Talk:Consecrated virgin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date[edit]

There is conflicting information concerning the reinstatement of the rite. According to this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15172758/, it was Pope Paul VI in 1970. However this source: The papal encyclical Sacra Virginitas, would suggest it was Pope Pius XII in 1954. Please help reconcile these dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.10.221 (talk • contribs)

No. The information is not conflicting. The encyclical Sacra Virginitas is concerned with the consecrated virginity of priests and those in religious life. The only reference to lay persons is here

...[virginity] also flourishes among many who are lay people in the full sense: men and women who are not constituted in a public state of perfection and yet by private promise or vow completely abstain from marriage and sexual pleasures, in order to serve their neighbor more freely and to be united with God more easily and more closely."

It is clear that Vatican II in writing in Sacrosanctum Concilium "The rite of the Consecration of Virgins contained in the Roman Pontifical is to be revised (80)" was referring to something that had been in disuse for centuries and refers to a public promise witnessed by Church authority. patsw 01:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It does not refer to a public promise witnessed by Church authority. The Roman Pontifical, promulgated in 1595 as a result of the Council of Trent contained the Consecration and Benediction of Virgins. Its intended recipients were professed nuns. The revised interim Roman Pontifical of 1962 likewise contained it with minor tweaks. The current 1970 ritual of the Order of Consecration of Virgins in the Roman Pontifical added to the pool of eligible candidates "women living in the world".
Prior to Trent, the Pontificals were not universal: the 1595 Roman Pontifical supressed all local pontificals of the Latin Catholic bishops. Some of the earlier Pontificals had the consecration of virgins "living in the world" and of nuns together whereas later ones leading up to the 1595 Roman Pontifical only had the consecration of virgins for nuns. Jane veritas (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only lay[edit]

Perhaps consecrated virgins are customarily lay, but apparently they are not exclusively so, unless one considers the nun Wendy Beckett to be lay. I have edited the article accordingly. — J M Rice 14:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consecrated Virgins and Sister Wendy Beckett are of course members of the Laity. For according to Canon Law the place among the People of God of the members of all the various forms of Consecrated Life is among the Laity; they belong to the Hierarchy only if they are also Priests (the so-called Priest-Monks), and this owing solely to their sacerdotal ordination, not their religious state. Canon Law however also accepts that their religious vow sets them apart from other members of the Laity, and in the case of Priest-Monks also the Clergy. 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are two diffent understandings of the word "lay". On one hand everyone who is not member of the clergy is considered to belong to the laymen. On the other hand, sometimes the church discerns between clergy, consecrated people and the laity. In this respect, the consecrated virigins – both the consecrated virgins in monastic orders and the consecrated virgins living in the world – belong to the consecrated life and are not to be considered as lay. HTH, --Turris Davidica (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sister Wendy Beckett changed her status in the Church during her life: When she left her congregation, she also left the status of religious and returned to lay status (even though she continued wearing her nun's clothes). As a consecrated virgin, she was a laywoman belonging to the Order of Virgins. Lumendelumine (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She was at that time not more lay than ever – (or not, depends of the point of view): in the Roman-catholic church anyone who is not a cleric is regarded to be lay as well as both the members of the congregations and the consecrated virgins are members of the consecrated life. Therefore, she did not "return to lay status", she has always been lay and still belongs to the consecrated life. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary of Egypt[edit]

Anyone familiar with the life of St. Mary of Egypt knows that she was not a virgin. She is venerated because of her penance and asceticism, not her virginity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahed and removed Mary of Egypt. I was debating whether she should be put under "See also". Any suggestions in this regard? MishaPan (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion someone must have confused the forms of life of a consecrated virgin and a hermit (Mary of Egypt has been the latter one). You were right to remove her.--Turris Davidica (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benedictines, ursulines and concerated virgins living in the "world"[edit]

Sorry to insist, but I have restored most of my former information, I should have referenced to ecclesial documents earlier. The distinction that this consecration can be bestowed on nuns and women living in the world is directly from the rite of concecration itself, as the pontificale II. distinguishes between the two forms. Furthermore, the documents of the church point out that the consecration can be spent "where there is an old tradition" (the latter is, to my knowledge, with the Ursulines (due to St. Ursula and their virgin companions). That the rite survived in monastic convents is definitely true for the Benedictines, where the nuns receive consecration very often at the same time when they make their solemn vows. See for example here [1] In fact, the concecration of a Benedictine nun at the same abbey was the first consecration of a virgin I ever attended.

The consecration is not "made" by the nun or the woman living in the world, but by the solemn consecration prayer of the church, i. e. the bishop. This is an important distinction. Women in secular institutes are explicitely excluded from receiving the consecration of virgins (don't ask me why, iMHO because this is a rather different vocation).

As to Sister Wendy: it is possible to "combine" the life of a hermit and a consecrated virgin, but this is an exception not the rule. The church, as mentioned, distinguishes between nuns and "women living in the world". Furthermore, canon law (604) does not state that the virgin remains in a "secular" state. --Turris Davidica (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that site, I can admit that it seems that Benedictine nuns in solemn vows can take this step. The Ursulines, however, have no historical connection with the martyr of that name. Check their various websites. Thus they have no history of using this rite. In fact, their origins would be closer to that of a Secular Institue, according to the vision of their foundress, St. Angela of Merici.
As to their remaining in the secular state, look at the website of the U.S. association of Consecrated Virgins which I gave as reference. It states explicitly there that they do. I have also known personally a number of women who have been so consecrated, both those living secular lifestyles and those living as hermits, so Sr. Wendy is not an exception. Thus it seems that my original phrasing would be more accurate to cover the various lifestyles followed by these different women.
By the way, what do you mean the consecration is "spent"? I have never heard that word used in this context.
In the section on the modern expression of the life, you seem to focus simply on the rite itself, and not on the way of life involved in taking this step. I had pointed out the process which a woman not in a religious community would follow. Why did you eliminate that? Daniel the Monk (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think, we're aiming both at the same goal: to improve the article. First of all, "spent" was simple typo (in reminscence to the German word "gespendet" which means "bestowed", sorry. I wondered why you, despite my yesterday's explanation added again the word "made". The consecration of a virgin cannot be "made", neither by the bishop, who bestows it in the name of the church nor at all by the virgin. She just presents herself at the rite to be prepared (a rite rather similar to that of the ordination in this respect). Through the consecration the virgin is set aside and regarded to be a sacred person. This sacramental is a constitutional blessing which can be bestowed only once.
Furthermore, the information that "any single woman who qualifies" is rather misleading. I have added some of the requirements the church states explicitely. Moreover, there are others which a women will be informed when she talks to the mentor or the bishop. True is that the bishop is the one who admits (this is a formal process).
As for the hermits: it is possible that a woman "living in the world" receives the consecration and in agreement with her bishop leads the life of a hermit. However, as stated above, the rite distinguishes only between nuns and women living in the world. The guidelines of the bishops' conferences treat the realization for women living in the world. As the ordinary of a hermit who does not belong to a religious order is also the diocesane bishop this guidelines apply for the virgin who leads a hermit's life as well.
Of course consecrated virgins belong to the laity in the sense that they are not clerics. The same goes for women religious. Nevertheless, the consecrated virgins belong to the consecrated life. They remain in the world if you want to say so, but they are not "secular" in any sense.
In case I'll find some information about the Ursulines I'll add that.

--Turris Davidica (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in total agreement that we are both trying to improve the article, and thank you for the ways you have helped me to sharpen the points. I gather, however, that you might not be a native English-speaker. As such, I wonder if you have the familiarity with the standard terminology used within religious circles in the English-speaking world.

Three points:

1) I must repeat my observation that you have been focusing on the RITE itself, rather than the way of life involved. We are talking about the life commitments of living human beings. They are not buildings, boats or cars being blessed and dedicated. They are choosing to follow a demanding way of life. The ritual is a formal recognition and endorsement by the Church of their call, which comes from God and is not bestowed on them by this rite. Even the subheading for this part of the article (which I did not write) indicates that this is the context. The analogy is far more to that of religious vows than to ordination, which in Catholic theology involves an ontological change in the ordinand.

Out of a sense of delicacy, I deliberately chose not to delve into qualifications, such as that the women must be physical virgins (with one sole exception), to be eligible for this status. In this same line, despite the text of the rite, the reality of the fact is that some of these women are following lives not considered as being "in the world" in the way we commonly understand this phrase. Why do you not respect this reality and resist its inclusion in the article? Again, your focus seems to be on the rite and not the reality.

2) Despite your disagreement (and as I pointed out previously), if you had looked at the site which I gave as reference--and is the official site representing some of the Consecrated Virgins, you would have seen that it clearly states that these women are in the secular state.

3) If you look at the definition of a sacramental as given in Wikipedia, it is an object. Also, the Consecration is not a sacrament anymore than religious vows are, at least in Catholic understanding. So your repeated use of this term in the context here makes no sense. Daniel the Monk (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed answer. You are right, I am not a native speaker, so maybe some of the points may have been due to this. I am grateful for your sense of delicacy regarding point 1).
ad 1)
For clarification: A consecration cannot be made nor done. You can administer it if you're a bishop or you can receive it if you're a virgin to be consecrated. Maybe we should replace "done" by "administered". Of course the call comes from god but: V'Virgins who, committed to the holy plan of following Christ more closely, are consecrated to God by the diocesan bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are betrothed mystically to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church.' By this solemn rite (Consecratio Virginum), the virgin is 'constituted...a sacred person, a transcendent sign of the Church's love for Christ, and an eschatological image of this heavenly Bride of Christ and of the life to come. (CCC). In fact, the consecration of a virgin is a real consecration in form of constitutional blessing, the same way you would bless a chalice. The reason why I mentioned ordination is that the first part of the rite is rather similar to the ordination rite: Calling, Adsum, lighting of the candle, questions of the bishop. Sacramental does of course not refer to sacrament, just to sacramentals.
ad 2):It is clear from the passage you refer to that the USACV uses the term secular here interchangeably to "being in the world", "providing your own upkeep", as is points out: The consecrated virgin remains in the secular state, providing completely for her own material needs, medical care, and retirement. At no time is the diocese financially responsible for her. This is what the article already said. So, again, the linking of secular to laity makes absolutely no sense. Women (and men) who are not members of the clergy are always laymen resp laywomen. A woman is per se a member of the laity, regardless whether she is a member of a religious order, a hermit, a member of a secular institut, a housewife or a consecrated virgin. So what is the point of linking "secular" to "laity"? In fact, the consecrated virgins are one of the oldest forms of consecrated life, see for example here [2]]. §604 CIC explicitely states: "Similar to these forms of consecrated life is the order of virgins, who…". JPII's Vita consecrata, which I have referenced to mentions the consecrated virgins. I am putting in again the sentence Consecrated virgins belong to the consecrated life.
ad 3) Sorry, this is not quite true, even the WPs article mentions that sacramentals can be actions as well. I really wonder why you have removed sacramental for the second time, putting in the term "status" instead, which is really incorrect. You cannot bestow a status on a person. In fact, the Consecratio Virginum is a sacramental, as sacramentals are not just objects. Sacramentals can have various forms – see here For example the mandatum at Maundy Thursday is a sacramental. In fact, you could read the term sacramental even at the USACV – whose website I know very well: This Sacramental of the Consecration of Virgins… [ww.consecratedvirgins.org/linked/VocRes/vres-com1.pdf, furthermore here [1] and first of all here in the catechism (various forms of sacramentals: [3], which explicitely lists the consecration of a virgin. I'm putting that in again.--Turris Davidica (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I understand the problems working in a foreign language can present.

Re 1) I think we are talking at cross purposes. I feel that I am focusing on the life of these women, while you are focusing on the ritual which formalizes their way of life. May I make an analogy? It strikes me that I am trying to clarify what married life would be, while you are focusing on the wedding ceremony. To compare a person to an object, even to a sacred item such as a chalice, would give some people pause. I have taken the title of that section of the article to call for the focus I have given.

Re 2) I am confused by your refusal to accept that they are seculars. As I said, I have been told this by Vicars of Religious in this country, as well as consecrated virgins I know. I realize, however, that I cannot use this information here. I would point out, however, that, at least in English, any person who is not a religious, living the evangelical vows, is called a secular. This applies to the clergy as well as to laity. In this sense, the article is speaking clearly and accurately, since consecrated virgins who are not vowed religious are also considered seculars. Is this term not used for the clergy in German? I directed to "laity" only because there is no article in Wiki for this term.

Re 3) I thank you for your reference to the "Catechism" and I stand corrected. I would point out, though, that "sacramental" is the adjectival form of "sacrament." Again, perhaps language differences have left us confused.Daniel the Monk (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the above 3 points: 1) The consecration is not a "recognition" of a lifestyle, it is the "elevation of the virgin to the dignity of Bride of Christ" and it is the Holy Spirit who "joins her with an indissoluble bond to the Son of God". Thus it is not a matter of the Church observing the virgin's lifestyle and giving her a blessing as a recognition. It is the virgin becoming espoused to Christ by the consecration. This is similar to ordination. Layman => priest. Likewise it is similar to marriage. An unmarried man and an unmarried woman become a married man and married woman. In neither case is it mere recognition.

2) It is fine to call women in the world "seculars". But remember that being "secular" is not actually what the vocation is about, because otherwise nuns could not receive the consecration of virgins.

3) Sacramental is used in two ways in Latin and in English in theology. One is to designate the adjectival form of "sacrament" but the other is to designate what the Church calls "sacramentals". I have reinstated sacramental to make it clear that this is a sacramental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane veritas (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Jane veritas (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Consecrated Virgins[edit]

A relevant discussion to the title of this section appear on a UserTalk page: User_talk:Turris_Davidica#Consecrated_virgin. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Consecrated virgin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beguines[edit]

I wonder why references to the Beguines were inserted in the article consecrated virgin – the Beguines have never been consecrated virgins, whether living in the world or in communities.--Turris Davidica (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please give me a chance to compile this, the article was completely garbled, misleading, and generally based on crappy references. It was quite difficult to reconstruct the actual topic and locate the proper references.
I think I have now succeded in locating the proper referenes. The go-to source should now be Scarpone (2003/4), which gives a very detailed account complete with full references.
The history of the "consecrated virgin" topic is treated in the "Modern" section. It turns out that the claim of an ancient "order of virgins" is quite spurious. But the reason the consecration had been abolished is found in the mystical excesses of the late medieval period. I have found references from the 1230s actively supporting the "chaste virgins", referring to the Beguine movement. It doesn't matter if all Beguines weren't technically virgins if this is how the church referred to them. I have then found the decree suppressing them in 1310, as part of the larger suppression of popular mysticist excesses at the time. If there is going to be a "history" dating back before 1900, this is certainly relevant.
We now also have the detailed rationale given in 1927, which argued that the practice had been abandoned for centuries and was in fact contradictory to canon law.

--dab (𒁳) 10:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not share your sight of the former article as „completely garbled and misleading“. Anyway, could you please care for the (too many) spaces and paragraphs when inserting text as it is rather cumbersome to correct that later? Thank you. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were no references other than random urls. There was no explanation of how and why this has been at first prohibited, and then sanctioned. There was no explanation how the 4th century stuff connects to the 20th century stuff and what happened in between.
I find it hilarious that you complain about "spaces and paragraphs" when clearly, this article needs to be built up from scratch based on actual research first. Menial copyediting involving "spaces and paragraphs" comes much, much later. --dab (𒁳) 07:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you seem to have misunderstood me: the intention was to avoid a lot of correctional editing which your already inserted text foreshadowed and which isn′t very amusing. Please do the work „from scratch“, I'm away.--Turris Davidica (talk)

Rite[edit]

Among others, a few points: the consecration of virgins itself has iMHO never fallen out of use during the last centuries. It is, therefore rather unfortunate to speak of its „reinvention“ or something like the 1970 rite of consecration. There is only one, bestowed either for virgins living in monasteries or in the world. The possibility for latter ones to receive the consecration of virgins has been reinstituted, that's a difference. Furthermore, as said in the version comment: a lot of the information about Leflaive should be content of her own article, if any.--Turris Davidica (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand project fundamentals. Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of "iMHO". I had no idea whether "the consecration of virgins itself had fallen out of use" before I researched the literature. It turns out that the Vatican in 1927 argued that the congregation of virgins had fallen out of use. Sure, this is just, like, their opinion. They are only the Vatican, so what do they know, let's google for some blogs instead.

Here is what we have so far

  • in early 20th-century France, apparently some bishops had the idea to revive the ancient practice of consecrating women in saeculo viventes. Other bishops weren't sure if this was proper, and inquired with the Vatican. The Vatican deliberated this for a couple of years, Pius in Rite Expiatis (1926) basically said "this is a bad idea, we need to support the monastic orders"
  • the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life published the final reply in 1927. They explained in great detail why they thought the practice had not been in use for centuries, and was actually prohibited by canon law
  • A commentary on this was published by F. Maroto, Sacra Congregatio de religiosis. De consecratione virginum in saeculo degentibus, in Commentarium pro religiosis et missionariis, CRM (1927), 154-161.
  • the gist of the argument was:
l’antico uso di conferire la Consecratio Virginum a donne in saeculo viventes sia stato o espressamente abolito da leggi ecclesiastici o caduto in disuso da molto tempo; [...] il Codice di diritto canonico all’epoca vigente non contiene alcuna norma a questo proposito, per cui la disciplina applicabile è solo quella desumibile dal Pontificale, anzi l’antica disciplina della Consecratio Virginum risulta essere inconciliabile con le norme giuridiche allora vigenti: innanzitutto, per il CIC/1917 solo lo stato religioso, con la professione dei tre consigli evangelici e la vita in comune, può dare un riconoscimento canonico pubblico; inoltre, solo il voto solenne di castità costituisce un impedimento matrimoniale dirimente e solo i membri di Ordini religiosi approvati possono emettere questo voto, per cui l’impegno di una vergine consacrata in saeculo viventes è equivalente a un voto semplice. [...] Jombart, pur ammettendo il valore della scelta verginale anche fuori del contesto della vita religiosa, sostiene che essa non può procurare tutti i mezzi di perfezione che si trovano invece nella clausura, nella vita in comune, nelle costituzioni e nella paterna vigilanza dei superiori; inoltre, il ricevere la consacrazione in una cerimonia molto imponente, può indurre le consacrate che vivono nel mondo a giudicare il loro stato superiore a quello delle religiose, distogliendo anche qualche donna dall’entrare in monastero."
"The ancient custom of conferring the consecration of virgins on women living in the world has been either expressly abolished by ecclesiastical laws, or fallen into disuse, for a long time; the Code of Canon Law in force at the time [1927] does not contain any provision in this regard, so that the applicable law is only that which can be inferred from the Pontifical, and indeed the ancient discipline of Consecratio Virginum is incompatible with the legal rules then in force : first of all, per the CIC of 1917 only the religious state, with the profession of the three evangelical counsels and life in an enclosed community, can receive public canonical recognition; moreover, only the solemn vow of chastity constitutes an obstacle to marriage and only the members of approved religious orders can take this vow, so the commitment of a consecrated virgin living in the world is equivalent to a simple [private] vow [...] Jombart [E. Jombart, Résponse de la S. Congrégation des Religieux sur la consécration des vierges vivant dans le monde, RCR 3 (1927), p. 98], while while admitting the value of the virginal choice even outside the context of religious life, maintains that it can not procure all the means of perfection that are found in the enclosure, in the life in common, in the institutions and in the paternal vigilance of the superiors; moreover, receiving consecration in a very imposing ceremony may lead the consecrated women who live in the world to judge their status superior to that of the nuns, and may dissuade some women from entering the monastery"
  • the next 40 years, Anne Leflaive (you know, the woman who you argued was WP:UNDUE to cover in detail) lobbied with future popes to reverse the judgement
  • the Second Vatican Council finally decided that propping up monasticism was a lost cause anyway, so let's try to at least encourage this "living in the world" thing.
  • the consecration of virgins was formally introduced in 1970. The term Ordo Virginum (Order of Virgins) was not used at the time. It appears that John Paul II first used this term explicitly speaking of a "revival" of an ancient practice in Vita Consecrata (1996).

It turns out that this is the official position of the church: we are looking at an ancient practice, of "Apostolic times", and possibly continued into the early medieval period, which was revived in 1970. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You don't enter a topic with preconceived opinions (ideally, even "humble" ones). You research the literature. You don't bother with journalism and blogs. In this example, it was necessary to uncover the following literature, none of which was in the deficient revision of the article as I found it:

  • Rite Expiatis (1926)
  • AAS 19 (1927)
  • F. Maroto, Sacra Congregatio de religiosis. De consecratione virginum in saeculo degentibus, in Commentarium pro religiosis et missionariis (1927)
  • E. Jombart, Résponse de la S. Congrégation des Religieux sur la consécration des vierges vivant dans le monde, RCR 3 (1927)
  • AAS 62 (1970)
  • Katiuscia Scarpone, L'Ordine Delle Vergini, Sviluppo Storico e Profilo Canonico, Pontificia Università Lateranense, Instituto Teolotico Marchigiano (2003/4)
  • Roux, Jacqueline, Anne Leflaive: Une vie pour la renaissance d’une vocation oubliée (2004)
  • Vita Consecrata (1996)
  • Instruction “Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago” on the “Ordo virginum” (4 July 2018)

I am now interested in the process of how the ancient practice was suppressed in the medieval period. It seems clear that this is related to the extreme popularity the vocation as "religious woman living in the world" in the 12th century, its partial sanction by the church in the 13th century, and its suppression in the early 14th century. The medieval church experimented with this, found that it led to complete chaos, and decided to end the experiment in 1310. At this time, of course, monasticism was a very powerful institution, there were convents everywhere, and it was easy to just tell women interested in a religious vocation to go join an order. In the 20th century, it seems the church at first tried to save this long-standing status quo, but by the 1960s had to concede the medieval social order was probably gone for good and decided to attempt the revival of the pre-medieval institution.


I am sure there is a lot of literature I have not found yet. The point is that you seem to be criticizing the fact that I have even begun the process of researching the topic. The burden is on you to research possible competing opinions on canon law or church history, and present the literature you wish to cite yourself. I will be perfectly happy for you to do so. But please focus on researching the topic and citing actual literature before you bother with questions of layout or details of article structure. Since I have given you a bunch of relevant publications now, it should be very easy indeed to uncover more literature citing them. For example, I have just found

  • S. Würges, Die „Institute des geweihten Lebens“ und die „Institute des apostolischen Lebens“ im CIC/1983: Eine kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung hinsichtlich der Systematik (2013), with even more literature.

Please, knock yourself out with this, and let me know what you find. --dab (𒁳) 07:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in short (see above): you seem to consistently mix up the consecration of virgins and the practice to bestow it (again) on women living „in the world“ (i. e. not in cloistered monasteries of some orders). The latter practice had fallen out of use and has been „revived“. See for example John Paul II.'s Vita consecrata: It is a source of joy and hope to witness in our time a new flowering of the ancient Order of Virgins, known in Christian communities ever since apostolic times […]“ Following the facts – which I'm familiar with – it is plain wrong to say, „the consecration of virgins was formally introduced in 1970“. --Turris Davidica (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I am not "mixing it up", I am just not constantly typing "of women living in the world" when this is what we are talking about in the first place. The "consecration of virgins for women in saeculo viventes has been re-introduced in 1970". Happy? How does this relate to anything I have said above?
Please note that the solemn vows taken by cloistered women are not equivalent to a "consecration of virgins". As far as I have found so far, the last person to have been separately "consecrated as virgin" on top of taking monastic vows was Margaret of Hungary (saint), and this as a special case because her father, the king of Hungary, was trying to get her monastic vows annulled in order to marry her off. I have so far found no other "consecration of a virgin" after the 6th century, and none at all after 1250. But please, do start to cite additional evidence for whatever happened to the practice in the medieval period. Please cite evidence for any "consecration of virgins" bestowed on nuns, i.e. introducing an official distinction, made by the church, between nuns who had kept their virginity and those who had not, if possible later than the 6th century. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
„Please note that the solemn vows taken by cloistered women are not equivalent to a 'consecration of virgins'“ – well, thanks, I do know this, the consecration is bestowed either on the same occasion as the profession of the solemn vows (e. g. at the Benedictines) or some time later (which seem to be the custom at the Carthusians). Up to my knowledge, at those monasteries the consecration never fell out use. In one of my books I′ve got an Andachtsbildchen in remembrance of the umptiest annual of the solemn profession and consecration of Mother Regintrudis Sauter OSB [4]. HTH, --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split Anne Leflaive[edit]

It has been suggested that Anne Leflaive should be split into a standalone article from this article's section "Modern history". I support. Ping @Dbachmann and Turris Davidica:. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense and personal views/original research[edit]

Consacrated virgin in the christian tradition has no link with the sacred virginity in the Roman religion. The link is rather in the consacrated virgins in the Jewish religion. Mary was a consacrated virgin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can they be male, or only female?[edit]

The OED's dictionary entry suggests female only. Our article manages to avoid the mention of male or female entirely! (Is this intentional in an era of gender offence?) So: are there male CVs? 86.154.141.222 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. John Paul II's document says "these women". in the Catholic Church, which is specified in the first sentence, consecrated men are not "brides of Christ". This needs to be removed from the article. --134.153.14.13 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sustenance[edit]

On the question of the sustenance: Jane veritas, we have had this before: if you want to say something else than the source-based content of the article you have to source it. Ecclesiastical documents such Ecclesiae sponsae imago and all recommendations of bishop conferences on the consecration of virgins (which are dated earlier than ESI) I have ever seen clearly state that a consecrated virgin living in the world has to provide for their own upkeep. Some dioceses even require proof on that. Ecclesiae sponsae imago for example explicitely states among the requirements for a candidate to be sure that she has the "…capacity to work so as to provide for her own sustenance in a dignified manner". Please do not insert other content on the virgins being financially supported by their diocese or that they "may provide for their own upkeep", as this is both unsourced and simply not true. --Medusahead (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Consecrated_virgin&oldid=1201109340"