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

[Lutheranteach]

I went off to college having barely ever kissed a girl and let’s just say in the first three months of college I made up for a lot of lost time. At 15, I’d say it’s far too soon to tell. I’d say you need to have a bit more life experience before making any decisions regarding a calling, career, etc.

 

[JimG]

Maybe it’s just peculiar to my diocese, but we seem to have a lot of new priests and new seminarians who did not go to minor seminary. One was an accountant, one was a physicist, before going to major seminary. Even those still in college seem to discern their vocations quite well at a secular college. Last week I heard a talk from a seminarian who first discerned a possible vocation in grade school, but was uncertain until after his college years and a girlfriend, that he wanted to go on to major seminary.

One upside of this seems, to me at least, to be that those who arrive at their discernment in this way are quite certain of it.

I recall the heyday of the minor seminary system when nearly everyone went to a college seminary followed by a major seminary. The college freshman class started out very large, the 4th theology class was very small. Not that there is anything wrong with attending a college seminary, but I think perhaps some late vocations may have been missed because they didn’t fit into the standard way of doing things.

 

[PaulinVA]

PaulinVA, both of the opinions I expressed are the common consensus of moral theologians and spiritual authors (especially the second one; it is unanimous, in fact, in all those I have read–at least a dozen, probably many more). Do you have a source for what you are saying other than your personal opinion, which, if I may say so, seems to be guided more by what is considered “normal” by the modern world than by sound principles?

Yes, I do. Common sense. Maybe I misunderstand you, but you seem to be saying in the first instance that God is like a Grand Inquisitor that is waiting for you to make a misstep so he can send you to Hell. Do you really think that if you have a call to a religious vocation, and you get married, that you are damned to Hell because you have made one wrong choice? Really? You mean I could have made a wrong choice decades ago and nothing can remedy that? Jesus didn’t die on the cross for my wrong decision?

As to the second point, the whole idea of losing your vocation/losing your faith in a mean old secular college filled with terrible Jezebel women is demeaning to women, demeaning to men, and overall strikes me as being afraid of life outside the seminary. We don’t want priests like that, do we?

Immaturity is one of the reasons that the priest abuse scandal occurred. Going to Catholic secondary school, minor seminary, and major seminary does not give a man the opportunity to mature, to resist temptation, to learn about life, to develop healthy friendships with women, etc.

And I have no idea what you mean by “normal in the modern world” . The modern world doesn’t really spend much time thinking about priestly formation, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Ignatius]

i do wanna date or get married but, the bible says its good for a man to get married but its even better for a man to never touch a woman, if god wants me to abstain from sexuality itself, i will though. i’m going to confession saturday, i’ve thought about becoming a priest but, im 15 could i ? but i wanna date at least once or marry i dont know if i can take a vow of celibacy … i wanna at least have a 1st kiss like everybody else… i’ve barely even talked to girls but i wanna be that better & never touch a woman but i wanna get married & be a father one day … i want to abstain from sexuality itself but i wanna get married or date …

I would look into the priesthood, but in the meantime I would have a normal social life, including dating. This is the only way that you will know.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Yes, I do. Common sense. Maybe I misunderstand you, but you seem to be saying in the first instance that God is like a Grand Inquisitor that is waiting for you to make a misstep so he can send you to Hell. &c.]

That’s not what I said, I encourage you to re-read what I said carefully. Notice words like “risk” and the like. I never said someone goes to hell without a doubt if he neglects to discern his vocation properly. It is still possible but very difficult to be saved if one does not follow the vocation to which God calls him. If he does so from upright motives (e.g., he has to take care of his ailing parents, etc.), then he is not guilty at all but fulfills his duty as a child. If he does it from some other selfish motive, then it would be at least venially sinful. Depending upon the motive, it very well could be (and probably is, alas, for many) mortally sinful. That individual sin can certainly be forgiven by confession, but even after that, once someone has made permanent vows, received ordination, or been married, he can’t turn back. For the rest of his life, he can possibly save his soul but will do so with much greater difficulty on account of the necessary graces he will lack that God in his plan had prepared for him in his proper state in life.

As to the second point, the whole idea of losing your vocation/losing your faith in a mean old secular college filled with terrible Jezebel women is demeaning to women, demeaning to men, and overall strikes me as being afraid of life outside the seminary. We don’t want priests like that, do we?.quote]

You do not understand human nature, naturally. I would also add that you haven’t ever thought you had a vocation (at least according to what you’ve said), so I think those who have not only experienced it themselves but–much more importantly–have sought counsel from those who regularly deal with vocations (e.g., vocations directors at seminaries), spiritual directors, and priests on in interpersonal way and in a much greater capacity have a lot more weight when it comes to the realm of opinion. So much to say that I think I am a bit better informed about this. That is still only a small reason for what I’ve said, however, for, as I said, the spiritual authors are unanimous on this point. I would challenge you to come up with a single example to the contrary. If what you’re saying is “common sense,” I guess the doctors of the Church lack common sense. Interesting thought…

Immaturity is one of the reasons that the priest abuse scandal occurred. Going to Catholic secondary school, minor seminary, and major seminary does not give a man the opportunity to mature, to resist temptation, to learn about life, to develop healthy friendships with women, etc.

That’s your opinion, and I think it is entirely wrong. There was no such thing as mixed education in schools until very recently. Where is the evidence for all the abuse scandals in every country throughout the history of the Church? Any evidence you have to support your presupposition would be à propos.

And I have no idea what you mean by “normal in the modern world”. The modern world doesn’t really spend much time thinking about priestly formation, wouldn’t you agree?

Re-read what I quoted just above about immaturity. That is precisely the sort of thing I am talking about. It is pretty much just your opinion without facts. Your opinion is formed by what modern society considers normal. You then apply that to a vocational situation. That’s what I meant.

 

[PaulinVA]

That’s not what I said, I encourage you to re-read what I said carefully. Notice words like “risk” and the like. I never said someone goes to hell without a doubt if he neglects to discern his vocation properly. It is still possible but* very difficult to be saved if one does not follow the vocation to which God calls him*. …For the rest of his life, he can possibly save his soul but will do so with much greater difficulty on account of the necessary graces he will lack that God in his plan had prepared for him in his proper state in life.

Okay, what I said still stands. You haven’t refuted anything, just backpedaled a little. Living out a vocation takes the free will of many people - if I am called to marriage, I need someone to agree to marry me. If I am called by God to a religious vocation, but no diocese or order accepts me, where does that leave me? An uphill battle to be saved because of other people?

Paul:

As to the second point, the whole idea of losing your vocation/losing your faith in a mean old secular college filled with terrible Jezebel women is demeaning to women, demeaning to men, and overall strikes me as being afraid of life outside the seminary. We don’t want priests like that, do we?

IntegraCatholic:

You do not understand human nature, naturally. I would also add that you haven’t ever thought you had a vocation (at least according to what you’ve said)

Ad Hominen and condescending at the same time. Nice.
I am living out my vocation right now. You must remember that married life is a vocation, too.

IntegraCatholic:

Re-read what I quoted just above about immaturity. That is precisely the sort of thing I am talking about. It is pretty much just your opinion without facts. Your opinion is formed by what modern society considers normal. You then apply that to a vocational situation. That’s what I meant.

I stand by what I wrote. It comes from reading about the abuse scandals, reading about seminary education, and observing/speaking with priests for decades. But the second point was actually about losing one’s priestly vocation if one goes a secular college. You seem to be arguing that no one who feels they have a vocation has ever survived a secular college. I can point you to some if you would like. Really, all of those authors actually say that every man with a priestly vocation who ever attended a secular college “lost” his vocation?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Okay, what I said still stands. You haven’t refuted anything, just backpedaled a little. Living out a vocation takes the free will of many people - if I am called to marriage, I need someone to agree to marry me. If I am called by God to a religious vocation, but no diocese or order accepts me, where does that leave me? An uphill battle to be saved because of other people?

I didn’t backpedal or change anything I wrote. You misread the first post.

If you don’t find someone to marry but were doing your duties in life without fault, you obviously don’t have a vocation from God. If you aren’t accepted to seminary, you obviously don’t have a vocation from God. It’s clear from these statements that you’ve not read anything about the topic. Why do you feel compelled to contradict what someone else says (I wouldn’t mind if you had asked about it due to lack of knowledge) when you are ignorant on the subject?

Ad Hominen

 

[PaulinVA]

I didn’t backpedal or change anything I wrote. You misread the first post.

If you don’t find someone to marry but were doing your duties in life without fault, you obviously don’t have a vocation from God. If you aren’t accepted to seminary, you obviously don’t have a vocation from God. It’s clear from these statements that you’ve not read anything about the topic. Why do you feel compelled to contradict what someone else says (I wouldn’t mind if you had asked about it due to lack of knowledge) when you are ignorant on the subject?

I find your logic fascinating. So, actually, what you are saying is that one does not have to discern ones vocation at all! If one thinks they might have a religious vocation, just enter the discernment process. If you are not accepted to seminary - you didn’t have a vocation! Great! How many seminaries do you have to apply to? One? One diocesan and one order? So, it’s out of my hands totally? Oh, and if one is accepted to seminary that means one has a call from God? God wanted all those pedophile priests?

IntegraCatholic:

…The statements you made evince that you misunderstand human nature, the passions, etc. If you perhaps actually do understand these, your comment lacks the understanding of them. It is a matter of semantics, though.

Yeah, there’s a lack of understanding of human nature going on here, for sure.

I wrote more, but this is enough. I don’t want to derail the thread, which is dangerously off topic now.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

You have evinced no intention to know the truth on this matter, which saddens me. I recommend to you the works of theologians. Your opinion is not in line with theirs.

 

[JimG]

In any case, having not kissed a girl by age 15 is in no way any indication of a priestly vocation! Rather it is just an indication of common sense, in not having immediately caved in to the push of a promiscuous society for early sex.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

One person mentioned college. If you think you have a vocation, don’t go to college. You will almost certainly lose your vocation. You can learn anything you learn that is worthwhile in college while at the seminary.

You’ve got to be kidding me. First of all, we need priests who can fearlessly engage modernity and our culture, not priests who have hid from it all their lives in a self-constructed fortress of isolation.

And secondly, your claim that such a person “will almost certainly lose [his] vocation” in college is patently untrue. Case in point:

Maybe it’s just peculiar to my diocese, but we seem to have a lot of new priests and new seminarians who did not go to minor seminary. One was an accountant, one was a physicist, before going to major seminary. Even those still in college seem to discern their vocations quite well at a secular college. Last week I heard a talk from a seminarian who first discerned a possible vocation in grade school, but was uncertain until after his college years and a girlfriend, that he wanted to go on to major seminary.

One upside of this seems, to me at least, to be that those who arrive at their discernment in this way are quite certain of it.

See, IntegraCatholic?

You do not understand human nature, naturally.

Wow. You sound like the people who think Christopher West is dangerous/too optimistic.

I would also add that you haven’t ever thought you had a vocation (at least according to what you’ve said)

What about me? I have felt called to marriage in the past, and I once actively discerned that calling with a wonderful young Catholic woman for two years. That counts since the Church does, after all, now formally recognize marriage as a vocation.

PaulinVA, both of the opinions I expressed are the common consensus of moral theologians and spiritual authors (especially the second one; it is unanimous, in fact, in all those I have read–at least a dozen, probably many more). Do you have a source for what you are saying other than your personal opinion, which, if I may say so, seems to be guided more by what is considered “normal” by the modern world than by sound principles?

I’m with PaulinVA on this, and my opinion is based on one very clear, specific thing: my experience.

Skipping college and going straight into seminary could certainly be the right decision, perhaps for many men who are discerning a call. But the kind of man who would do that out of fear of losing his vocation - out of the kind of suspicion your posts drip with - well, let me just say that I’ve met Catholics with that attitude toward the world, and they are almost all socially and spiritually unprepared to discern the priesthood seriously.

On the other hand, some of the most morally, spiritually, and socially well-adjusted Catholic men I know who are discerning the priesthood are precisely those who have not been afraid of the world.

If by secular university you mean one that is not Catholic, the Church’s teaching is clear that this is not permissible to attend a secular university without grave and necessary reasons.

I highly doubt that. Where on earth are you getting that from? And by the way, the specific friend I was thinking of when I typed the above paragraph - about well-adjusted Catholic men I know who are discerning the priesthood - went to the Ohio State University.

In general, I highly encourage you to research a topic that you are unfamiliar with before attacking someone else’s position on it, who may be much better educated on the subject that you.

I highly encourage you to join me and PaulinVA in the real world. As you surely know, it really needs Christ, and your fellow Catholics could certainly use your assistance in helping it get to know Him.

In any case, having not kissed a girl by age 15 is in no way any indication of a priestly vocation! Rather it is just an indication of common sense, in not having immediately caved in to the push of a promiscuous society for early sex.

Of course. Well said. I hope the OP realizes by now that his situation is not unusual. He’ll discover God’s plan for him if he keeps praying, keeps living the faith, and remains open to God’s will for his life.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

You’ve got to be kidding me. First of all, we need priests who can fearlessly engage modernity and our culture, not priests who have hid from it all their lives in a self-constructed fortress of isolation.

Yes, we need priests who will fearlessly engage the culture of death. Let’s have them perform abortions, aid doctors in assisted-suicides, and help people use embryonic stem cells to cure diseases. While they’re at it, they may want to try using contraception, aiding in artificial insemination, and perhaps volunteering as a donor themselves. WHAT?? Because we need people to confront modernity, let’s throw them into modernity and see how it turns out? ???

And secondly, your claim that such a person “will almost certainly lose [his] vocation” in college is patently untrue.

Did you read my response to that? Do you understand the saying “the exception proves the rule”? If I say, look, not all 50-year-olds are smarter than 8-year-olds. See that man who is brain dead and this little boy with a 160 IQ? The fact that you have to try to come up with an example goes to show that there is a rule, and you are just coming up with an exception to that rule. Even if what you are saying is true of the majority of men who discern the priesthood today, who is to say that there wouldn’t be thousands of as many men doing the same if they weren’t thrown to the wolves of modern secular society?

Wow. You sound like the people who think Christopher West is dangerous/too optimistic.

You got one thing right.

What about me? I have felt called to marriage in the past, and I once actively discerned that calling with a wonderful young Catholic woman for two years. That counts since the Church does, after all, now formally recognize marriage as a vocation.

This discussion isn’t about marriage. It’s about the clerical and religious life. The “vocation” to marriage is a calling from God but only analogously. It is the natural end of man, so it doesn’t require a particular vocation or calling from God (with the necessary graces to fulfill it) as a celibate life does.

I’m with PaulinVA on this, and my opinion is based on one very clear, specific thing: my experience.

An aborigine’s experience is very clear. There are no iPods, computers, telephones, motor vehicles, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

But the kind of man who would do that out of fear of losing his vocation - out of the kind of suspicion your posts drip with - well, let me just say that I’ve met Catholics with that attitude toward the world, and they are almost all socially and spiritually unprepared to discern the priesthood seriously.

Again, every spiritual author on this point is very clear. Without exception they all say that such a person has an obligation to guard his vocation as a special gift from God, to avoid discourse with the world (and especially the opposite sex). Why should someone accept your opinion over theirs, especially when theirs is unanimous? This is a sign of (lamentably) the lack of seriousness with which people “discern” (if it can be called that) their particular state in life according to the will of God.

I highly doubt that. Where on earth are you getting that from?

Any thorough examination of conscience. I was trying to find such an exam for you online, though I don’t think it would make any difference. I’m actually not sure why I even took the time to reply to your message.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, we need priests who will fearlessly engage the culture of death. Let’s have them perform abortions, aid doctors in assisted-suicides, and help people use embryonic stem cells to cure diseases. While they’re at it, they may want to try using contraception, aiding in artificial insemination, and perhaps volunteering as a donor themselves. WHAT?? Because we need people to confront modernity, let’s throw them into modernity and see how it turns out? ???

Oh, come on, you know that’s a logically atrocious comparison. Going to a secular university is not morally or spiritually comparable to performing abortions, assisted suicide, embryo-destructive research, contraception, or fornication. And to lump abortion and going to a secular university together - even merely analogously - under the same category of “engaging the culture of death” is a drastic, extreme equivocation.

Did you read my response to that? Do you understand the saying “the exception proves the rule”? If I say, look, not all 50-year-olds are smarter than 8-year-olds. See that man who is brain dead and this little boy with a 160 IQ? The fact that you have to try to come up with an example goes to show that there is a rule, and you are just coming up with an exception to that rule.

Of course, you’re right that “the exception proves the rule” can apply here. I’ll openly acknowledge that. But who’s to say what’s the exception and what’s the rule? In your analogy, I’m the one who’d be saying, “Look, most 50-year-olds aren’t like that; all the 50-year-olds I know are smarter than small children.”

Look, I know a guy who went straight into seminary after graduating from high school. And you know what? I have no doubt that he did the right thing. He was very serious about discerning the priesthood.

But I shudder at the prospect of a young man going straight into seminary out of fear, out of some suspicion that he will lose his vocation to this world’s debauchery if he so much as breathes the same air as people who don’t share our faith or our morals.

That guy I knew from high school wasn’t like that. He entered the seminary right away because he was pursuing God’s will for him, not because he was hiding or running from the world. He was running toward his vocation, not away from the world.

You got one thing right.

Well, I can’t say I’m surprised.

This discussion isn’t about marriage. It’s about the clerical and religious life.

Okay, fair enough. I realize now that in the context of this discussion, what you said applied only to discerning the vocation to the priesthood or religious life.

Again, every spiritual author on this point is very clear. Without exception they all say that such a person has an obligation to guard his vocation as a special gift from God, to avoid discourse with the world (and especially the opposite sex). Why should someone accept your opinion over theirs, especially when theirs is unanimous? This is a sign of (lamentably) the lack of seriousness with which people “discern” (if it can be called that) their particular state in life according to the will of God.

Avoid discourse with the opposite sex? What, are they afraid that they’ll say, “Screw this, I’m getting married! I forgot how great women are!” If that is what would happen, sounds like such a man isn’t very serious about the priesthood anyway, and don’t you think it’d be important for him to discover that?

And I emphatically reject your assertion that this attitude is a sign of “lack of seriousness” about vocations. On the contrary, I take the priesthood so seriously that it makes me uncomfortable to think that a man would pursue the priesthood simply because all other options were kept from him (either by himself or by others).

Franciscan University of Steubenville’s chancellor, Fr. Michael Scanlan, was engaged to be married before he experienced his call to the priesthood. And you know what? His relationship with his fiance wasn’t an impediment to his call. Rather, his well-rounded experience of having discerned marriage only aided his eventual certainty that he was not called to that life but rather to the priesthood.

Please note that I’m not suggesting that one could discern multiple vocations at once. That would make absolutely no sense and be utterly counterproductive on all levels. My only point is that “discourse with the world” and “with the opposite sex” should not be viewed as an impediment to vocations to the priesthood or religious life.

Any thorough examination of conscience. I was trying to find such an exam for you online, though I don’t think it would make any difference. I’m actually not sure why I even took the time to reply to your message.

I’m grateful that you did reply, IntegraCatholic, and I hope you’ll do so again.

But a particular examination of conscience is not authoritative in itself at determing what’s sinful and what’s not. Sounds to me like your sources for asserting that attending a secular university without serious justification is sinful are (a) your own opinion, and (b) the opinion of whoever wrote your favorite examination of conscience.

Here is an example of what I consider to be a thorough examination of conscience. That isn’t the complete document (I couldn’t find the whole thing online), which includes a big list of venial sins as well. But it doesn’t list going to a secular university without serious reason (nor does it list it under “venial sins” in the complete document). Do you therefore deny that this examination of conscience to which I have linked is thorough?

 

[jet100]

Hey,
Don’t worry! I’m almost 20years old and never kissed or been on a date. I’m discerning a catholic nun lifestyle. I know it’s hard when people call you a prude, a stupid virgin, or weird, ir I usually get called " Sister Cam or the Nun" . People think its weird, just try to ignore them., It’s satan trying to tempt you to give in and give it up.
It’s your treasure to give to either Jesus or a man or a woman your soulmate
Remember God loves you and pray to the Saints and Holy Virgin Mary. That has really helped me out.
Don’t let Satan tempt you into giving it up. It almost happened to me.

God bless,

With christ,

Cam

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Oh, come on, you know that’s a logically atrocious comparison. Going to a secular university is not morally or spiritually comparable to performing abortions, assisted suicide, embryo-destructive research, contraception, or fornication. And to lump abortion and going to a secular university together - even merely analogously - under the same category of “engaging the culture of death” is a drastic, extreme equivocation.

It’s not equivalent. It’s an analogy and is the reductio ad absurdum of the logic used in your post.

But who’s to say what’s the exception and what’s the rule?

All spiritual authors who address the issue. Without exception.

But I shudder at the prospect of a young man going straight into seminary out of fear, out of some suspicion that he will lose his vocation to this world’s debauchery if he so much as breathes the same air as people who don’t share our faith or our morals.

That is a straw man using inflammatory language. I didn’t imply any of that. Again, could you please give a supporting opinion and logical reason behind it? As I said, there could be thousands of vocations that we’ve never heard of because they were lost due to lack of prudence and care.

He entered the seminary right away because he was pursuing God’s will for him, not because he was hiding or running from the world. He was running toward his vocation, not away from the world.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. These aren’t mutually exclusive principles. In fact, they work hand-in-hand.

…it makes me uncomfortable to think that a man would pursue the priesthood simply because all other options were kept from him (either by himself or by others).

No one is proposing that.

Franciscan University of Steubenville’s chancellor, Fr. Michael Scanlan, was engaged to be married before he experienced his call to the priesthood.

You continue to provide particular examples. Yes, that may be the case. It may be the case with the majority of vocations that actually come to fruition today. That doesn’t mean that 10,000 times as many are never realized due to improper discernment. If 1,000 people go to college to discern and 4 come out with vocations and 2 people don’t go to college because they decide to go immediately to the seminary because they already discerned this to be their vocation (to the best of their ability), the percentage of the 4 is astronomically lower than the percentage of the 2 who go. If of those 1,000 none went to college, I can’t imagine fewer than several hundred would at least pursue the possibility of entering seminary. It has always been normal for 2/3 of those who enter the seminary to leave. The person just needs to go to see whether it is his vocation or not. It doesn’t mean he will certainly stay. St. John Bosco says that one in three boys has a priestly vocation. The problem is they aren’t seriously discerning.

But a particular examination of conscience is not authoritative in itself at determing what’s sinful and what’s not. Sounds to me like your sources for asserting that attending a secular university without serious justification is sinful are (a) your own opinion, and (b) the opinion of whoever wrote your favorite examination of conscience.

Not my favorite examination of conscience. Every examination of conscience that addresses the issue of education of children (at least before modern day… perhaps because the lack of good Catholic schools available). This is based upon dozens of Magisterial documents. There have been entire encyclicals written on this very subject.

The first mention of this I could find was in Leo XIII’s encyclical In Amplissimo: “We are not unaware, Venerable Brothers, of all that has been done by every one of you for the establishment and the success of schools and academies for the proper education of children. By your zeal in this respect you have clearly acted in conformity with the exhortations of the Apostolic See and the prescriptions of the Council of Baltimore.”

This isn’t very explicit, but he is writing to what at the time was very much a mission territory, as the entire encyclical makes clear (the US). This is one of the shortest encyclicals Leo XIII wrote (only 6 paragraphs), but he takes the time to mention this explicitly. He also mentions that this is the exhortations of the Apostolic See, implying a steady teaching. Leo XIII wrote himself six encyclicals about Christian education. Take this passage from Spectata Fides:

“The beginning and, as it were, the seed of that human perfection which Jesus Christ gave to mankind, are to be found in the Christian education of the young; for the future condition of the State depends upon the early training of its children. The wisdom of our forefathers, and the very foundations of the State, are ruined by the destructive error of those who would have children brought up without religious education. You see, therefore Venerable Brethren, with what earnest forethought parents must beware of entrusting their children to schools in which they cannot receive religious teaching. … Go on, therefore, Venerable Brethren, in making the young your chief care; press onward in every way your episcopal work; and cultivate with alacrity and hopefulness whatever good seeds you find: for God, Who is rich in mercy will give the increase.”

(Continued…)

 

[IntegraCatholic]

He is not any less concerned with the proper Catholic education at a university. Among other encyclicals entirely dedicated to this subject, in Quod Votis, Leo XIII says:

“Accordingly, We freely and with full approbation assent to your plans, which in themselves are commendable. We wish to point out explicitly in writing our great joy at this news, since We encourage holy sets of learning to be established and enlarged everywhere. Moreover, We declare this also to add an incentive to your faithful to hasten the conclusion of so great an enterprise.”

Longinqua, Leo XIII: “For Our part We have left nothing undone, as far as circumstances permitted, to preserve and more solidly establish amongst you the Catholic religion. With this intent, We have, as you are well aware, turned Our attention to two special objects: first, the advancement of learning; second, a perfecting of methods in the management of Church affairs. There already, indeed, existed several distinguished universities. We, however, thought it advisable that there should be one founded by authority of the Apostolic See and endowed by Us with all suitable powers, in which Catholic professors might instruct those devoted to the pursuit of learning. … We expressed the wish that it should be regarded as the fixed law of the university to unite erudition and learning with soundness of faith and to imbue its students not less with religion than with scientific culture.”

I could go on and on with just Leo XIII references. Central to a proper education is the necessity of instilling religion in students (and not teaching them contrary to the teachings of the Church in philosophy, theology, etc.–both of which are assumed in every discipline: literature, history, the natural sciences).

Consider Acerbo Nimis of St. Pius X and Rappresentanti in Terra of Pius XI. Also from Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri:

“In general also it belongs to civil society and the State to provide what may be called civic education, not only for its youth, but for all ages and classes. This consists in the practice of presenting publicly to groups of individuals information having an intellectual, imaginative and emotional appeal, calculated to draw their wills to what is upright and honest, and to urge its practice by a sort of moral compulsion, positively by disseminating such knowledge, and negatively by suppressing what is opposed to it. This civic education, so wide and varied in itself as to include almost every activity of the State intended for the public good, ought also to be regulated by the norms of rectitude, and therefore cannot conflict with the doctrines of the Church, which is the divinely appointed teacher of these norms.” (And the rest of the encyclical, saying similar things.)

The principle is fairly simple. One must guard his faith from error. He cannot put himself in a circumstance where his faith is threatened or where he is subject to listening to blasphemies against our faith. This is all pretty straightforward when someone considers the teaching of the Church that freedom is speech is illegitimate because it places truth and error on par with one another. These secular universities should not even exist.

Do you therefore deny that this examination of conscience to which I have linked is thorough?

This may be omitted from some modern examinations because the lack of good Catholic schools available today. The principle still remains and must be fulfilled when it is possible.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Ive been going through the same thing exept im 17 years old. As think about my life i feel God does this to some men. He preserves us from the outside world to do greater things. Many people find a man who hasnt been kissed or dated wrong but it is not. It is a blessing from God and he is preserving you for greater things. It could be that you wont find your future wife until later in life or that God’s Divine will is that you become a priest. Either way it is not good to consider the priesthood just because you cant find a girlfriend because it doesnt get you anywhere. You must ask God what he wants and he will lead you to it. I never considered the priesthood at 15 but when i was 16, I told God that i wanted to be his servant and to do his will. That one moment in prayer led to where i am today, a young man eager to go to the seminary to serve God.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hey,
Don’t worry! I’m almost 20years old and never kissed or been on a date. I’m discerning a catholic nun lifestyle. I know it’s hard when people call you a prude, a stupid virgin, or weird, ir I usually get called " Sister Cam or the Nun" . People think its weird, just try to ignore them., It’s satan trying to tempt you to give in and give it up.
It’s your treasure to give to either Jesus or a man or a woman your soulmate
Remember God loves you and pray to the Saints and Holy Virgin Mary. That has really helped me out.
Don’t let Satan tempt you into giving it up. It almost happened to me.

Well put. I meet more and more people my age who say the same thing, and I think (hope?) that everyone in our culture is beginning to realize that that’s not necessarily weird or out-of-the-ordinary. Some of the coolest, most “normal” people I know have never dated, so obviously there’s absolutely nothing prudish or socially backward about that at all.

It’s not equivalent. It’s an analogy and is the reductio ad absurdum of the logic used in your post.

Okay, I’m glad and relieved that you intended the analogy only as a reductio ad absurdum of my post’s logic. But that’s really not true. Look at what you said:

If you think you have a vocation, don’t go to college. You will almost certainly lose your vocation.

That is drastic, fearful, and untrue.

All spiritual authors who address the issue. Without exception.

About college? In contemporary society?

That is a straw man using inflammatory language. I didn’t imply any of that.

Okay, I’m glad that you said that, and I apologize for inadvertently misrepresenting your position.

Would you be willing to elaborate more on what you meant by, “If you think you have a vocation, don’t go to college. You will almost certainly lose your vocation”?

I only ask because the reasoning I paraphrased - namely, the sinful social standards, atmosphere, expectations, and opportunities that abound at most secular universities - is the only reason I could think of for why a person would lose his or her vocation to the priesthood or religious life if he or she went to college. Would you be willing to explain in more detail why and how you think that would happen?

No one is proposing that.

Once again, I’m glad to hear that.

You continue to provide particular examples.

While I fully admit that examples provide only inductive evidence - and even then only as they accumulate - I do so because I prefer to deal in the concrete and the specific, not in abstractions and assumptions that are impossible to assess…

Yes, that may be the case. It may be the case with the majority of vocations that actually come to fruition today. That doesn’t mean that 10,000 times as many are never realized due to improper discernment. If 1,000 people go to college to discern and 4 come out with vocations and 2 people don’t go to college because they decide to go immediately to the seminary because they already discerned this to be their vocation (to the best of their ability), the percentage of the 4 is astronomically lower than the percentage of the 2 who go. If of those 1,000 none went to college, I can’t imagine fewer than several hundred would at least pursue the possibility of entering seminary. It has always been normal for 2/3 of those who enter the seminary to leave. The person just needs to go to see whether it is his vocation or not. It doesn’t mean he will certainly stay. St. John Bosco says that one in three boys has a priestly vocation. The problem is they aren’t seriously discerning.

Okay, fair enough. But why assume that going to college is an impediment to vocations to the priesthood or religious life? Why is that your default position? Why make that assumption?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is based upon dozens of Magisterial documents. There have been entire encyclicals written on this very subject . . .

I could go on and on with just Leo XIII references. Central to a proper education is the necessity of instilling religion in students (and not teaching them contrary to the teachings of the Church in philosophy, theology, etc.–both of which are assumed in every discipline: literature, history, the natural sciences).

Consider Acerbo Nimis of St. Pius X and Rappresentanti in Terra of Pius XI. Also from Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri:

“In general also it belongs to civil society and the State to provide what may be called civic education, not only for its youth, but for all ages and classes. This consists in the practice of presenting publicly to groups of individuals information having an intellectual, imaginative and emotional appeal, calculated to draw their wills to what is upright and honest, and to urge its practice by a sort of moral compulsion, positively by disseminating such knowledge, and negatively by suppressing what is opposed to it. This civic education, so wide and varied in itself as to include almost every activity of the State intended for the public good, ought also to be regulated by the norms of rectitude, and therefore cannot conflict with the doctrines of the Church, which is the divinely appointed teacher of these norms.” (And the rest of the encyclical, saying similar things.)

The principle is fairly simple. One must guard his faith from error. He cannot put himself in a circumstance where his faith is threatened or where he is subject to listening to blasphemies against our faith. This is all pretty straightforward when someone considers the teaching of the Church that freedom is speech is illegitimate because it places truth and error on par with one another. These secular universities should not even exist.

Thank you for providing all those quotations. I see now where you’re coming from, and I certainly wouldn’t deny that for Catholics, a critical component of education is a solid grounding in theology (and you make a very astute point about philosophy, IntegraCatholic).

And your attitude certainly applies to the kind of universities that spawn the moral horror stories I’ve encountered (the ones that explicitly promote rampant immorality and engage in obvious ideological indoctrination). 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).

Two other points as well:

(a) 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.

(b) And this is my most important point: what about the good Catholic universities? Certainly nothing in the quotes you provided would be anything but optimistic about a university with a wholeheartedly Catholic orthodoxy and atmosphere. When you said, “Don’t go to college if you think you have a vocation,” did you just mean the secular ones that indoctrinate and promote promiscuity? Or did you mean any college?

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.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Okay, I’m glad and relieved that you intended the analogy only as a reductio ad absurdum of my post’s logic. But that’s really not true. Look at what you said:

“If you think you have a vocation, don’t go to college. You will almost certainly lose your vocation.”

Yes, and I stand by that (more below), but your response was basically that “we need people who are willing to get their feet wet with modernity in order to fight it.” My response was that if that is true, then all those other ridiculous things would be true. You seemed to imply in your response an hostile situation, which wasn’t even something that was necessary to what I was saying about a vocation. That would make it much, much worse, though.

That is drastic, fearful, and untrue.

I disagree. Drastic according to what standard? Fearful? Not any more than St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus. Untrue? Look at the numbers. How many vocations come from people who go to college? (This isn’t the only circumstance, but I mean to say those who do not make their vocation rather than their education or wealth their primary concern.) I grant that this issue is very convoluted due to the many factors involved, so let’s take a more certain example with fewer variables. How many vocations from before the crisis came from those who: 1. realized their grave obligation to discern a vocation from God as the principle decision they would ever make in their lives, 2. discerned they had a vocation to the priesthood or religious life before the time came to go to college, and 3. went to college. There isn’t a single example in the lives of the saints. That is for sure. If you look at the number of seminarians, say, in 1960, 1950, 1940, etc., you will surely see the same trend. Those who entered later either had a conversion of life or experienced doubts about their vocations. (This is rare in itself, but I’m just giving it as a possibility.) How many people came after college? The number is very low. How many fulfill the three criteria I listed above? I honestly think I can say that the number would be fewer than one in a thousand or even one in ten thousand. It simply makes no sense. What is the purpose of going to college. Whatever you can garner from such an experience can be learned (and better) at the seminary or convent. As far as an education, frequently for religious this can be little more than a cause for pride, for (with notable exceptions), such knowledge has no place in the cloister. I’m not saying it’s bad to have, I’m just saying, it doesn’t make sense to go learn such things when it’s not relevant to what you know to be your duty in life so far as in you lies.

But who’s to say what’s the exception and what’s the rule?
“All spiritual authors who address the issue. Without exception.”
About college? In contemporary society?

They establish principles that must be followed, whether it has to do with college, taking a part-time (or more permanent job), going to live in the forest, traveling the world, or doing any number of things.

Would you be willing to elaborate more on what you meant by, “If you think you have a vocation, don’t go to college. You will almost certainly lose your vocation”? … When you said, “Don’t go to college if you think you have a vocation,” did you just mean the secular ones that indoctrinate and promote promiscuity? Or did you mean any college?

It doesn’t matter that one is going to college (Catholic or secular) or doing anything else. It matters that he is needlessly delaying putting his vocation into effect.

I only ask because the reasoning I paraphrased - namely, the sinful social standards, atmosphere, expectations, and opportunities that abound at most secular universities - is the only reason I could think of for why a person would lose his or her vocation to the priesthood or religious life if he or she went to college. Would you be willing to explain in more detail why and how you think that would happen?

Let me post a selection from St. Alphonsus. I prefer to use this source especially because he liberally quotes from other authors of great importance while also explaining the rationale himself. (I have added the bolding and brackets.)

WE MUST OBEY THE VOICE OF GOD WITHOUT DELAY

Whenever God calls to a more perfect state, he who does not wish to expose his eternal salvation to great danger must then obey, and obey promptly. Otherwise, he will hear from Jesus Christ the reproach he made to that young man who, when invited to follow him, said, “I will follow Thee, Lord, but let me first take my leave of them that are at my house” (Lk 9. 61). And Jesus replied to him that he was not fir for paradise: “No man putting his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God” (62).

(Continued…)