I might be going off topic a little bit, but the way I understand it, there are four general states in life: ordained regular, lay regular, ordained secular, and lay secular. The lay secular is our default state in life, through which we pass our entire childhood and a certain share of our adulthood as well, even if we are called to another state. The married are a subset of the lay secular, but share something profoundly in common with the other states: that they are so through a vow made and/or a sacrament received in response to a vocation.
From a traditional viewpoint, the very concept of a āconsecrated singleā is somewhat strange, largely, Iād say, because there seems to be little precedent for it in the history of the Church. One could look back on the lives of the great lay regulars, perhaps, but one profound difference emerges: the evangelical counsel of obedience to a superior. To whom is a āconsecrated singleā obedient? And what are his or her duties, both of these additionally to those required of every Christian and those of their worldly profession? The idea strikes me as rather like one of those classes of monks for whom St. Benedict expressed his distaste at the opening of his Rule.
There have been bachelors and spinsters since the dawn of time, and there likely will be forever. Some choose to be so, and others do not. But we are social animals, and the Lord Himself said that it is not good for us to be alone. All of the effective and wise celibate people I know scarcely consider their celibacy as any kind of a vocation, but rather as a situation in which they have found themselves after missing opportunities for marriage or being blackballed by a religious institute or suchlike. They rather consider their calling in life what one might consider a secondary vocation: being an excellent teacher, being an excellent doctor, being an excellent psychologist, and so forth. Indeed, their lives are profoundly socially oriented, and the good they do in this world comes not through their celibacy, but from their profession.
It strikes me that the trend toward an increase in consecrated singles, secular institutes, and such parallels the drive to inclusivism that we see in our societyāas to say, if you are not a priest, a religious, or married, donāt feel left out. But celibacy is not socially ordered, and I think those who are celibate by will or by circumstance would do better to cultivate a secondary vocation in which they may do good for others.
Just my thoughts. Iād be interested to hear what you have to say.
