Table of contents for Congress Pilgrimage 2008 Rome

1. International Congress Pilgrimage of Consecrated Virgins Rome 2008 Day 1
2. International Congress Pilgrimage of Virgins Rome 2008 Part II
3. International Congress Pilgrimage of Consecrated Virgins, Rome Day III
4. Consecrated Virgins International Congress Mass Days IV and V
5. February 2: World Day for Consecrated Life

by Therese Ivers, JCL, OCV

His Holiness the Pope rarely presides over public liturgies.  The importance of World Day for Consecrated Life is such that he prays Vespers and gives an official address on each Feast of the Presentation to consecrated persons.  Since the Marian (consecrated life) dimension of the Church is as essential as the Petrine (ordained life) in the life of the Church according to our Holy Father, dioceses should take their cue from Rome and also host celebrations for Consecrated Life in their cathedrals.  It is the one day that the Church prays for the consecrated, that is, for those of us who normally pray for the rest of the Church!

The Vicariate of Rome issued the invitation to the Papal Vespers and Address to religious superiors, religious, consecrated virgins, members of secular institutes, members of apostolic societies, hermits, and others in consecrated life living in Rome.  For those who don’t know, the Vicariate of Rome functions as the “diocese” of Rome and govern in the name of the Pope.  There is a bishop assigned for consecrated persons.   I found it ironic that in the official invitation, the Vicariate mentioned that the contemplative (cloistered) religious would be spiritually present, and yet hermits were invited.  Perhaps it was an official oversight in terms of the incongruity.  Or, perhaps the Vicariate wanted to make it clear that this is one occasion in which it is very appropriate for the hermit to leave his/her hermitage and join the other consecrated persons in celebrating this day in the cathedral.  It is heartening, however, that the Vicariate did not limit its invitation to religious.  Now I just wait with bated breath – not really – for a consecrated virgin to be one of those selected to have some part in the ceremony as I noticed that only habited religious were chosen this year.  At any rate, it is my fervent hope that dioceses will follow the example of the Vicariate of Rome and remember to include consecrated virgins and hermits in their mailings.

On a personal note, yours truly was able to participate in this Liturgy with another consecrated virgin, Jenna Cooper, the author of a blog on consecrated virginity.  We disagree on many practical interpretations of how our vocation is to be lived out but we are united in the love of our Divine Spouse and total self gift to the Lord.  Speaking of consecrated virgins, on my way home from the papal liturgy, I passed the place where the International Congress for Consecrated Virgins was held in 2008.  It brought back so many memories of the 500+ virgins who attended from over 52 countries.

by Therese Ivers, JCL

Good St. Nick is credited with giving a poor family dowries for each of the daughters of the house so that the young women would not have to engage in the world’s oldest profession. Dowries have been around for ages. Even today, in certain societies, the custom of requiring a dowry from the bride’s family is still very much alive. Often, this translates in real life to a shunning of females (think sex- selective abortions or infanticide), and a fostering of boys. Girls impoverish the family, and boys enrich the family line. Thus, parents in those cultures prefer to have boys rather than girls. In one sense, the custom of requiring a dowry from the bride’s family is a harsh one. It prevents otherwise eligible women from becoming marriage due to familial poverty. Certainly, there are cases where the woman is really “sold”, thanks to the solid dowry she brings.

That all being said, I think it is time to revisit the notion of a dowry for first world countries where the divorce rates are over 50%. In the USA, women are free to marry whom they please. A dowry is not expected or demanded, and she can be as poor as a church mouse or as rich as Queen Elizabeth. The downside is that even if a woman is sincere, has all it takes for a successful, happy, healthy, and holy marriage on her part, there is no guarantee that that is the case on the part of the husband. And vice versa. Since over 50% of marriages end in divorce, and women and children are often impoverished by divorce for a variety of reasons, it seems that the notion of a dowry should be revisited. Why? Because some ex spouses are truly deadbeats. Many single parents are women. They often struggle to put food on the table, supervise the formation of their children, and hope that despite the absence of a father, the children will grow up well rounded or “well adjusted”. This is often the case even if they are paid alimony and child support.

The dowry, or “marriage settlements”, in olden times would provide the woman and future children guaranteed funds during her/their lifetimes. Thus, the woman was financially secure regardless of whether the husband died, gambled away the family fortune, divorced, or became impoverished. It was a trust and it was in a very real sense, like a prenuptial agreement. I would suggest that women thinking about getting married have a dowry. This doesn’t have to be the significant sum that would enable a family to live comfortably off the interest for the duration of their lives. Rather, it can be a sum that would allow the married woman to live without the financial support of a husband for a reasonable length of time – a year or two perhaps – should she be widowed, become divorced, or if she was a stay at home mom, have to switch to becoming a provider in the event her husband loses his job or becomes disabled. A dowry could be a lifesaver if a woman hesitates to leave an abusive man mainly for financial reasons. This dowry should be legally protected in such a manner that it can only be tapped into for the benefit of the woman and children (or the husband and children if the man wishes to have his own “dowry”). Does this mean that the bride or bridegroom intends to divorce? No. It is insurance, pure and simple, for what is not a rare occasion in today’s world.

by Therese Ivers, JCL

She signed the papers. For over 17 years she had been known as Sister Ellen Marie. Now with the Vatican’s permission and dispensation of her holy vows, she was Miss Sophie Kandlee (Sophie is a fictitious character made of the different women I have known in her situation). With $300 in her pocket and wearing lay clothes from the last postulant class that didn’t quite fit right, Sophie walked through the convent gate for the last time. Where to? She had friends who could let her stay for a week. After that, who knew? She trusted in the Lord’s providence.

Sophie didn’t have enough money to find a cheap place to rent. Her meager purse did not allow her to get much in the way of clothes from the mall and food on the table. In fact, she was officially homeless. Homeless like other women who joined convents without having or contributing a dowry and then when they received the dispensation from their vows, had no where to go and nothing to live upon.

Over and over, I meet the different Sophies. Good women who have discerned with their community (and Rome or their Bishop) that religious life is not their vocation and who have received the proper dispensations from their vows. What happens to them when they leave their convent? Many are poor and homeless. I have seen too many times how if they are lucky they might get $300 with a plane ticket somewhere. Some are more fortunate and might get a vehicle along with a hundred or two greenbacks. But how is the older woman to bootstrap her way up in society without a home, without proper clothes for work interviews, and often without a college degree or work experience?

Prior to 1983, the Church required that a woman entering the convent to bring with her a dowry. This money was to be set aside, and while the convent could use the interest to pay for expenses during the novitiate, they were not otherwise allowed to touch the fund. If the sister for whatever reason, and at whatever stage (novice, first professed, solemnly professed) left the convent, the funds were to be handed over to her immediately so that she could have a reasonable time to learn how to survive in the real world (as in at least a few months or a year). The convent only got the money if the sister died as sister. While the dowry requirement made it very difficult for impoverished women to enter a community, it protected those who did have one from becoming homeless like Sophie Kandlee.

Finances are not the only problem that former religious may face. Some come from cultish communities and need psychological deprogramming and help. Others have severe problems in adapting “back to the world” since their whole world had been the convent. Some feel betrayed by God and reject the faith because they gave their all and this was the result. There are those who jump into marriage or relationships with no discernment whatsoever simply to keep off the streets. Is this right for a woman who had given God and the Church her all for a good part of her life?

I propose three solutions for this problem. The first is that the dowry be reinstituted by the Church but instead of being made mandatory, it should be made optional.  While this may or may not ever come back into canon law, religious communities should consider allowing dowries in their rules.

Second, before entering a community, those without safety nets (reliable family/friend networks, professional skills and experience, college degrees, etc.) should consider accumulating a “dowry” and consulting a canon lawyer & civil attorney for ways of creating a safety net should they leave religious life.  Consider that even with a degree it is hard to start out life with $300 in the pocket and maybe a plane ticket.  Benefactors and friends may want to establish a safety net dowry fund for an individual or for a community so that those who leave are provided for.

The third (partial) solution to the ongoing problem is for charitable individuals, groups, or organizations to establish half way houses for former religious to help get them on their feet by teaching them life skills, job skills, financial know-how, and to provide spiritual and psychological assistance as needed.

Should you be interested in helping former religious get back on their feet, contact me via the contact form or in the forum.

P.S. Canon law does stipulate that the religious community be “charitable” to the departing member. However… for a lot of reasons womens religious communities CHOOSE not to follow this, or are UNABLE to help because they are poor themselves. By the time an appeal goes to the Vatican, the woman is already on the streets.

by Therese Ivers, JCL

Happy New Year!  Here’s a list of some discernment tips that I hope will get your creative juices flowing in terms of shaping this years discernment process New Years resolutions…  Since each tip can be the topic of a whole book in and of itself, you are welcome to share your thoughts on them and share stories by going to the forum and commenting.

1) Do take the time to get to know all of your vocational options.
2) Starting a religious community?  Do wait until you have a few actual members together before you begin to approach the bishop.
3) Do think of the ways you can grow so as to offer the best possible version of yourself to your potential spouse, diocese, or community.
4) Do you think you’ll be more holy… if you become a sister, a monk, a priest, or get married?  Try sanctifying your daily actions now!
5) Do look at vocations in their nitty gritty aspects long term, not just the wedding day, the profession day, or day of consecration.
6) If you are living alone but regularly leave your home for more than a few hours a week, don’t put in an application to your bishop to become a diocesan hermit.
7) If you believe that the acts proper to the generation of children are sinful, ugly, or horrifying, or for any other (non medical) reason would be unwilling to consummate marriage vows, please do not get engaged or start seriously discerning celibate forms of life.
If you are a man, don’t sign up for the seminary for the diocesan priesthood until you have seriously examined religious life as a brother.
9) If you are a female virgin, don’t apply to become a consecrated virgin if you have not for some time lived out the resolution to perpetually remain a virgin regardless of whether you’ll be able to receive the consecration in the future.
10) If you are thinking about religious life, don’t join a community just because your spiritual director likes it or because you see that the brothers/sisters in it are joyful and happy.

(c) 2012 by Therese Ivers, JCL

Join the forum discussion on this post

                                                                                                                                                  by Therese Ivers, JCL

About fifteen years ago, while in the midst of my vocational discernment, I found an article on consecrated virgins.  The author described consecrated virgins as women who made public vows in the hands of the bishop, lived in strict solitude, and followed an individually crafted rule of life that had been approved by that bishop.  It was this article which convinced me that I did not have a vocation to consecrated virginity.  After all, I liked being among people!  What I didn’t know then, as I do now, is that such a description is a perfect fit for the vocation of diocesan hermits, and an almost entirely false one of consecrated virgins  living in the world (unless they happen to be diocesan hermits!).  There has been in the past, as well as in the present, a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about vocations to the eremitic and virginal life.  This is why I think it would be a good time to bring up some common myths about the two vocations.

Myth #1.  Hermits are the male counterpart of consecrated virgins.

The closest male counterpart to the consecrated virgin is the bishop.  There are several reasons for this.  One, the consecrated virgin most fully mirrors and represents the Church-Bride, for which reason she is called “bride of Christ”.  The bishop represents Christ-Bridegroom in the fullness of orders.  (This, incidentally, is why only a bishop -or abbot- can confer the consecration- he stands in the place of Christ the Bridegroom.)  As is the case with a bishop, the virgin receives and enters her vocation through the ministry of a bishop.  That is to say, a bishop enters the episcopacy through orders conferred upon him by the ordaining bishops, and a consecrated virgin enters the consecrated state through the consecration conferred upon her by the consecrating bishop.  It is important to note that in neither the case of a (non religious) diocesan bishop, nor in the consecrated virgin living in the world are vows/promises made which constitute the man a bishop or the woman a consecrated virgin.  Rather, it is the sacrament/sacramental conferred by the bishop which constitutes the person a bishop or a consecrated virgin.  Finally, both the virgin and the bishop are in what is known as the “state of perfection” (this is not the case of diocesan priests or deacons).

Hermits (solitaries, anchorites, anchoresses, etc.) may be male or female.  Thus, hermits (male) are the counterpart of hermitesses (female), not of consecrated virgins.  Perhaps one reason why people may think hermits are the male vocation equivalent to consecrated virgins is because both are individually lived vocations in the sense that they are not attached to a religious community of any kind.

Myth #2.  “Public” status requires visibility and “distinctness” for hermits and virgins

Some people object to the idea of becoming a hermit under the provisions of canon 603 because they perceive the public nature or status of the vocation of the diocesan hermit to be against the calling to solitude and silence.  That is, according to such persons, if you are a publicly consecrated diocesan hermit, this “public status” goes against the withdrawal from the world that the hermit seeks and lives.  Some people believe that consecrated virgins living in the world must live like religious because they believe that the consecrated state or the public state of consecration requires what is known as “separation from the world”.  Both are errors tied to misunderstandings about what a “public state” is, and of what constitutes the essential elements of the vocations in question.

What is a public state? 

by Therese Ivers, JCL

One thing that always amused me when studying Latin is the use of the word “urbe” (city) to designate Rome when no other clues are given to a specific city.  Thus, for example,when I went for my licentiate in canon law in Rome, the university’s full title was the Pontifical University of St. Thomas  Aquinas in the City (“Urbe”) which means the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome.  Well, supposedly, all roads lead to Rome, and it is back to Rome I trek this October, even though I failed to toss a penny in the Trevi fountain the last time I was there.  I have been accepted to the doctoral program for canon law, and my dissertation will be on…. drumrolll…  suspense…  can you guess? …  Canon 603.   Naturally, I would pick a vocations theme for my big paper!

In preparing for this jump across the Atlantic, I have resigned my position as Judge in my Diocesan Tribunal and am no longer working as Vocations Promoter for my diocese.   After all, I do have to prepare for ordering pizza and gelato in Italian!  Kidding aside, in addition to brushing up big time on my Italian and Latin, doing serious research on diocesan hermits, and wrapping up various loose ends I am hoping to complete my book on vocations soon so that you can get the  benefit of years of research and people’s stories on different vocations in the Church.  I think I’ve been working on this book for 12 years, and it’s finally coming to a point where I’m comfortable in releasing at some time in the near future.   Meanwhile- I know how hard it is for you to wait for this exciting book- I thought I’d share a quick video tour of my university:

by Therese Ivers, JCL

There are times when controversy kicks up on the internet about different vocational aspects. Most of the time I have chosen to let them pass because a lot of common questions will be covered in my upcoming book on vocations. However, there is quite a heated discussion at the moment as to whether primary virginity is required for consecrated virgins as opposed to “secondary” virginity.

Yes, my book on vocations will go into this issue in depth. I actually have arranged for a friend of mine who is discerning her vocation to write some thoughts on her struggle between entering a religious order to which she has been accepted, and becoming a consecrated virgin that will provide discerners with some unique insights into the matter. Another place you may be able to get greater detail on the Church’s understanding of primary & secondary virginity is through the USACV by getting a CD of the talk by Dr. Shalina Stilley, who provides a thomistic approach to the issue in the 2010 convocation. I personally haven’t heard it, but knowing the quality of her research and in discussing the topic with her a number of times while she was preparing the talk, I am sure it is quite informative.

Right now, I just want to mention that the author of one blog has given his reasons for believing that primary virginity is required for a valid consecration. The link to this blog is HERE.  For what it’s worth, I have actually read the letter to now-Cardinal Burke that is referred to in this post, and have a copy of it in my possession (Protocol 231/96/L) that was an affirmative response to his question on whether primary virginity was required for the consecration.   Primary virginity is assumed of the virgin, and the words “public violation” are there to help clue in the bishops to not force her to make a manifestation of conscience if she had voluntarily experienced sexual intercourse in the past.   This canon law student makes a very good point in his post about the manifestation of conscience.  I want to explain it a little bit better, one reason being that I wrote my thesis for becoming a canon lawyer on protecting people from unwarranted intrusions into their conscience.

If a woman has voluntarily fornicated or committed adultery, then she has objectively sinned (depending on the circumstances, her actual culpability might be slight or great).  By such an act, or by consummating holy matrimony, she thereby has given up her virginity.  Since women who have been married are barred from the consecration anyway, we will focus on fornication/adultery by a single female and its implications for the woman seeking the consecration.

First of all, she has committed an objectively grave sin with another person.   Second, no matter how secret their rendezvous, at least two human beings know it- the male and the female.   Third, everyone has the right to privacy and a good reputation.  They are “innocent” until proven guilty, so to speak.  Included in this right is the right to not be forced to manifest one’s conscience.  That is, no one can be forced to admit guilt (except the Church can morally compel people to go to confession to admit their guilt, but does not identify any specific priest one has to go to and what is discussed is in the internal forum) in the external forum.  For a bishop to ask, “are you a virgin”?  runs the risk of putting the  non-virgin into a situation where she may feel obligated to reveal her conscience “no!,  I had a one night stand thirty years ago with a high school sweetheart” just because he’s the bishop and she might feel she needs to give an honest answer.   In writing the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity, the Congregation wanted to make sure that it was written in canonical language that made it clear that the woman had to be a virgin and yet protect the non-virgin’s right to maintain silence about her objectively sinful action outside of the confessional.

The verbiage in the Rite says that one of the three requirements for the candidates is “that they have never married or lived in open violation of chastity”.   Although some people want to interpret “open violation of chastity” as concubinage or some public knowledge of the woman’s sexual activity with a man, its basic interpretation is that chastity was openly violated when she fell through fornication or adultery.  This interpretation is reaffirmed in the private letter from the Congregation in the Vatican to the then Archbishop Burke.   This letter is private, and will not be published in an open manner, because permission for that has not been given either by the Vatican or by Cardinal Burke.  However, a copy of it may be requested from the Cardinal if one is, for example, a bishop.  For those who are determined to at least see an excerpt from the letter, the excerpt is on page 144 of Sequela Christi (the official periodical of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life), 2009/01.  While I’m at it, I will tell you upfront that although I do have a copy of this correspondence in my possession, I cannot distribute it without express permission, so you might as well directly contact the USACV or Cardinal Burke for a copy if you feel you have need of it.

Although he is not a modern theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas did discuss the requirement of primary virginity for women who wished to receive the consecration of virgins.  It is interesting that he specifically addresses certain points of modern contention such as whether the woman must be a virgin to receive the consecration, whether a priest can do the consecration, and the like, in his works.  Again, this is covered in greater detail in my upcoming book on vocations.  I am writing this as an aside for people who respect his opinion on the matter  since he is closer to our times than the fathers of the Church and sundry Church councils and documents that touched upon consecrated virgins.

Back to a manifestation of conscience.  The centuries of tradition and the recent private response of the Vatican make it clear that only a woman possessing primary virginity may validly receive the consecration of virgins.  However, we often encounter the woman who possesses “secondary virginity”.  That is, she has fornicated or committed adultery, and has repented and lived a life of chastity since.  She may be interested in the consecration because she was erroneously told by priests and even some bishops that she is eligible for it.  What the Rite does is makes it clear that the bishop cannot force her to admit that she lost her primary virginity.  He can ask her if she’s ever been married.  That’s public knowledge.  He can also ask if there is common, public knowledge of her living in an unchaste relationship.  Again, this is because it’s public knowledge.  However, he can’t directly ask her if she has lost primary virginity.  This is because she has the right to refrain from manifesting her conscience to him.  If she freely volunteers the information that she is no longer a virgin, he should not consecrate her.   If she brings it up to him or anyone else in confession, they should discourage her from receiving the consecration, but can’t enforce this because it is sealed information.  Theoretically, then, a non-virgin could actually receive the consecration.  However, the woman would have to wonder about her motivations for going through the motions of a ceremony that will not have any effect upon her.  She will not actually be a consecrated virgin in the eyes of God because she’s lost primary virginity.  Further, she will feel uncomfortable in proclaiming herself to be a consecrated virgin among genuine consecrated virgins who have indeed preserved their primary virginity.

Given the necessity for the bishop to respect the right to privacy and not asking a woman to make a manifestation of conscience on the one hand, and the desire to uphold the integrity of the vocation to consecrated virginity on the other hand, I propose a solution that will help bishops and women in their discernment without crossing boundaries.  I think the difference between “primary” and “secondary” virginity should be explained to the candidate.  Included in the application package, will be a declaration of eligibility that will be required of formal applicants.  This declaration would say that she certifies that she is a virgin in the primary sense.  Thus, a non-virgin can choose to drop out of the process without specifying any reason, and the fraudulent use of mental reservation “I’m a renewed virgin” will be reduced.

by Therese Ivers, JCL

There is a considerable amount of interest among Catholic widows/widowers in the USA in the vocation of consecrated widowhood.  For this reason, I am dedicating a new series of posts on this vocation.  In this first post, I will examine 5 commonly asked questions.

Question:  Who is eligible to become a consecrated widow/er?

Answer:   An Eastern Rite Catholic who was in a valid marriage dissolved by death of their spouse and whose laws of their ritual Church and eparchy permit this form of consecration.

Explanation:

At this point in time, the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church has not re-established the Order of Widows/Widowers in its Canon Law.  However, the Canons for the Eastern Catholic Churches do allow for the consecration of widows and widowers.  Thus, while Eastern Catholics may become members of the consecrated state (in Eastern Catholic Churches members are religious men/women, canonical hermits, consecrated virgins, and consecrated widows/widowers), Roman Catholics in the USA cannot (since the consecrated state in the Latin Church is comprised of religious men/women, diocesan hermits, and consecrated virgins).

Question:   I am 58.  My marriage was annulled by the Church last year.  Since then, my ex wife has passed away.   Am I eligible to become a consecrated widower?

Answer:  A man must be in a valid marriage and this marriage must dissolve by death for him to be eligible for the consecration.  A declaration of nullity (“annulment”) of a marriage given by the Church indicates that a person was never in a valid marriage to begin with.  For this reason, although you lived in what you thought was a marriage, and she has since died, you are considered by the Church to have been a single person throughout this whole time, and do not meet the definition of widower in the eyes of the Church.

Question:  Who is the consecrated widow/ers superior?

Answer:  The consecrated widow/er has as his/her superior the local hierarch.

Question:  I thought there were consecrated widows in the United States.  Are you saying there aren’t?

Answer:  There may be some Eastern Catholic widows who were consecrated in the United States.  Since there are no provisions in canon law or permission for the consecration to be conferred upon Roman Catholic widow/ers in the USA, there are no consecrated widow/ers in the USA in the Roman Rite.  This may change if the Vatican comes out with a Rite of Consecration to the Order of Widows and Widowers.  Please note that there are groups out there who deem their members to be “consecrated widows/ers” because they make private promises of poverty, chastity, and obedience.  These persons are actually dedicated widows/ers, not consecrated widows/ers, and they do not belong to the Order of Widows/Widowers as this standing comes from the consecration conferred by their hierarch/bishoop, not vows of any kind.

Question:  Do consecrated widows/widowers make the three vows?

Answer:  While that would be up to the laws of the Rite and the particular laws established by the hierarch, it is improbable that they would.  It is more likely that the consecration of widow/ers by the hierarch would be the way a person would enter the Order.  This would be similar to the way consecrated virgins enter the Order of Virgins- through the consecration conferred upon them by their bishop/hierarch.

This is the first part of a series on this topic.  If you have any specific questions about this vocation, feel free to send us a message by going to the contact us page.

by Therese Ivers, JCL

As regular readers know, this blog seldom links to other websites… However, there are exceptions.  I am making an exception today because in college and in graduate school, this kind of behavior happened all the time under the guise of “vocational discernment”.  I have seen it happen in Catholic social circles as well as on campuses.  I hope you enjoy this thought provoking post on vocational discernment and its sequel(s).

Should you have experienced something similar, feel free to comment on this blog and automatically enter to win a copy of the Imitation of Mary by Thomas a Kempis.  Winner will be chosen on Easter Saturday.

by Therese Ivers, JCL

Some Americans have interesting theories about the part of the consecrated virgin’s vocation which is dedication to the service of the Church. In my work as a vocations promoter in my diocese, I frequently encounter people who value religious and other consecrated people (such as consecrated virgins) by the “cheap labor” value they provide. This is because America is deeply influenced by the Calvinistic work ethic in which a person’s worth and identity has been tied to his value as a productive worker. Others identify “service to the Church” as the erroneous notion of consecrated virgins being obliged insofar as possible to be working directly for the (arch)diocese or parish or religious community since it can be labeled “Catholic”. Both views are incorrect. Can my astute readers identify why, before I publish the reasons in my upcoming book on vocations? Simply register and comment!