I must say in exploring the lives of some Consecrated Virgins on the internet, I do have some concerns about how “concrete” their notion is of being Christ’s bride rather than looking at it as a mystical union. Some of the stuff out there on u-tube and the like of some of these women is concerning and quite frankly a little creepy.

I very much appreciate the information you provided in Part I of this series and hopefully Part II will soon follow.

Thank you for your observations.

You have many good points and some points I would tend to disagree with as a canon lawyer. I hope a good conversation will be sparked by your comments, with other people joining in.

Anyone willing to join in? Remember, I want at least 5 respectful comments before I continue this series. They need not be earth shattering, but can say something as simple as “I appreciate this information.”

I do think that adherence to a specific “rule of life” should not be considered a constitutive element in the vocation of consecrated virginity lived in the world, and that in many instances a strict rule would be impractical for a consecrated virgin to follow (though I think some consecrated virgins might find it personally helpful to set down a flexible program in writing with the guidance of a spiritual director).

But, I respectfully disagree with your description of a consecrated virgin’s relationship to her bishop as being most similar to that of a married woman and the pastor of her parish. Although consecrated virgins do not profess public vows per se, consecrated virginity, even when lived “in the world,” is a still a public state of consecrated life. My thought is that this would necessarily make a consecrated virgin’s relationship to the hierarchy notably different from either a married or single laywoman’s.

Also, canon 604 describes consecrated virgins as being “dedicated to the service of the Church.” And it would seem that serving the Church in any sort of public capacity requires some real form of ecclesial authorization—and if this does not come as the local bishop’s express commission, then at the very least it should be some kind of episcopal permission or approval (even if, de facto, this permission tended to be only tacit or presumed, or granted through a delegate). Because of this, I think that it would be more appropriate for a consecrated virgin to regard her bishop as being similar, albeit not identical, to a religious superior.

And while a consecrated virgin does not make a formal vow of obedience, to me it seems that a special obligation to obey the bishop—i.e., over and beyond that of all the baptized—is strongly implied in the Rite of Consecration. I do think that consecrated virgins are called to take more of the initiative in their respective consecrated lives than are nuns or religious sisters, and I understand that pastoral sensitivity might limit a bishop in what he could legitimately request from a consecrated virgin (e.g., it would be unreasonable to require a consecrated virgin to take on a demanding full-time apostolate without provisions for meeting basic needs and living expenses). Still, I think that the most fitting attitude for a consecrated virgin to have vis-à-vis her bishop is one of a sincere willingness to hold the needs of her diocese in higher priority than her own projects and interests, which I think could be considered a type of practical obedience.