An Unnecessary Mystery

[TiggerS]

Catholic Catechism:

The various forms of chastity

**The whole section on Chastity is worth a read: **

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2392
2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ,"135 the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.
2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

"There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others" [quoting St Ambrose]. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.137 915 Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple. The perfection of charity, to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.454

In “Vita Consecrata” Pope John Paul II speaks of the “consecrated life”. This does indicate that the term “consecrated life” is more all embracing than religious life per se:

vatican.va/holy_father/jo…ecrata_en.html

"**Together let us thank God **for the Religious Orders and Institutes devoted to contemplation or the works of the apostolate, for Societies of Apostolic Life, for Secular Institutes
and for other groups of consecrated persons, as well as for all those individuals who, in their inmost hearts, dedicate themselves to God by a special consecration
.The Synod was a tangible sign of the universal extension of the consecrated life, present in the local Churches throughout the world. The consecrated life inspires and accompanies the spread of evangelization in the different parts of the world, where Institutes from abroad are gratefully welcomed and new ones are being founded, in a great variety of forms and expressions …

1. And while this perfect chastity is the subject of one of the three vows which constitute the religious state,[9] and is also required by the Latin Church of clerics in major orders[10] and demanded from members of Secular Institutes,[11]

it 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.
7. To all of these beloved sons and daughters who in any way have consecrated their bodies and souls to God, We address Ourselves, and exhort them earnestly to strengthen their holy resolution and be faithful to it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think it is shameful and highly irresponsible to imply in any way (or to come right out and say it) that someone has failed their vocation when they leave the religious life and/or priesthood.

There are so many factors involved least of which may be the unhealthy life inside of the religious life and/or priesthood caused by others inside of it.

I also do believe that the Church (through the bishop or religious superior) may be in error when they call a man forward.

Yes we do believe that God is speaking through these individuals but we must remember that these individuals are men and must interpret what they hear from God so they can make errors.

To brand someone who has left religious life and/or priesthood a failure, which is what is done when you say that they “lost their vocation” or any other such phrased, is very hurtful and shameful.

As TiggerS stated and I believe I also said, seeing that the Church allows for this and has a mechanism in place for it we must respect the dignity of the individual and refrain from using such language.

 

[Lamentation]

…we must respect the dignity of the individual and refrain from using such language.

(respectfully Brother, to somewhat expand upon your statement)
As we are called to do with ALL people, regardless of their nature.

I think that, by thinking of one dispensed from their vows as “lost”, one is essentially judging; which (I think, as devout Catholics) can be one of the hardest aspects of our faith to deal with.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath;9107195:

…we must respect the dignity of the individual and refrain from using such language.

(respectfully Brother, to somewhat expand upon your statement)
As we are called to do with ALL people, regardless of their nature.

I think that, by thinking of one dispensed from their vows as “lost”, one is essentially judging; which (I think, as devout Catholics) can be one of the hardest aspects of our faith to deal with.

Thank you for this. I know I did not say it but the thought was there.

Another reason I said this is that most people who use this sort of language/idea do not just apply it to those who are in their final/permanent vows or those who are ordained.

They use the same language when one does not progress from temporary vows to permanent or when a man leaves formation for the priesthood/diaconate.

 

[TiggerS]

I very underscore the comments by both Br. David (ByzCath) and Lamentation. “Judge not that you may not be judged” …“Mercy will be granted to the Merciful”. This highlights for me the times I have indeed judged and been lacking in Mercy.

 

[Alterum]

Well, I was just giving my opinion; I wasn’t implying that people who leave religious life are bad people, etc. Indeed it’s true that we all fail to avail ourselves of the graces God offers, but then my point is already taken – namely, that it’s a failure when we do!

 

[TiggerS]

Well, I was just giving my opinion; I wasn’t implying that people who leave religious life are bad people, etc. Indeed it’s true that we all fail to avail ourselves of the graces God offers, but then my point is already taken – namely, that it’s a failure when we do!

Not necessarioly. If you go to this post in this thread: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html

You will see that -

1. 
   *]God may only call a person to religious life for a limited period.
   *]Alternatively, the person who leaves religious life etc. may be unfaithful to Graces offered.
   
   In both 1 and 2 above, no one can judge - and not only in the above. We can never judge in any circumstances whatsoever. God alone is Judge. The attitude we ideally should have towards any failure whatsoever and to each other - at all times - is outlined in the Parable of the Prodigal Son - even before his son has time to share his carefully rehearsed words of contrition for his appalling failure and squander, his father rushes out to meet him lovingly and then prepares a great feast for him with much joy.
   
   The other point that struck me is to ponder what makes my failures to respond to Grace less serious or more serious than that of another. I simply cannot know. Only God is Judge. What we owe to all without exemption (Parable of The Good Samaritan) is love and kindness, acceptance and welcome.
   
   The final point that struck me is that in the theology of Divine Providence (see Catholic Catechmism) God permits evil either great or most minute in order to bring about a greater good. That should ideally keep me humble at all times and in all circumstances.
   
   As Bro. David pointed out in a previous post, it would be a dreadfully hurtful and even cruel disposition to be accusing of anyone who has or had left religious life, priesthood etc… even in generalizations. If there was anything even remotely morally wrong in leaving say religious life or the priesthood, there would be no dispensation from The Church. I think that a person would be allowed to leave since The Church would respect their free will, but would not dispense.

 

[TiggerS]

Theology of Divine Providence - Permissive Will of God:
Catholic Catechism

324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

[311](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/311.htm’) Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:
For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.177

[312](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/312.htm’) In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, “who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.”
178 From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God’s only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that “abounded all the more”,179 brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good.

[313](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/313.htm’) "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him."180 The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:
St. Catherine of Siena said to “those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them”: "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."181
St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."182 Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith. . . and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that ‘all manner [of] thing shall be well.’"183

[314](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/314.htm’) We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God “face to face”,184 will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest185 for which he created heaven and earth.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, I was just giving my opinion; I wasn’t implying that people who leave religious life are bad people, etc. Indeed it’s true that we all fail to avail ourselves of the graces God offers, but then my point is already taken – namely, that it’s a failure when we do!

And here you do it again. In essence you are saying that those who leave such a vocation for another vocation are failing.

You are saying that they are failing to avail themselves of the graces God offers, maybe the graces He is offering are just different ones.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

You will see that -

1. 
   *]God may only call a person to religious life for a limited period.

1. 
   Does this mean that even after perpetual vows, God may only be calling the person for a limited period? Or is this referring to the time spent in novitiate/temporary vows?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Does this mean that even after perpetual vows, God may only be calling the person for a limited period? Or is this referring to the time spent in novitiate/temporary vows?

I believe it is for both.

After all the Church has made accommodations for leaving religious life and clerical life. For clerics it is a process to return to the lay state of life. For religious is being release from vows.

After both of those processes (for religious priests they must go through both) the individual is free to marry. But if we look at married people, they also have a process but if a decree of nullity is not granted they are not free to marry.

This is why I do not believe that the process to release religious is not just a case of freeing someone who is a “failure” as the Church does not release those who “fail” at their marriage.

Vows are not a Sacrament as marriage is, at least the Church does not recognize it as such.

 

[sllhouette]

If one has an attraction to religious life, then this MIGHT mean one could have a vocation to that life. If a person has an attraction and the qualities and abilities for the life, then it is a POSSIBILITY the person has a religious vocation. If one has an attraction and ability or qualities AND one is accepted for postulancy into a religious order, then the person MAY WELL have a religious vocation. Postulancy is then followed by the noviciate and then temporary vows before final vows. These are years of discerning both by the person and the community. At perpetual or life vows/final profession it can be said that the person HAS a religious vocation.

We are all called to Love the lord with all our hearts, minds, souls, and strengths and to love our neighbor as ourselves. In this way we ALL have a vocation. The question then is just is it most appropriate to live out that vocation with this group or with this person. We should also remember the counsels Christ gave us that it is easier for a man to be holy and to love rightly if he is chaste, poor, and obedient.

 

[TiggerS]

We are all called to Love the lord with all our hearts, minds, souls, and strengths and to love our neighbor as ourselves. In this way we ALL have a vocation. The question then is just is it most appropriate to live out that vocation with this group or with this person. We should also remember the counsels Christ gave us that it is easier for a man to be holy and to love rightly if he is chaste, poor, and obedient.

Thank you for the response, silhouette - although I cannot see the connection to the post of mine which you quoted. My post simply pointed out that a religious vocation is not confirmed until final vows and it was a comment on religious life only, nothing else.
I agree (and commented on this in a previous post) that all without an exception have a vocation to The Gospel and to grow in holiness and Charity - our Baptism is our primary vocation. All other calls flow from our Baptism and any further call or vocation from God is an invitation to live out poverty, chastity and obedience in a particular manner or lifestyle.
As I commented in yet another post all the baptized are called to live out the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience - but not all are called to live the usually and ideally quite radical expression of these vows found in religious life.

 

[TiggerS]

Does this mean that even after perpetual vows, God may only be calling the person for a limited period? Or is this referring to the time spent in novitiate/temporary vows?

The ideal primary focus of all the baptized including religious is the Will of God. Yes, I hold that after perpetual vows, God could call a person out of religious life having called them to the life for a limited period. The Church has affirmed this in Canon Law by making allowances for a religious to be released/dispensed from their vows. The Church would not make such an allowance if there was anything morally wrong in leaving religious life after final profession. If I fail in any way, then somewhere I have failed morally i.e. failed to do what is right. If a person ‘fails’ by leaving religious life, then IMO The Church would allow them to leave respecting their free will, but would not dispense the from their vows since such a dispension would be ‘permission’ (by implication)for the person to act in a morally wrong manner.