[« And this is only now news?] [Apropos the "You know you're from Missouri when" list.... »]
08/13/2004: I admit, I just don't get it.....
According to an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, there's interest among "mature" Catholic women in being "consecrated virgins".
Being raised Catholic, the idea that some people might be interested in religious vocations, and that those vocations might involve the renunciation of sex, isn't all that unusual to me. But what I'm finding difficult to relate to is the frankly sexual phraseology surrounding this choice of "vocation". The PD headline: "Women wed Jesus in ancient rite".
Like many women, Carol Lankford fell in love with someone she had previously thought of as a good friend. When she finally received a proposal, Lankford set a date, bought a white dress and invited friends and family to a ceremony and reception.I guess the question I have is, considering that Jesus, if he ever existed (a proposition about which I have grave doubts) is dead, how is marrying Jesus different from having an imaginary friend?
But on July 10, 1996, those witnessing the ceremony at St. Brendan's church in Mexico, Mo., could see only the bride, because Lankford's bridegroom was Jesus.
"It's the same way all loving relationships develop," said Lankford, 57. "You get to know the person, and then you fall in love. But when it happened like this, it surprised me. I had to ask, 'Lord, is it OK that I feel like this toward you?'"
...
Many describe the ceremony as a combination of a wedding and an ordination. "It does have features of both," [St. Louis Archbishop Raymond] Burke said. "It is like an ordination in that a person presents herself and announces her resolve to remain a virgin for the rest of her life, and there is a public questioning of the candidate. It also has wedding features - there's a ring and a dress, and there can be a veil. The woman is giving herself completely to Christ as her spiritual bridegroom."
Len on 08.13.04 @ 12:51 PM CST
