Archbishop Dolan on the Assumption

Here is Archbishop Dolan’s column for the feast of the Assumption. It was first printed in the August 12, 2010 issue of our archdiocesan newspaper, Catholic New York.

Emphases, in bold, and comments, in red, are mine.

***
Of Harvests, Earthly and Eternal

It’s harvest time! One of my most cherished times of the year...

The tomatoes, corn on the cob, cherries, peaches, watermelons, and cantaloupes are in from the farms on Long Island, the upper counties (i.e., the northern counties of the Archdiocese of New York—where I’m from!) and New Jersey. I can’t get enough of them. And even my physician, who’s hung up on my weight, can’t gripe, because all of these fruits and vegetables of the harvest are good for me!

This is the way the Creator intended His good earth to be used: to be cultivated tenderly by devoted hands, and to produce a bounty to feed His creatures. This is the purpose of His good earth.

Yes, it’s harvest time...

No wonder we now celebrate the touching feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, this Sunday, August 15, right-smack-dab in the middle of the harvest.

For Mary is God’s harvest. She exemplifies what God has in store for all of us when we come to fruition.

Our Father created us for a garden, but we ruined His plan. The first Adam and Eve defiled the garden, and God’s harvest had to be delayed.

The Second Adam—Jesus—and the new Eve—His mother, Mary—ushered in a return to the garden and the first fruits of a lavish harvest.

Mary is the fruit of God’s harvest. She is the “produce,” a hint, a promise, of what the Divine Gardener intends for us all. (To a different extent, consecrated virgins—as well as consecrated celibates in general—are also living as “first fruits.” In choosing to renounce the joys of human marriage in order to love God with “an undivided heart,” consecrated virgins start living NOW the same kind of life which all the faithful will have in heaven.)

Because, when her earthly life was ended, God brought her both body and soul to be with Him forever in heaven. She’s already “ripe and picked.” That’s what we call her Assumption.

We’ll have to wait for a while. Yes, when our earthly journey is over, we hope—through God’s mercy and the power of the death and resurrection of Jesus—our immortal souls will be united with the Lord for all eternity.

But it’s still not the final harvest, because God wants us, soul and body, to live with Him forever in heaven, like Our Lady.

That eternal harvest will come at the end of time.

Lest we get discouraged, lest we get tired of waiting on the vine to be picked by the Lord, lest we get fatigued battling the weeds, birds and rabbits, God reminds us what He has in store for us. As Mary, by her humble obedience and perfect discipleship, is a model of how we are now to live here in the garden, so is she an example of what we’ll be at the end of time: eternal happiness in heaven, body and soul with God.

The joys of that eternal harvest at the end of time will be infinitely more enjoyable than even those wonderful tomatoes, corn, cherries, peaches, watermelons and cantaloupes we savor in August.

A blessed Feast of the Assumption! Enjoy this season of harvest, and keep your eyes on the final one, where Jesus and Mary, the first fruits, await us.

Seven New Novices for the Sisters of Life!

It’s always a joy to see religious communities flourish in your home diocese! Here is a photo of the newest novices for the Sisters of Life, sent to me by Archdiocesan Vocation Director Fr. Luke Sweeney.

(The new novices, left to right, are: Sr. Virginia Joy; Sr. Annunciata Maria; Sr. Cecilia Rose; Sr. Avila Marie; Sr. Mariana Benedicta; Sr. Mary Sophia; and Sr. Faustina Maria Pia.)

The Sisters of Life are an apostolic congregation of women religious founded in the Archdiocese of New York in 1991 by the late archbishop John Cardinal O’Connor. Through prayer and various apostolic works, the Sisters of Life support women in crisis pregnancies and strive to foster a culture where human life is respected and reverenced.

Please remember these new novices in your prayers!

Defining Consecrated Life

Some of the questions I receive most frequently, both in real life and in emails, have to do with the difference between consecrated virginity and a private vow of virginity, celibate commitments within lay movements, or membership in a Third Order.*

The short answer to all these questions is that consecrated virginity, like religious life, is a public, canonically recognized state of consecrated life. In contrast, members of lay movements and those who have made private vows—while they might be living a dedicated lifestyle with many similarities to canonically consecrated persons—are not formally considered to have entered into what the Church officially recognizes as “consecrated life.”

This of course does NOT mean that those who have made commitments outside of canonically recognized forms of consecrated are not in fact responding to a genuine call from God, or that they aren’t called to become saints in their own way of life. But it does mean that the fundamental nature of their vocation is different from that of persons who are officially considered to be “consecrated.”

The essential elements of consecrated life

This brings us to the question of how “consecrated life” properly so-called can be identified and defined.

Naturally, questions regarding the technical canonical status of members of lay movements presuppose that the Church already has a well-articulated theology on the precise nature of consecrated life. But in fact, the nature of “consecration” as a state in life is one of the more ambiguous areas of ecclesiology. (This may perhaps be largely because, as the Church understands the consecrated life and its continued growth and development as a more or less direct gift of the Holy Spirit, the institutional Church was laudably reluctant to burden its expressions with an overabundance of regulations.)

However, it would seem that the Church still does maintain that several elements are absolutely constitutive to the consecrated life:

1. Observance of the evangelical counsels

The most obvious essential element of consecrated life is the embracing of the evangelical councils. In Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the consecrated life is frequently defined as “the state in life which is constituted by the profession of the evangelical counsels.” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 914)

The evangelical counsels are traditionally held to be, and are described in Canon Law as, poverty, chastity, and obedience. (cf. canons 599-601.) While there is a wide variety among the various forms of consecrated life of acceptable ways in which the counsels of poverty and obedience may be observed on a practical level, a common thread which runs through all forms of consecrated life is the “obligation of perfect continence in celibacy” (can. 599)

And in a sense, celibacy as the common foundation is significant and has particular spiritual value, in that celibacy freely chosen “for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” not only has the most explicit scriptural roots, but also serves as the original historical foundation for the development of all the subsequent particular forms of consecrated life.

2. A permanent commitment to the evangelical counsels

The Catechism also specifies that it is not only the observance of poverty, chastity, and obedience, but “that it is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, which characterizes the life consecrated to God.” (Emphasis in the hard-copy printed original—see also online CCC 915.) It is only by a free and deliberate commitment to the evangelical counsels, made with the intention of permanently undertaking the subsequent obligations, that an individual can be identified as being in a canonically “consecrated” state of life.

But it does not seem that this should be taken to mean that a formula for profession vows explicitly mentioning poverty, chastity, and obedience is strictly necessary in order for an individual to enter into a truly consecrated state. If this were the case, Benedictine monks and nuns, and Dominican nuns and friars, for example, would not be rightly considered “consecrated” since the vow formulae of their respective Orders mention neither poverty nor chastity directly.

Rather, it seems that in requiring the profession of the evangelical councils, Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are simply stipulating that all consecrated persons must make a public and permanent commitment to a way of life which is in accord with a radical living of the three named evangelical counsels in a real, even if implicit, sense.

Conversely, any proposed form of consecrated life which would seek to “exempt” itself categorically from observing either poverty, chastity, or obedience in at least some concrete manner, would drastically undermine its status as a true form of canonical consecration.

3. Official recognition by the visible, institutional Church

Finally, one other qualification for a way of life to be properly considered “consecrated” is that it be formally acknowledged by the Church as such. This is indicated by the same paragraph in the Catechism, which states that a consecrated person must profess the evangelical counsels within the context of “a permanent state in life recognized by the Church.” (My emphasis.)

Individuals can not be considered “consecrated” according to Canon Law unless they are officially regarded as being so by the institutional Church, regardless of their subjective level of holiness or the loftiness of ideal to which they aspire.

Because of this, it would be creating a false dichotomy to hold the charismatic nature of the consecrated life (i.e., the aspect of defined by the inspiration towards total self-giving which is imparted directly by the Holy Spirit to consecrated persons) as somehow being opposed to the governing hierarchical nature of the magisterium. These two “poles” of the Church—which are even not without overlap—are profoundly inter-related; the consecrated life is given its visible association with the mission of Christ only through its relationship to the successors of the Apostles.

But, are there “de facto” or “lay” forms of consecrated life?

Yet despite these non-negotiable requirements, it is at times proposed that other radical ways of following Christ should be regarded as being true forms of consecrated life.

Examples of these could include:

- single or married members of the new lay ecclesial movements, such as the Neo-Catechumenal Way, Focolare, Opus Dei, Communion and Liberation, or Regnum Christi;

- dedicated celibate members of these movements (including Opus Dei numeraries and the “consecrated” women of Regnum Christi);

- married or privately-vowed celibate members of secular Third Orders (such as Lay Dominicans, Secular Franciscans, or Secular Discalced Carmelites);

- families associated with the charismatic movement who deliberately live within close proximity to each other so as to enjoy some kind of community life (such as the People of Hope in New Jersey);

- “lay monasteries” comprised of married persons, single persons, and families with children, all living in common;

- “consecrated widows” in the Latin Rite;

- men and women who choose to live an eremitic lifestyle privately, on their own initiative, and without any formal episcopal approval;

- people who commit to a particular way of life associated with an organized apostolic work, such as members of the Catholic Worker, Lamp Ministries, or L’Arche movements;

- individuals who simply profess a private vow of celibacy or virginity, either on their own or under the guidance of a spiritual director.

None of these ways of life are properly considered “consecrated” according to the Church’s technical understanding of the term, because they either lack an appropriately full observance of the evangelical counsels (such as in the case of married members of lay ecclesial movements), or an explicit profession of the counsels (as in the case of L’Arche members or lay hermits), or public recognition from the Church in their chosen was of life (such as those who are privately vowed to a life of celibacy).

Individuals who fit into one of these categories are often referred to, or refer to themselves, as “lay consecrated.” However, used in this context, “lay consecrated” is not a canonical term,** and my own personal opinion is that the use of this phrase should be discouraged for pastoral reasons of not confusing the faithful.

While those who would call themselves “lay consecrated” in the sense indicated above may in fact be living Christian lives that are subjectively as fervent as—or perhaps even more fervent than—that of those who are consecrated according to Canon Law, they nevertheless do not have the same specific place in the Church as those who are in a publicly-recognized state of consecrated life.

What is special about the vocation of consecrated persons?

Publicly consecrated persons have the specific vocation of bearing witness to the absolute primacy of Jesus Christ and to the reality of eternal life.

By freely renouncing marriage and many of the good things associated with earthly life, consecrated persons show the world that Christ alone can satisfy all the longings of the human heart. They also dramatically profess their belief in the Resurrection, and even more basically, in the existence of God—in other words, they “bet their life” that there is more to our existence than the here-and-now material world.

In doing this, consecrated persons are called to serve as a kind of “window” to the supernatural world. Because they live on earth as if they were already in heaven, where the saints “neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels,” (Matthew 22:30) consecrated persons could be said to have the vocation of making heaven tangibly present to us on earth.

Consecrated persons, in their total devotion and self-gift to Christ, are also called to serve as an especially vivid reflection of Christ’s bride the Church. In this way, the prayer of consecrated persons is in a special sense the voice of the Church herself; and the apostolic activity of consecrated persons is in a particular way an expression of the Church’s maternal care for her children.

Could it be possible that a person who is not technically considered “consecrated” might also be able to do these things? The answer is yes…and no.

“Yes,” because of course all Christians are called to be eschatological witnesses to at least some extent. Even the absolute minimum required of a faithful Catholic is enough to orient one’s life dramatically towards the reality of heaven. It could also theoretically happen that an individual was not technically “consecrated,” in the sincerity of his or her devotion, may in actual fact be a more convincing witness than many canonically consecrated persons.

Additionally, our categories consecrated life shouldn’t be used to constrain the Holy Spirit. If a well-balanced, non-consecrated layperson truly felt called—and had no incompatible obligations—to honor God through an ascetic lifestyle more directly focused on the next world than on this present one, absolutely nothing in the Church’s teaching or tradition would support us discouraging him or her from this!

However, in another very important sense, people who are not technically “consecrated” really cannot take on the role of canonically consecrated persons.

Canonically consecrated persons are given their vocation by the Church herself. That is, a persons in public states of consecrated life have not only had their interior “call” verified and confirmed by the institutional Church; but has also, in a real way, been given a “mandate” or commission by the Church to bear a very specific kind of Christian witness to the world.

Consequently, consecrated persons are able to serve as representatives of the Church in a manner not possible for persons who are not canonically consecrated. In this, they are also able to act as “icons” of the Church as the bride of Christ, and to make eschatological realties present in a uniquely concrete way. In entering into a canonical form of consecrated life, and individual is able to set him or herself aside for God alone in a dramatically more concrete and demonstrable fashion that can an individual who remains technically a lay person.

Finally, some points to keep in mind…

While keeping in mind that the relatively new phenomena of lay ecclesial movements and other “new forms of consecrated life” require a great deal of prudence and discernment on the part of all those involved, in addition to that of the magisterium, it is still good to remember that the Church does have a tradition of attaining sanctity through a private observance of the evangelical councils. Many saints, such as Catherine of Siena, Joan of Arc, Gemma Galgani, Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha, and Bl. Frederic Ozanam (founder of the St. Vincent de Paul Society), never formally entered religious life but rather chose to remain celibate “for the sake of the Kingdom” simply through a private vow or promise.

In celebrating their lives and commemorating their feast days, the Church seems to regard these saints as having been wholly given over to God in a notably distinct manner, even if they did not lead a life that was formally considered “consecrated.” Because of this, it would be reasonable to conclude that individuals today who are not, strictly speaking, in a state of consecrated life may still be able to live out something like a “spirituality of consecration” by truly—if only interiorly or subjectively—setting themselves aside for God alone.

Yet at the same time, a genuine call to “de facto” consecrated life would seem to be relatively rare, and difficult to discern accurately. For this reason, it remains important to maintain the distinction between a praiseworthy life of a private dedication to the evangelical counsels, and the states of consecrated life officially recognized by the Church.

notes:

* People also often ask me about consecrated virginity versus secular institutes. But for the sake of not making this post any more confusing than it has to be, in this discussion I’m sort of “bracketing off” the entire question of secular institutes.

Secular institutes are a notoriously “gray” area in determining what constitutes canonical consecration. On the one hand, the Church recognizes and legislates the existence of secular institutes, which would seem to make them a canonical form of consecrated life. But on the other hand, secular institute members profess private vows, which would seem to imply that the Church does not formally recognize their commitment to the evangelical counsels in a way proper to canonical forms of consecrated life. Additionally, can. 711 indicates that secular institute membership doesn’t chance an individual’s canonical status.

** Although in another context, “lay consecrated” might be considered a canonical term when used to indicate canonically consecrated persons who have not received the sacrament of Holy Orders. In this sense, all persons in consecrated life who are not bishops, priests, or deacons would be considered “lay consecrated,” including religious brothers, consecrated virgins, cloistered nuns, and Sisters in apostolic religious congregations.

What Does It Mean to Be “In the World?”

As regular readers of this blog have probably picked up by now, I strongly believe that, in terms of the general pattern of our day-to-day concrete experience, consecrated virgins should strive to live lives that are readily identifiable as being “consecrated.” My opinion is that consecrated virgins should live out their spousal relationship with Christ through a more visible dedication to prayer, service, and simplicity of life.

In other words, I think that consecrated virgins are called to an intensity of Christian witness which goes beyond that proper to a devout, single Catholic lay woman. This is in contrast with the popular conception that consecrated virgins are instead called to a more “hidden” witness within the context of a secular lifestyle.

Often, this idea—i.e., that women consecrated to a life of virginity according to canon 604 are normatively called to “blend in” with the lay faithful, without any conspicuous outward expressions of their consecration, and without undertaking any life-altering obligations other than celibacy—finds as its justification the fact that consecrated virgins are described in the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity as living “in the world.”

But after considering this argument more for some time, I’ve come to my own conclusion that this line of reasoning may not be accurate, and is perhaps based on some unsupported theological or canonical assumptions. Namely, to understand consecrated virginity as ordinarily entailing a more or less “lay” mode of life would seem to be giving the words “in the world” a weight and connotation which the Church does not actually appear to ascribe to them.

Here, it is important to note that within the Church’s authoritative writings the phrase “in the world,” like the word “secular,” is not a univocal term. That is, these words can be used to mean different things in different contexts. (Unlike, for example, terms such as “Coajuter bishop” or “papal enclosure,” which refer to one specific thing regardless of the context in which they are used.)

In some instances he words “secular” and “in the world” are intended to be taken in the strong sense of implying total immersion in, or a close association with, the sphere of temporal affairs. This is certainly the more colloquial usage of the two phrases. For example, in every-day conversation we generally speak of things being “secular” in contrast with those which are wholly dedicated to God as “sacred;” and sometimes religious Sisters refer to their pre-consecrated lives with the expression: “when I was in the world…”

There are also some official, formal contexts in which the Church uses the terms “secular” and “in the world” in this strong sense. In the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, the Church gives this description of the role and identity of the lay faithful (here specified as those who have neither received Holy Orders nor who have entered into a public state of consecration):

“What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature. …the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven.” (Lumen Gentium, 31.)

Here, the context makes it obvious that, when in reference to the laity, “in the world” and “secular” should be taken in the strong sense, or “at face value,” so to speak.

Likewise, Canon Law indicates that, when used to describe the special vocation of secular institute members, “in the world” and secular” should also be understood in this strong sense.

For example, canon 710 states that:

“A secular institute is an institute of consecrated life in which the Christian faithful, living in the world, strive for the perfection of charity and seek to contribute to the sanctification of the world, especially from within.”

Canon 713 tells us that:

Ҥ1. Members of these institutes express and exercise their own consecration in apostolic activity, and like leaven they strive to imbue all things with the spirit of the gospel for the strengthening and growth of the Body of Christ.

§2. In the world and from the world, lay members participate in the evangelizing function of the Church whether through the witness of a Christian life and of fidelity toward their own consecration, or through the assistance they offer to order temporal things according to God and to inform the world by the power of the gospel. They also cooperate in the service of the ecclesial community according to their own secular way of life.”

And in canon 714 we read:

“Members are to lead their lives in the ordinary conditions of the world according to the norm of the constitutions, whether alone, or in their own families, or in a group living as brothers or sisters.”

However, there is also a more limited meaning to the words “secular” and “in the world.”

Sometimes, in some instances, these terms can be used simply to designate that certain individuals are not technically a part of a religious community, even while these same individuals may have a role in the Church which is more similar to that of religious than it is to that of the laity.

For example, diocesan priests are often said to be “in the world,” and Canon Law describes them as “secular clerics.” Yet at the same time, nobody with an adequate understanding of the Catholic priesthood would argue that the clergy should live a lifestyle that could be called “secular” in the strong sense of the term. (In fact, “secular priest” can sometimes be a confusing term for people, since it sounds so much like an oxymoron!)

Even if we were to set aside for the movement the various theological descriptions of the priesthood as men specially called and chosen to be set apart for the God’s service, it’s possible to demonstrate, even working just from Canon Law, that the Church clearly envisions diocesan priests as living a distinctively “consecrated” lifestyle.

Diocesan priests are solemnly obligated to a life of celibacy (can. 277), obedience to their bishop (can. 273), and to the recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours (can. 276). While all Christians, including laypeople are called to the type of chastity and obedience proper to their state, secular priests are asked to live these with a radicalism that would be inappropriate for most Christians “in the world.”

Canon Law often states that secular priests are supposed to be completely devoted to the work of the Church (can. 281), to the extent that nothing else in their life should interfere with the exercise of their ministry (cf. can. 278 §3). Additionally, secular priests are also asked to refrain from involvement in political, military, or civil affairs (can. 285-289). This is very different from the vocation of those in secular institutes, or from that of the laity in general, who are specifically and authentically called to exercise a Christian influence in realm of temporal affairs. Further, when canon 284 asks that priests wear clerical garb, this obviously presumes that the Church intends her priests to be recognizable, public representatives of the Church.

So even while diocesan priests are properly considered “secular” clerics who live “in the world,” in this case it is very clear that these designations do NOT mean that they are called to live lives similar to that of devout single laymen.

Now, given that we can acknowledge more than one possible interpretation of what it means to be “secular” and to “live in the world,” the question is how to understand these terms when applied to consecrated virgins.

In my opinion, consecrated virgins living in the world are only “in the world” in the more limited technical sense. That is, consecrated virgins, like diocesan priests, are “in the world” insofar as they are not members of a religious community. This means that, while consecrated virgins obviously from religious Sisters in some fundamental ways (e.g., they do not have cloister regulations or community obligations), at the same time consecrated virgins are still called to live lives that are demonstrably “set apart” for God alone.

I think that this conclusion is evident by the way in which the phrase “in the world” is actually used in the Church’s authoritative writings on consecrated virgins. Typically, when the liturgy and other Church documents refer to consecrated virgins as being “in the world,” this is simply used to distinguish virgins consecrated according to canon 604 from solemnly professed cloistered nuns who received the Rite of Consecration according to the traditional practice of their Order.

And unlike the official literature and Canon Law on secular institutes, there are absolutely NO authoritative documents which suggest that consecrated virgins should be living out their vocation to perpetual virginity in the context of an otherwise lay lifestyle.

The fact that the call to evangelize “in the ordinary conditions of the world” is emphasized so clearly in the Church’s writings on secular institutes proves that the Church is indeed capable of articulating the charism of living the evangelical counsels while intimately involved in the sphere of temporal concerns.

Because of this, the lack of such language in reference to consecrated virgins should really be quite striking. Had the Council Fathers of Vatican II intended the restored Order of Virgins to be distinctively “in the world” in the strong sense of the term, then surely they would have thought to articulate this point unambiguously.

It could perhaps be argued that, because we also lack any authoritative statement forbidding a secular institute-type lifestyle for consecrated virgins, it is still reasonable to understand consecrated virgins as being “in the world” in the strong sense of the term.

However, I think this is also a mistake. Because it cannot be disputed that consecrated virginity is a public state of consecrated life, in the absence of any modifying directive (i.e., a statement that explicitly allows or requires consecrated virgins to adopt a “lay” and strongly secular mode of life) we should presume that consecrated virgins are called to a manner of living which is most similar to that of other public states of consecrated life (such as religious life).

It could be said that the Church’s “default setting” for consecrated life—as well as the Church’s standard for all public states of consecrated life—involves a life lived exclusively for God and the Church in a radical, total, open, visible, and readily obvious manner. Because of this, I think the burden of proof would fall on those who believe that consecrated virginity, as a public state of consecration, would be best lived in a subtle or “part-time” way, or that it would pertain primarily to an individual’s private interior life.

Similarly, to assume that consecrated virgins are called to live a secular institute-type lifestyle would seem to show a misunderstanding of the Rite of Consecration’s place in history. Consecrated virginity is a truly ancient vocation, one which pre-dates religious life by several centuries. Yet in contrast, secular institutes are a distinctly twentieth-century development.

Even while it could rightly be said that secular institutes were in some sense anticipated by the various lay fraternities of the Middle Ages, or by the early Ursulines in the sixteenth century, the existence of secular institutes as such was not formally acknowledged by the Church until 1947. Likewise, the idea of living the evangelical counsels in a discreet way, as a “hidden leaven” in the world of temporal affairs, with the object of imbuing those temporal affairs with Christian values, was not given serious theological consideration until fairly recently in the history of the Church.

And so my own thought is that, if were we to assume that consecrated virgins are normally called to life and mission similar to that of secular institute members, them we would be inappropriately superimposing a very modern ideal onto a Patristic-era form of consecrated life.

Women of Mystery, Women of Hope

Here is a short, seven-minute film I found on the blog “Roman Catholic Vocations.” I liked it because it struck me as being almost like a Fishers of Men for women’s consecrated life.

Although unfortunately there are no consecrated virgins in the film, it is set in New York!

And, it features three of our best-known religious congregations: the Sisters and Life and the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, both of which are diocesan communities; and the Missionary Sisters of Charity, who have a formation house in the Bronx.

Women of Mystery, Women of Hope also has its own website: http://www.mysteryandhope.org/

Archbishop Dolan on Independence Day

Okay…I know that lately, Archbishop Dolan’s writing has been showing up on my blog almost as often as on his own! But for the fourth of July, I felt like I just had to share his most recent column in our Archdiocesan newspaper, Catholic New York:

(Emphases, in bold, are mine.)

***

Declaring Our Dependence (on God)

My friend Cardinal Francis George, the Archbishop of Chicago, comments that perhaps the most revolutionary statement we can make these days is the opening line of the creed, “We believe in God, the Father Almighty...” as we pray at every Sunday Mass.

We look forward to all the festivities of our national holiday, the Fourth of July, this weekend.

We call it Independence Day, celebrating our independence from England, sealed on July 4, 1776, won at the cost of the blood of brave patriots during the Revolutionary War.

However, to profess our faith that “We believe in God, the Father Almighty...” is actually an act of dependence: we admit that every breath we take, each day we have, every opportunity we are given, come from an omnipotent God, and we bask in the fact that we are totally dependent upon Him. He is sovereign, He is Lord, He has power and dominion. “Without Him, we can do nothing; with Him, nothing is impossible.”

Yes, this spiritual Declaration of Dependence is downright revolutionary. For today, it is chic to throw off—not the shackles of allegiance to King George, as our brave patriots gallantly did—but any sense of obedience to God, His revelation and the basic code of right and wrong He has engraved upon the human heart.

Oh, it’s not that we do not believe in God; it’s just that we consider ourselves to be gods: we claim dominion over life itself, as we accept abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryonic stem cells, capital punishment and destructive poverty that causes starvation and plagues in the world.

We presume to tamper with the basic institution of a civil society, marriage and family, re-defining it to suit the spirit of the age.

We revel in violence on TV, in movies, in the rap lyrics our young people sing, independent of the decency and respect God has instilled in us.

Creatures resort to war, and terrorism, feeling themselves above the moral limits of conflict that a civilized society has always tried to heed.

We defend freedom as the right to do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want, however we want, with whomever we want, instead of believing that freedom is really the liberty to do what we ought.

The Ten Commandments become a list of suggestions, the Eight Beatitudes a set of nice ideas, the Bible mere literature, the Church unnecessary, religion a crutch for the unenlightened, objective truth an outmoded oppression.

Because, you see, we are independent. We are self-made, and we worship our creator—ourselves!

This is sure curious. For one, we are terribly dependent—not, regrettably, upon God—but upon money, insurance, gas, weapons, security systems or even upon alcohol, pornography, lust, gambling and drugs, in a culture of consumption and convenience.

Two, it is curious because the patriots who won independence for us in 1776 had no trouble at all acknowledging their total dependence upon God. In fact, the normative documents of our beloved country presume the existence of a providential God, objective truth, moral duty and the right to life itself.

The real invitation this Fourth of July is to be independent of earthly and selfish tyranny, whether that be King George, Osama bin Laden, or a slavery to the passions, while at the same time confessing an utter dependence upon God and His eternal law.

“The Truth shall make you free,” as Jesus taught.

Happy Fourth of July!

God bless America!

“We believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” And we will never declare our independence from Him.

Is Consecrated Virginity a Viable Form of Consecrated Life?

Here is a question from a reader on my last post:

“‘The earliest precursors to religious life were the primitive rules (such as the rule of St. Caesarius of Arles) written for communities of consecrated virgins or hermits as means for them to live their original commitments more faithfully.’

This would indicate to me that consecrated virginity lived in the world has something lacking. If the first nuns were consecrated virgins who started to live in community under a rule of life so they would be more faithful to their consecration, what does that say about the modern resurgence of consecrated virgins who live on their own with no one to answer to, no rule of life, doing their own thing? Is this a healthy, viable way to live consecrated life? Can it last, or will it die out like it did in the early centuries of the church?” –Anonymous

I have often received comments and questions very similar to this one in real life (including from a professor at my thesis presentation!), so I’m glad to have the chance to address some of these issues. This particular question actually touches on serveral separate but related points, which I’ll address one-by-one:

1. First of all, the development of new forms of consecrated life does not negate the earlier forms. For example, the advent of non-cloistered, “active” Sisters in the 1600’s does NOT make the more ancient vocation of cloistered, contemplative nuns any less valid or valuable; on an objective theological level you can’t say that active religious life, having evolved out of older forms of religious life, is somehow “more complete” than religious life devoted entirely to contemplation. Both forms of religious life have their own special place within the Church.

With this in mind, I feel that this same dynamic is in place regarding consecrated virginity lived “in the world.” That is, I don’t believe that the development of organized monastic life indicates that consecrated virginity is not a full, distinct vocation in its own right.

I can see how some might want to ask the question of whether or not the millennium-long veritable discontinuation of the practice of consecrating non-monastic virgins* suggests that consecrated virginity lived “in the world” may not actually be a true expression of consecrated life. But, the fact of the matter is that by including consecrated virgins in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the contemporary Church has indeed recognized the Patristic-era Order of Virgins as legitimate, and not merely as a “provisional,” form of consecrated life.

2. Likewise, consecrated virginity does involve a unique “charism.” That is, consecrated virginity as a state in life does have a very distinct identity in the Church.

For one thing, consecrated virginity lived “in the world” is one of the only forms of consecrated life which involves a direct, continuative bond with the local diocese and the diocesan bishop.

And, reception of the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity is different from the profession of religious vows, in that whereas religious vows are essentially promises one actively makes to God, virginal consecration is a solemn blessing passively received from God through the ministry of the bishop. This might seem like an overly technical distinction, but it does have implications for the spirituality of consecrated virgins.

Also, while I believe that it is highly appropriate for women in all forms of consecrated life to embrace a “bridal” spirituality, consecrated virginity is the only vocation which by its very nature involves a call to a spousal relationship with Christ. Canon Law describes consecrated virgins as being “mystically betrothed to Christ, the Son of God,” but it actually does not use nuptial imagery to describe women religious. (But this does not mean that women’s religious life is somehow anti-spousal, only that spousal imagery is not absolutely essential to the vocation. In theory, it’s possible than a women could have a vocation to religious life without necessarily experiencing a call to be a bride of Christ.)

Finally, consecrated virginity has a particular connection to the early Church and the ancient virgin-martyr saints, and consecrated virgins are commissioned in a special way to pray the Liturgy of the Hours.

3. With regard to the desirability of community life, it’s good to remember that certain customs and practices can be devoutly helpful to individuals as they seek to best live out their vocations, without those practices being therefore intrinsic to a particular vocation.

For example, many Catholic married couples find that saying a daily rosary with their children is helpful in fostering an atmosphere of joyful Christian family life. It’s easy to see how such a practice would greatly assist individuals in living out their vocations to matrimony and parenthood. Perhaps some spouses and parents would even say that they found they personally “needed” their family rosary in order to maintain a decent spiritual life or to remain faithful to the obligations of their state.

However, at the same time you couldn’t say that a family rosary was intrinsic to the sacrament of matrimony or Catholic parenthood, in the sense that the practice of a family rosary isn’t a sacramental or canonical requirement for a valid marriage.

The Church might strongly recommend devotional practices such as a family rosary, but she does not strictly demand them. A person can even become a canonized saint without having adopted any specific set of devotional prayers.**

While certainly we can’t regard community life in the same way as we would devotional practices—since community is intrinsic to religious life, societies of apostolic life, and in some sense secular institutes, and as such does contribute in a major way to the theological identity of these forms of consecrated life—my thought is that community life probably functioned in a similar way for the early consecrated virgins (and perhaps could function in a similar way for modern consecrated virgins…but I’ll get to that in my next point).

That is, while some Patristic-era consecrated virgins and the earliest consecrated virgin-nuns did live in community, I think this was simply because they found it to be personally helpful, and NOT because their membership in a community was a determining or fundamental aspect of their vocation. A consecrated virgin is a consecrated virgin regardless of whether or not she lives on her own, with family, or with other consecrated virgins; whereas a woman religious is by definition one who belongs to a religious community.

4. Modern consecrated virginity is not actually anti-community life. While consecrated virgins are free live on their own, they are not required to do so. Although the small number and geographical dispersion of today’s consecrated virgins makes residential community life somewhat of an impractical proposition at the time of this writing, there is nothing to stop a group of modern consecrated virgins from living under the same roof for purposes of mutual support. In fact, some commentators understand the second paragraph of canon 604,*** which explicitly opens the possibility for consecrated virgins to associate, to allow for this specific sort of arrangement.

Naturally, as a matter of prudence, anyone presently seeking to become a consecrated virgin should have the emotional and spiritual resources to be capable of living a consecrated life with only a minimum of external human support. But on a theological (if not a practical) level, a call to consecrated virginity is not identical with a special call to solitude or independence.

5. And, it would seem to be possible to live a truly consecrated life without the benefit of day-to-day community support.

Or at least, the Church seems to think it is. Aside from the restoration of a non-monastic Order of Virgins, the fact that the Church endorses the existence of secular institutes and eremitic life, as well as the fact that she does not mandate that the diocesan clergy should live together, seems to indicate that the Church believes that it is possible to be faithful to a life of celibacy and prayer without necessarily living in a community of like-minded individuals.

We also have the example of numerous saints to further attest to this possibility. For example, St. Genevieve of Paris (my patroness!) was a consecrated virgin in the fifth century. While she lived at about the time when the first true religious Orders were forming, she herself never joined any formally organized community. Yet, throughout almost her entire ninety-year life, she was known as a strikingly exemplary consecrated virgin.

Of course, subjectively an individual woman might feel that she herself would be unable to live a consecrated life outside of a community, and in my opinion this is a legitimate reason for entering religious life instead of becoming a consecrated virgin. But, such cases would not disprove the objective possibility of living a truly consecrated life as a consecrated virgin in the world.

Conversely, it’s also good to keep in mind that, while community life could surely be a great help remaining faithful to one’s vocation, in and of itself it isn’t a fool-proof guarantee that one will live a fervent consecrated life, or even that one will attain to the level of charity required of all Christians. Just simply living in community doesn’t automatically make one a saint!

6. Most importantly, it is a serious mistake to see consecrated virgins as normatively having “no one to answer to, no rule of life, [and] doing their own thing.” I would be the first to agree that this would not make for a “healthy, viable way to live consecrated life.” And if consecrated virginity is understood this way in some places, then my thought is that this is actually an abuse of the Rite of Consecration.

It is true that consecrated virgins do have much more freedom than do most religious in the ways in which they can structure their day-to-day lives. However, it’s totally inimical to the concept of consecrated life in general to enter into a public state of consecration with an attitude of “doing my own thing.” When a person becomes consecrated in a public manner through the Church’s liturgy (versus, for example, dedicating one’s life to God through a private vow of celibacy or virginity), in a very real way he or she no longer “belongs” to oneself, but to God and His Church.

As I see it, if a consecrated virgin is living a life that could rightly be considered “consecrated”—i.e., if she is living out her vocation the way it is ordinarily supposed to be lived—then she should truly be organizing EVERY aspect of her life around her commitment to the Church. As I have mentioned before, this is one major reason why I strongly believe that consecrated virgins should, under normal circumstances, be “dedicated to the service of the Church” in as direct and literal a way as possible.

I do hesitate to say that consecrated virgins should have a “Rule of Life” per se. My main objection to this is that the following of a set, specific Rule would seem to be an element uniquely proper to religious life and diocesan hermits (similar to the way in which following the spirituality of a specific founder of foundress is a constitutive aspect of religious life, but not consecrated virginity).****

Yet at the same time, if a consecrated virgin made it a priority to:

- attend daily Mass if it was at all humanly possible;
- pray the Liturgy of the Hours;
- work for the Church full-time in so far as she was capable, or otherwise to devote a comparable amount of time to volunteer service in the Church;
- make time for private prayer, spiritual reading, and studying the faith;
- live a demonstrably simple lifestyle;
- and to engage in some type of appropriate penance or sacrifices;

…then it would seem to me these commitments would serve the same purpose as a Rule, in that they would ensure that the consecrated virgin was living a life readily identifiable as being “consecrated.”

Finally, consecrated virgins do have someone (besides the Lord!) to “answer to”—their bishop. This is evident in the general introduction to the Rite of Consecration, which states that it for the bishop to determine the conditions under which women living in the world are to undertake a life of consecrated virginity.

Of course, consecrated virgins don’t vow obedience in the same way that nuns and Sisters do; which, among other things, means that the bishop would not be nearly as involved in the smaller, mundane decisions of every-day life. For example, the bishop obviously would not determine things like what time precisely to say Vespers, where to go grocery shopping, how often one could visit family and friends, ect. Nor would a consecrated virgin need her bishop’s approval to engage in the many smaller acts of charity that present themselves over the course of the day. E.g., a consecrated virgin would not need to be “commissioned” to do something like bring food to a sick parishioner or to check in regularly on an elderly neighbor.

However, this does NOT mean that the evangelical counsel of obedience has no place in the life a consecrated virgin! The bishop should, either personally or through a delegate (like a Vicar for Religious or Episcopal Delegate for Consecrated Life) be aware and approve of the general shape of a consecrated virgin’s consecrated life.

Likewise, my belief is that all of a consecrated virgin’s serious decisions—such as where to go to school, what job to take, whether or not to engage in a major project like writing a book or starting a charitable organization—should be mutually discerned by the consecrated virgin and her bishop or the bishop’s representative. Additionally, a consecrated virgin should be completely open to her bishop’s suggestions as to how she could best serve the needs of her diocese, or his requests for a particular form of service to the local Church, even if these go against the consecrated virgin’s own personal preferences or inclinations.

So in a nutshell, consecrated virginity lived “in the world” is a true and valid vocation, which subsequently should entail the same level of commitment, self-sacrifice, and responsibility as any public state of consecrated life within the Church. Any woman hoping to become a consecrated virgin in today’s world should sincerely intend to offer her life to Christ and His Church with as much totality as a strictly-cloistered nun offers hers—that is, an aspiring consecrated virgin should truly strive to give everything.

While it’s understandable that consecrated virginity may not yet be fully and appropriately understood by many Catholics, I think that it would have disastrously negative spiritual consequences for both individual consecrated virgins as well as for the wider Church if consecrated virginity were to be regarded as something like a less demanding “alternative” to
religious life.

notes:

* Although incidentally, the conferral of the solemn virginal consecration on women living outside of religious communities was not officially forbidden until the year 1926—less then fifty years before the promulgation of the revised Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity, which contained a form intended explicitly for women “living in the world.”

** Of course, this is referring to specific devotional practices (e.g., the brown scapular, various Fatima devotions, the Divine Mercy chaplet, the St. Louis de Montfort Consecration to Mary, ect.), and not to the liturgy, sacraments, or to prayer in general. These latter things, in contrast with what we would call “devotional prayers,” are truly indispensable for living a good and fruitful Catholic life!

***Canon 604 §2 reads: “In order to observe their own resolution more faithfully and to perform by mutual assistance service to the Church in harmony with their proper state, virgins can be associated together.”

**** But I would see no problem if some consecrated virgins found it personally helpful to write, with the help of her spiritual director or bishop, her own informal private “rule” or “plan of life” to serve as a basic set of guidelines for the daily living out of her vocation. But a situation would be much different from a consecrated virgin attempting to do something like follow the Rule of Saint Augustine or Benedict; or from enshrining an official rule as a major component of the spirituality of consecrated virginity in general.