyone else) to this vocation and because I HAVE trusted that I have come to understand the charism of this vocation in ways I never could have otherwise.

A New and Ancient Ecclesiology and Missiology to Which Consecrated Virgins are called to Witness

The Church, however is moving beyond this more exclusive notion of holiness and perfection. She sees and proclaims clearly now that holiness is the universal call of the WHOLE Church, the entire People of God, and that it is possible and necessary for those living secular lives. Further, she clearly says with canon 604 that one does not need to be a religious or quasi religious nor work for the institutional Church directly to fulfill a vocation to holiness. Secular vocations are not a kind of left-over calling for those without a "higher vocation" or direct employment in the church. They are, instead, a very high calling indeed, a calling to an exhaustive holiness --- so much so that some consecrated women are called to demonstrate and witness to this with their lives. The early Church knew this and the vocation of the consecrated virgin was profoundly counter cultural in the way it called the most marginalized to holiness in Christ. Gradually that sense was lost and, along with the ordained priesthood, Religious life became seen as the privileged way to holiness (a piece of this gradual usurpation included crowding out the vocation of secular consecrated virgins in the 12th Century or so; only CVs who were also solemnly vowed monastics remained).

The Church has recovered the universal call to holiness with Vatican II just as she is recovering the notion of catholicity as yeast within dough --- that is, just as she recovered and reclaimed the Greek rather than the Latin sense of catholicity. (cf Reforms Francis is Calling For) The canon 604 vocation is a piece of this reappropriation. Consecrated Virgins living in the world can actually call their lay brothers and sisters to accept their share in this new vision and mission in ways religious cannot do. In other words, it is a profoundly post-VII vocation which furthers the aims, ecclesiology, and missiology of the Council even while it reprises the earliest Church's experience. What it seems really important for CVs and candidates for this vocation to realize is the the Church's theology of secularity is a developing reality. It began with the recognition of the vocation of the laity and shifts in our sense of the meaning of missiology, but is actually developed and strengthened by the call to consecrated secularity with c 604. CV's living in the world represent an ecclesial vocation, not in the sense  that CV's are called to work directly for the Church as employees, nor even merely in the sense that their vocations are mutually discerned and mediated by the Church,  but also because they are persons whose very lives are the new icons of this Vatican II ecclesiology with its shifting sense of universality and a correlative missiology. They are icons of what it means to be yeast within the dough and evangelizing ecclesia pervasively and effectively present within the world.

One clarification, when I spoke of Jesus' life as profoundly secular (and wholly Divine too!), I was not speaking of his work as a carpenter as though some pieces of his life were secular and others were not or some were more secular than others. Neither am I doing so with CV's living in the world.  My point was simply that Jesus' most profound ministry was undertaken in a secular context (and apart from the specifically religious context of his day). He lived a life of complete union with God as he lived a wholly secular life, eating and drinking with sinners, overseeing the financial and other affairs of his band of disciples, moving from house to house, etc. Except that he routinely went apart to pray and was itinerant, his life was a secular one, that is, one lived in the world subject to all of its rules, etc. We simply cannot say he came down from the mountain occasionally. The opposite is true. We cannot call his carpentry more secular than his preaching and teaching either. Both were profoundly sacred aspects of his life sanctified by his union with the one he called Abba. Thus I am saying that these two dimensions of his life are so intimately intertwined in Jesus as to be wed in him. He is the one who makes all things holy with his presence. I believe CV's as icons of a similar espousal are called to this very thing. 

Another example who might be edifying to consecrated virgins living in the world is Saint Paul --- "the least of the Apostles" as he put it. Remember that he worked as a tent maker everywhere he went. Despite the fact that he was a mystic, an Apostle, a theologian and a founder of local Churches, Paul lived a secular life. He is very clear about this and in fact, it seems clear that he dislikes anyone who tries to divvy things up in artificial ways, whether by Enthusiasts, those expecting the parousia momentarily so that they neither worked nor contributed to the life of the community, or whomever! For Paul there was no conflict between being wholly consecrated to and by God and living an entirely secular existence where authentic mission was ALWAYS a central concern.

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). 

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.

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.