A discussion about religious life in the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter glencor63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

glencor63

Guest
Is it true that in the past the Catholic Church strongly encouraged, (akin to coersion) families to give sons to the priesthood and daughters to religious orders, without regard to whether they had a true vocation? If so, what impact did this have on the integrity of religious leaders in the hierarchy?
 
Last edited:
I think they just encouraged boys and girls to be open to a call from God. I think they also accepted them into seminary and religious community a lot earlier than we do now (we had a priest friend who entered after 8th grade. I think that was common.) That could have left room for superiors to greatly influence these kids to stay when they otherwise may not have… but the two priests I know who entered after 8th grade were happy. They didn’t have regrets. I’m sure some maybe did though. That’s young to make a lifelong commitment.
 
Why would the Church have ever wanted children that young to enter a seminary or religious community? You are still maturing emotionally, physically, and especially sexually in 8th grade. How can you truly know your vocation when you don’t truly know yourself? I’m a convert. This is an alien practice for me.
 
Last edited:
Well, there is at least one case of forceful formation of a priest.

In the Middle and Early Modern Ages also, it was common for a noble family to encourage one of its sons to become a monk or a priest, so that they could become prince-bishops or prince-abbots, back when dioceses and monasteries were an integral part of the local state.

Now, thanks to God, we have developed greatly the discernment process, so that we won’t end up with these “missfits” that eventually leave the priesthood or worse.

Now in case a teen graduated from High School is certain to have a consecrated vocation, he can enter into seminary/novitiate, but certainly it shouldn’t be forced or subtly encouraged as the only way.
 
Last edited:
I can’t say if the Church strongly encouraged, but I have heard of stories from my mother that some families in the 1930s/40s/50s put tremendous pressure on their children to enter the religious life. It was a case of the parents “giving their child to God”, implying that the parents were making a sacrifice. It was seen as a badge of honor that the parents were willing to make this sacrifice. Not much thought was given to what the child wanted, and once they went to the seminary or convent, there was strong pressure for them to remain. Leaving was viewed as a sign that you were “running away from God” or something like that.

I know of one relative of my dad whose parents really pushed all of their sons to enter the seminary. One of them finally did and was ordained a priest but was never particularly happy. He eventually was laicized and said that he went to the seminary (following 8th grade) because he couldn’t tell his mother no. He eventually married and raised a family and remained a faithful Catholic until his death.

Now, these are anecdotes based on stories my parents told me. I can’t say that this was the situation everywhere, of course. But I suspect these were not isolated incidents either. The fact that so many priests and sisters left the religious life after Vatican II suggests that at least some of them didn’t have vocations in the first place.
 
I’m familiar with similar stories. Again, not the Church pressuring anyone but the families themselves pressuring their children to go into religious life. I know of a local family of 7 children where this was the case. The parents are still honored for their philanthropy locally (names appear on several public places), and all of their children went into religious life and/or seminary. Of the 7, 5 seemed perfectly content and happy to my knowledge. One of the girls spent her life as a sister until quite an old age and then voluntarily left the order (but returned there in her dementia years until death). The youngest, a diocesan priest, never liked his life as far as anyone could tell. He was the kind you read the complaint threads about here from time to time, and the bishops he served under just tried to keep things low key with him.

In short, OP, I don’t think some of these ‘coerced’ vocation folks would have had much direct influence on the hierarchy due to the fact that usually their dispositions resolved things automatically. (I think of it like that grumbling employee at work - he shows up everyday and does the minimum, but no one’s considering him for promotion or company spokesman.)
 
No. Therefore the rest of your post is moot.

“The Catholic Church” is not the same as “some families in the 1940s” or "some people in other centuries’ or even, "practices in the Middle Ages’ just pulled out of context and without any reference whatsoever, as if families in AD 1100 were exactly the same as families in AD2019 USA. You know, mom and dad with nice white collar jobs, kids going to free schools, average life span around 80 years, blah instead of parents mostly serfs bound to the land, average life span less than 40, and convents and clerical lives offering not only literacy but better lives for all concerned. Plus back then Christianity was not fractured and all had devotion.
 
Last edited:
Oh, yes, there most certainly was pressure. In many large families — and there were a lot of those — the ideal was to give one son to the priesthood, and one daughter to the convent. As I have said in these forums previously, getting married and having a family wasn’t the universal ideal that it is now. For a man, it meant working very, very hard all of his life to provide for a large family without using birth control, and the “rhythm” method was primitive and notoriously unreliable. Likewise, a woman could foresee having to bear many children, with all of the hardships and sacrifices that this entails. Compared to this, a priestly or religious vocation could look very tempting — a fairly easy life, free education, a job for life, security in one’s old age. I am not suggesting that these people didn’t have vocations. It was just an easier choice to make. You basically had a very good life, the only down side being that you had to give up marriage. For many, that didn’t look like a bad deal at all. You were able to serve God totally, and in the case of religious (as opposed to priests), it would seem much easier to save your soul. (It is actually harder for a priest to save his soul, in that he has responsibility for the souls under his care that a layman does not have.)

Nowadays, especially if a person is willing to use artificial birth control, marriage is a much more inviting prospect. You have only the children you want, when you choose to have them. If a man can get into a secure, financially advantageous career, or if a woman is able to marry such a man, married life can be a very good, easy, prosperous life. If a woman chooses to have a career of her own, she can do that, or if her husband makes enough money, she can be a stay-at-home mom. If everything falls into place, life can be pretty near perfect. The children can be educated well, and if they replicate their parents’ success, they can continue the cycle and have very happy, prosperous lives of their own. When the family is “done” having children, one or both partners can have themselves sterilized, and no longer is there the prospect of having unwanted children. There is no longer the phenomenon of “oh, no, I’m pregnant again, how in the world are we going to feed one more mouth?”.

However, and this is a big “however”, if they have chosen to defy God and His Church, and use artificial birth control, they have made a deal with the devil. How God will punish this in the next life, we cannot know, for we cannot judge souls. We do know that it is a mortal sin and merits eternal punishment. People die suddenly and don’t have the ability to manifest final repentance. They die in their sins.

If everyone abstained from immoral methods of birth regulation, I think you would see a lot more vocations, or perhaps I should say, fewer vocations would be lost to the allurements of prosperity and happiness in the secular world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top