US Association of Consecrated Virgins condemns confusing new rules from Holy See

Author: 

jhayes,   mepoindexter, Fr. Kelly,  Kathleen10, Gerard Plourde originalsolitude,   Cornelius,  APX             

Date: 
Tuesday, July 24, 2018 - 23:15
Article link: 

 

  1. jhayes says:

    They said that the new rules do not change the prerequisites for consecration as stated in the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity, which says: “In the case of virgins leading lives in the world it is required that they have never celebrated marriage and that they have not publicly or manifestly lived in a state contrary to chastity.”

    I agree that #88 does not change that rule, but it does clarify that previously living “in a state contrary to chastity” is not automatically disqualifying from consecration, but only if it has been public or manifest (i.e. known to others -just as in the case of Canon 915, which requires grave sin to be “manifest”)

 

 
mepoindexter says:

You can’t give what you don’t have unless all you’re doing is consecrating someone’s psychodrama.

 

Fr. Kelly says:

jhayes:
According to Church Law, for a matter to be public manifest, all that is needed is for it to be provable in the external forum. This is clearly the case if even one person (other than her confessor) knows of it.
In the case of an unmarried woman who has had sexual intercourse, at least her partner in this act knows of it. It is clearly provable in the external forum. And so, by definition, it is public or manifest .

 
 
Kathleen10 says:

This would only make sense if the people in charge of making up these rules are intentionally trying to flip the Church upside down. Other than that this makes no sense at all. No matter how many word salads they create, this makes no sense. But, if your goal is to wreck things, it makes perfect sense.
I love hearing the children sing Fr. Z. Today is my sister’s birthday, if she were still with us. She loved children so much, and she would have cherished hearing those sweet voices singing in such earnest.

...

 
Gerard Plourde says:

I think that it is important to consider that the former interpretation would exclude women who were victims of sexual assault. It seems to me that the new rule corrects this oversight.

...

 

originalsolitude says:

Gerard Plourde, even before the publication of this new document, a genuine rape did not affect the woman’s virginity.

...

 

Cornelius says:

This is an example of how extreme subjectivism, that modern plague, has overtaken even the Holy See. The new rules divorce the woman from the objective state of her body, and make her will the entire locus of her consecration. I believe Mr. Peters alludes to this.

...

 
originalsolitude says:

mburn16:

Women who gave up their virginity outside of marriage and then repented and wish to offer themselves exclusively to the Lord, can always make a private vow of chastity or celibacy, or seek entry into any of the numerous women religious communities or secular institutes, if they wish to make a public commitment.

The order of virgins is exactly that, a group of women who are virgins, though ESI seems to have put this into question.

...

 

originalsolitude says:

TonyO:
This might interest you. Dom Olivier Rousseau said that virginity of man is not the same as virginity of woman; man must conquer his virginity, whereas woman must guard her virginity as one defends the citadel.

 

 

originalsolitude says:

I must clarify my comment above: “The order of virgins is exactly that, a group of women who are virgins”. I meant, of course, virgins consecrated according to the approved liturgical rite of the Catholic Church.

 
originalsolitude says:

For Saints Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa, the rationale for the virginal choice is the virgin Lamb Himself. So consecrated virginity is Christ-like before it is Marian. And its source is in the Holy Trinity, for the Father generates his Son virginally from all eternity. Consecrated virginity is a gift of the virgin Bridegroom. “Virginity is inherent in the divine nature,” says Gregory, but God has graciously given it to Mary and to virgin souls. And for Ambrose, it is also Christ who, in his Incarnation, gave virginity to his mother and to the Church.

 

APX says:

Tony,

The reason men can’t become Consecrated Virgins is because the essential charism of the Vocation is that of being a Bride of Christ and an Image of the Church (a Virgin Bride) and spiritual mother to the Church. It’s not a male vocation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Own comment: 

So Bergoglio tries to say that consecrated virgins no longer have to be virgins. Even the nuns have come out against him and pointed out his idiocy!

This should surprise nobody, since we are dealing with the same miscreant who thinks that Catholics do not need to be Catholics, married people do not need to be married, and popes do not need to be non-perverts (if he is pope, that is).

I suppose it could be worse: He might have said that consecrated virgins no longer have to be virgins or be consecrated. In other words, don't be surprised if he issues another document attacking the consecration part of consecrated virginity, since Bergoglio always seems to be on a race to the worst-case scenario.

Either way, we are dealing with Novusordoism, and we should not expect its concepts or words to make sense.