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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Manifestation of Conscience, a dangerous Precedent

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

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

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

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

Should our Focus be ONLY on what makes vocations distinct from one another?

[[Dear Sister, if espousal to Christ is an icon of the Church it seems to me that married couples would also serve in this way. But if this is true, then how does the witness they give differ from that of religious and consecrated virgins? I am trying to understand what distinguishes these vocations. If EVERYONE'S vocation represents an instance of the spousal bond with Christ, then doesn't the vocation of the CV lose its distinctiveness? You quoted one CV a few weeks back who said if the vocation didn't have its own mission and identity she hoped it would simply be suppressed. Doesn't your theology empty this vocation of distinctness? Doesn't it lead to the very situation this CV outlined?]]

First let me quote the passage you are referring to just so it will be available: [[ I often think that it will be good if CV lives its own ancient charism like the virgin-martyrs in today's world . But if it is called to modify its charism and embrace what other vocations like secular inst and laity already are called to live, then I personally would prefer if CV is totally suppressed by the Church or used as a ceremony or rite available to all vocations of consecrated life but not as a vocation with its own identity and mission.]]

Regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, it is true that it represents an icon of the Church and of the spousal bond with Christ shared by everyone in the Church. Remember that Pope Benedict wrote: [[This means that Christ and the Church are one body in the sense in which man and woman are one flesh, that is, in such a way that in their indissoluble spiritual-bodily union, they nonetheless remain unconfused and unmingled. The Church does not simply become Christ, she is ever the handmaid whom he lovingly raises to be his Bride and who seeks his face throughout these latter days.]] (Called to Communion) While Benedict was writing here in part to establish the Trinitarian nature of espousal it follows clearly that married couples are icons of the Church as spouse or Bride of Christ. Further, it is important to note that both males and females serve in this way.

Again, all of the vocations mentioned serve as icons of the Church as Bride of Christ, and some symbolize mainly the this-worldly character of that identity. Thus the Sacrament of Matrimony. Others point to the eschatological nature of this identity; that is, some point to a union with Christ which is eternal and which is the perfection or fulfillment of any this-worldly reality. They point to a spousal bond which is present proleptically here and now in the midst of the worldly reality we know so well but whose fullness and perfection is identified as heaven or "the Kingdom" --- the realm where God is truly all in all and no one is given in marriage. Religious vocations and the vocation of consecrated virginity are examples of this latter witness with CV's called upon to make this imagery and reality explicitly present in the "things of the spirit and the things of the world". For Religious the spousal bond is the presupposition to and foundation for everything else they are and do but for most it is usually less explicit in their ministry, charisms, or commissions than in those of CV's. In any case, the question is not one of distinctiveness so much as it is of significance or meaningfulness I think. CV's are called to make explicit a call shared by all Christians.

Every vocation reminds us of dimensions of what we are ALL called to. There is NO vocation which is merely distinct or meant to point to the specialness of the one called. In other words there will always be overlaps in the nature of each vocation because each one images and witnesses to Christ and the Trinity. Ordained priesthood makes explicit and paradigmatic dimensions of the priesthood of all believers and the call to be Christ for others as Christ was given for others. Similarly Religious life makes explicit and paradigmatic lives of prayer, service, and the evangelical counsels rooted in a spousal relationship with Christ all are called to in some way. Consecrated virgins are called to make explicit the spousal bond every Christian is called to and to live out the gifts of spousal, maternal, and virginal love which are the perfection of every act of Christian ministry and care; some (those living in the world) are called to do so in a way which summons anyone living a secular life to such authentically human ways of being. Others do so as persons separated from "the world" by vows and cloister and also call all to authentically human being.

While the things that distinguish vocations from one another are important, focus on them need not blind us to the deep similarities and foundations they share. Only as we are aware of and honor these can we truly esteem the one who is their source rather than the one who is gifted by him. Vocations' diversity and special charisma are important because the Body has different functions and needs but there is a universality about these as well.  For instance, every life can and should witness to the nature and place of solitude in the redemption of isolation but few can do so as effectively as hermits. This is part of the gift all eremitical lives are to the whole church and world --- not because only hermits are called to authentic solitude, but because we ALL are. 

Beyond this, lay hermits may be able to speak more powerfully about this to many people who will never have standing of any kind than will a diocesan hermit who has been given standing in law. On the other hand, the diocesan hermit may (and only may) be able to witness more effectively to others about the history of the eremitical vocation in the church as well as to its ecclesial nature and its normative characteristics and significance by virtue of her standing in law.  Though there are meaningful differences, the two vocations are essentially the same; where they differ is in graces, charisms, and mission. It would be a terrible mistake to argue that these qualitative differences are necessarily the same as differences in essence. The challenge is to honor BOTH commonalities and differences. The result of failing in this is elitism and an inability to truly witness in the ways the Church calls on us to do. Remember that martyrdom refers to witnessing with one's life to the love of God for us in Christ. That love is a covenantal or spousal love offered to all and meant to turn this world and its values on their heads.

Are male Religious Espoused to Christ?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, do you think male religious are also espoused to Christ in the same way female Religious are? Isn't it significant that the consecration of Virgins is ONLY allowed for women? Doesn't this suggest that it is not the same as the consecration of Religious?]]

This is certainly an important series of questions.  My answers begin with the fact that traditionally male Religious HAVE been thought to be espoused to Christ as Bridegroom in a way similar to female religious though this has most often been much less explicit or emphasized than it has for women --- especially recently. Still, it is an outgrowth of the insight that everyone baptized in the Church is called to spousal union with Christ and the eschatological realization of that covenantal relationship. Male Religious have traditionally represented paradigms of this just as female religious do. (To see strong examples we have only to look at the writing of men like St John of the Cross, Origen, Bernard, et al) In the current Rite of Religious Profession for Men, the spousal language and imagery has been significantly toned down so that it tends to use language and imagery like "union with Christ," "remaining unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom of God", "being one with Christ in the bonds of love", "whole-hearted service to God and to God's People", being an "eschatological sign (or icon)," etc. Here it seems to me that we are still very definitely dealing with the foundational union with or espousal to Christ here.  The language is somewhat different (though John of the Cross would recognize it in an instant as bridal or nuptial) and it seems to me the graces and charisms associated with the person's expression of this espousal generally differ even more significantly than amongst women religious.

I am also not sure how much of this diminishing of spousal imagery is merely cultural or driven by a reluctance to speak in terms which may be considered "effeminate" --- though I suspect this is a big piece of it because much of the language  in the Rite has to do with stereotypically "male" virtues or characteristics. I think it is undisputed that men experience their sexuality (and also their commitment to celibacy) differently than women do and this is reflected in the language and symbolism of the Rite. Further, some parts of the Church have tended today to move further away from Paul's "neither male nor female" theology of Galatians or his affirmation of 2 Cor 11:2** made to the entire assembly, and may, as a result, be tending (or at least seeming to tend) to treat the profession of men as fundamentally different than that of women today. Still, this does not mean it is fundamentally different; what it more likely indicates, despite its clarity to me, is the obscuring of a dimension of religious profession and its loss to explicit expression and thus, perhaps even to imagination. This would be a development which I consider unfortunate.

This tendency is exacerbated today by the linking of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins to women only, sometimes with commentators mistakenly asserting that it is the female counterpart of male ordination where females marry Christ and males image Christ or serve as alter Christus. This kind of sexual fundamentalism is a betrayal of the Tradition, and contrasts crudely with the baptismal faith Paul articulated in Gal 3:28, however. Still, the Church has spoken of her openness to creating a similar Rite to the Consecration of Virgins for males (these certainly existed in the early church though in smaller numbers), so perhaps we will see the development of a Rite which 1) recovers the mystical tradition of espousal or betrothal to Christ for males living secular lives and 2) makes this spousal imagery explicit once again in a way which summons the entire Church to assume the truth of Paul's eschatological affirmation: "I have betrothed you to one husband to present you as the chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Cor 11:2). The nuptial or spousal imagery will NOT speak to or resonate with everyone, nor will everyone be called to the same affective and contemplative experience or praxis (i.e., there will be qualitative differences), but just as everyone is called to union with Christ, opening this language and imagery more explicitly to men living secular lives might help every Christian understand why Paul writes as he does as it assists us all to imagine the profound depths and extent of the relationship with Christ we all ARE called to.

Again, I don't think there is an essential difference between the consecration of virgins living in the world and that of Religious. (Qualitative differences and essential differences are not necessarily the same thing.) We must be careful not to use the Rite of Consecration in this way for this way leads to all kinds of problems with elitism, as well as asserting a kind of sexual fundamentalism which is contrary to the Gospel, etc. What it does open up to us is the notion that union with Christ is a universal call and that spousal language and imagery is a rich resource the entire Church can benefit from whether we are speaking of persons leading secular or religious lives and whether we are speaking of males or females. I can see such a development helping us in combating the very things misuse fosters. For instance it would be helpful for men to understand that contemplative experiences of espousal and union are not effeminate but profoundly human. It would be helpful for the whole Church to learn that mystical union or betrothal has never been ONLY the preserve of  Religious and especially not of Women Religious, but instead is a way of symbolizing the call of the entire Church and the nature of the entire Church's eschatological hope.

** "I have betrothed you to one husband to present you as the chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Cor 11:2)

Are all called to spousal love of or a spousal bond with God?

I am including here a response to one of the emails I received last week regarding posts on the vocation of CV's living in the world. At issue is my assertion that all persons (not just Israel itself or the Church as a whole) are ultimately called to a spousal relationship with God and thus to spousal love.

The response I received read as follows:  [[Hi Sister Laurel, Once again, I've read your latest post related to consecrated virginity with great interest and appreciation. I agree with almost everything that you've said but I'm confused about one aspect of what you've written.

My problem is with your statement that "everyone in the Church is called to the spousal love which marks God's love for Israel and the Church." It's the use of the word "spousal" that I question. I understand that the use of "spousal" as you present it is entirely biblical. (Considering the first reading on Sunday, I could hardly argue otherwise. Nor would I want to!) The way it's used in the Bible, though, is commonly understood to speak of God's love for a community, i.e. Israel or the Church. You say as much in your post. 

In writing these posts about consecrated virginity, however, your intent is to clarify what you think about a particular vocation embodied by individual women. Given this context, when you say "everyone in the Church is called to the spousal love which marks ..." it sounds to me as though you're implying that the only way to describe any personal relationship that an individual has with God is in spousal terms. I'm quite sure that you didn't mean to leave this impression, but the bells really went off for me in a later paragraph when you refer to a summons to"all persons to recognize their call to spousal love in this world."

 I personally don't think that every person is called to a specifically spousal love in the world but I suspect that I simply don't understand what you're trying to say here. I most definitely would agree that God seeks an intimate relationship with each and every person. Indeed, for me, part of embodying Christ's spousal love for the Church as a CV is to act as a sign of this intimate love that Christ seeks with every individual. In a world where the love of Christ is more often experienced as an abstract idea rather than a living reality, CV's have a powerful pastoral role to play in embodying the possibility of a real relationship with Christ. I hope sending this query will be helpful to you in some way.]]

So, first, thanks for your patience with my lack of substantive response over the last 10 days or so. In fact, I do believe that every person is called to spousal love of God. Each person is ultimately called to a love which is all-consuming, covenantal,  fruitful, exclusive (though this does not mean exclusionary or exclusivistic), which completes them as persons, involves an exhaustive self-gift and similar reception of the other, and is freely entered into. The only word I know for such a relationship is spousal. At the same time I would argue that this relationship is only achieved partially, fragmentarily, and proleptically this side of the realization of God's Kingdom. In other words, the full realization of the spousal relationship with God is eschatological, integral to a "time" and "space" when God will be all in all and no one is given or taken in marriage. It is an eschatological relationship which we all witness to (and prepare for!) in our own ways.

Thus, I think CV's are called to witness to (and prepare for) this universal call here as a special and even paradigmatic gift to the Church and world. This is another reason I think the term "eschatological virginity" is especially apt for CV's. As I said earlier, you are called to live here and now a relationship which reveals  the very nature of the Kingdom of God. You are publicly commissioned to witness to something all are ultimately called to and, unfortunately, very few even begin to imagine. (Further, if we treat, or continue to treat, these vocations as elitist and therefore, as something other than paradigmatic, neither will people ever begin to imagine they are called to this kind of relationship with God.) At the same time I can't think of any vocation which does not reveal some dimension of this kind of relationship especially vividly. That is true whether we are speaking of married people, hermits, religious, priests, or lay life  in any form when these are well-lived. In this life we are indeed called not just to intimacy with God but to union with him and some of us are graced to experience this intimacy here and now as nuptial. But each experience of intimacy, each experience of union points us toward that all-encompassing spousal intimacy and union where we are fully welcomed into the very life of God and become One with him. What differs is the charism and mission attached to the vocation. I am publicly consecrated in a spousal relationship with Christ, but witnessing to this relationship is not the specific or primary gift (charisma) or mission of my life. It IS the gift and specific mission of your own life, however.


What I especially think we have to avoid is the notion that while all are called to intimacy with God, SOME are chosen for an even greater intimacy, a more exhaustive and exclusive intimacy which is somehow reflective of  differences in "chosenness" or even of status or roles which will be maintained within the Kingdom of God itself. Instead, I think we have to witness to an exhaustive union ALL are completed  in and an exhaustive marriage all are ultimately called to. I do that here and now as a hermit in the silence of solitude --- an essentially dialogical or communal form of intimacy fulfilled in union with God. You do that by having become a CV and icon of the Church as Bride of Christ. Married persons reflect this same relationship sacramentally and bring each other to the only One who can truly complete them as human beings. Religious men and women may or may not explicitly witness to Jesus-as-spouse as they remind us of the unitive bond and the community all are made for. Again what differs is the charism and mission of the vocation in question. But in every case I think the bottom line is that in the Kingdom of God we are all called to be participants in a spousal union with God; we are all called to be primary participants in the wedding feast of and WITH the Lamb.