Posted on 07/16/2018 4:40:16 PM PDT by RightGeek
Consecrated virgins say they are disappointed by Vatican’s new guidance
Christian women who have pledged lifelong virginity as “brides of Christ” have expressed shock at a Vatican document that suggests literal virginity is not a prerequisite for their consecration.
The Vatican’s new instruction on consecrated virginity, Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago, was published earlier this month after requests from bishops who reported an increasing number of women being called to the vocation.
There are an estimated 5,000 consecrated virgins in at least 42 countries, with the largest numbers in France, Italy and Argentina.
Consecrated virgins are unmarried women who offer their physical virginity as a gift to Christ, and devote time to penance, works of mercy and prayer. Unlike nuns, they do not live in enclosed communities or wear special clothing. Most have jobs, and they provide for their own needs.
The 39-page Vatican document offers detailed guidance on the vocation, including advising up to two years’ preparation before consecration.
It says consecrated virgins “are dedicated to the Lord Jesus in virginity … They experience the spiritual fertility of an intimate relationship with him”.
But the clause that has surprised some says actual virginity is not essential for a woman to become a consecrated virgin.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Arguably this is correct because Jesus had no problem with prostitutes and adulteresses who repented of their sins.
I agree.
I think he’s done more damage to the religion than the last ten Popes.
I'm sure, but they did to claim to be virgins.
This opens the door for Stormy Daniels.
Arguably the prostitutes and adulterous women did not claim to be virgins.
Arguably this is correct because Jesus had no problem with prostitutes and adulteresses who repented of their sins.
I'm sure, but they did not claim to be virgins.
You’re a virgin if you believe you are.
LGBTQV rights now!
I’m not trying to put down the women who had relations with men. It’s normal. It’s not something they should be trashed for.
At the same time there has been an order of women who chose to live a life of purity dedicated to God. I think they deserve to be treated as something special for their dedication.
I’m not against the other women serving in some capacity. Perhaps they should have their own special order proclaiming their allegiance to God also.
I’d prefer to think of the two groups as different, vs one being better than the other.
As you state, Jesus does forgive us for things we need forgiven for. In the eyes of God they are as “saved” as anyone else. I’ll grant you that.
I’ll also concede that the virgins are human, and every man/woman has sinned but Jesus.
I also at the end of this must concede that I do not favor people denying themselves a normal life as service to God.
Have a spouse. Have children. Lead a good life doing your best for them and your community, and serve God as well.
And priests can be gay, yea! And homosexuals can be pastors! And those in the active commission of systematically breaking the Ten Commandants are really just Christians, and and and and. I’ll just worry about what God said before Jesus, thank you, and if there is some dispute between the Father and the Christian Son, let’s just side with the God the father, and let the son be misunderstood, misquoted, missed until he comes back and rights the record(s). Until then I take every twisted maligned quote from the Bible as hearsay.
Amen! The blessed mercy of our Lord Jesus at work. ❤🕇
Rape and sexual abuse victims also come to mind.
We had a widow who was a nun in high school. And in fact she had grown children when she joined.
God and the Pope agree so case closed.
Arguably
Yeah, well the Pope obviously no longer has to be Catholic so what can you expect?
The Guardian's central error here--- from which all its other errors flow --- is found right in their headline: "Shock over ruling that 'brides of Christ' need not be virgins." They've conflated two terms which are related but not synonymous: "Brides of Christ" and "Consecrated Virgins."
Historically, there have been different forms of consecrated life in the Catholic Church, and ALL of them could be (symbolically) "Brides of Christ."
A woman who is neither a virgin nor a widow, is by no means excluded from being a (symbolic) "Bride of Christ". See #1. She'd be simply called a "Consecrated Woman." She wouldn't be a consecrated widow or virgin. Makes sense, right? (Listen up, Francis.)
It's a category thing: there ARE types of consecrated life a woman can enter, who is neither widowed nor physically a virgin. This was all hashed out on another FR thread. You might take a look at - #29.
My own opinion is that Francis has just overreached (again) for no good reason (again) by messing with the ancient constitutions of groups which have been self-governing, as to their internal customs, for centuries. Alert Catholics will remember that he's usurped the internal governance of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI) and the Knights of Malta, in similarly offensive ways.
He seems to target ancient,traditional groups for disruption.
Of course consecrated women of all kinds can be called "Brides of Christ."
But if they're not virgins, they're not consecrated virgins.
And if they're not widows, they're not consecrated widows.
If they're neither virgins nor widows, they're "consecrated women." It's a category thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.