The Year of Consecrated Life (7): consecrated virginity in the world

This page at the website of the National Office for Vocation includes a paragraph indicating the origins and the juridical standing of the vocation of the consecrated virgin in the Church. A more detailed explanation of the vocation to consecrated virginity, as lived in the life of the Church of our own times, can be found here: Consecrated Virginity in the World. What is it? This post describes an experience of the Rite of Consecration itself: 'Sponsa Christi' on Consecrated Virginity.

Consecrated virginity, appears then, to be distinctive in comparison to consecrated life in general for two reasons. It first of all consecrates a state of life already existing. It requires the woman consecrated to have lived a life of virginity even before her consecration. This appears not to expect a conversion of life that might be characteristic of consecrated life in general - though I would expect that that conversion has occurred at some point in the time before consecration. And secondly, it is the prayer of consecration that constitutes the effective feature, and not the promises or vows made by the recipient of the consecration. The woman is consecrated, rather than making an act of consecration themselves. This creates a state of life from which the Church is not able to grant a dispensation. (There is a certain analogy to priestly ordination here, where the promises of obedience and celibacy are not of the essential form of conferral of the sacrament, and the sacrament confers a permanent character.)

That this form of life existed in the Church before that of religious life, and the consecration associated with religious life, is thought provoking. Does it perhaps, because of its indissoluble character, represent a fuller actualisation of a notion of "spiritual marriage" than do the vows of consecrated life in general?

Consecrated celibacy/virginity (1): a better vocation?

My attention was caught, less by the citation of the anathema from the Council of Trent, than by the account of the dogmatic standing of the teaching expressed in the anathema:

If any one says, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.  

(Remember that this is de fide teaching which we are bound to believe with the assent of faith. If we find it surprising today, it is our job to ponder how to reconcile our thinking with the teaching of the Church, not to adjust the teaching of the Church to our thinking.)

Fr Tim was actually making a different point, but picked this up in passing. Having a somewhat naive approach to anathema's, I assumed that this one represented in some way a summary answer to a question or discussion occuring earlier in the Council's Decree. If one clicks "previous" at this page of the IntraText copy of the Decree on Matrimony, to move from the anathemas to the preceding exposition, one finds instead that the anathema stands somewhat alone. So exactly what answer(s) does the anathema give, and to which question(s)?

Most immediately, it answers a question being set to the Catholic Church by the reformers at the time. Is it the challenge from the reformers which frames the question, and therefore the answer contained in the anathema, in terms of a comparison of the excellence of the married state to the excellence of the state of virginity/celibacy?

The anathema clearly asserts an excellence to virginity/celibacy that is higher than (the excellence of) marriage - and I am happy to include a reference to the excellence of marriage because of the reference to the way in which Christian marriage "excels in grace, through Christ, the ancient marriages" in the exposition of the Tridentine Decree. One cannot avoid, either, that the assertion of this higher excellence derives from a basis in Scripture and Tradition that preceded the Council - it being received teaching at the time - and a basis in Tradition which has continued since. Even if one quibbles with the dogmatic status of the anathema of the Council of Trent, the force of its assertion of a higher excellence for virginity/celibacy, as Fr Tim indicates, is not something that should be avoided in the life of the Church today.

The anathema is silent as to whether this higher excellence accrues to the person who lives virginity/celibacy simply by their being virgin/celibate in itself.  It does not say anything one way or the other about whether the person who is virgin/celibate is by definition more saintly than the person who is married. It compares instead the "state" of virginity/celibacy to the "state" of marriage, which retains a subtle play between the two as objective institutional states in the Church and as  "offices" (to use a Balthasarian phrase) fulfilled by individuals in the Church.

The anathema is almost totally, but in a most subtle way perhaps not so, about the state of virginity/celibacy as being a state taken up under vows or associated with ordination. Only by referring to the Council Decree On Regulars and Nuns of the next session can we recognise a background assumption that the present anathema might refer to virginity/celibacy lived under vows, or, in the context of the ordained priesthood. The historical context of the Council might well also justify assuming this reference in the intention of the anathema. The Latin verb "manere" translated in the anathema as "remain" has a subtle sense of "continuing to live in" - cf perhaps the sense of the same verb used by Pope John Paul II at the opening of his Apostolic Letter Mane Nobiscum Domine to refer indirectly to Christ's continuing presence with us in the Eucharist. Again, ever so subtly, we might detect an assumption of the state of virginity/celibacy as being a chosen state rather than one occuring accidently by way of absence of a marriage. Though at a first reading the anathema appears to suggest that the accidental virginity/celibacy of the person who simply has not married is better than the married state, it is possible to argue that the real comparison is made to a chosen and dedicated virginity/celibacy.

The anathema - but not attaching common sense and the received teaching of Scripture - is silent about whether or not all people are called to virginity/celibacy rather than to marriage. It is clearly a vocation for some but not for others. This makes acute the question of exactly how the state of virginity/celibacy has a higher excellence than that of marriage, and also raises a question for how vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life are promoted in the Church.

I do think that it is possible to trace in the teaching of the Church at Vatican II and since a development of the essential teaching of this anathema - that of a higher excellence to the vocation of virginity/celibacy - that does not reduce its force and, indeed, develops its essential substance.  [See Consecrated celibacy/virginity (2): development of doctrine - link when I have posted. Consecrated celibacy/virginity (3): theological synthesis, when it follows, is intended to explore how the married and virgin states of life orient one to another.]

But meanwhile, two passing thoughts. One of the quite fascinating things about many of the new movements, many essentially lay in their character, is the existence within them of a core of members living a consecrated life according to the evangelical counsels. Focolare and Communion and Liberation are examples. (Another, perhaps not accidentally, is the presence of a Marian character.) If one leaves aside a certain fashion, now appearing to have passed, for lay communities characterised by short term temporary commitment, there is an interesting witness to consecrated virginity/celibacy to be found among the new movements. The second thought is that a vocational initiative such as Invocation appears to represent a significant move away from presenting all vocations in the Church as of equal excellence (in the sense in which that term is used above). Invocation seems to have the confidence to suggest to young people that the different vocations to priestly and religious life (and in some cases lay life, but lay life characterised by the evangelical counsels and a particular charism) have a an excellence which, while not denying to marriage its own excellence, nevertheless makes a demand on all. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church n.915 suggests, while recognising that not all are called to the consecrated life:

Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple.

Faith and film (1): The Gardener of God

ZENIT have reported the presentation in Rome of the film The Gardener of God, a film about the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. An extended trailer for the film can be found on the website of the production company responsible for the film. As a scientist, Gregor Mendel is generally seen as the founder of the science of genetics.

The trailer makes interesting viewing for the messages it communicates about the priesthood, about the relationship between science and Christian faith, for a dialogue between celibacy and sexual impropriety. Though those taking part in the making of the film have spoken of their study of the character of Gregor Mendel, I can't help but feel from the trailer that there is a certain amount of "reading back" of a narrative into the life that may be at the expense of strict, historical accuracy. The explicit articulation in the words of Pope Pius IX of a positive relationship between faith and science is presented in terms that come from our own times; I wonder whether, in Gregor Mendel's own time, that relationship would have been expressed more generally, and perhaps in terms of the relationship between faith and reason.

I look forward to seeing some more reviews of this film.

Anglicanorum coetibus: "Annexation", "theatricals" and "unintended consequences"

The Apostolic Constitution making provision for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans who wish to enter full communion with the Catholic Church has been published. The English text, along with a press release, Complementary Norms and a commentary from the Rector of the Gregorian University in Rome can be found here, at the Vatican website.

The title of this blog coverage hasn't quite got the idea: Released: Apostolic Constitution addressing annexing Anglicans into the Catholic Church. It does give rise to a quiet chuckle, though.

Article 11(3) and 11(4) of the Complementary Norms seem to go in the opposite direction, with a suggestion of "high church theatricals":

§3. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate may be invited to participate in the meetings of the Bishops’ Conference of the respective territory, with the equivalent status of a retired bishop.

§4. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate and who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See to use the insignia of the episcopal office.

Article 6 (1) of the Complementary Norms:

In consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice, the Ordinary may present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate, after a process of discernment based on objective criteria and the needs of the Ordinariate. These objective criteria are determined by the Ordinary in consultation with the local Episcopal Conference and must be approved by the Holy See.

seems to weaken article VI (2) of the Apostolic Constitution itself:

§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

It does this by recognising the Anglican tradition as being the factor underlying its provision for married clergy. I have already posted on my concern about the witness to celibacy ( and here) of the move towards Personal Ordinariates, and the denial of a change of discipline in this regard in the press release accompanying the Apostolic Constitution does nothing to counter the provisions of the Complementary Norms.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is identified as the authoritative expression of faith professed by the members of an Ordinariate (I (5) of the Apostolic Constitution). If the Catechism is the norm of faith for those joining the Catholic Church from the C of E, can't it also be held up as the norm of faith for those who dissent from within the Catholic Church? And, though some paragraphs express teaching of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church, it is, in itself, and exercise of the ordinary magisterium. Ecclesial implications of this might reach beyond the Ordinariates.

The provision that clergy might in case of necessity undertake paid secular employment in addition to their priestly duties (article 7 (3) of the Complementary Norms) is also interesting. This might provide an interesting model for "worker priests" - whoops, sorry, the modern term should be "industrial chaplaincy". Now, I do think there are interesting possibilities here that could extend beyond the Ordinariates.

So we have "annexation", "theatricals" and some "unintended consequences".

PS: I wonder whether there will be the same debate over what constitutes a "coetibus" in this context as there was in the context of Summorum Pontificum?

PPS: The post at Catholic Analysis is a useful complement to my remarks above. Catholic Analysis has a different take on the celibacy question than I have:

Two points strike me as important: 1.) the embrace of legitimate liturgical diversity in the Roman Rite, as opposed to neo-Tridentine uniformity; and 2.) married clergy among the new Catholics, which we can term "clerical diversity." Both points emphasize that the "Benedictine" model of this Pope does not match that of the supertraditionalists.

PPPS: Further comment at Valle Adurni, which focusses in part on the question of celibacy. I had thought, too, to comment on the intention that the Ordinariates come under the supervision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This makes sense if one views the Ordinariates as being akin to the situations of groups that formerly came under the remit of the Ecclesia Dei commission that has now been taken over by (sorry, subsumed into) the same Congregation. The provisions do, however, refer to the other dicasteries of the Curia having a role according to their competence.

Logical conclusion? Reflections on virginity and the "language of creation"

One of the more intelligent responses to the controversy surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's address to the Curia just before Christmas appears on the "Letters" page of today's Times. Under the heading "Logical conclusion?", it says:

Sir, Surely, in order to be a valid argument, the comments of the Pope regarding homosexuality (report, Dec 23) must also be directed against celibacy.

CANON SIMON PETTITT
Horringer, Suffolk

I am not sure that "surely" is, grammatically speaking, a logical connective - it seems more a presumptive or emotional connective - and of course the Pope's words were not directly made regarding homosexuality.

But, this having been said, Canon Pettitt's letter does ask a very good question. Is chosen virginity/celibacy a denial of the "language of creation" with regard to gender and the differences in sexuality associated with differences in gender?

Traditionally, the Church has expressed its commitment to virginity/celibacy in priestly and religious life in nuptial terms. The language is that of a preferential love for God, of marriage at a spiritual level. One of the most striking photographs of St Edith Stein is one taken on the day of her clothing as a Carmelite nun - when, as was the custom at the time, she wore a wedding dress. So, in chosen virginity/celibacy the "language of the body" with regard to gender is assumed or integrated into a "language of the spirit", rather than its being denied. What Pope Benedict referred to as a "language of creation" is expressed at these two levels - the bodily and the spiritual - and, even in physical marriage, there is an integration of the two, a mutual service between the two.

Canon Pettitt's letter has prompted another question in my mind, that goes beyond this consideration. Is the promise of virginity/celibacy made by a woman different in some way than such a promise made by a man? Within the promises of marriage, whilst there is a substantial identity between the promise made by the woman and that made by the man, is there something particularly "feminine" about the woman's promise and something particularly "masculine" about the man's promise? To talk about a language of male and female in creation would appear to suggest that this is so. And if it is so, why should not the same "feminine" and "masculine" specificity also apply in promises of virginity/celibacy?

As a suggestion as to how this might be understood theologically, one might identify feminine virginity with the virginity of Mary (female, and figure of the Church). Masculine virginity might be identified directly with Christ (male, and Head of the Church). Comments on this thought will be very welcome. At the very least, I would expect there are some psychological studies about the differences between the experience of virginity/celibacy in female communities and male communities.

For those who are single and who have not married or made promises of virginity/celibacy, there appears to be, assuming the living of a chaste life, a de facto denial of the "language of creation" about male and female. I recall Hans Urs von Balthasar writing about this un-chosen single state as being a kind of anomaly in the life of the Church, and the secular institutes providing a way in which it could be drawn into a nuptial/vowed relationship with Christ-the Church that is like that found in marriage or religious life. I do agree with von Balthasar (and therefore disagree with some contemporary pastoral activity with regard to the promotion of vocations in the Church) in that I do not think the un-chosen single state should as such be percieved as a vocation in the Church of the same type as marriage, religious life and the priesthood.

What the un-chosen single life does contain is an openess, a possibility of a choice towards marriage or celibacy/virginity, and it does therefore still take part in the "language of creation" with regard to male and female. A single person is allowed a certain freedom in their relations with the opposite sex that the married person, priest or religious should not have. The "language of creation" indicates that these opposite sex relationships do express a different possibility than same sex friendships that one may have, and this must be respected even in the single state.