Can someone tell me for a fact, if an open violation of chastity means what I have been told it means by a consecrated virgin? I was told it meant committing a serious sexual sin with, or in the presence of another or a serious sexual sin disclosed to another outside the confessional. If so, would there be any exceptions?
You were informed correctly. The Church expects **virginity **of her consecrated virgins.
please take this to the confessional. clear that air first, then be frank with a cv as to your status.
you said yourself that you did have physical virginity intact. you have also said that your temptations and giving in to them have become less. tell jesus that if he wants you for his cv spouse, he will have to lead the way.
Cloisters, it is not up to a CV to determine if she is eligible. It is the bishop who must decide who to consecrate and he must follow the rules in the Rite of Consecration of Virgins.
We know that virginity requires absence of venereal lust:
As regards the matter of virginity there is that which can be miraculously restored by God, namely the integrity of the organ, which we hold to be accidental to virginity: while there is something else which cannot be restored even by miracle, to wit, that one who has experienced** venereal lust **should cease to have had that experience. For God cannot make that which is done not to have been done, as stated in the FP, Q , A. - St Thomas
Masturbation would fall under venereal lust.
Open violation of chastity can take on many different appearances, but disclosing something like a one night stand or masturbation with a friend certainly would qualify as “open”. The problem is that virginity is intended by the Church and even if just one person knows that the woman is not a virgin, it is a scandal for the Church to be consecrating a non-virgin who will not be receiving the crown of virginity in Heaven.
Rome has clarified what it meant by “lived in open violation of chastity”. It means that the acts are public, with someone else. It is worded the way it is to protect the person from making a manifestation of conscience in the open forum. The bishop cannot outright ask the person whether or not she’s a virgin.
It is true that there are varying definitions of “virgin” and the one St. Thomas gives is not the one used for determining whether someone is eligible for the consecration.
This is partially correct. There are offenses against chastity that do not involve “an act” another person that can prevent eligibility such as being a topless waitress. St. Thomas’s definition is helpful for people who have masturbated as opposed to simply having had impure thoughts.
Being topless isn’t an act against chastity. It’s an act against modesty. Her lifestyle choice would make her intelligible. Cardinal Burke has consulted Rome for clarification and they have clarified that “public and manifest acts are committed with another, …] an act contrary to chastity in what pertains to the state of virginity is the conscious and deliberate giving of one’s body for sexual union…]”. For the sake of receiving the consecration, St. Thomas’ definition does NOT apply. If you don’t believe me, contact Cardinal Burke.
I read the clarification as I am a canon lawyer I know exactly what was said and what was not said. In fact, I read the copies of the actual letters exchanged between Burke and the Congregation. I know the difference between internal and external foras. I also happen to know Cardinal Burke and have talked with him on many occasions about my vocation of consecrated virginity. What you are saying is only partially correct. Cardinal Burke was seeking clarification on ONLY ONE aspect of chastity, namely, whether consensual intercourse that is not known to anyone but the two parties a “public violation of chastity”. A public violation of chastity is not LIMITED to that scenario. Sins against chastity include impurity/immodesty; hence a topless waitress would be immodest and publicly sin against chastity. These things are normally taught in moral theology classes and should be taught to people who are taking a vow of chastity in religious life or the promise of celibacy such as priests.
For a consecrated virgin, you sure have a lack of humility.
Well, I am surprised you would be privy to internal forum material. I would love to hear how you handle the gift of discernment of spirits as nobody in my social circle has it. Do you do spiritual direction?
I only read a list of objectively verifiable facts from SerraSemper–helpful context on an anonymous forum–followed by an explanation of the question under discussion that directly adressed the nuances that had been raised.
How could the poster have shown more humility without unhelpfully obfuscating either her answer to the question or her aptitude to answer it (which was relevant since you had directly challenged it)?
(For context, I am neither a CV nor a canon lawyer.)
I wasn’t aware a rather stern lecture constitutes a lack of humility.
I have been told by the president of the American Association of Consecrated Virgins that the person to talk to about this is my bishop so as uncomfortable as that makes me, I guess I will have to do it.
Never forget that your vocation, whatever it turns out to be, is given to you from GOD, and his will will be done–whether the end result looks like what you initially discerned for yourself or not. Trust in Him, and follow where He leads you, fortis in fide.
You do not have to make a manifestation of conscience to the bishop, especially outside of confessional. I implore you to not inquire for yourself, which would involve you revealing matters of conscience that the Church does not require you make in the external forum.
Agreed. In a case like this, a person doesn’t have to reveal her conscience externally to the bishop (she can internally in confession or in speaking to her spiritual director) but she does have the responsibility of not making a mockery of the Church’s intention to consecrate only virgins in Her own image. This would be like the seminarian who is always falling into sins of impurity or who has deeply rooted inclinations to homosexuality. He doesn’t have the obligation of revealing this to the bishop but his spiritual director and confessor have the serious obligation of asking him to leave seminary because of not being a suitable candidate for the priesthood. I wrote about this in my thesis on the manifestation of conscience (available via Amazon) because it is a delicate balance.
Well, then I will set up an appointment with the Bishop for Confession.