Im 15, Never Kissed a girl or touched, should i become a priest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter i_need_helpp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The lights which God gives are transient, not permanent gifts. Whence St. Thomas says that the vocation of God to a more perfect life ought to be followed as promptly as possible (quanto citius).He proposes in his summary (, Second Part of the Second Part, question 189, article 10Summa Theologica) the question whether it be praiseworthy to enter religion without having asked the counsel of many and without any deliberation? * He answers in the affirmative, saying that counsel and deliberation are necessary in doubtful things, but not in this matter which is certainly good; because Jesus Christ has commanded it in the Gospel, since the religious state comprehends most of the counsels of Jesus Christ. How singular a thing it is, when there is question of entering religion to lead a life more perfect and more free from the dangers of the world, the men of the world say that it is necessary to deliberate a long time before putting such resolutions in execution, in order to ascertain whether the vocation comes from god or from the devil. But they do not talk thus when one is to accept of a place in the magistracy, of a bishopric, etc., where there are so many dangers of losing the soul. Then they do not say that many proofs are required whether there be a true vocation from God.

The saints, however, do not talk thus. St. Thomas says that if the vocation to religion [by an impossibility] should even come from the devil, we should nevertheless follow it, as a good counsel, though coming from an enemy. St. John Chrysostom, as quoted by the same St. Thomas, says that God, when he gives such vocations, wills that we should not defer even a moment to follow them. Christ requires from us such an obedience that we should not delay an instant (Forteenth Sermon on St. Matthew’s Gospel). And why this? Because as much as God is pleased to see in a soul promptitude in obeying him, so much he opens his hand and fills it with his blessings. On the contrary, tardiness in obeying him displeases him, and then he shuts his hand and withdraws his lights, so that in consequence a soul will follow its vocation with difficult and abandon it again easily. Therefore, St. John Chrysostom says that when the devil cannot bring one to give up his resolution of consecrating himself to God, he at least seeks to make him defer the execution of it, and esteems it a great gain if he can obtain the delay of one day only, or even if an hour (Ad pop. Ant. hom. 56 [To the people before his 56th homily? Abbreviation is unclear because I am not familiar enough with the works of St. John Chrysostom]). Because, after that day or that hour, other occasions presenting themselves, it will be less difficult for him to obtain greater delay, until the individual who has been thus called, finding himself more feeble and less assisted by grace, gives way altogether and loses his vocation. Therefore St. Jerome gives to those who are called to quit the world this advice: “Make haste, I beseech you, and rather cut than loosen the cable by which your bark is bound fast to the land” (Ad Paulin. de St. Scr.). The saint wishes to say that as a man who should find himself in a boat on the point of sinking, would seek to cut the rope, rather than to loosen it, so he who finds himself in the midst of the world ought to seek to get out of it as promptly as possible, in order to free himself from the danger, which is so great in the world, of losing his own soul.

Let us also hear what St. Francis de Sales writes in his works, on religious vocation, because the whole of it will go to confirm what has already been said; and what will be said hereafter: "To have a sign of a true vocation, it is not necessary that our constancy be sensible, it suffices if it be in the superior part of our soul. And therefore we must not judge that a vocation is not a true one, if it individual thus called, before putting it in execution, does not feel any longer those sensible movements which he felt in the beginning. Even should he feel a repugnance and coldness, which somtimes bring him to waver, and make it appear to him that all is lost. It is enough that the will remains constant in not abandoning the divine call, and also that there remains some affection for this call. To know whether God will have one become a religious, one ought not to expect that God himself should speak or send to one an angel from heaven to signify his will. And as little necessary is it that ten or twelve Doctors should examine whether the vocation is to be followed or not. But it is necessary to correspond with the first movement of the inspiration, and to cultivate it, and then not to grow weary if disgust or coldness should come on; for if one acts thus, God will not fail to make all succeed in his glory. Nor ought we to care much from what quarter the first movement comes. The Lord has many means to call his servants. Sometimes he makes use of a sermon, at other times of the reading of good books. Some, as St. Anthony and St. Francis, have been called by hearing the words of the Gospel; others by means of afflictions and troubles that came upon them in the world, and which suggested to them the motive for leaving it. These persons, although they come to God only because they are disgusted with the world or out of favor with it, nevertheless, failing not to give themselves to him with their whole will, become sometimes greater saints than those who entered religion with a more apparent vocation.

(Continued…)*
 
“Father Platus relates that a noble man, riding one day on a fine horse, and striving to make a great display in order to please some ladies whom he saw, was thrown from the horse into the mire, from which he rose besmeared and covered with mud. He was so full of confusion at this accident that at the same moment he resolved to become a religious, saying, ‘Treacherous world, thou has mocked me, but I will mock thee. Thou hast played me a gme, I will play thee another; for I will have no more peace with thee, and from this hour I resolve to forsake thee and to become a friar.’ And, in fact, he became a religious, and lived in religion a holy life” (Entret. 17).

St. Alphonsus then addresses what those must do to preserve their vocation who are by force of necessity required to remain in the world.
I apologize for inadvertently misrepresenting your position.
Not a problem, my friend.
And if that’s what you mean by “secular universities,” then I agree with your last sentence in the above quote, but not all universities are like that, and with the many options available to Catholic families in contemporary society (including homeschooling for all or part of the time), it would certainly go beyond what Leo XIII said to imply that every university must teach Catholic theology (I’m not suggesting that you said that, IntegraCatholic).
Yes, secular universities that promote immoral lifestyles are clearly wrong, but so are those that promote immoral and errant teaching. The university is designed as a method of learning the truth, so those who teach anything contrary to the truth fail in this duty. As we’ve both said, an errant philosophy penetrates all fields of study. Likewise, certainly, for theology. These schools do not subscribe to Thomism or any legitimate form of philosophy. They certainly don’t accept or teach the Catholic faith. Salvation is our purpose in this life. That’s it. Anything else is a means to an end. (I’m including under salvation all those things necessary for it, such as love of God and love of neighbor, though this latter is nothing other than a reflection of the former in another.) We can’t claim to be interested in ideas and knowledge (as anyone who attends university must be) if we neglect to study the height of knowledge, the highest of the sciences in theology. In this sense, every system of education has an obligation to teach the Catholic faith. That is precisely what I meant when I said secular universities should not exist. Any institution of education (just as every individual and State) must recognize Christ as King and the Church he established.
You assert that the Church rejects “freedom in speech” in this context. But precisely the problem with some of these secular universities is that they don’t really promote intellectual freedom, but rather expect everyone to tow an extremely libertine line when it comes to any social issue (at penalty of explicitly violating university rules against “hate speech” that promote “diversity”). It’s precisely the good Catholic universities that are better about intellectual freedom than the really libertine, secularized ones, and as universities and as Catholic institutions they flourish because of it.
Freedom of speech is evil because it allows evil to be set equal to truth in public. In other words, it’s all the more unjust to remove truth from the picture altogether and only to promote evil (the example you gave). That is certainly worse, for sure, but that doesn’t make freedom of speech good. Freedom to teach truth is good. To permit error is to defend it, as Pope Felix III says: “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do so is not less a sin than to encourage them.”

I would highly recommend you read the following two (relatively short) syllabi of errors from Bl. Pius IX. and St. Pius X. I really think they are absolutely indispensable to the proper understanding of this issue and so many issues modern society faces. If you have taken the time to read my poor writing, please, please, take the time to read these. You will learn a lot from it, believe me. (I don’t mean to assume you don’t know much now, but I’m just saying that almost every error in these syllabi is something that runs contrary to what is assumed by modern man.)

Bl. Pius IX, (a compilation from various encyclicals and Papal documents) directed mostly to society at large and the errors outside the Church:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, directed also to the many pernicious errors spreading within the Church herself:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
Obviously prudence is critical when someone decides what he or she will do after high school, but you did make a blanket statement that goes well beyond what Leo XIII so carefully and precisely taught.
You are correct that the passages I cited did not address the issue of delaying one’s vocation but merely the objection of secular universities being a healthy thing (an assumption I made, as I noted above, from one of your previous statements). I am glad that we are on the same page about that issue, though. I wish I just would have provided the St. Alphonsus quote earlier, rather than telling you to go find the authors yourself. Fortunately, I brought the book to my desk here the other day and now had it readily at hand. To redundantly reiterate what I said before, I hope you will find the time to read the two syllabi. Thank you for proving me wrong thus far regarding the time I would dedicate to this thread. 🙂
 
Thank you for the quotes and links, IntegraCatholic. I did read both of the lists of condemned errors - the Pius IX one and the St. Pius X one. I still disagree with your application of St. Alphonsus’ teaching on vocations to the context of a young person’s attending a university in contemporary society, but I see now that your position is not in any way based on paranoia over secular immorality or distrust of young Catholics.

I do have further questions and comments about freedom of speech and religious freedom. First, I just want to say that freedom of speech - like the kind guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment - does not necessarily publicly equalize truth and error. Certainly it permits both, but it never presupposes that every opinion expressed is equally valid. Some misguided people do presuppose that, but the principle itself of free speech does not necessarily do so.

But the question I had for you concerns these two statements condemned by Pius IX:

Errors Condemned by Blessed Pius IX said:
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
  1. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
My question, IntegraCatholic, is what do you make of Dignitatis Humanae (1965)? The Church’s teachings do not contradict themselves, and I suppose that means that the Catholic Church’s standards on religious freedom can change, since the Church no longer holds what Pius IX established - and I agree that for his time, what he established was certainly wise and prudent.

For instance, look at error 77 above: In the present day it is no longer expedient…

Pius IX was very specific to phrase the condemned opinion that day. But his “present day” is not our present day, and I think we ought to acknowledge that the Church’s political expectations have changed. This shouldn’t be a problem, after all; it’s not like that standard is dogmatic and irrevocably unchangeable.

But I’m rambling. Paul VI’s opening paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae expresses far more precisely and eloquently than I can the prudent balance that the Catholic Church strikes today between defending us from the errors of modernity and integrating whatever goodness or insights the modern world has genuinely arrived at:

“A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church - the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.” - Dignitatis Humanae

I’m sure you’re familiar with Benedict XVI’s Regensburg Address. I just wanted to point out that in that address, the Holy Father definitely seemed to agree that there should be no compulsion in religion - one of the very reasons he even brought up Manuel II’s debate with that Muslim was to contrast Christianity’s understanding with that of militant Islam.
 
I still disagree with your application of St. Alphonsus’ teaching on vocations to the context of a young person’s attending a university in contemporary society
“The lights which God gives are transient, not permanent gifts. Whence St. Thomas says that the vocation of God to a more perfect life ought to be followed as promptly as possible (quanto citius).”

“St. Thomas, says that God, when he gives such vocations, wills that we should not defer even a moment to follow them.”

“Therefore, St. John Chrysostom says that when the devil cannot bring one to give up his resolution of consecrating himself to God, he at least seeks to make him defer the execution of it, and esteems it a great gain if he can obtain the delay of one day only, or even if an hour.”

How does going to college after discerning that one has a vocation fit into this?
I do have further questions and comments about freedom of speech and religious freedom. First, I just want to say that freedom of speech - like the kind guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment - does not necessarily publicly equalize truth and error. Certainly it permits both, but it never presupposes that every opinion expressed is equally valid.
Consider again the teaching Pope Felix III: “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do so is not less a sin than to encourage them.”

The US was founded by anti-Catholic, freemasonic deists, who followed the Enlightenment philosophy that is so contrary to the teachings of the Church. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. These are all presumed in modern society, and they all contradict the perennial teaching of the Church.
My question, IntegraCatholic, is what do you make of Dignitatis Humanae (1965)? The Church’s teachings do not contradict themselves, and I suppose that means that the Catholic Church’s standards on religious freedom can change, since the Church no longer holds what Pius IX established - and I agree that for his time, what he established was certainly wise and prudent.
You are correct that the teaching of the Church does not change, but the Church has not changed her teaching on this. Vatican II is a very muddy matter. It infrequently makes anything clear but only more difficult to understand. The teaching of the Church does not change, and the teaching of Pius IX & Pius X (which, I will add, are merely reiterations of what the Church has always taught) has not changed. The new must be read in light of the old. Regardless of any pastoral reasons in modern society where it may be impossible for the State to be Catholic in certain places as the circumstances stand (this was true, too, for 300 years in the Roman Empire), that does not mean that the principle is different. The very purpose of the State is to promote virtuous citizens, but no supernatural virtue can be found outside the Church; therefore, the State as an absolute obligation to recognize the Church and promote her welfare while forbidding any false religions, which necessary lead souls to hell.
For instance, look at error 77 above: In the present day it is no longer expedient…
What he is saying is that modern conditions cannot make it right to oust the Church from her proper place in society. He isn’t saying that this would change sometime in the future. As I said, there may be occasions where it is impossible for the Church to be the only religion recognized by the State. That is a defect in the State, though, not a contradiction of principle.
But his “present day” is not our present day, and I think we ought to acknowledge that the Church’s political expectations have changed.
If she recognizes that there is error and sin in society (just as there was when she was persecuted), that does not change the necessity of the State to recognize the Church.
This shouldn’t be a problem, after all; it’s not like that standard is dogmatic and irrevocably unchangeable.
This absolutely does touch on both faith and morals–faith, in the proper role of the Church in civil society, and morals, on the putting that into effect in a given circumstance.
But I’m rambling. Paul VI’s opening paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae expresses far more precisely and eloquently than I can the prudent balance that the Catholic Church strikes today between defending us from the errors of modernity and integrating whatever goodness or insights the modern world has genuinely arrived at:
I can’t really explain that except to say that it seems directly to contradict the perennial teaching of the Church. Perhaps someone can reconcile it, but since I can’t, I have an obligation to stick to what has always been taught, which is much clearer and with much greater reasons. The “dignity of the human person” does not allow him to follow error. True freedom does not include the right to choose evil.
 
You should study JPII’s Theology of the Body. God would never call someone to “give up sexuality” (unless you mean giving it up to Him). Both marriage and priesthood are meant to be a living out of a man’s sexuality, celibacy isn’t an abolishment of it. All men are called to be husbands and fathers. For a priest his bride is the Church and he is a father to his people.
 
How does going to college after discerning that one has a vocation fit into this?
Oh, okay, I agree if you mean that someone is basically certain that he or she has a vocation to the priesthood or religious life. If he or she feels a very strong call, then obviously I can’t imagine a good reason to put off entering seminary or exploring religious orders.

I guess the reason I didn’t have such a person in mind throughout this discussion is that very few Catholics have finished discerning to that extent by the time they finish high school. Like it or not, in our times many social and economic factors have artificially postponed adulthood for many young people. And as a young person myself, I do admit that I find that deeply unfortunate on several levels.

Thank you also for your reflections on the Second Vatican Council and Dignitatis Humanae specifically.
 
Fone Bone,

I did find time to re-read and re-consider the statement from Dignitatis Humanae. I think it certainly can be understood in light for Tradition rather than in light of a false spirit of Vatican II. He says specifically:

“It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society.”

What is religion? Religio munda et inmaculata apud Deum et Patrem haec est: visitare pupillos et viduas in tribulatione eorum inmaculatum se custodire ab hoc saeculo. (Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world. St. James 1. 66.) What does it mean to be spotted in this world? Not to follow the spirit of the flesh, among other things, not to be a chooser, which is what an heretic is. It doesn’t say the practice of false religions but the practice of religion, that is, the Catholic faith. This is in keeping with that the Church has always taught, and it seems to be the only legitimate interpretation of the document. Especially because:

“This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice.”

But false religions are clearly not in accord with truth or justice.

“To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church - the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.”

I think, again, this can be legitimately accepted when interpreted according to the tradition of the Church. Of course, we must always interpret everything in light of that (equally Vatican II in light of Vatican I and Trent as Trent in light of Nicaea and all the councils till that time).
 
I didn’t have my first date or first kiss until I was 17 - and I’ve never gone furthur than kissing. It would be impure to do so. You’re only 15 - you’re right where you should be, just starting to think about marriage or priesthod and figure out what you want to do. Stay open to the priesthood, do date but stay pure within dating, and you’ll learn about yourself and be able to make that decision in a few years. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top