Is lay single life a vocation or is it not?

[bardegaulois]

My answer here is generally a no. To my mind, lay celibacy is not a call from God in itself, because it can only be construed negatively (not as something, but only as “not something”). However, I do believe that it is a state of life onto which a number of other calls can be grafted, whether ecclesiastical or professional, outside of the context of the traditional vocations, which are always primary. But these ecclesiastical or professional callings, secondary though the might seem in a certain sense, actually tend to be the primary vocation; the fact of lay celibacy is more like incidental formatting (or rather, lack of formatting) to it.

 

[kkollwitz]

A vocation is other-oriented, which is surely possible for the single person.

 

[BarbTh]

My answer here is generally a no. To my mind, lay celibacy is not a call from God in itself, because it can only be construed negatively (not as something, but only as “not something”). However, I do believe that it is a state of life onto which a number of other calls can be grafted, whether ecclesiastical or professional, outside of the context of the traditional vocations, which are always primary. But these ecclesiastical or professional callings, secondary though the might seem in a certain sense, actually tend to be the primary vocation; the fact of lay celibacy is more like incidental formatting (or rather, lack of formatting) to it.

I cannot, apologies, understand what you mean by "construed negatively (not as something, but only as “not something”). Nor “the fact of lay celibacy is more like incidental formatting (or rather, lack of formatting”.

Could God invite a lay person to remain in the celibate lay state and for “the sake of The Kingdom” in some way? Of course He could. And “for the sake of The Kingdom” is always “other- orientated” (kkollwitz).

 

[bardegaulois]

What I mean to say by “not something” is that the only real way to construe lay celibacy is a state in which one is NOT a cleric, NOT a religious, and NOT married. We are able only to define it distinctively not by what it is, but rather by what it is not. There is little that one can affirm generally about all lay celibate Christians beyond that which one can affirm about all Christians, regardless of their state in life.

Think of it this way: if you or I were resident in Saudi Arabia during a census, we might be obliged to fill out a census form. The question regarding religion might ask if you are 1) Sunni; 2) Shiite; or 3) Other. Needless to say, we’re not Muslims, so we’d tick off Other. But our religious identity is not something other than Sunni or Shiite; our religious identity is Christian, and more specifically Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, to the Saudi Arabian census, we’d simply be Other, along with every other non-Muslim resident there: Hindu, Chinese traditional religionist, Evangelical Protestant, and so forth. Often there’s not much commonality between these divergent factions. So even as a category, it fails except as a convenient classification as a small minority.

But that’s simply a deconstruction of a rather broad category. The question is one of vocation, and that has a lot to do with the formatting that I spoke about. We’ve always taken vocation as a call from God and one’s response to that call by embracing a specific state of life or duty or so forth, generally as ratified by the acceptance of another, giving it a profound social dimension. To profess celibacy outside of the religious or clerical state needs no social ratification, for it is the fact we are naturally born into, and we may easily remain there whether others like it or not. To be celibate in the lay state could be a call from God, but I’d venture a guess that far more often it is the result of the rejection of a call from God. However, that the fact of lay celibacy could be “other-focused” is beyond me.

However, a person can be in the lay state and celibate and nevertheless joyfully be fulfilling a call profoundly focused on assisting others, whether through their professional work, through volunteerism, or through deep and profound prayer and penance. These latter things were offered, chosen, and ratified in that others have accepted that work. That is the vocation, not the fact that this person has not married or become a priest or religious. A change of state might have been discerned against or such a person might have been dismissed from a novitiate or seminary as somehow unsuitable. Marriage, moreover, which can generally be presumed in the lay state, might simply be an afterthought. And so one finds oneself lay and celibate not because one consciously chose celibacy or the lay state, but simply because it is most conducive to the other end and to fulfilling the other call, rather than a real call in itself. Thus, a sort of format–an 8.5-by-11 inch page, not the sonnet written in Spencer script on the page.

I hope this clarifies some.

 

[BarbTh]

1. 
   *]There are those who are in the lay celibate state of life due to a perceived call and vocation to embrace this state as a life vocation for “the sake of The Kingdom”. This is recognized by The Church as a potential call and vocation and always has been. The lay state in life is a Canonical state in The Church.
   *]There are those who are in the above state as they discern a further call and vocation to one of the other Canonical states in life (priesthood, some form of consecrated life, marriage)
   *]There are those who are in the above state and feel (quite wrongly) that they have no vocation.
   
   All the above would ask, to my mind, and in prudence and wisdom would have, sound spiritual direction.

 

[BarbTh]

For anyone in the lay celibate state for any reason feels that they do not have a vocation, then the following spells out for them that way of life to which they are called. I am only quoting a very small excerpt compared to the overall document but if you want to understand the lay celibate (single) vocation in secular life, one should read the whole document ideally. If I am correct in understanding what “format” might mean in a previous post by bardegaulois - then the following document is the answer. It does form a foundation and guide for a rule of life and an apostolate.

DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF THE LAITY
APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS,
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html

CHAPTER I

THE** VOCATION **OF THE LAITY TO THE APOSTOLATE

…"All activity of the Mystical Body directed to the attainment of this goal is called the apostolate, which the Church carries on in various ways through all her members.** For the Christian vocation** by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate. No part of the structure of a living body is merely passive but has a share in the functions as well as life of the body: so, too, in the body of Christ, which is the Church, “the whole body . . . in keeping with the proper activity of each part, derives its increase from its own internal development” (Eph. 4:16)…

…"…An indication of this manifold and pressing need is the unmistakable work being done today by the Holy Spirit in making the laity ever more conscious of their own responsibility and encouraging them to serve Christ and the Church in all circumstances.(3)In this decree the Council seeks to describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise. All these should be regarded as norms when the canon law, as it pertains to the lay apostolate, is revised. …"

…:…Impelled by divine charity, they do good to all men, especially to those of the household of the faith (cf. Gal. 6:10), laying aside “all malice and all deceit and pretense, and envy, and all slander” (1 Peter 2:1), and thereby they draw men to Christ. This charity of God, “which is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5), enables the laity really to express the spirit of the beatitudes in their lives. Following Jesus in His poverty, they are neither depressed by the lack of temporal goods nor inflated by their abundance; imitating Christ in His humility, they have no obsession for empty honors (cf. Gal. 5:26) but seek to please God rather than men, ever ready to leave all things for Christ’s sake (cf. Luke 14:26) and to suffer persecution for justice sake (cf. Matt. 5:10), as they remember the words of the Lord, “If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24) . Promoting Christian friendship among themselves, they help one another in every need whatsoever.

**This plan for the spiritual life of the laity should take its particular character from their married or family state or their single **or widowed state, from their state of health, and from their professional and social activity. They should not cease to develop earnestly the qualities and talents bestowed on them in accord with these conditions of life, and they should make use of the gifts which they have received from the Holy Spirit.

I have highlighted “single” above as I posted previously that I thought I had read somewhere that a papal document used the word “single”(the lay celibate vocation in secular life). It was not Pope John Paul II however, I was wrong in that, it was Pope Paul VI.

.

 

[BarbTh]

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI
OF
HIS HOLINESS
JOHN PAUL II
ON THE VOCATION AND THE MISSION
OF THE LAY FAITHFUL
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

**The “world” thus becomes the place and the means for the lay faithful to fulfill their Christian vocation, because the world itself is destined to glorify God the Father in Christ. ****The Council is able then to indicate the proper and special sense of the divine vocation which is directed to the lay faithful. **

They are not called to abandon the position that they have in the world. Baptism does not take them from the world at all, as the apostle Paul points out: “So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God” (1 Cor 7:24). On the contrary, he **entrusts a vocation **to them that properly concerns their situation in the world.

The lay faithful, in fact, “are called by God so that they, led by the spirit of the Gospel, might contribute to the sanctification of the world, as from within like leaven, by fulfilling their own particular duties. Thus, especially in this way of life, resplendent in faith, hope and charity they manifest Christ to others”(37).Thus for the lay faithful, to be present and active in the world is not only an anthropological and sociological reality, but in a specific way, a theological and ecclesiological reality as well. In fact, in their situation in the world God manifests his plan and communicates to them their particular vocation of “seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God”(38).

 

[GaudentAngeli]

My answer here is generally a no. To my mind, lay celibacy is not a call from God in itself, because it can only be construed negatively (not as something, but only as “not something”). However, I do believe that it is a state of life onto which a number of other calls can be grafted, whether ecclesiastical or professional, outside of the context of the traditional vocations, which are always primary. But these ecclesiastical or professional callings, secondary though the might seem in a certain sense, actually tend to be the primary vocation; the fact of lay celibacy is more like incidental formatting (or rather, lack of formatting) to it.

I disagree. A person could understand God to be calling them to remain a lay secular celibate. Don’t you think St Gemma would agree? Or St Catherine of Siena? Blessed Chiara Badano? Two of these women may have desired to become religious, but it was not God’s will for them and therefore not their vocations. But they are saints so we can venture that they were doing God’s will for their lives and doing what God asked of them. That means the single life is a state in life some people are called to faithfully live out with commitment. The key to it being your vocation is that you respond to God’s call by making a commitment to it.

 

[bardegaulois]

I disagree. A person could understand God to be calling them to remain a lay secular celibate. Don’t you think St Gemma would agree? Or St Catherine of Siena? Blessed Chiara Badano? Two of these women may have desired to become religious, but it was not God’s will for them and therefore not their vocations. But they are saints so we can venture that they were doing God’s will for their lives and doing what God asked of them. That means the single life is a state in life some people are called to faithfully live out with commitment. The key to it being your vocation is that you respond to God’s call by making a commitment to it.

Actually, I don’t believe that those saints would have agreed. To do God’s will means to do something; it does not mean not to do something. Forgive me if I seem to be partaking in what one might see as mere semantics or wordplay, but it seems impossible to conceive of what a lay secular celibate is or what he must do (beyond what is general to all Christians) without using a term of negation. Consider this exercise: priests administer the sacraments; religious profess the evangelical counsels; married persons produce and educate new Christians; lay celibate persons ____________________________________. Fill in the blank, without using a term of negation such as not, no, or without. The only thing I can think of is “do other than these.” That’s not very clear.

So to do “God’s will for [our] lives and… what God ask of [us]” is an affirmative thing. The saints you mention did God’s will, no doubt, but we would be foolish in considering that “God’s will” that they did as merely a negation. Just to take Catherine of Siena, in her short life she was a philosopher, theologian, spiritual writer, diplomat, adviser to popes, and Dominican tertiary. All of those are definitely something, and something very noble at that. One is born lay and celibate, but one is not born a philosopher, theologian, spiritual writer, diplomat, adviser to popes, or Dominican tertiary. All of these are responses to calls of God, and they would take our willing co-labour with His grace to bring them to fruition. One can easily remain lay and celibate through sloth or through rejection of the call of God. That’s why I have a lot of trouble accepting it as a vocation; one needn’t do anything to cooperate with the grace of God to get there, unlike the many other attainments or qualities that a lay and celibate person might cooperate with the grace of God and put in the hard work to achieve.

And that’s why I have a hard time thinking about this as a vocation. One might remain in the lay celibate state because the call of God is not to the priesthood, religion, and marriage, but the call is not to be something that one is already, for there is no way to reject that call. Rather, the call is to something else that requires our acceptance and efforts to attain to, and through which God might bless our works and make them for us a means to sanctity and a benefit to the Church and society.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

 

[ynotzap]

As I understand it, a vocation is a calling. If one is resolved into a position that one is single, that is caused by God’s providence, then that person is led by God into that life. The road to sanctity effects every walk of life, even if it is not classified as one of the Classical Vocations. Vocations are roads by which we are led for our own personal sanctification first, and instrumental in the sanctification of others second. We all have a vocation that we were given in Baptism to share in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly powers of Jesus Christ. The providence of God leads people into their specific vocations. I once aspired to the priesthood, but much to my disappointment my health prevented me from becoming a priest, this also cancelled my chances of becoming a religious. Then I thought that living in the world and not being married would be too hard for me to lead a single life, and I liked the idea of having a family as a vocation. But suppose I didn’t want marriage? Then what, I would still have to live a holy life. God’s providence supplied the answers I would have been placed in that position by His ordinance, so I would consider that my calling.

 

[BarbTh]

With very real respect, you are not quoting any sound and reliable Catholic sources to support your concepts and hence they are simply your own concepts and this is quite fair enough and has value as your concepts, if not supported by sound Catholic sources.

There is the structure or character of vocation as in priesthood, marriage, consecrated life, single lay celibacy - then there is the particular and the personal or the personal way one is called within the structure of the vocation. A priest for example may be called to be a missionary. A married person to perhaps raise children, or in the case of an infertile marriage, to serve The Lord and His Church in some particular and personal way. In consecrated life, one may be called to religious life and to a life of prayer or perhaps some particular apostolate…etc. etc. A single person in lay celibacy has a structure and character of vocation too in that one remains celibate and embraces secular life as their ‘vineyard’ or place of mission. And then within that one has a particular and personal call within their lay celibate vocation.

A person called to the lay celibate state is called to embrace celibacy and the apostolate of the laity and to serve The Lord and His Church in some particular and quite personal way or ways. As we move around in our secular life, we are called too to be Christ as it were and His Gospel wherever we may go. That is, we are called to be missionary in all our secular pursuits and the very structure of the lay celibate vocation does mean/might mean that we probably have far more freedom of movement than in other vocations.

Obviously, if the person that embraces the lay celibate state out of " sloth or through rejection of the call of God" may not have a call and vocation to the lay celibate state at all but does require spiritual direction and guidance for sure. Firstly, sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. Secondly, so called “rejection” of the call of God is not sinful. Vocation is an invitation and one does not HAVE to accept the invitation under pain of sin.
This is the theology of vocation.

therealpresence.org/archives/Religious_Life/Religious_Life_033.htm Some spiritual writers state that if a person does not follow their special vocation, they endanger their salvation; but that is an improbable opinion. It would not be just because the person did not follow through on a given vocation. It would be through neglect of God’s grace or other reasons, otherwise the whole theology of vocation just collapses. You cannot talk about it unless you talk about it on the level of gratuity on God’s part and opportunity on ours.

Vocation is a gift. It is something offered. And by definition, a gift may or may not be accepted. Admittedly, the giver appreciates the acceptance of his gift, but it is not as if the giver demands it be taken. It would be a contradiction to oblige the recipient to accept the gift.

That’s why I have a lot of trouble accepting it as a vocation; one needn’t do anything to cooperate with the grace of God to get there
One does indeed need to co-operate with the Grace of celibacy to embrace the lay celibate vocation. Celibacy is not a gift given to all. And to consider that lay celibacy in the midst of the world and secular life is an easy road, is an illusion. It is going to take God’s Gift and Grace and co-operating with it. And as with all the other vocations, many Graces will be gifted in the course of a journey and it is up to the person to embrace those Graces faithfully.

but the call is not to be something that one is already, for there is no way to reject that call. Rather, the call is to something else that requires our acceptance and efforts to attain to, and through which God might bless our works and make them for us a means to sanctity and a benefit to the Church and society

But the call is to be something that one is already (baptism is a vocational call) not on a transitional basis while discerning a potential call elsewhere, but embracing it as one’s life vocation. And to embrace the lay celibate state as one’s vocation and the call, one is indeed going to require acceptance and efforts to attain selfless discipleship and service and fruitfully for the journey in secular life.

To refute that the lay celibate state can be a call and vocation is really against what The Church has to state both about the baptismal vocation and call and about those who may embrace the lay celibate state as their life vocation and call from God.

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI
OF
HIS HOLINESS
JOHN PAUL II
ON THE VOCATION AND THE MISSION
OF THE LAY FAITHFUL
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…-laici_en.html

"The “world” thus becomes the place and the means for the lay faithful to fulfill their Christian vocation, because the world itself is destined to glorify God the Father in Christ. The Council is able then to indicate the proper and special sense of the divine vocation which is directed to the lay faithful. "

DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF THE LAITY
APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS,
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…itatem_en.html

CHAPTER I

THE VOCATION OF THE LAITY TO THE APOSTOLATE

This plan for the spiritual life of the laity ***should take its particular character from their married or family state or their single ***or widowed state, from their state of health, and from their professional and social activity. They should not cease to develop earnestly the qualities and talents bestowed on them in accord with these conditions of life, and they should make use of the gifts which they have received from the Holy Spirit.

 

[BarbTh]

DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF THE LAITY
APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS,
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…itatem_en.html

CHAPTER I

THE **VOCATION **OF THE LAITY TO THE APOSTOLATE

…"All activity of the Mystical Body directed to the attainment of this goal is called the apostolate, which the Church carries on in various ways through all her members. For the Christian vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate. No part of the structure of a living body is merely passive but has a share in the functions as well as life of the body: so, too, in the body of Christ, which is the Church, “the whole body . . . in keeping with the proper activity of each part, derives its increase from its own internal development” (Eph. 4:16)…

…"…An indication of this manifold and pressing need is the unmistakable work being done today by the Holy Spirit in making the laity ever more conscious of their own responsibility and encouraging them to serve Christ and the Church in all circumstances.(3)***In this decree the Council seeks to describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise./***I] All these should be regarded as norms when the canon law, as it pertains to the lay apostolate, is revised. …"

 

[BarbTh]

***“but the call is not to be something that one is already, for there is no way to reject that call.” ***

One can reject the call by refusing to live in the lay celibate state at all. Certainly today in secular life promiscuity is quite common. The lay celibate state and vocation therefore is very much today counter-cultural Again, one just might live in the celibate state for some reason or other but not live it as we are called to do in service of God and His Church, His world, and this is rejecting the vocation and call to service in the lay celibate vocation.

There is culpable refusal of the baptismal call and vocation (lay celibacy as vocation in this instance - all vocations are rooted in our baptism) and there might be/can be inculpable reasons.

.

 

[BarbTh]

As I understand it, a vocation is a calling. If one is resolved into a position that one is single, that is caused by God’s providence, then that person is led by God into that life. The road to sanctity effects every walk of life, even if it is not classified as one of the Classical Vocations. Vocations are roads by which we are led for our own personal sanctification first, and instrumental in the sanctification of others second. We all have a vocation that we were given in Baptism to share in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly powers of Jesus Christ. The providence of God leads people into their specific vocations. I once aspired to the priesthood, but much to my disappointment my health prevented me from becoming a priest, this also cancelled my chances of becoming a religious. Then I thought that living in the world and not being married would be too hard for me to lead a single life, and I liked the idea of having a family as a vocation. But suppose I didn’t want marriage? Then what, I would still have to live a holy life. God’s providence supplied the answers I would have been placed in that position by His ordinance, so I would consider that my calling.

Very well said! Excellent post especially references to the Divine Providence of God forever with us in all things and a doctrine of The Church…

The “classical vocations” are probably consecrated life, priesthood and marriage. Prior to Vatican II only religious life and priesthood were considered vocations per se - all else were simply laity while the eremitical life and consecrated virginity have been long standing indeed in our history forms of consecrated life. These were really little known in Catholic cultural consciousness prior V2. Marriage arrived a little later on the scene as a vocation per se. Vatican II underscored the importance of the lay celibate vocation and, indeed, the importance of the laity and their “frontline” place in the Mission of Christ and His Church.

**Catholic Catechism
The vocation of lay people **
898 "By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will. . . . It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things with which they are closely associated that these may always be effected and grow according to Christ and maybe to the glory of the Creator and Redeemer."431

899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church:

Lay believers are in the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.432

900 Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, **they have the right and duty, individually **or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.433

 

[bardegaulois]

Barb, in your first post you say, “so called ‘rejection’ of the call of God is not sinful.” I generally agree, St. Alphonsus’s stern warnings about rejecting the call of God notwithstanding. But in your third post you say, “One can reject the call by refusing to live in the lay celibate state at all. Certainly today in secular life promiscuity is quite common.” OK, I don’t think I need to pull out my old Baltimore Catechism to show that promiscuity is a violation of the Sixth Commandment. But if that is the manner in which one can reject the “lay celibate vocation” you speak of, as you seem to be implying here, then it seems that one would be committing not just venial, but mortal sin by doing so. So I dare ask then, which is it?

You further assert, “again, one just might live in the celibate state for some reason or other but not live it as we are called to do in service of God and His Church, His world, and this is rejecting the vocation and call to service in the lay celibate vocation.” And you assert earlier that this call to service is to be fulfilled “in some particular and quite personal way or ways.” Wait a minute, if it’s so personal and peculiar, then how would one know if one is not fulfilling it appropriately?

So perhaps you’re now seeing why I’m of the mind that the catch-all or “other” category doesn’t pass rational muster. Moreover, you seem to be basing your whole point of view on but one phrase used in a Vatican document, completely ignoring that but a few phrases later, it speaks about the “professional and social activity” that I am asserting is a more profound framework for the activity of an unmarried layman in the world. These things put forward some very definite duties; celibacy does not, merely creating a sort of negative space in which those duties–those duties which are completely embraced, for which the person set to fulfill them has been formed by years of study and training, as opposed to the celibacy for which one is not formed and might be merely incidental–may be fulfilled all the more adequately, and without the mercenary motives that a married person who must support a family will necessarily have.

Forgive me if I’m seeming to quibble some here, but I think this is a very important point to make to those many who find themselves in this state due to the sociological crisis we’re undergoing now, without any call discerned, without even the attraction to the life that is the sign of a vocation. But often for any number of reasons, one cannot budge from it, and the numbers of those in this situation are increasing. Sit back and think for a moment about how all of this focus on marital status might be very ostracizing to them, all their other virtues and contributions to society being downplayed, all the work that they’ve been trained to do as thoroughly as a priest in seminary being minimized in favour of the fact that they haven’t married. Yes, this person is a doctor, a lawyer, a writer, a teacher, but the most important thing is that he isn’t married.

To be frank, I’d find that very insulting. Put yourself in this person’s shoes, Barb; wouldn’t you?

 

[BarbTh]

Barb, in your first post you say, "so called ‘rejection’ of the call of God is not sinful…edited for space…speak of, as you seem to be implying here, then it seems that one would be committing not just venial, but mortal sin by doing so. So I dare ask then, which is it?

Hello again bardegaulois
One can refuse a call and vocation and this is not sinful. However, if one refuses the vocation and call to say the lay celibate state in order to live a promiscuous life, then obviously this is mortally sinful.

You further assert, “again, one just might live in the celibate state for some reason or other but not live it as we are called to do in service of God and His Church, His world, and this is rejecting the vocation and call to service in the lay celibate vocation.” And you assert earlier that this call to service is to be fulfilled “in some particular and quite personal way or ways.” Wait a minute, if it’s so personal and peculiar, then how would one know if one is not fulfilling it appropriately?

Well, if one embraces the lay celibate vocation but does not know one’s quite personal and unique way or road, call, in that vocation - and usually (not always) it is related to the gifts one has been given by God, then one seeks out spiritual direction. In fact, whenever writing or speaking of the lay celibate vocation, I advise that one not do so without sound spiritual direction and on an ongoing basis.

So perhaps you’re now seeing why I’m of the mind that the catch-all or “other” category doesn’t pass rational muster. Moreover, you seem to be basing your whole point of view on but one phrase used in a Vatican document, completely ignoring that but a few phrases later, it speaks about the “professional and social activity” that I am asserting is a more profound framework for the activity of an unmarried layman in the world. These things put forward some very definite duties; celibacy does not, merely creating a sort of negative space in which those duties–those duties which are completely embraced, for which the person set to fulfill them has been formed by years of study and training, as opposed to the celibacy for which one is not formed and might be merely incidental–may be fulfilled all the more adequately, and without the mercenary motives that a married person who must support a family will necessarily have.

As I wrote previously, priesthood, marriage, lay celibacy etc. are all structures of the vocation within which there is a unique and quite personal call. Certainly some called to the lay celibate vocation may have a profession within society, others may not. One can serve The Lord in any social function whatsoever. It does not have to be a profession.
One is formed for the lay celibate vocation by the Mass and The Sacraments as well as spiritual direction in all its forms. Divine Providence sees to this.
Where does it state that person must be “formed by years of study and training” while certainly this does apply to the priesthood and forms of consecrated life. This does not apply to marriage. Not as yet, but it might be in the future that the lay celibate vocation is included in consecrated life and probably under the umbrella of secular institutes. Meanwhile, we can indeed invest and trust in Divine Providence. Religious life for example did not start out in the form in which we now see it - it was evolutionary over time in church history.

therealpresence.org/archives/Religious_Life/Religious_Life_033.htm

here is a fourth category contemplated by the Holy See in anticipation of the new Code of Canon Law, so that something may be done for the thousands of women who seem not to want religious life yet seem to want to live especially dedicated lives in the Church. The secular institutes are a recent development of the Catholic Church. If there would be a fourth category, it would be some form of what we now call “secular institutes,” but the implications still have to be worked out.

Forgive me if I’m seeming to quibble some here, but I think this is a very important point to make to those many who find themselves in this state due to the sociological crisis we’re undergoing now, without any call discerned, without even the attraction to the life that is the sign of a vocation. But often for any number of reasons, one cannot budge from it, and the numbers of those in this situation are increasing. Sit back and think for a moment about how all of this focus on marital status might be very ostracizing to them, all their other virtues and contributions to society being downplayed, all the work that they’ve been trained to do as thoroughly as a priest in seminary being minimized in favour of the fact that they haven’t married. Yes, this person is a doctor, a lawyer, a writer, a teacher, but the most important thing is that he isn’t married.

I think that such people are direly in need of spiritual direction. It is not about what I think, rather about what The Church has to state. Celibacy is certainly a greater gift than any secular profession skills. This is not at all to undermine the secular professions which are in the natural order of gifts and are wonderful gifts indeed necessary for the functioning of man as a social creature. Celibacy as gift “for the sake of The Kingdom” is in the supernatural order of gifts.
If a lay celibate person is “a doctor, a lawyer, a writer, a teacher” then this would be their quite personal and unique calling in the natural order within the lay celibate vocation in which celibacy is God’s Gift for “the sake of The Kingdom” and in the supernatural order.
But again, as I have stated before, if the person is in the lay celibate state but in some way unhappy or even unfulfilled, then spiritual direction is their highly recommended recourse of some urgency.

,

 

[bardegaulois]

“However, if one refuses the vocation and call to say the lay celibate state in order to live a promiscuous life, then obviously this is mortally sinful.” So how does a person reject this supposed vocation without changing his state and without sin? That’s what I’m asking. Many are in the lay celibate state nowadays for whatever reason; how do they refuse it? For many there’s no option but to accept the state but not to consider it a vocation due to its nebulous nature. So is this rejecting a vocation? And don’t give me that canard about how rejecting the lay celibate vocation is to accept baptism, for those in any state of life must do so.

“As I wrote previously, priesthood, marriage, lay celibacy etc. are all structures of the vocation within which there is a unique and quite personal call.” I go back to my fill-in-the-blank question earlier: priests administer the sacraments, married persons produce and educate new Christians, and lay celibate persons ______________________________–well, what exactly? This is not to say that other things might be added to this, as they can to any other state in life, but you really haven’t defined any sort of primary vocation in any sort of affirmative sense. You could say “profess the evangelical counsels in a solitary rather than a communitarian sense insofar as the demands of secular life will allow,” but you haven’t. Is this what you mean to say, or is the fact of celibacy simply so much more important than poverty or obedience, to your mind?

All of that said, I’m at the point of exiting this conversation. Barb, endless repetition does not an argument make. I’m happy that you’re happy with yourself and your supposed vocation, but based on a few conversations we’ve had here, I think you’re ostracizing more people than you’re helping. So what right have I to say this?

In the interests of full disclosure, I’m a celibate man in his mid-30s with little intention to marry (and no, I’m not gay). The sorts of combat that I’ve had to partake in throughout my life in all arenas have made professing that counsel of obedience (always the lynchpin, eh?) very difficult for me, and, living in a diocese somewhat hostile to my traditional temperament, the secular priesthood has been closed as well. I’ve built up a nice little profession nonetheless, and the lack of mouths to feed allows me to devote myself more completely to it for less pay than others might be willing to take. As it’s socially necessary work, I don’t mind too much, just so long as I have my necessities. So perhaps you can see now why I don’t see celibacy as a primary calling, but rather as a format into which all my other duties and obligations can fall into place–much in the same sense as a secular priest, who isn’t primarily celibate, but is primarily a minster of the sacred mysteries, which the celibacy just facilitates.

Likewise, I see the celibacy as just facilitating my duties as a writer and teacher, not as a thing in itself. Some have said to me that this is a very masculine perspective on this issue, one that might be taken by priests or soldiers, as opposed to the feminine perspective that we often see. I don’t yet know how to address that, but I’m thinking that this might be part of the divergence of opinion here. Consider that carefully.

 

[BarbTh]

About to go out.
We seem to go round in circles and then around again in the same circle. I feel that most all, if not all your statements have already been answered.

If one considers that the lay celibate vocation is not a vocation, then this is not at all what The Church is saying and has said. To understand what The Church is saying, read Christefideles Laici (Vocation & Mission of the Lay Faithful) and also Apostolicam Actuositatem (Apostolate of The Laity).

 

[BarbTh]

“Lay celibate vocation” is to distinguish from “Lay married vocation”. (celibate laity and married laity).