How Downplayed is the Vocation to Single Life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecommongentry
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
is there also a magisterial documents which indicate that single life can’t be a vocation?
 
There are actually some synodal documents which indicate that there is no such thing as a “single” vocation. I have started another thread elsewhere to see what the motivations are for desiring a “single vocation”. I would wonder what the characteristics of a single vocation would be. Is it comprised of those who are married but divorced (with the bond still remaining in the eyes of God)? Those who would like to get married but can’t find anyone? Those who are not eligible for other vocations due to reasons beyond their control (e.g. they die before they are old enough to choose a vocation, they have too strong of SSA inclinations, or other things)? What is the purpose of the “single vocation”?
 
What he say have no sens. Then St John Baptist did not follow a vocation because he did’nt life in a community? because he had not make a public wish? Absurd!!
 
can you give us a reference for a such document?
I would be very curious to read it, because first of all it’s totally absurd to say that he can not have a vocation outside of marriage and religious life! for religious life has not always existed, and in fact that would mean that the first anchorites did not live in a vocation. It’s totally absurd …
 
I don’t know if that’s the intention but it can really feel that there are only a small number of proper Catholic pathways, priesthood, religious order or marriage and family. Otherwise you are just expected to muddle along as best as you can.
 
I have a question. Since singleness is not a vocation, then is it likely that some people are not called to a vocation, namely those unwillingly single? The topic of this thread
40.png
Could the vocation-less life (not "single life as a vocation") be a calling from God? Vocations
It seems as though God makes it very, very clear to some of us that we are chosen for a particular vocation and completely ignores others. This is just an objective truth that none of us wants to admit…but then we see it play out in the world again and again and again. Those of us who are ignored, however, still cling to the faith that what we cannot see might be. And, in spite of never receiving strong positive affirmation regarding what we believe is possible for our lives (since we’re encoura…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Are you saying everyone must have a “vocation” besides that to the universal call to holiness given by our baptism? So that a three year old who dies baptized somehow missed out on their vocation? Or that a forty year old female with severe developmental disabilities with the IQ of a five year old is missing out on her true vocation? How many people truly value lay life and the call to bring the love of Christ to the world? How many people currently in the social condition of being single are living out their lives with great grace in their concrete circumstances? Is it that we want to label the single condition with a “vocation” so that people realize that they can be happy and holy without being called by God to another form of life?
 
The Church vocations are a “call within a call”. They are lifeforms which are designed to help certain people reach Heaven more easily than if those people do not embrace those calls. Not everyone is given such a “call within a call”. Just because an individual is not gifted a vocational call that solidifies a particular path doesn’t mean they aren’t loved by God or that they are somehow second tier Catholics. They can become great saints. St. Catherine of Siena was a laywoman. She was not in the consecrated state. She did have private promises but she was lay. She was extremely holy and is now a Doctor of the Church. Many people who are “single” who live their lives as lay Catholics in a manner befitting Christians who serve God and neighbor with great love will be holier than those who do not serve the Lord and neighbor in a vocation. Remember, all are called to the heights of holiness, all without exception.
 
We are all called to holiness. But everyone must take the safest and easiest path for him to achieve that goal which is holiness. When someone have thus chooses the most appropriate way for him to lead him to holiness, it is said that he followed his vocation, it is my opinion.
In that sense, celibacy life may be a vocation
 
I’ve been thinking that the church has been marketing vocations in an unfortunate way and created a different vocations crisis: Not having one.

We need more vocations to the priesthood and maybe there are more priests than there would have been without the posters and retreats, etc. Naturally vocations to the religious life is encouraged, and then marriage, because that is a capital -V vocation…it seems to suggest that having a vocation is something everyone has, I think I’ve heard that said. I believed that. But is it true? I’m not so sure. As SerraSemper wrote:
SerraSemper said:
vocation to holiness, to which everyone is called by virtue of their baptism
Click to expand...
…i think this is plenty. Speaking as a single person, who believed she was called to marriage, a vocation to holiness is enough.
 
Last edited:
That is an interesting perspective. I see a lot of people who are unnecessarily stressed out, who live in perpetual “discernment” because they do not understand or value lay life and the responsibilities that come with it. The Church should do a better job in showing people how to be holy as individual adults living as lay persons in the world.
 
To follow our vocation, is to follow the better path for us to reach the holiness. It’s possible that celibacy life is a better way to reach holiness for someone, then to stay celibacy for those person is to follow a vocation.
A person who get married and for which marriage wasn’t the better way for his holiness doesn’t follow his vocation!
 
I believe there is a difference between a subjective personal path which can include a career, and a Church vocation. Yes, people should do what God created them to do, and they should discern that with right reason. But this is completely different from a discussion of whether there are objective vocations out there…
 
What do you mean by “objective” vocation? why to stay single outside a religious life can not be an “objective” vocation?
 
I don’t think that is true. God can make all things new. If God can forgive our sins he can work with a “missed vocation.”
 
Yes, but we must not tempt God. We must not conscientiously take a path, when we know that we will meet many difficulties to sanctify ourselves.
 
What are the characteristics of a “single vocation” that make it different than the “universal vocation to holiness of the baptized”? Remember, we all have to exercise continence outside marriage so a private vow of chastity is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
A vocation is a definitive commitment that one makes in conscience and for God. To commit oneself as celibate is to make a definite commitment to not marry, it is different from one who is single but who hopes and expects a possible marriage.
One does not need to enter a religious order to make such a definitive commitment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top