Replies

I implore you not to get your Catholic Theology from the Guardian (UK). OK? Keep that tucked carefully into the critical thinking module of your cerebral cortex. Thank you.

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."

"Consecrated women." This is the broadest, over-all category. This could be women of various marital statuses, e.g. virgins, never-married, widowed, divorced/annulled, etc.
"Order of Widows". You are dedicating your widowhood to Christ Therefore you have to be a widow.
"Order of Virgins". You are dedicating your virginity to Christ. Therefore you have to be a virgin.

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.