Consecrated Virginity FAQ

On June 20, 2015, I became a consecrated virgin living in the world, according to canon 604 of canon law (the body of legal principles governing the Catholic Church). This vocation is ancient and new, and it's viewed positively by traditional Catholics. There is already an excellent FAQ on consecrated virginity in general, but because of previous posts and the very worldly nature of my schedule, I wrote this post.

What do you do?
As of this writing I'm an intern in obstetrics and gynecology, so I work fifty- to eighty-hour weeks at a hospital in labor and delivery, the emergency room, the operating room, and the women's health clinic. I also pursue research in fertility. But what I do is less important than what I am: a bride of Christ. I will live a life of prayer and penance and remain without marrying a human person (and without physical children) in this life.

You're a consecrated virgin and you spend seventy hours a week with pregnant people and researching fertility?
Yes. God has a sense of humor. (But there's also a long precedent of consecrated women caring for women, mothers, and children, so I'm not that strange.)

So! You're childfree?
I suppose it depends on how you define "childfree." If you mean "without children," then yes. I have made a permanent, irrevocable commitment to preserve my physical virginity, so I will never voluntarily have sex and thus won't have children. (Not only will I not bear my own children, but I cannot act as a surrogate or adoptive mother, since these actions don't dignify children according to their right to be raised by their father and mother. Accepting the moral teachings of the Church is part of being a Catholic, which is a prerequisite to consecration.)

But I thought "without children" was the meaning of the word "childless." I am not an expert, but I thought "childfree" meant at least two things besides "without children." I thought it implied 1) sexual activity and 2) a belief that children aren't desired. Even though childfree men and women often sincerely acknowledge that they love children (and some choose to be childfree to care for children of others), they have decided that for them, or for now, or forever, children are not desireable as a fruit of their sexuality.

Although I'm a sexual being and still live my sexuality, I don't have a "sex life," so I can't make the decision to be childfree (as I understand the word). Of course, if "childfree" only means "without children," I am childfree. (So's the pope, and he has plenty to say about the decision not to have children.)

So, you pretty much just had a wedding ceremony by yourself?
No. Human persons are meant to give themselves completely to the infinite Love that is God. Whether they do this through another human or directly (by God's grace!), they must make a total sacrifice of self so that nothing is left. To "marry oneself" is impossible--one can't give everything away and also be receiving it. The woman in the story I linked to was having a wonderful epiphany about the independence of her strength and happiness from the lives of other persons, but she wasn't marrying herself.

So no, I'm not marrying myself. Am I marrying anyone at all? Yes. "Virgo est qui Deus nubit," St. Ambrose said, "the virgin is she whom God has married."

Oprah covered the final vows of several Dominican sisters and pointed out that their vows are a marriage. However, she said that "the groom is present only in spirit." I remember watching that episode and laughing a little sadly. God the Son is more present and more real than any human person, even far away from the blessed sacrament.

God is not some imaginary thing we think off to. He stands under and continuously creates everything. It's because He has you in mind that you're existing right now. So no, I'm not marrying a vague spiritual idea. I'm marrying He who Is, who is more terrifyingly real than any thing.


Is this because you want to be a priest? Would you be a priest if you could?
No and no. I want to be the saint that Christ has in mind when He loves me. That saint is feminine, and has quite a lot on her plate without trying to be an alter Christus as God shapes only men to be. I love my call. I think it's probably the most fantastic one He's ever created!

I don't think the second question makes sense. It's like "what animal would you be?" It might tell a little about me, but it's bound to misrepresent me if it's taken absolutely. Just as I can't (and don't want to) become an eagle, I can't become a priest, since God gave us a fatherly priesthood. But just as I could (and might) say at a dinner-party "I'd like to be an eagle" because I would love to fly, I can say (like St. Therese) that I would love to be a priest because I want to resemble Him in every way I can imagine.

In reality, I have that flight of priestly glory in my consecrated virginity. Each of us has it in our calls to sainthood--we just have to take it, and bowl between the rails.

Did you choose this for more freedom from obedience? Habits?
No. Consecrated life developed from the second half of the first millennium to the end of the second. The developments were beautiful and helpful for the Church and the world of that time. And, like every development that the Holy Spirit rolls out, there is something perennially helpful about it. It is good that some wear "distinctive dress." It is good to have a structured community. But it is not necessary. Otherwise, how would so many early virgin martyrs and anchoresses have become holy?

In North America, most Catholics in the new evangelization associate orthodox consecrated life with full habits, thriving communities, and a return to the rigors of the evangelical counsels. All these things are fantastic and support orthodox religious life! However, living the counsels to the fullest, as Raniero Cantalamessa and Thomas Dubay point out, does not have to involve obedience to men, or a set degree of exterior poverty.

This was a hard pill for me to swallow, because I was wary of "consecrated women" who didn't wear habits, live in convents, have a rigorous rule of life and schedule, and exhibit the forms of obedience and poverty. Slowly, I began to recognize that I this state in life entailed complete submission to the counsels, although in a way I did not understand.

Is this something for ex-nuns?
I know consecrated virgins who left convents. In one case I know of, this was because there was not enough contemplative prayer after the novitiate in the order she joined. Consecrated virginity is not something for people who don't want to love our Lord.

Are consecrated virgins basically nuns?
Consecrated virgins have been called brides of Christ since the years of the early Church. This title that has also been accorded to nuns and religious sisters for centuries as well. But in important ways, we are not like nuns. Important aspects to the religious life include the charism of a founder, community life, and distinctive dress. Consecrated virginity does not have these elements of consecrated life, which developed later in Church history to adorn religious life.

So, you're a layperson (or in a lay movement, or you're a lay consecrated woman)?
The words "lay" and "layperson" have changed in the past century. "Lay" used to refer to anyone who was not in orders (anyone besides priests, deacons, and bishops). It then came to mean anyone who was not in consecrated life or in orders. In either sense, a consecrated virgin is as lay as a cloistered Carmelite.

Is consecrated virginity the same as making private vows?
No. Vows are made by a human soul to God; God consecrates a consecrated virgin. Because consecration is an act of God, it is permanent and irrevocable.

I do make a threefold propositum during the consecration, which beautifully lines up with the three counsels. However, I am not made a bride of Christ by my propositum. I am passively swept up as God deigns to consecrate me at the hands of His bishop.

Why isn't this a sacrament?
There are seven sacrosanct signs producing grace (signum sacrosanctum efficax gratiae). These are primary channels of grace God gave to save us, that will not change until the end of time. At the end of time, their purpose will be complete, and there will be no more baptisms, no more marriages, no more ordinations, and no more Masses. Sacramental realities will give place to non-sacramental realities.

Consecrated virginity is a non-sacramental reality. It belongs to the world to come, which is why it seems like a lack-of-something (e.g. like being childfree) here on earth.

What do consecrated virgins wear?

They wear modest clothing that suits their time, place, and work. They might dress a little more modestly than a faithful Catholic woman in their age group. Practically speaking, I wear scrubs in the hospital, conservative professional clothing under my white coat in clinics, and long skirts and modest shirts to Mass. Some consecrated women do not wear pants so that they can witness more completely to God's love in the gift of femininity. I wear pants because otherwise, I'd put up unnecessary barriers to friendships and evangelization.

Do you have a rule of life? An horarium? Superiors?
I do have a rule of life. My spiritual director approved it before my consecration. I do have an horarium, although prudent direction helps me adjust it as rotations change. I do not have superiors, although I treat my bishop as a loving father, for whom I would do anything that wouldn't jeopardize my moral or fiscal stability.

How do you live the evangelical counsels if you don't make vows?
This deserves a post all on its own! The counsels are meant to change our hearts to Christ's and make us thirst for God the Father. I live poverty by leading a radically simple life; this was rather easy as a medical student (living on loans) and is still easy as a resident (living to pay back loans). There is no money spent that is not spent for Christ and with Him in mind.

I live chastity by working to increase the purity of my intentions, so that I can be chaste in body and mind as I become single-hearted like Christ, wanting only whatever the Father wants. For instance, I often want to ask my upper-level residents for feedback because I want praise. That thirst for confirmation is better quenched by Him, so I choose chastity when I purify my intention and only ask for feedback when I want it.

I live obedience by constantly looking for the will of God. Paying attention to the circumstances and holy desires I find in the present moment, I look for ways to advance God's mission to save souls. For example, perhaps I choose to listen carefully to a patient's slow explanation of what is going on, even though I have so many more to see. Perhaps I accept my ignorance during my training as a way to be with Him during his humbling human childhood.

CMA Conference Summary

It has been over a month since the CMA conference. As I proceed through the interview season, I am so glad I went. I actually had an open conversation about NFP with a fellow interviewee on the airport shuttle and was unashamed and excited about it. Thanks, Courage in Medicine.

I'm going to review the five or so talks that I found most meaningful. Check out the entire program booklet here, and order copies of these talks here.

Cardinal Burke: Physicians as Standard Bearers in the New Evangelization
This opening talk was a spiritual alarm clock that I desperately needed. I took copious notes during this talk, and I can't squish it into a short blurb, but here are some pearls:

• Virtue is the primary method of the New Evangelization.
• If we have the heart of God, our patient care will transform us, our patients, and the culture.
• We are not saved by a discovery or work, but by a Person who assumes us.
• The moral norm isn't an abstract--it's Jesus, so get to know and love Him.

Cardinal Burke urged us to form our consciences with moral study to stave off doubt that there is a moral norm. Since I was thinking of my own timidity and upcoming interviews, the message came through loud and clear that I needed to comfortably, boldly live my faith, reason, and religion as the most formative part of my life. My responsibility (since I've been told the truth) is greatly increased, and I wasn't attending to much of the iceberg of my responsibilities to glorify God.

Mike Aquilina: Challenges Before Us in Historical Perspective
The recent changes in healthcare, pointed out this speaker, are a perfect storm to drive out the people who want to serve. He went through ancient history (especially Roman historians like Tacitus and Pliny) recounting some of the same cultural phenomena we see today, such as the increasing tendency to lavish attention on dogs and to go childfree (to be clear to childfree readers: I list those as two separate tendencies). Mr. Aquilina emphasized that the cultural changes we see now are not original: every time a culture forgot to separate what is good from what is desireable, it excluded some persons (females, elderly, unborn, infants, children, various races, prisoners) from personhood and devalue them. However, Mr. Aquilina also showed that there is a history of the aberration of Christianity upsetting dysfunctional cultures. He concluded that there is no better time for us to be alive and serve; God will equip us, as he has historically.

Father Roger Landry: Bifurcation of Faith and Reason: Unleashing Radical Secularism and Its Impact on Medicine
This priest is remarkable for his use of the word bifurcation and his Latin three-word summary of how we should live. We should live, he says, etsi Deus daretur, as if God was a given. (Obvious as this may sound, it is difficult to do in the sea of relativism that is mainstream education above the sixth grade in this country.) When we live this way, unafraid that robust faith saves and strengthens reason, our lives are integrated. We also reap the following benefits:

1. We rediscover wonder.
2. Technological advances don't outstrip moral development. (More on this in a future post, I hope.)
3. We don't forget the splendor of being a child of God, and we thus avoid devaluing persons.

We should challenge ourselves and our culture: what stands in the way of your practical atheism being carried into Nietsche's will to power? A hazy self-faith, godless altruism, natural law? Impossibly webby barriers to "might makes right." If you don't buy the CD of any other talk, get this one.

Father Robert McTeigue: Moral Courage in Medicine
Chosen to give the title talk at this conference was a very humorous Jesuit priest. Fr. McTeigue charged his listeners with duties to acquire the virtues (which, by the way, are humanizing and good for people). He pointed out that courage exists for the protection of the good. One of the most surprising things he said quoted St. Teresa (I think?) on the two beautiful daughters of Hope: anger and courage. This is why the evil spirit wants so desperately that we despair: when we hope, we have just wrath, and we pounce on evil! We defy it! We unabashedly judge deeds (our own and others'). Fr. McTeigue's final piece of advice: pray "Jesus, I trust in You," and mean, "I don't trust myself."

Dr. Fernandes: Catholic Medical Professionals: Reclaiming Surrendered Ground in Bioethics 
If I wasn't morally awake after Cardinal Burke and the other speakers, Dr. Fernandes would have gotten me out of any relativistic torpor left. This Wright State attending (gently, with humor) lit a fire underneath me. Like Cardinal Burke's talk, I'll just have to give you some soundbites:

• Make yourself reasonable. Confuse them [relativists and practical atheists].
• If people are worm food, why should we suffer, delay death, or respect religion as an add-on?
• Cultural relativism is wrong. What if a culture is intolerant?
• "Loving" "People" is easier than truly loving persons in front you in the present.
• Between good and evil, there is no safe place.

Dr. Patrick Yeung: Fertility and Infertility Within a Catholic Moral Vision
Dr. Yeung, who is a professor at St. Louis University and directs the Center for Endometriosis there. He, being a napro-trained OB/GYN, had lots of relevant advice for me. "Do not look at it as a bunch of things you cannot do. Make it green and holistic and positive." "For best results," he also quipped, "follow God's design." One more neat quote: "Optimal medicine is holistic and doesn't solve one problem at the expense of [creating] others."

La Vie

Months ago I posted about the childfree movement (Wikipedia entry) and received a response by Laura Carroll, whose original post is quoted below the horizontal line below (Ms. Carroll gave me permission to use the content). Today I am going through the entire post and adding my thoughts and arguments (dark red boxes). For months, I couldn't work on this post because every time I tried I became exasperated. Now that summer permits frequent breaks, I can respond and avoid losing peace.

Warning: the formatting gets a little messy. Sorry!

---

I am religious; my arguments weren't. It's a logical fallacy (ad hominem) to rebut the person arguing instead of her argument. I don't think anyone maliciously misconstrued the argument, but identifying me with my argument is a mistake.

I wonder why I'm perceived as a guy. Admittedly, "matins" can be confusing if you don't know what it means.

Last year Grist did a piece on why the childfree had finally gone mainstream. I had to disagree. While this choice is talked about more than ever before, it’s not hit mainstream acceptance by a long shot. One big reason? Religion. This “Happily Childfree” post by a Catholic medical student is a sure reminder of how certain religions will always stand in the way…

Take a moment to read his post (it’s not long.)

Here are just two conservative Christian ways of thinking he talks about that reflect unshakable views of the childfree:

The childfree fear responsibility.

There is not one freedom for everyone. A person's freedom is determined by their state in life. An example of this principle (an example everyone might agree on): an unmarried person has the legitimate freedom to be in exclusive relationships with multiple persons sequentially; a married person does not.

The vocation of marriage, like any other, involves some change in freedoms. Among other things, married person gains the freedom to consummate their union; they lose a little of the "do what we want, when we want" freedom, which single persons have to a greater degree,* if only because they now have another person who shares their life!

He is criticizing a woman’s comment that gave her and her husband’s reasons for not having children, including overpopulation, wanting time to dedicate to each other” to continue having a deep marriage, wanting “the freedom of being able to do what we want, when we want,” and not wanting the “responsibility of how the child’s life could turn out.”

Knowing what you can and cannot do and acting accordingly is very responsible. Exercising rights without taking on the corresponding duties is not. Married persons who accept some freedoms proper to their vocation (i.e. sex) but decline the natural responsibilities are like adults who drink but don't want to choose a designated driver: irresponsible.

Another indication that the CF choice is about responsibility is the candid original comment itself, declining "responsibility of...the child's life."

Do the childfree fear responsibility just because they don’t want the responsibility of raising children? Seems to me knowing what responsibilities you want, don’t want and why is actually, well, very responsible. It is not about fearing “personal failure;” it is having the responsible, mature wherewithal to know what is best for us and what is not.

We are selfish because we have exclusive concern for our own interests.

I credit Ms. Carroll here: she knows that the Church teaches that Christ's selfless action is symbolized in marriage and sexual intercourse between husband and wife. However, we are not blind to the many other forms of self-giving; in fact, we see better than most of the culture how love is not synonymous with sex. Nor are we unable to imagine possible selfish motives of some parents. But the intentions of some do not alter the nature of an act (for instance, if someone donates to the poor to network among philanthropists, his selfish motivation does not change the excellence of the act). Why the Church holds that marriage is a symbol of selflessness might require another post (or book).

Just because we don’t have kids means we are only concerned about our interests? Why is it that church just can’t budge off of the idea that procreation is “the” symbolic” selfless act? How is it that the church (and this guy) fail to see the many ways those who have no children give to their families, loved ones, communities and the world? How can it be so blind not to see how much selfishness there can be in the act of parenthood?

There is a third unshakable view related to the world in general. It doesn’t only come from the conservative Christian community, but from other segments of the population as well:

Overpopulation is a myth.

I have nothing else to say if the math didn't make sense. I agree that over-consumption is a problem, but not because it will deplete all of our natural resources. It's a problem because of the vices it feeds. In short: over-consumption is directly worse for us than it is for the environment.

This guy does math to make the point that even with the current 7 billion, there is 9500 square feet for his family of nine, and asks why isn’t it as obvious to others as it is to her that there is still plenty of room for more people on the planet. Room, maybe, but survivability of those growing numbers, and the rest of living creatures and things on the planet? Talk about a limited view.

Now there are population”experts” who would agree that population isn’t the problem, but the more I learn from the whole field of experts, population is indeed the problem, and the consumption that goes with it.

Parenthood is a choice and always will be. However, this choice is made before marriage when the vocation of marriage and its particular fruits (including, but not limited to, children) are chosen. Granted, not all who choose parenthood by marrying are able to conceive children. But openness to children is an important part of the disposition necessary for this vocation.

As the saying goes, we’ve come a long way baby, but views like these remind me we have a ways to go to changing the societal views on parenthood truly being a choice.

Childfree Christians: How do you react to this guy’s piece? How does the church view the childfree in your experience? How can stubborn negative views be influenced to truly change?

---

*A side comment from me: no one has the freedom to absolutely do what "what [they] want, when [they] want. Think realistically: other people exist and limit those freedoms, legitimately and illegitimately. Think about humility: sin limits our freedoms (c.f. Rom 7:15 and 7:23, Mt 26:41). Think about goodness: doing what is right limits our 'freedom' to do wrong things and makes us truly free to do what is holy. A conversation about the childfree should be about limits to freedom and which are appropriate.

Missionary for a Week?!

Remember when I was only asked to evangelize for a moment? Well, Our Lord is getting more demanding. My post about the childfree choice sparked days of engagement with others.

Long story short: my post of 1/7/12 was found by Laura Carroll, administrator of La Vie Childfree, a website dedicated to the community of those married couples without children by choice. She wrote an analysis of my post on 1/13/12, and ever since they we've been debating in her comment fields. It has been so hard to fit the debate in between the study times. The debate has taxed my patience and my endurance. So many times I said, "Ugh, it's over. I can't talk to this person any more! See? I've reached a brick wall."

I've bid good-bye to the debate, since I've got an exam on Monday. Now that it's over, I'd like to critique the comments, to show that there are no chinks in the truth.

Another Take on the Childfree

This is a guest post by another young woman (pictured). This will create quite a stir for those who are CF, but I am proud of her and edified by her thoughts.

Here are my thoughts on contraception and gay marriage (stay with me for a while):

I think that eating has two purposes. There's the fun part about satisfaction and security, but there's also the nutritional part. Food is meant to fuel your body. Bulimic people separate the two purposes: they want the satisfaction of eating, but don't want to have the additional benefit/result of gaining weight or extra energy.

In the same way, to purposefully live "childfree" without a good reason or through contraception is to separate the two purposes of sex: to have and nurture children, and to further the love and bond between the couple. You only want the pleasure, so you throw up the consequences. Just like bulimia, its unhealthy and unnatural.

Plus, in both situations you are really denying yourself, either of the nutritious benefits of the food or children, and/or the acquisition of increased self discipline.

It makes me sad that people would hold back on what God wants to give to them. In being fertile in marriage, they've got the winning lottery ticket. They are just to afraid to go and pick up the prize... Or, in Catholic terms, the church is right down the street, but they aren't ready for the responsibilities of being a Christian, so they don't take the plunge and try for the benefits of grace.

I think if children were more valued, a lot of problems would be solved. Obviously, abortion would be out first. And when abortion leaves, I don't think it would take long for contraception to follow. Then out goes gay marriage, too. Maybe in a generation or so, divorce would fall. Parents would be willing to sacrifice their own personal comfort and feelings for the love of their children. Parents would quit leaving the family, and probably fathers would be more willing to work hard for their families... If only.... (And maybe some of that annoying environmental stuff would die down a little.)

Anyway, I think a childfree life would stink. I think that people who use contraception lack either trust (that God knows whats best), self-control, or confidence (that they can parent), or some combination of all of them.

 Brava, filia Ecclesiae.

"Happily childfree"

Conservatives and Catholics enjoy rebutting the Overpopulation Myth. I devoured the argument when I was fourteenish from a fifteenish-year old magazine my Dad showed me, so I figure it's pretty historical. After all, everybody knows we could all live in Texas, right?

Texas area= 267339 X (5280)2 = 7,452,732,672,000 sq.ft.
Population of world = 7,000,000,000.
7.45 × 1012 1 × 109	= 1064.676096 square feet per person
(Space for my family of 9	= 9500 square feet; tres nice.)

There's enough room on the planet a fortiori. So isn't this obvious to everybody?

Apparently not. I read a sad set of comments today written by women who may have wanted to conceive but chose not to. Their motivations were twofold: overpopulation, and appreciating freedom and time/closeness with their spouse. One woman summarized her feelings:

[B]ased on the affects [sic] of poverty, and later of an over-populated world[,] I never wanted children...[and my husband] has never wanted children; because of the enviromental [sic] impact as well as the responsibility of how the child's life could turn out. (Face it, we do blame our parents for pretty much everything! ha ha)

...Every now and then, there is a twang. For instance, I'll never know what it's like to feel a baby grow inside me. Or have that special bond I see my siblings have with their kids. On the other hand, we have time to dedicate to each other, and our marriage is deeper than most. We really enjoy the freedom of being able to do what we want, when we want.

Sad to think she won't raise a child because she fears responsibility! Another woman defended herself against objections:

It seems like 99% of parents have some reason to lay on us for why we *must* join their club; from the refusal to acknowledge that we ARE a family already, to allusions that we are doing something unnatural and wrong by not having children, to the "you just couldn't understand since you don't have kids," to the INFURIATING accusation of selfishness. It is truly shocking the number of people who accuse you of being selfish simply because you have chosen to live a life wherein you are following your heart and living the life you envision.

I recognize that a) I am not married, so my only experience of marriage is my family of origin, b) the vocation puts God before spouse and spouse before children, so relationship with the spouse shouldn't expire at the expense of children, and c) people need recreation and relaxation to function. But as I see this, selfishness is exclusive concern for your own interests, and the concern of these couples for their own vision excludes part of their state of life! Vocations are paths of joy with sacrifice.

Admittedly, there are many variables here (some married women's own childhood/psychological difficulties may make them choose rightly not to have children, others' biology or legimate poverty might prevent them from conceiving). But if a couples' three reasons not to conceive are a mythological problem, a fear of personal failure, and desires for intimacy and freedom, I think they are in error.

I long for the conversion of our cachexic Culture of Death to a wholesome, healthy Culture of Life! Better for women, better for men, better for families, better for medicine, better for government....

---

Edit 1/13/12 9:45pm: I just realized this post was analyzed by Laura Carroll of La Vie Childfree. I commented on her analysis to alert her readers that I am a young woman and open to discussion below with anyone reading this. I placed this clarification on my original post as well.

Update 1/15/12 4:20pm: Laura Carroll and I are continuing to discourse on her site in the comments on her post. Please join us.