Sunday, October 13, 2019

Thoughts on Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago, Paragraph 88


Overall, Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago (ESI), the fairly recent Instruction from Rome’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Life, was a much-needed document that clarified many aspects of the vocation of consecrated virginity, ranging from lofty elements of its spirituality to more down-to-earth questions such as the need for formation. But regrettably, most of the news coverage from ESI’s publication last year focused on the controversy surrounding ESI paragraph 88, which supposedly suggested that consecrated virgins need not be virgins at all.

Reading this paragraph as a canon lawyer, I believe it is a mistake to interpret ESI 88 in this way. Still, since I occasionally continue to receive questions about ESI 88, I think it might be helpful to have a more in-depth discussion on this point.

Some historical context

When the revised Rite of Consecration to aLife of Virginity was promulgated in 1970, the praenotanda of the Rite indicated that women are eligible for the consecration of virgins if they had: “never married or lived in public or open violation of chastity.”[i] For a time, this somewhat vague wording led some to suppose that, as long as there was no danger of scandal, the Rite perhaps only demanded “spiritual virginity” or “second-chance virginity” (i.e., in which a non-virgin sincerely repents of her past sexual sin and lives a life of fervent chastity from that point forward).

Eventually, at least in the United States, there came to be a more or less general consensus that literal virginity was a key requirement for becoming a consecrated virgin. Or in other words, women who have knowingly and freely engaged in an act of completed sexual intercourse are not eligible, even if they have sincerely repented or have embraced a devotional practice of “secondary virginity.” There were some offical-ish, though not absolutely authoritative, clarifications in this regard, such as letters from Roman Dicasteries addressed to individuals who had written with this question.[ii]

Yet even more than that, I suspect this sensus fideli arose from just plain common sense in reading the pertinent source material. That is, this vocation is referred to verbatim as “the consecration of virgins” and “the Order of Virgins.” Likewise, the Code of Canon Law describes the women who embrace this state in life as “virgins.” (cf. can. 604) Thus, arguably it doesn’t take a great feat of scholarship to conclude that the Church expects that women in this particular state in life to be really virgins in the usual sense of the term.

But even with this fundamental distinction more or less settled, the wording of the eligibility requirements in the praenotanda in the Rite of Consecration still left us with a lot of questions in terms of how to evaluate certain real-life cases and situations. Specifically, it was not clear whether the word “public” in this sense was intended to indicate something along the lines of “widely-known and notorious,” or if it was instead meant to be read in a more restrictive technical sense of “not being a strictly a matter of the internal forum.” Or in other words, would it take an exceptionally well-known lack of chastity for a woman to be disqualified from the consecration of virgins, or would she be ineligible simply if she had committed an unchaste act that was outwardly verifiable by a third party?

Similarly, especially among consecrated virgins themselves, it was often hotly debated whether the phrase “violation of chastity” was meant as a euphemism for the completed act of intercourse, or if it referred to any serious sin against the sixth Commandment.  And even if one presumed that a “violation of chastity” encompassed those sins of unchastity which stopped short of “the marital act” itself, there were still a number of questions regarding exactly where and how the line should be drawn when determining which specific sins were grave enough to render an woman ineligible for the consecration of virgins.

What ESI actually says

As was expected for this long-anticipated instruction on the Ordo virginum, Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago does indeed provide some elaboration on the requirement of chastity stated in the Rite’s praenotanda.

ESI 93 briefly, but usefully, clarifies that the “public” violations of chastity mentioned in the praenotanda are those acts which are de facto widely known, as opposed to known by only at least one other person. In a lot of way this clarification is not too surprising, given that a more literal translation of the typical Latin text of the eligibility criterion in question mentions a “…public or manifest” (“publice seu manifeste”) violation of chastity.

“Manifest” in a canonical context means something along the lines of “obvious” or “readily apparent.” When something is manifest in canon law, this generally indicates that it needs little or no investigation to be proven. And so a manifest violation of chastity would be one where there was no reasonable doubt that it occurred.

However, ESI’s commentary on this aspect of candidates’ eligibility for the vocation is most fully—and, as it were, most controversially—set out in paragraph 88. Since the question at hand is very context-dependent, I’m quoting ESI 88 in full here, but highlighting the controversial lines in bold:

88. In vocational guidance and when there is need to describe the characteristics of this vocation and the requirements for admission to consecration, the condition of virginity will be presented starting with the rich symbolism of its biblical foundations, within the framework of an anthropological vision solidly based on Christian revelation. On this basis the different dimensions, physical, psychological and spiritual, are integrated and considered in their dynamic connection to the lived history of the person and in openness to the unceasing action of divine grace that directs, guides and invigorates her on the path of holiness. 
As a treasure of inestimable value that God pours into clay vessels (cf. 2Cor 4:7), this vocation is truly an undeserved gift. It encounters the person in her actual humanity, always in need of redemption and yearning for the full meaning of her existence. It finds its origin and dynamic center in the grace of God, who unceasingly acts with the tenderness and the strength of his merciful love in the often complex and sometimes contradictory events of human life, helping the person to grasp her uniqueness and the unity of her being, enabling her to make a total gift of self. In this context it should be kept in mind that the call to give witness to the Church’s virginal, spousal and fruitful love for Christ is not reducible to the symbol of physical integrity. Thus to have kept her body in perfect continence or to have practiced the virtue of chastity in an exemplary way, while of great importance with regard to the discernment, are not essential prerequisites in the absence of which admittance to consecration is not possible.  
The discernment therefore requires good judgement and insight, and it must be carried out individually. Each aspirant and candidate is called to examine her own vocation with regard to her own personal history, in honesty and authenticity before God, and with the help of spiritual accompaniment.

Once again, I’ll point out that this paragraph discusses many things other than the “dividing line” of what makes woman eligible for the consecration of virgins. Namely, ESI 88 begins by highlighting the value of virginity and its centrality to this vocation, and concludes by strongly emphasizes the importance of individual discernment.

How this should be interpreted?

And so, we can see that ESI 88 is actually communicating quite of bit of very nuanced and valuable information. Unlike the clarifications ESI gives us on other issues, we can’t reduce ESI 88 to a simple soundbite or yes-or-no answer.

But in my professional opinion as a canonist, I think the practical bottom line here is: for women whose virginity is questionable—with “questionable” meaning: “there really is a sincere question here”—their eligibility for the consecration of virgins is to be carefully discerned on an individual basis.

Practically speaking, this means that victims or rape or abuse, or conversely, women who may have repented of sinful sexual acts that stopped short of intercourse, are not automatically prohibited from discerning this vocation. On the other hand, this also doesn’t mean that they are to be automatically admitted to the Order of Virgins, either! Rather, it means that the Church does not exclude them from an honest and realistic conversation about the possibility that they might be called to this state in life.

So what ESI 88 is not saying is: “virginity is no longer required for consecrated virgins.” First of all, as per my point above, if a woman can be readily described as a non-virgin, then her virginity is no longer “questionable” or a gray area. That is, it’s clear that a non-virgin is not a virgin, full stop. The virginity of an obvious non-virgin is no longer questionable, because that “question” is already fully answered in the negative. A woman who has no need of discerning whether or not she is a literal virgin because she already knows with certainty that she is not one is clearly not an individual whose situation ESI 88 was intended to describe.

Likewise, the reaffirmation of the eligibility requirements as originally phrased in the Rite in ESI 84 already sets a fairly high standard even by itself. While having “never married or lived in public or open violation of chastity” isn’t absolutely comprehensive, it seems generally unlikely that a woman who was unquestionably not a virgin would also somehow measure up to this standard. Granted, scenarios where something like this might be the case are not impossible and do happen. Yet it’s still important to note that, unlike what some of the more provocative headlines and media talking points would suggest, ESI 88 is not suddenly opening the Ordo virginum to obvious non-virgins or to women have repented from lifestyles of manifest sexual sin.

But more importantly in my mind, it is clear from the wording of this very paragraph, let alone the context of the rest of the document, that the Church still sees virginity as a foundational element of the spirituality of this vocation. ESI 88 begins by stating that “when there is need to describe the characteristics of this vocation and the requirements for admission to consecration,” the appropriate way to respond is by presenting and referring to “the condition of virginity” in light of the “rich symbolism of its biblical foundations.” Here, ESI 88 tells us that virginity with all its meaning and significance must be presented as the key for discernment. Since virginity is specifically named as the fundamental reference point for discerning eligibility, it doesn’t make sense to argue that ESI 88 is somehow doing away with the requirement of virginity altogether.

A note on some popular terminology

At this point, it might be good to address one potential point of confusion, which is the term “physical virginity.” Among English-speaking consecrated virgins, this term tends to be used as shorthand for something like: “really a virgin in the true sense of the term, as opposed to the merely ‘spiritual virginity’ of a repentant non-virgin.”

However, I find the term “physical virginity” to problematic in discussions like this, since it ignores the distinction between what I’ll call “literal virginity” versus a strictly biological virginity. While a woman is biologically virginal if her body has never experienced sexual intercourse in any way, shape, or form; she can rightly be called a literal virgin if she has never engaged in sexual intercourse with full knowledge and freedom.

This is important, because the Church traditionally understands virginity as a moral and spiritual state as opposed to a medical or simply biological one. That is, a woman is a virgin is she intends and has resolved to remain chaste and continent before marriage; or in the case of dedicated or consecrated virginity, if she is resolved to remain chaste while forsaking the potential for legitimate intimacy with a mortal husband, for the sake offering herself more wholly to God. As such, the Church regards virtuous rape victims as truly and fully virgins, regardless of whatever traumatic violation their bodies may have experienced.[iii]

Of course, physiological bodily integrity is not totally irrelevant to the virtue of virginity, but we should understand a biologically virginal body as being only a fitting sign of the spiritual reality of a truly virginal soul. Therefore, as ESI 88 points out, we can and should appreciate the sign-value of bodily wholeness without incorrectly reducing the entire concept of “virginity” to this mere sign.

Also too, there is a sense in which any literal virginity—i.e. the moral state of virginity, with or without bodily “intactness”—is also a kind of “physical virginity,” since a woman’s free choice and perseverance in a life of virginity makes her body consecrated and holy, regardless of what might have happened to her body against her will. As St. Augustine notes: “the sanctity of the soul remains even when the body is violated, the sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in like manner, the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the soul is violated, though the body itself remains intact.” (City of God, BookI, chapter 18)

So, in some contexts it might be accurate to speak of “physical virginity” when we are referring to virginity as something like a resolve to persevere in virginal chastity that is manifested by one’s concrete choices. But at the same time, the term “physical virginity” is often used in a way that would seem to be synonymous with “biological virginity,” and we should be mindful that this can add an inaccurate or confusing note to discussions such as this one.

Why ESI 88 makes sense

Turning back to ESI 88 specifically, speaking personally, like many others I at first found the vague wording of ESI 88 to be a bit frustrating. But the more I considered it, the more I realized that ESI 88 probably handled the question of this specific eligibility requirement in the most sensible way possible. I believe this is the case for a few reasons.

First of all, as was suggested above, defining virginity can be surprisingly difficult, even aside from the relatively clear-cut distinction between moral/literal virginity and strictly biological virginity. This is evident especially in the fact that our current canon law we have no straightforward definition of what precisely constitutes “virginity” in even a simple material sense.[iv] As in, even in scenarios of where we can presume the woman’s full knowledge and consent to grave sins of unchastity, we don’t have any clearly established canonical line demarcating the indelicate details of exactly “how far is too far.”

For example, it does seem clear that willful completed intercourse would establish an individual as having lost his or her virginity in any scenario, but what about cases where a couple did almost everything, but stopped just short of the marital act itself? Or a case where a woman had lived in a sexually active lesbian relationship? In many such cases, knowledgeable people could have different reasonable opinions on whether or in what sense the women in such cases were truly “virgins”—or at least “virgins” in a robust sense of the term, i.e. in a way that was compatible with the overall vision of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity. Even if it could be argued that such women were virgins in a legalistically strict sense, the appropriateness of women in such situations dedicating themselves to the Lord via a public commitment to virginity per se remains seriously questionable.

Things get even more complicated when you throw questions of full knowledge and free will into the mix. For instance, can a fourteen-year-old victim of statuary rape, who thought she consented at the time, rightly be thought of as having lost her virginity? Or what about an adult woman who engaged in frequent oral sex, but did so with the distinct thought that by refraining from intercourse she was thereby retaining her “technical virginity”? Does such an intention to remain a virgin modify the spiritual impact of acts that many would see as incompatible with virginity? And how much weight does one give to certain psychological states (for example, drunkenness) that may have negatively impacted, but not necessarily totally destroyed, one’s sense of personal freedom in making sexual choices?

Clearly, the more one tries to draw a theoretical line, the more difficult and sensitive the questions become.

My point here is not to propose answers to such questions, but rather to point out how near impossible it is to come up with a canonical definition of virginity that would adequately address all hypothetically possible cases. Any attempt by canonists to do this would not only have to be exceedingly detailed and extensive, but also quite graphic. And it’s likely that such an attempt still probably would not address all potential scenarios.

Given this, I think ESI’s approach to these eligibility questions is actually the most helpful and appropriate one. And indeed, it may very well be the only one that is realistically possible. ESI puts the onus on personal discernment in individual cases, while still underscoring certain principles and re-stating some general hard boundary lines (e.g., an aspiring consecrated virgin can never have been married or have lived in manifest unchastity).

Discernment is not a cop-out

I suspect that one reason why ESI in general, and ESI 88 in particular, were not always popularly well-received initially was because many commentators interpreted this emphasis on personal discernment to be sort of loophole or cop-out; or as sort of a winking way, stemming from a laxity or lack of zeal, to allow for non-virgins to be consecrated.

Yet when understood properly, real discernment is nothing like this! Personal discernment in general is not only a serious spiritual undertaking, but is also an essential part of Christian life. Many saints in the Church’s history have written at length about discernment, its necessity, and how to discern serious life choices properly.

What’s more, in terms of discerning one’s basic eligibility for consecrated virginity, ESI and the Church presume that the question will be approached in good faith and with common sense. That is, ESI was written with the overall expectation that women aspiring to become consecrated virgins are at least fundamentally seeking to love the Lord and follow His will for their lives—as opposed to expecting, for instance, that women considering this vocation will be mostly something like legalistic connivers intent only on having their own way, etc.

The value of ESI 88

One reason we can all appreciate ESI 88 is because, if nothing else, it at least answers a frequently asked practical question. Whether or not we ourselves would have written ESI 88 in exactly the same way, this clarity is still helpful in real-life pastoral situations.

But I also think ESI 88 has the potential to be helpful on a deeper level, since it has the potential to promote a healthier understanding of the Ordo virginum’s central charism of virginity.

Underscoring the essentially moral and spiritual nature of virginity is a good witness to the dignity of women in general. That is, it supports the truth that women have intrinsic worth and moral agency; that women’s identities are determined by the choices we freely make for our lives, rather than what may or may not have be done to us without our consent; and that the Church never sees us as “damaged goods” (or “used gum,” or whatever other denigrating terms may have been used to describe non-virgins.)
                                                                                                           
And for us consecrated virgins, I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that virginity as such, while a crucial element of our charism and spirituality, is ultimately only the starting point for a truly consecrated way of life.  Our call is not simply to virginity by itself, but a life of virginity that is dedicated to prayer, service, and Christian witness.



[i] In the typical Latin edition of the Rite of Consecration—i.e., the “master copy” from which all translations are made—this is written as: “…ut numquam nuptias celebraverint neque publice seu manifeste in statu castitati contrario vixerint.”

[ii] For example, the USACV website makes reference to a letter Raymond Card. Burke received from the Congregation for Divine Worship in April of 2007 which gave an answer to this effect: https://consecratedvirgins.org/discernment (accessed October 12, 2019)

[iii] As one reference, St. Augustine discusses this somewhat at length in Book 1, chapters 16-18 of City of God.

[iv] I have read and heard that some older canonical commentaries, though not the law itself, have endeavored to give a exact definition of material virginity in the context of some very particular technical questions in marriage law (namely, questions of marital invalidity pertaining to “error of quality of person” when virginity was the quality “directly and principally intended). From what I understand, they generally tended to indicated completed intercourse as the canonical dividing line between virgins and non-virgins. But, right now I don’t have a specific source I can cite—though readers who do have a handy source are welcome to submit one! Also, I think it is important to point out that commentaries on marriage law in the now obsolete 1917 Code of Canon Law aren’t always going to be directly applicable to questions relating to the post-Vatican II Ordo virginum.

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Tenth Anniversary Reflection


Better late than never!

This past January, I celebrated my tenth (!!!) anniversary of consecrated life. It has been an interesting ten years—since my consecration day, I have spent three years living in Rome, finished two graduate degrees, written a book and several popular articles, served as a parish director of religious education and as an ecclesiastical tribunal Judge, made numerous wonderful friends, and have grown in many other ways personally and spiritually. Over all, I am grateful to God for the gift of perseverance!

Here is the anniversary reflection I wrote for the February 2019 issue of the U.S. Association of Consecrated Virgins' newsletter, “The Lamp”:

***

After a life-long friendship with God, I first felt called to be a bride of Christ when I was twelve years old. I just fell completely in love, once and for all. At eighteen I began visiting religious communities, and while I met a number of admirable nuns and religious Sisters, none of the communities I visited completely resonated with the specific way I felt called in my heart. When I was nineteen, a local priest gave me a copy of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity, and upon reading it I knew instantly that this was my vocation. In particular, I was drawn to the central charism of a spousal relationship with Christ; to the spirituality of evangelical virginity; to this vocation’s special bond with the local diocesan Church; toward the Rite’s emphasis on praying the Liturgy of the Hours; and especially to the fact that this vocation was a call to follow in the footsteps of the Church’s early virgin-martyr saints, like St. Agnes and the other women mentioned in the Roman Canon at Mass.
           
Initially I was turned away from the consecration of virgins for being too young, but after two more years of visiting religious communities, I tried approaching my home Archdiocese of New York again, and at that point I was accepted as a candidate for consecration. I was solemnly consecrated to a life of virginity at Sacred Heart Church in Newburgh, NY on January 3, 2009, when I was twenty-three years old and a recent college graduate.
           
I can honestly say that I am even happier to be a bride of Christ now than I was on the day of my consecration. Although there have been many challenges over the past ten years, they have only made my vocation more precious to me. As I’ve grown older, I’ve found I have a new sense of glad astonishment that God would be so gracious as to call me to this kind of relationship with Himself.
           
As I reflect on my tenth anniversary of consecrated life, one image that has been frequently coming to mind is the Lamb of God. Most obviously, consecrated virgins are called to be “the Image of the Church as Bride”; that is, the “Bride of the Lamb” mentioned in Revelation 21:9.

But more personally, the Gospel for the actual day of my tenth anniversary was John 1:29-34, where John the Baptist points to Jesus and declares: “Behold the Lamb of God.” I was reminded by the priest celebrating a Mass of Thanksgiving that day that this is my mission, too—to be a witness pointing others towards Jesus, who is the Lamb.

I was reminded as well that as lambs were used for sacrificial worship in Old Testament, Jesus is the Lamb of God because he offered Himself as a sacrifice.  On the day of my consecration it was very much my hope and intention to offer myself as a living sacrifice to the Lord in the same spirit that saints like Agnes offered their lives. It can be easy to forget the joy that comes with a spirit of radical self-offering, but ten years after my consecration I’ve realized how important it is to continually renew this resolve in my heart.

Finally, my consecrated life has brought me to places I never would have guessed, including three years living in Rome as a canon law student; and then later, an unexpected but clearly providential call to serve the Church in the Diocese of Winona-Rochester in Minnesota as a staff canonist and coordinator of the marriage tribunal. Even amidst the difficulties of leaving home and family for a new and unfamiliar place, there’s a greater peace in recalling that virgins are the ones who “follow the Lamb wherever He goes.” (Revelation 14:4) My prayer after ten years is that I will always be given the grace to follow the Lamb wherever He leads me.

January 3, 2009

January 3, 2019 - after a Mass of Thanksgiving, in the very same Church!


On the feast of St. Agnes, a second Mass of Thanksgiving in Minnesota,
in our Diocesan Office chapel with local diocesan priests.

Saturday, September 22, 2018

A First Look at Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago


As probably anyone familiar with this blog already knows, on July 4, 2018 the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome published a new document on the vocation of consecrated virginity, an Instruction titled: Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago (which roughly translates into English as: “The image of the Church as Bride.”)

Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago (ESI) is by far the longest and more detailed document on the Ordo virginum that the Church has given us since the second Vatican Council. And so obviously, there is a lot to unpack here! I do hope to write on specific facets of ESI in greater detail over the next several months. But to start, here is a basic overview based on my own first thoughts and impressions.

The nature of an Instruction

To start, an “Instruction” is a type of magisterial document which provides clarity on earlier existing laws, especially ones which may have been vague or may have had disputed interpretations. As such, by their very nature Instructions aren’t the sort of document that can change or override laws that already exist. However, as canon 34 in the current Code of Canon Law states, Instructions can also: “clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them [i.e., the prescripts of laws].” So even while, very strictly speaking, an Instruction doesn’t create new “laws” per se, arguably Instructions can and often do create new obligations, at least insofar as they direct the law to be carried out in a more substantial practical way than was the case previously.

Often Instructions pertain to the law contained in a single source or document, but ESI is somewhat exceptional in that it serves as a commentary on the entire body of existing law on the Order of Virgins, including canon 604 in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity and its praenotanda, and the brief references to the Ordo virginum in various other documents such as Pastor Bonus and Apostolorum Successores.

Instructions are technically “given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws,” (can. 34) rather than for the direct use of those who are to be bound by the laws. So again, very strictly speaking, ESI is most primarily meant for the bishops who are responsible for the guidance and oversight of the consecrated virgins entrusted to their pastoral care. Yet given that ESI not only spells some of the specifics of consecrated virgins’ practical obligations, but also delves deeply into the spirituality and theological nature of this vocation, it’s safe to say that consecrated virgins themselves should be familiar with this document and can profit from a careful reading of it.

Filling in gaps

As has been noted before, in the Church’s body of laws it is possible (if not somewhat inevitable…) to have gaps, or lacunae, in the law. Because the drafters of the law, being merely human, cannot always foresee every question that might be asked or every scenario when a law might be tested, there can be situations in which law is simply silent on a given issue. Although the current Code does give us some guidance on how to deal with such situations as they arise (cf. can. 17), occasionally an additional clarifying magisterial document is needed.

Since the Ordo virginum has been one of the most lacunose topics in the Church’s law today, ESI was clearly meant to take this role. Some lacunae which ESI now fills, or at least takes some serious steps forward in filling, are:

ESI clarifies, in at least a fundamental way, the tone and tenor of a consecrated virgin’s way of life.

Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago envisions consecrated virginity as a life informed by the Evangelical counsels, and as an all-encompassing state in life radically oriented around prayer, service of the Church, and public witness; as opposed to this vocation being akin to something like a purely private vow or membership in a secular Third Order.

For example, ESI 40 tells us that a consecrated virgin should choose her professional career specifically in light of her vocation and her call to service, and ESI 28 indicates that a consecrated virgin’s major life decisions should be co-discerned with her bishop. The Instruction also reaffirms a consecrated virgin’s duty to pray the Liturgy of the Hours, (ESI 34) and directs consecrated virgins to attend daily Mass when they are living in locations where this is possible. (ESI 32)

It is also noteworthy how ESI 27 indicates that, through their propositum of perpetual virginity, consecrated virgins commit to a way of life that encompasses all of the traditionally-formulated Evangelical counsels. That is, while in an extremely black-and-white, literal sense some might regard consecrated virgins as only making a commitment to evangelical chastity via virginity, the Church sees consecrated virgins as being called to some form of evangelical poverty and obedience as well.

ESI establishes some clearer criteria for the discernment of vocations.

For instance, ESI 82 sets a firm lower age limit of eighteen for women to begin formation for consecrated virginity, and names twenty-five years as the usual normal minimum age for receiving the consecration itself. This is significant, since in the past there were questions as to whether the requirement that candidates have sufficient maturity (i.e., as per the praenotanda of the Rite of Consecration: “…that by their age, prudence, and universally approved character they give assurance of perseverance in a life of chastity dedicated to the service of the Church and of their neighbor”) meant that aspiring consecrated virgins should simply have attained the level of personal human development necessary to make a responsible adult life decision, or whether a candidate should actually be relatively advanced in years—as in, being at least thirty-five or forty years old. ESI 82 makes it clear that consecrated virginity is a vocation which young women are invited to discern.

This Instruction also sheds additional light on what is required for candidates in terms of virginal chastity. Previously, it was posited—but not confirmed—that the prerequisite of “never having lived in public or manifest violation of chastity” meant that a woman must not have ever committed serious sins against chastity in the presence of another person. However, ESI 93 clarifies that a life of “public” unchastity should be interpreted as a widely-known habitual state, rather than simply an act committed in the presence of a witness. Likewise, while I believe the document does reiterate, in many places, the expectation that candidates will indeed be literal virgins, ESI 88 clarifies that rape victims and women who have committed sins of unchastity that stopped short of actual intercourse are not automatically prevented from discerning a vocation to the Ordo virginum.

While I know many consecrated virgins, especially perhaps in the Unites States, are disappointed with this more “generous” standard—and even while I myself was more sympathetic to arguments requiring a stricter interpretation of what exactly constitutes “virginity” for the purposes of receiving the consecration—I do think that having this greater clarity is a good thing.*

ESI discusses the importance of formation and gives us an outline of what this should look like.

Prior to ESI, it was at least theoretically possible to argue that no formation should be necessary for consecrated virgins, since this was not mentioned anywhere in the existing law. Even in those places where the importance of having some kind of formation program for aspiring consecrated virgins was acknowledged as common sense, the practical expression of this could vary widely from diocese to diocese. For example, some dioceses might have an aspiring consecrated virgin set a date for her consecration less than a year after her initial request, while other dioceses might have a candidate meet with a structured formation team for many years.

Additionally, the lack of guidance on what formation for consecrated virginity should look like often led to some problematic situations, such as the entirely of formation being entrusted to a confessor or spiritual director (leading to a potential conflict of fora); or a candidate being “in formation” for years on end without a clear timeline, or even without any sense of whether or not her consecration was actually likely to happen.

While there is still a lot of work to do on the local level in terms of creating helpful formation programs for consecrated virgins, ESI 92 - 103 gives us some solid preliminary framework. Specifically, formation is to be carried out in two stages: a preparation period of one or two years when the aspirant focuses on learning more about the Ordo virginum and the dioceses learns more about the aspirant; and ordinarily a two or three-year formation period wherein the candidate is formed in her identity as a future consecrated virgin. ESI 92 - 103 gives us an overview of the content of a good formation program, with ESI 102 emphasizing the need for theological formation.

ESI describes the relationship of a consecrated virgin to her diocese.

I have always thought that it was possible, even based on the limited sources, to discern that consecrated virginity as a state in life has a uniquely diocesan character. Yet even if the overall diocesan “flavor” of the Ordo virginum could in this sense be taken for granted, that still left us with many questions in need of answers. Among other things, we didn’t have a word to describe a consecrated virgin’s connection to her diocese (which led some to argue that there was not in fact any meaningful bond there); and we didn’t have any guidelines for how to handle situations when a consecrated virgin might need to relocate.

Happily, ESI confirms and expounds on the diocesan nature of this vocation in many places throughout the document. In particular, in ESI 51we are given a term for a consecrated virgin’s relationship her diocese, that is: “inscription.” ESI 60 also clarifies that a consecrated virgin may move out of her diocese of consecration, but only for an appropriately serious reason (“…reasonable and proportionate motives”); and ESI 61 tells us that a consecrated virgin may reside in a different diocese without permanently transferring, meaning that she still maintains her bond with the original diocese of her consecration. But ESI 62 also does provide for the possibility of a permeant transfer in which a consecrated virgin is inscribed into a new diocese, and it sets out the conditions under which this may occur and the appropriate process to be followed.

On a related note, ESI 67-68 discusses the possibility of a consecrated virgin joining a secular Third Order or becoming involved with one of the newer ecclesial movements. While a consecrated virgin is free to make use of the spiritual assistance these groups provide, ESI 68 indicates that she must give first priority to her vocation to consecrated virginity. She does so by discerning the extent of her involvement in such groups with her bishop, and by only participating in the group’s activities insofar as those commitments don’t interfere with her obligations within the local diocesan Ordo virginum.

ESI also discusses departures from the Ordo virginum, which is a broader category than one might expect.

As a preliminary note to this, based on the way the terms are used in ESI, it seems that the Ordo virginum and the consecration of virgins per se might be conceived or understood as two slightly different things. That is, the consecration of virgins is the spiritual reality, while the Ordo virginum is the term for consecrated virginity as a juridically-recognized state in life.** Perhaps the closest parallel would be the way in which a man’s sacramental identity as a priest is not always the same as his belonging to the clerical state—i.e., a priest can leave the clerical state and live as a layman while still actually being a priest in a theological sense.

From all appearances, ESI 75 indicates that that the consecration itself is truly permanent (“The grace of consecration in the Ordo virginum defines and shapes the spiritual features of the person in a permanent way”). However, for grave reasons a woman may be dispensed by her bishop from the obligations of the Ordo virginum (cf. ESI 70).  In my reading of ESI, I take this reference to dispensable obligations to mean the concrete external obligations inherent in belonging to the Order of Virgins, such as: the responsibility to be a public witness and present oneself as a consecrated virgin, the commitment to diocesan service or other apostolates, the obligation to pray the Liturgy of the Hours and attend daily Mass, and so forth.  

According to ESI 71-72, a consecrated virgin can also be dismissed from the Ordo virginum, but only for attempting marriage, notoriously defecting from the faith, or for obstinately persevering in “very serious external and imputable crimes or failings against the obligations arising from her consecration.” In order for such a dismissal to be valid, a consecrated virgin would need to be given a chance to defend herself and informed of her right to appeal the decision, and the dismissal would need to be confirmed by the Holy See in order to take effect.***

The question of an already-consecrated virgin potentially discerning a vocation to religious life, to membership in a secular institute, or to membership in a society of apostolic life is also treated under the heading of “departures” in ESI 69. In discerning a new vocation to religious life or to another form of consecrated life, a consecrated virgin would need to prayerfully discern this matter in conversation with both her bishop and the superior of the institute in question. Her bishop would then transmit her request to the Holy See in Rome, with the Holy See arranging the specifics on a case-by-case basis.

Interestingly, ESI speaks of a consecrated virgin’s potential “transfer” to an institute of consecrated life, whereas previous commentators reasonably presumed a consecrated virgin would need to enter an institute in the normal way through the novitiate. It is also interesting that a consecrated virgin can only join a secular institute by leaving the Ordo virginum (even while a 1971 response from the Congregation for Divine Worship in the publication Notitiae allowed secular institute members to receive the consecration of virgins),**** as this brings a new perspective to discussions of exactly how compatible the two vocations of consecrated virginity and secular institute membership really are.

Going forward

So what do we make of ESI overall? Speaking for myself, although of course ESI isn’t absolutely perfect—and it would be unrealistic to expect any document of this nature to be—I think ESI as a whole is a very good thing for the Ordo virginum in the Church today. Besides the not-insignificant fact that the clarifications on disputed questions are helpful on a practical level, in my mind the greatest benefit of this document is how it communicates the idea that a call to consecrated virginity is a “real vocation” that’s worth taking seriously.

I think all too often in the past, consecrated virginity has tended to be regarded as either a vocational “last resort,” as a kind of pious hobby, as a purely personal commitment with no real pertinence to the wider Church, or (perhaps more benignly, but no less inaccurately) as a modified form of religious life designed to be less demanding. But with ESI’s focus on the necessity of substantial formation, along with its directives regarding the importance of a real commitment to prayer, service, and the Evangelical counsels, ESI makes it clear that a call to the Ordo virginum is meant to be—even in the concrete details of a consecrated virgin’s day-to-day lifestyle—just as much a radical offering of one’s whole self as a call to religious life or priesthood should be.

Undoubtedly, ESI leaves us with many salutary challenges. Of course, dioceses are challenged to flesh out the directives of ESI in the practical ways that will best fit the circumstances of the local Church, which I imagine will be somewhat of an ongoing journey of learning and discernment for all involved.

But for those of us who are already consecrated virgins, I think ESI presents more of a personal challenge. That is, we are now called to consider how well we’re living up to the newly-articulated high standards of our vocation to the Ordo virginum. The might sound a bit stern, but I see this as a beautiful season of growth for all of us. 

In short, it’s an exciting time to be a consecrated virgin!




Notes:

* I do plan on commenting on the controversy surrounding ESI 88 at greater length in a later post. In the meantime, here is an article with an interview I gave to Catholic News Agency on this issue: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/read-vatican-guide-to-consecrated-virginity-with-discernment-canonist-says-34049

** I had always assumed that the Ordo virginum properly referred to any woman who had received the consecration of virgins, including cloistered nuns who received the consecration as part of the long-standing tradition of their Order. However, ESI seems to use the term “Ordo virginum” to refer specifically to consecrated virgins “living in the world.” I’m not sure if this was an intentional change or a new further specification; or if, alternately, it might have been somewhat of an oversight due to our lack of a more extensive terminology.

*** While some of my canonist colleagues have noted that the rules for dismissal are extremely minimal, I actually see this as a huge step forward that a we have a process in the first place—before ESI, there was some thought that a bishop could dismiss a consecrated virgin at any time for any reason totally at his own discretion!

**** I have not seen a copy of this 1971 response, but Sr. Sharon Holland refers to it in her 2002 article “Consecrated Virgins for Today’s Church.” UPDATE 9/24/2018 – Many thanks to reader Gloria ExGana for sharing a link to a digital copy of the issue of Notitiae where this question is addressed: http://www.cultodivino.va/content/dam/cultodivino/notitiae/1971/62.pdf ; and also to reader Bernadette Chen for sharing a link to an English translation of this response: http://notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/show/279

Friday, July 6, 2018

Comments to come...


Just a quick note to say that I am still around, although I haven’t had much time for personal writing lately as my day job (I currently work full-time as canon lawyer in a marriage tribunal) keeps me quite busy.

However, I have read Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago, and am working on writing up my first thoughts.

Overall, though, I think in general this new Instruction is a very positive development for the Ordo Virginum.

So stay tuned!  I’ll also put my first thoughts on this blog’s facebook page once the post is up here.

Monday, January 1, 2018

Understanding Canon Law: An Introduction for Consecrated Virgins

Since consecrated virginity is such a “new” vocation, one challenge today’s consecrated virgins face is ambiguity with respect to how this ancient vocation can find its best lived expression in the modern world. Because of this vocation’s “newness,” finding helpful reading material, or even just accurate general information, can be a challenge. Articles and books written about consecrated virginity tend to be few and far between, and often the authors of secondary sources express a variety of different opinions.

Because of this, today’s consecrated virgins (and likewise, young women discerning this vocation) generally find themselves needing to “do their own work,” or to study the Church’s primary sources on consecrated virginity. In my own life, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to pursue formal studies in canon law and its supporting theology—having an academic background in the sacred sciences has been a tremendous help in many ways, especially in terms of gaining perspective and an appreciation of the background principles of how the Church’s legal system functions.

While of course it’s not possible to pack a whole degree’s worth of knowledge into a blog post, here are some fundamental points of reference for we as consecrated virgins to keep in mind as we seek to better educate ourselves on how the Church envisions our vocation:

1. Not all writings on consecrated virginity are authoritative.

This first point might be obvious almost to the point of being a tautology, I think it’s still worth saying: when trying to discern how the Church calls consecrated virgins to live out our vocation, the resources which should demand most of our attention are those which come from the Church herself.

Not everything that’s written on consecrated virginity can automatically be counted as directly representing the mind of the Church. For example, there are many writings on consecrated virginity which are merely personal reflections or individual opinions (this very blog being an obvious case in point!) But even more “serious” sources, such as pastoral writings from local diocesan bishops or scholarly articles published in academic journals, often ultimately represent just one person’s point of view.

With regard to academic writing, naturally it is prudent to take learned opinions into account, and it is good to respect the education of those who may better versed in a particular topic than we ourselves are. However, one scholar’s interpretation of the vocation of consecrated virginity or of a particular aspect of this vocation is not the same thing as the Church issuing an official clarification of a disputed question. We may profit from a scholar’s writings on our vocation, or we might find that his or her writing helps us better understand the Church’s teachings, or we could even find that scholar’s arguments so persuasive that we adjust our own opinions or our way of life accordingly. But when a scholar writes about canon law or theology in his or her own name, we cannot take that writing as the definitive last word on a given issue.

Incidentally, this is true even if that scholar happens to have an authoritative role within the Church in other contexts. For example, while a bishop may have the ability to establish proper laws or determine certain concrete policies within his own diocese, this does not mean that an individual bishop can issue an interpretation of the law which is binding on the whole Church. Similarly, even if, for instance, a Cardinal at the Vatican published a canonical commentary or a theological treatise on the Ordo Virginum, his thoughts would not become the equivalent of binding law simply by virtue of the fact that he is a Cardinal. In fact, even if the Cardinal who was head of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life in Rome were to write a paper on the Ordo Virginum, it would only become authoritative if it was published in an official capacity on behalf of the Congregation—but again, not if he were just writing in his own name or on his own behalf.

2. Not all laws are in the Code.

Now that we have considered how not all materials consecrated virginity are authoritative, let’s talk about which ones are.

Often when Catholics think of “the Church’s laws,” the first thing that comes to mind is the 1983 Code of Canon Law. But while the Code is indeed law, and is therefore certainly authoritative, it’s not the be-all and end-all of law in the Church. In fact, the Code itself notes its own limitations in its first few canons. Keeping in mind that there are other sources of law besides the Code, the trick is to know what other sources are “out there” and pertinent to whatever question is at hand.

For example, liturgical laws are binding, but they are not generally covered in the Code of Canon Law.  Relating this to consecrated virgins specifically, we can recall that the Code contains only one canon (can. 604) which explicitly addresses the Order of Virgins. But one other significant source of law for consecrated virgins apart from the Code is the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity itself. In addition to the text of the liturgy and notes on how it should be properly celebrated, the Rite also contains a rather extensive praenotanda. The praenotanda—i.e., the instructions at the beginning of the Rite, which are technically liturgical law—actually give us most of what we know definitively regarding the Church’s specific expectations on consecrated virgins’ way of life.

The Holy See can also issue documents that set out additional or more specific norms than what is included in the Code, whether this be a document created by the Holy Father on his own personal initiative (what we call a “motu proprio”) or one written by the appropriate and duly-authorized offices of the Roman Curia. These kind of “extra” legislative documents from Rome can take a variety of forms. For example, “Apostolic Constitutions” stand by themselves in creating universal laws for the Church (a recent example of an Apostolic Constitution is the document Vultum Dei Quaerere, which sets out updated norms for communities of cloistered nuns), while “Instructions” are documents which authoritatively clarify earlier official writings or which spell out additional and more specific rules.

But alluding to my first point, not all documents from Rome automatically serve as literal, actual laws. For instance, at times a document will be issued in order to clarify a disputed point of Catholic doctrine or theology (e.g., Inter Insigniores on the question of women’s ordination, or Humanae Vitae on the issue of artificial contraception). Although such documents are clearly authoritative, they simply articulate the theological foundations of our laws rather than serving as the black-and-white rules themselves. Similarly, some papal documents, such as Apostolic exhortations like Vita Consecrata, are meant to teach, encourage, and inspire the faithful to greater virtue rather than to set out new or additional juridical norms. But even though these non-legislative documents cannot be taken as law per se, often they have significance to our interpretation of the law, insofar as they can provide helpful background insight as to the “mind of the legislator”—or in other words, insight into the Church’s intentions when drafting laws related to those issues addressed by the non-legislative documents in question.

In addition to legislative documents coming from Rome, there is also such a thing as binding “proper law,” or laws specific to a particular local Church or group of people. The statutes of a religious community are a good example of proper law, as they detail the specific rules which bind specifically those members of a particular community rather than all religious in general. As far as consecrated virgins are concerned, it is possible that local bishops could establish proper diocesan laws pertaining the consecrated virgins of his diocese, provided that these proper diocesan laws would not conflict with the universal laws of the Church.

3. The Church’s laws follow theology.

On a more theoretical level, it’s good for us to keep in mind that, unlike secular civil law, canon law is based on the Church’s theology and doctrinal teachings. That is, we should realize that as a general principle the Church’s laws are not arbitrary rules, nor are they solely a set of utilitarian policies based purely on convenience or expediency. Rather, they are practical responses to what the Church understands as objective supernatural realities.

To be sure, there is such a thing as “positive ecclesial law,” or laws that the Church essentially invents in order to ensure the practical good ordering of the Christian community. The concept of positive ecclesial law is particularly evident in the Church’s procedural law (i.e., the laws governing ecclesiastical trials and other processes) and in some of our sacramental disciplines (e.g., the obligation for Catholics to attend Mass on Sunday), although positive ecclesial law can certainly be found in other areas of the law as well. Yet even though positive ecclesial laws can be dispensed occasionally, or changed and updated by the proper authority as is necessary according to contemporary pastoral situations, positive ecclesial laws still aren’t truly arbitrary. Even the least theologically significant law does at least reflect the Church’s teachings in some important way.

But with that being said, the upshot to all this is that it is not the actual verbatim wording of a particular law which somehow determines the objective nature of the theological reality being referenced, but instead it’s the other way around. This principle of “law follows theology” is perhaps most obvious when we are discussing areas in which canon law and morality overlap—that is, we’re presumably all aware that a legal rule prohibiting an immoral act is not that the thing which actually makes the act immoral, but is rather a reflection of the act’s pre-existing, objective nature. Still, this principle is also applicable to matters of theology and doctrine. For instance, canon law often describes the effects of the sacraments, but it would be absurd to suggest that sacramental grace only exists because the 1983 Code of Canon Law mentions it! (Fun fact: there is an actual term for what happens when people lose sight of this principle and “miss the forest for the trees,” or become legalistic to the point of absurdity. It’s called “legal positivism.”)

It especially is important to remember this principle when considering the Order of Virgins, because it is only possible to interpret the few existing laws by considering the rich theological identity that consecrated virginity already has.

As an illustration of this, we can recall that it is a matter of law that only women are eligible to receive the consecration of virgins. Some have argued that this is unfair to men, whom they believe should also have this vocation path open to them, and they have expressed their hope that the Church will re-write the eligibility requirements so as to allow males to become consecrated virgins. What this sort of argument overlooks, however, is that the restriction of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity to women is not due to some baseless custom or random historical accident which somehow later became enshrined in the law, but rather because on a foundational theological level the call to be a bride of Christ is an intrinsically feminine reality. The question of whether or not men can become consecrated virgins is not a simple matter of the Pope potentially deciding to change the wording of the law, but is instead a question which relates to the essential nature of the Ordo Virginum.

4. The Church’s laws are often (and at times, necessarily) vague.

Similarly, occasionally consecrated virgins might tend to feel frustrated by how vague the laws pertaining to the Ordo Virginum are, insofar as many, if not most, practical concerns are left untreated, and often even the few specific directives that are given are general enough to admit a wide scope of varying interpretations.

Sometimes, this vagueness is the result of a real and problematic “gap” in the Church’s law. The possibility of a gaps or unintentional gray area in the Church’s law is a well-recognized phenomenon, and it even has its own official technical term: a lacuna, or lacunae in the plural. Lacunae come about because the drafters of the law, being merely human, cannot always foresee every question that might be asked or every situation in which a law might be tested. While the Code itself gives us some directives on how to deal with lacunae as they surface (cf. can. 17), in general these kinds gaps in the law are those questions for which the Church is obliged to work towards finding answers.

Often, too, laws are only refined or further specified in response to abuses. For example, the seminary system and the concept of canonical requirements for priestly formation developed relatively late in the Church’s history, arising out of the Council of Trent in the late sixteenth century in response to the many problems occasioned by a lack of necessary education and vocational earnestness that had become chronic among the clergy of the preceding centuries.

But on the other hand, sometimes the Church’s laws are vague out of necessity, and this can be for several reasons. First of all, the Church’s universal laws must be truly universal. That is, they must apply equally to every country around the world today, despite the wildly different pastoral circumstances that can exist across different nations and cultures. Often, it is the local situations and circumstances which determine the practical ways a particular law can be acknowledged or carried out.

For example, although the Code identifies consecrated virgins as women “dedicated to the service of the Church,” the specifics of how this is to be observed in one’s day-to-day life is still technically left to the discretion of the local bishops. Even presuming that we should interpret “dedication to the service of the Church” in a literal way—that is, meaning that consecrated virgins are categorically called to devote the better part of their time and energy to work which directly and explicitly advances the Church’s mission—there are a number of concrete ways in which this can be expressed. Naturally, determining the most fruitful and suitable ways for the consecrated virgins of a given place to devote themselves to serving the Church is going to depend on a number of factors such as: the specific needs of the diocese, the presence or absence of Catholic institutions, the local cultural expectations for women in general and consecrated women in particular, the overall education level and professional ability of candidates aspiring to consecrated virginity, the attitude of the local civil government towards the Catholic Church, and so forth. Because of all these variables, if the Church’s law were to get overly specific, it might wind up inadvertently legislating against viable and appropriate practical arrangements for consecrated virgins’ serving the Church, thus thwarting the very thing it was intended to promote.

Likewise, because consecrated virginity is such a “new” vocation, some practical questions can only be answered through trial-and-error and lived experience. The question of formation programs for aspiring consecrated virgins is a good example. Currently, beyond the very basic prerequisites for candidates stated in the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity, the Church’s universal law doesn’t state any specific official discernment or formation process for those candidates for the Ordo Virginum. While arguably it would be desirable for the Church eventually to develop some more concrete guidelines, I can imagine that a pre-set and overly specific formation program created at the time of the promulgation of the revised Rite might have done more harm than good. That is, in the long there may be some real benefit in a generation of consecrated virgins and bishops having had the opportunity to reflect on their own insights and lived experience with the Ordo Virginum when determining what kind of formation is most helpful and necessary, rather than having a pre-convinced model imposed before the practical nuances of this vocation were fully understood.

The idea that the Church’s laws might at times be intentionally and appropriately vague brings us to our next point, namely that…

5. The Church’s laws presume good faith and common sense.

One way in which the Church’s legal system is markedly different from secular systems of civil law is that the Church’s law, for better or worse, generally favors trusting the good will and common sense of its subjects. For example, the Code presumes that its adherents already know and accept the basic tenets Christian morality, and thus does not take pains to re-legislate the Ten Commandments. Because of this, most grave sins aren’t technically canonical crimes, as the Church trusts the faithful to avoid sin on account of their sincerely held faith and not merely due to a fear of “breaking the law.”

Often times as well, canon law leaves the practical application of generally-stated principles to the good judgement of individuals. For example, clerics are directed to “foster simplicity of life and are to refrain from all things that have a semblance of vanity” (can. 282 §1) and to “refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state,” (can. 285 §1) even while the Code does not give us any specific, concrete, black-and-white definitions for what exactly constitutes “vanity,” or what qualifies something as “unbecoming to the clerical state.” Of course, the subjective nature of these canons’ wording leaves plenty of potential rhetorical loopholes for a legalistic cleric to justify at least certain components of a de facto worldly or unbecoming lifestyle. Still, the Code does seriously intend that these admonitions are to be observed and taken seriously, for if they were meant as merely pious devotional aspirations, the drafters would not have not have bothered to include them in the first place! Therefore, the law itself can be understood as trusting individual clerics to be both honest and sensible enough to discern for themselves what specific lifestyle choices are or are not appropriate for their vocation in the cultural context in which they serve.
         
6. The Church’s legal system prefers to exhort rather than demand.

On an overlapping note, another distinctive feature of the Church’s legal system, especially in our most recent Code of Canon Law, is the law’s preference to exhort rather than demand. That is, although the Church’s law is perfectly capable of binding strictly, it would generally prefer to encourage us to works of prayer, asceticism, and pastoral charity rather than mandating such things under direct pain of sin.

There are a couple reasons for this fundamentally exhortative stance. First of all, recalling once more the necessarily universal scope of the Church’s law, exhortations allow the Church to declare what she desires to be normative, while still making an allowance for unusually difficult circumstances where the norm in all its fullness may not be possible to realize. But perhaps more significantly, this also reflects a certain ideological orientation of the magisterium post-Vatican II—namely, a desire to shepherd the faithful to a more mature understanding and lived expression of their faith. By exhorting rather than compelling, the Church arguably gives the faithful more liberty to grow in virtue, insofar as they are permitted to embrace certain ideals of the Christian life more freely and to assume some of their obligations out of a greater sense of personal responsibility and devotion.

These canonical exhortations can take many a few different forms, and might be thought of as running across a scale of earnestness and seriousness. At the low end of the “earnestness” scale would be instances where the law invites the faithful or certain portions of the faithful to that which is praiseworthy, yet truly optional. One example of this would be how the lay faithful are invited to pray the Liturgy of the Hours in canon 1174 §2. This canon in no way obligates the laity to participate in the Divine Office, nor does it suggest that this is something a layperson really ought to be doing in order to be a practicing Catholic. Rather, it is truly an invitation in the plainest sense of the word. The Church is recognizing that laypersons’ praying the Divine Office is a good thing, and she welcomes the laity to participate in this facet of her liturgical life.

A middle case might be those situations in the law where individuals are clearly asked to do something or to refrain from something, but where the law envisions and tolerates certain foreseeable exceptions. For instance, unlike laypeople who are merely invited to participate the Liturgy of the Hours, in the praenotanda of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity, consecrated virgins are “strongly advised” (vehementer suadetur) to pray the Divine Office. While this phrasing means that consecrated virgins who are genuinely unable to pray the Office for serious reasons (perhaps such as illiteracy, a severe learning disability, or living in a country where Christians were violently persecuted) would not need a formal dispensation to omit the Office, at the same time it also does not portray the Liturgy of the Hours as something which is truly optional for the Ordo Virginum.

On the most serious end of the spectrum are those places in the law wherein individuals are definitely called to fulfill what is identified as a fundamental obligation of their state in life, but without specifying these obligations in a close enough way so as to make them juridically enforceable. Some of the examples listed above illustrating the law’s presumption of common-sense would certainly also apply here. Similarly, there are also places in the law where an obligation is certainly imposed, but without any stated penalties attached to a failure to fulfill that obligation. For instance, clerics are required to observe celibate chastity in “perfect and perpetual continence” (can. 277). While the law does not impose a specific canonical punishment for every kind of priestly sin of unchastity, this does not mean that clergy are any less required to fulfill the promises they made at Ordination.

7. There is such a thing as “moral obligation.”

An important corollary to these last two points is that the Church’s legal system relies heavily on the concept of moral obligation, especially in those areas that relate to carrying out the duties of one’s state in life.

A moral obligation, as distinct from a legal or juridical obligation, is an obligation which one is in justice bound to observe even without said obligation being spelled out in explicitly in the form of a law. A secular textbook example of a moral obligation would be the obligation to return stolen property even after the stature of limitations for prosecuting the theft has passed. In a Catholic worldview, we might think of moral obligations as those responsibilities which, if we fail to fulfill them, would leave us as having committed a sin even if in a very technical sense we were not disobeying the strict letter of the law.

For consecrated virgins specifically, our most central moral obligation might also be the most obvious one—i.e., the obligation to remain in a perpetual state of dedicated virginity. At the time of this writing, reception of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity is not actually listed in the Code of Canon Law as an impediment to a valid Catholic marriage, despite the fact that both perpetual religious profession and Holy Orders are identified as such. Although it is exceedingly reasonable to suppose that this omission is merely a problematic lacuna (i.e., a gap that should be corrected), clearly, we can also speak of a consecrated virgin being authentically obligated to a life of virginity based just on the theological nature of her commitment, even without having the verbatim words of a canon to back up this assertion.

8. The Church’s laws are not the fullness of Christian life.

Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that the Church’s laws are not meant to be a step-by-step handbook to growing in holiness, but are instead more like guardrails meant to keep us from falling too far off the road. When seeking to live ones’ vocation well and fully—whether that be one’s baptismal vocation as a Christian or a more specific vocation to a particular state in life, such as consecrated virginity—it is not sufficient merely to follow the letter of the law.

Christian life in general demands a certain generosity of spirit, one that doesn’t merely keep score based on how well one fulfills the most basic requirements. This is doubly true for those Christians called to a life of radical observance of the evangelical counsels in consecrated life. Obeying the Church’s laws is an important first step on the road to a fruitful consecrated life, but it is only the first step.