How NOT to have vocations

[johnnydigit]

an oldie, but goodie:

** “Let me tell you how NOT to have vocations: 1) disobey the Church. 2) Do not accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. 3) Bad mouth the Pope and send them to lousy seminaries. You will have NO vocations! Kiss 'em goodbye! It is absolutely fatal to play fast and loose with faith and morals. Things are getting better but we’ve gone through a very dry period in the Church. I can give you example after example of religious congregations and dioceses that are doing just great with vocations. Why? Because they’re faithful. Period. Because they’re faithful. They don’t play games with the Doctrine of the Faith. They don’t try to promote in seminarians a kind of attitude of liberal dissent. That is the kiss of death and I can prove it time and time and time again that wherever that is done, there are no vocations. And there won’t be. There won’t be. Where things are done properly, there are vocations. It’s not hard. It’s not rocket science.”** -Fr. John Corapi, SOLT

 

[Shoshana]

I was there when he said this!

 

[GIMJ]

I recently listened to a talk by a priest who belongs to an organization dedicated to increasing the number of priests and religious (Institute on Religious Life). In it, the priest argued that God is most generous with his best gifts and that the priesthood is an objectively higher calling than other vocations.

The priest estimated that 10 to 20% of Catholics are being called, but most do not answer the call - he said less than 0.5% of Catholics live as priests or religious (Recall the Gospel: “many are called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen…?”)

He made it a point that all eligible Catholic males should consider the priesthood. I took him as saying that you should assume you’re being called and try to make yourself available to the call. God will make it be known if he wants you elsewhere.

So, my question is: Was the priest right? Should we close ourselves to the possibility of religious life only if God gives us a reason NOT to be a priest/religious? Or is the current attitude of assuming you don’t have a vocation the correct mindset?

* If you want to download and listen to the entire thing, click here.

 

[johnnydigit]

I recently listened to a talk by a priest who belongs to an organization dedicated to increasing the number of priests and religious (Institute on Religious Life). In it, the priest argued that God is most generous with his best gifts and that the priesthood is an objectively higher calling than other vocations.

The priest estimated that 10 to 20% of Catholics are being called, but most do not answer the call - he said less than 0.5% of Catholics live as priests or religious (Recall the Gospel: “many are called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen…?”)

He made it a point that all eligible Catholic males should consider the priesthood. I took him as saying that you should assume you’re being called and try to make yourself available to the call. God will make it be known if he wants you elsewhere.

So, my question is: Was the priest right? Should we close ourselves to the possibility of religious life only if God gives us a reason NOT to be a priest/religious? Or is the current attitude of assuming you don’t have a vocation the correct mindset?

* If you want to download and listen to the entire thing, click here.

i do agree. all Catholics are called to consider vocations to religious life just as seriously as they do with marriage. instead, today most people just write off religious life without a second thought and just assume their call is marriage.

i’d be bold enough to say i think it’s more than 20%. how about if i said consecrated in general, which includes brothers and sisters, should be 80%. too bad most people scoff at my opinion. let’s just make it an even 90% then.

 

[idrum677]

an oldie, but goodie:

** “Let me tell you how NOT to have vocations: 1) disobey the Church. 2) Do not accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. 3) Bad mouth the Pope and send them to lousy seminaries. You will have NO vocations! Kiss 'em goodbye! It is absolutely fatal to play fast and loose with faith and morals. Things are getting better but we’ve gone through a very dry period in the Church. I can give you example after example of religious congregations and dioceses that are doing just great with vocations. Why? Because they’re faithful. Period. Because they’re faithful. They don’t play games with the Doctrine of the Faith. They don’t try to promote in seminarians a kind of attitude of liberal dissent. That is the kiss of death and I can prove it time and time and time again that wherever that is done, there are no vocations. And there won’t be. There won’t be. Where things are done properly, there are vocations. It’s not hard. It’s not rocket science.”** -Fr. John Corapi, SOLT

Hey, this Corapi guy has the right idea. He should be on TV.

 

[johnnydigit]

to network exec, “don’t worry, it’ll kinda be like the days of Bishop Sheen…”

 

[DJgang]

Hey, this Corapi guy has the right idea. He should be on TV.

Just amazing how this Corapi guy always seems to say just the right thing to make you go,…:banghead: and say “he’s so right!”

 

[johnnydigit]

he’s a kindergarten teacher… and we’re kindergarteners… yet our kindergarten antics don’t lead to vocations…

 

[panoikei]

Catholics (faithful, cafateria, fallen away, reverts)
Protestants (faithful, fallen away, converts)
Non-Christians
Aborted

How many of those are being called but do not have the training or the chance to follow God’s calling?

I fall into the Catholic group [all] that were called, but ran away. Coming home, I felt called again, but Proselytized by the second group I threw it out and instead tried to become a Protestant Minister. My wife falls into the second group and was being called to the contemplative life we believe. So we both try to make up for it by being the best darned dometic church in the diocese. That’s the way to inspire vocations.

The presbyter is to be given double honor (1Timothy 5). Marriage is also a very high vocation. Without the domestic church there would be no vocations to the priesthood or religious life or for that matter any other. Read the latest of the “A Catholic Bishop Teaches…: What God Has Joined: A Catholic Teaching on Marriage” by Most Reverend Keving W. Vann, Bishop of the Fort Worth Diocese.

 

[Michael_Saint]

an oldie, but goodie:

** “Let me tell you how NOT to have vocations: 1) disobey the Church. 2) Do not accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. 3) Bad mouth the Pope and send them to lousy seminaries. You will have NO vocations! Kiss 'em goodbye! It is absolutely fatal to play fast and loose with faith and morals. Things are getting better but we’ve gone through a very dry period in the Church. I can give you example after example of religious congregations and dioceses that are doing just great with vocations. Why? Because they’re faithful. Period. Because they’re faithful. They don’t play games with the Doctrine of the Faith. They don’t try to promote in seminarians a kind of attitude of liberal dissent. That is the kiss of death and I can prove it time and time and time again that wherever that is done, there are no vocations. And there won’t be. There won’t be. Where things are done properly, there are vocations. It’s not hard. It’s not rocket science.”** -Fr. John Corapi, SOLT

He’s right on the money. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. So-called “conservative” Catholics do a fair bit of harm when it comes to killing vocations too.

 

[Michael_Saint]

I recently listened to a talk by a priest who belongs to an organization dedicated to increasing the number of priests and religious (Institute on Religious Life). In it, the priest argued that God is most generous with his best gifts and that the priesthood is an objectively higher calling than other vocations.

The priest estimated that 10 to 20% of Catholics are being called, but most do not answer the call - he said less than 0.5% of Catholics live as priests or religious (Recall the Gospel: “many are called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen…?”)

He made it a point that all eligible Catholic males should consider the priesthood. I took him as saying that you should assume you’re being called and try to make yourself available to the call. God will make it be known if he wants you elsewhere.

So, my question is: Was the priest right? Should we close ourselves to the possibility of religious life only if God gives us a reason NOT to be a priest/religious? Or is the current attitude of assuming you don’t have a vocation the correct mindset?

* If you want to download and listen to the entire thing, click here.

Personally, I believe the quote is a bit high. I would say we are called to “tithe” - that 10 % are called to a priestly / religious vocation. How far are we from this? Sad, isn’t it.

As for “assuming” one is being called, that’s basically what St. Joe’s Baltimore Catechism says. The first step in discerning marriage is to first of all discern if you are called to something “greater” - religious life or priesthood. Obviously, many do not consider religious vocations b/c by nature we are so strongly drawn towards marriage.

 

[GIMJ]

Personally, I believe the quote is a bit high. I would say we are called to “tithe” - that 10 % are called to a priestly / religious vocation. How far are we from this? Sad, isn’t it.

As for “assuming” one is being called, that’s basically what St. Joe’s Baltimore Catechism says. The first step in discerning marriage is to first of all discern if you are called to something “greater” - religious life or priesthood. Obviously, many do not consider religious vocations b/c by nature we are so strongly drawn towards marriage.

But wouldn’t it be odd not to be drawn toward marriage? I think biologically most people have strong desires for female companionship and to produce offspring - I know I do.

I think many of us grow up learning how to get what I want… never mind God or anybody else. So even if the long term benefits are greater for heeding the call to religious life, most of us are conditioned to disregard that for the more immediate rewards of marriage and family (at least as long as that keeps us entertained).

I believe this mentality is a contributing factor in the breakdown of marriages in our culture. It’s all about ME, ME, ME!! and not enough love and sacrifice is directed to the other two parts of the relationship - spouse and God. If we put God and fellow man above self, we would have stronger marriages and greater numbers of men and women sacrificing themselves for priesthood or religious life.

As for the numbers, the priest said that there used to be a time when every family expected to produce at least one child (or maybe one daughter and one son) for the priesthood or religious life. When you consider the typical Catholic family would have between 6 and 8 (if not more) children, that comes out to about 12-17% of the population. Of course, nobody knows the exact numbers, but I think it’s safe to assume it’s a lot more than any of us expect.

 

[chicago]

So-called “conservative” Catholics do a fair bit of harm when it comes to killing vocations too.

This isn’t a perspective we hear a lot of chatter about. I’d be interested in what more insight you could offer on the topic.

 

[manualman]

I’d like to take Fr Corapi at his word. But I wonder if the facts DO bear him out. Granted, he CAN cite numerous faithful orders and diocese that are thriving. But are they thriving within their specific sphere of direct influence or are they just enjoying the benefit of being the very rare faithful groups and thus attracting refugees from heterodoxy in the rest of the orders and diocese.

To check my point, I’d want to know if those thriving dioceses have seminarians mostly made up of men who grew up there or if they came there from somewhere else because of the bishop or seminary. The former would indicate a TRUE flourishing of vocations. The latter might just be a siphoning off of vocations that would have gone elsewhere.

I want to believe he’s right, but I want to be sure of such claims before repeating them!

 

[goofyjim]

I’m following my vocation. The single life. I don’t consider either the religious life or the married life.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Father Corapi is truly a blessing and I have expressed my thanks this Easter season for the gift God has given us through him.

How many times in his talks does he say, “It’s not rocket science”? I love it.

 

[1234]

This isn’t a perspective we hear a lot of chatter about. I’d be interested in what more insight you could offer on the topic.

Find the vocations forum on www.phatmass.com. it’s called “Vocation Station”, and check out the now closed thread about ‘liberal’ orders. The thread was closed down this last week, and is still listed on the first page of recent threads. This is the most recent chapter in the ongoing, often very shrill condemnation of ‘updated’ or ‘heterodox’ orders on VS, as it’s known. A number of regular posters often hold forth on how terrible non-habited orders are,their ceremonies and practices which include things like gasp REIKI!!!–and other horrors.

Several women religious, such as csj ( a member of congregation of St. Joseph) and another poster about 1-2 years ago, and another who is a candidate and doing well, have all either left phatmass or have commented about the VS’ very narrow attitude.

In addition, the selfsame posters who hold forth, are themselves not actively discerning (at least not posting about it) or are not eligible to enter religious life. That closed thread includes reference to a number of discerners to updated, no habit orders who are afraid to post on phatmass for fear of criticism, and instead have formed a small message group among themselves. This information was posted by one of them, praying4carmel. who had visited traditional Carmels, found them not for her, and is now seriously discerning with updated Carmels .

When a new member posts that he or she, but especially she, is interested in religious life, they are advised to visit* only *the habited orders and to avoid the non-habited orders, because that way lies schism and heresy. The ‘habits’ threads are often very long and include these sorts of warnings.

I believe that this sort of attitude creates a sort of schism in religious life among the so-called ‘trads’, as phatmass likes to style itself, and the updated or heterodox orders. There made indeed be a schism, but the emphasis on the ‘trad’ orders stifles many vocations. The new discerner is instantly warned that only certain orders are legitimate.

If I were a discerner, this would put me off my feed immediately.

 

[Michael_Saint]

I’d want to know if those thriving dioceses have seminarians mostly made up of men who grew up there or if they came there from somewhere else because of the bishop or seminary. The former would indicate a TRUE flourishing of vocations. The latter might just be a siphoning off of vocations that would have gone elsewhere

Both. I can’t speak for every diocese, but when I was in the seminary, my diocese - the Diocese of Bismarck - was about 5th in the country in seminarians per capita. All of them were home-grown, except for me. Some of the seminarians at my seminary, Kenrick in St. Louis, were from Omaha and Rockford, and both those dioceses had men from all over the place.

As for “home grown vocations”, these “orthodox” dioceses may still not have a huge number, but where heretodoxy is rife, there are NO vocations. I am originally from the Archdiocese of Regina in Saskatchewan, and the last I checked, there were two seminarians - and one of them was a 73-year old widower. I think he has since died.

 

[Michael_Saint]

This isn’t a perspective we hear a lot of chatter about. I’d be interested in what more insight you could offer on the topic.

Well, I was very familiar with “Goodbye, Good Men” when I was looking for a diocese and seminary to study at. I found an “orthodox” diocese as well as an “orthodox” seminary, and thought everything would be hunky-dorey. Well, over those two years, I saw both my diocese and the seminary treating many of us the same way Michael Rose said so-called “liberals” treated the “orthodox” seminarians - dismissing them for “canned” reasons while hiding up the “real” reasons, making life difficult for them in an attempt to pressure them out, etc. The thing is, the people who were “in charge” and were doing this to the seminarians were faithful to every single dogma in the Catholic Church. So Michael Rose is right about how seminaries (and vocations directors) operate - he’s just wrong about who the culprits are.

 

[GIMJ]

Well, I was very familiar with “Goodbye, Good Men” when I was looking for a diocese and seminary to study at. I found an “orthodox” diocese as well as an “orthodox” seminary, and thought everything would be hunky-dorey. Well, over those two years, I saw both my diocese and the seminary treating many of us the same way Michael Rose said so-called “liberals” treated the “orthodox” seminarians - dismissing them for “canned” reasons while hiding up the “real” reasons, making life difficult for them in an attempt to pressure them out, etc. The thing is, the people who were “in charge” and were doing this to the seminarians were faithful to every single dogma in the Catholic Church. So Michael Rose is right about how seminaries (and vocations directors) operate - he’s just wrong about who the culprits are.

I just got that book at the library. I don’t expect to be particularly enlightened (I mean, just look at whose reviews appear on the cover! ) I am, however, interested in hearing how this opinion is being articulated.

I’ve heard a lot of people slamming the so-called “liberals” in the Church (especially on CAF), but somehow I just don’t see how some sinister liberal plot against vocations can be substantiated. I’ve heard some very heterodox points of view from so called “traditional” Catholics too.

–
Michael Saint, I’m not sure what you meant about the issues with the seminary/vocations directors. Mind PM-ing with some more details about your personal experiences?