Is this a heresy?

[BarbaraTherese]

Jasny:

By trying to equalise the states we do damage to the Church. Consecrated Life was established by Christ Himself. This is a special gift to the Church. He also says who can take it take it. (that would mean that all healthy people would at least consider it) St. Paul advises not be married. The complete contemplative state is higher than contemplative\active. Because they give up more.

Is it ridiculous to say that a person has given up the great gift of having a loving family of children and spouse and the same person to submit his even greater faculty of Free Will to a religious superior of their state of life? Are you saying a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous?

Every act of a CV is two acts. An act of religion and an act of what ever virtue is practised. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinis

Hi again Jasny…I think I may have found a way to explain what I mean and I hope so!
The priesthood and religious life are the states that are more condusive to perfection by their very way of life. But if they were the most perfect states for all and without exemption, then God would call all to those states of life…and while not all are called to these more perfect states (condusive to) all equally are called to perfection.
It is perhaps more difficult for lay people to strive towards perfection, concerned as they are with many matters and dealing as they are in worldly affairs which have far more potential to draw them from perfection…and we are asked as lay people to strive against this…not so in the priesthood and religious life whose very state and lifestyle is focused on perfection.
Yet many are indeed called to the lay state and to be involved in the affairs of the world (focused on) and to work towards bringing charity and love, justice, to these worldly affairs.
Some are called to exemplify the married state … to parenthood and good parenting…and through these duties to aspire to perfection. Some perhaps in the lay state to make the vows of religion, or the evangelical counsels, privately…or to simply lead a single life in the world.
The three vows of religion: poverty, chastity and obedience are the outward sign of hopefully an interior disposition…and these outward signs also help the religious to achieve that interior disposition…and the interior disposition is prime…and we are all called to that interior disposition of interior poverty, chastity and obedience.
In the priesthood as I understand it two vows are made, celibacy and obedience to the Bishop. Nevertheless, priests too are called to interior or spiritual poverty, chastity and obedience. The two vows they make are condusive to this.

I do not at all mean to dispute in anyway that the priesthood and religious life are the more perfect states and more condusive to perfection…rather that the most perfect state for a particular person is that to which they are called by God. In other words, if I am considering the states of life, which is the more perfect: the priesthood and religious life. But that which is the more perfect for a person is that to which God calls them and a particular and subjective consideration…not a purely objective one.

I hope that I may have explained myself more clearly rather than confuse the issue.

Send regards…and Peace and Blessings…Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Hi again ComradeAndrei…

That is just some of the issues of a parish priest. But also, think about cloistered nuns or monks, or priests from an order. They give up their secular lives, in fact die to themselves to live in complete service to Christ. There is a lot of things that those called to CV or celibacy give up.

This is very true and is the actual implication of being called to and following a vocation to religious life; however, undoubtedly in married life and perhaps especially with a family, the married couple and the parents, will have to die to themselves to live fully in God the state of life which they have embraced and hopefully would be called to embrace.
Priests and religious by virtue of their call and calling are asked by God to sacrifice…yet undoubtedly every state in life has its own sacrifices in order to live in God and every state has the power by virtue of living God’s Will to draw one to the highest sanctity. I dont think which has the more sacrifices can be measured in a purely objective way…nor do actual sacrifices asked constitute sanctity, but the response given to those askings.
No matter our state (though religious life and the priesthood are far more condusive to it) we are all called without exemption to die to self…and God will draw us to this no matter our state in life and through the very duties and askings of that state.
The question is in considering one’s vocation or state for the rest of one’s life perhaps is, what is the more perfect state for me? Obviously if I desire for example to be a contemplative nun but do not have for example say the health, then the more perfect state for me is not the contemplative religious life. Though objectively speaking the contemplative religious life is the more perfect state.

If in considering my vocation from God, I seek advice and all that advice indicates that I should not enter religious life for some reason…this does not imply that perfection is lost to me, rather that it may very well imply and indicate I am not called to religious life as the state in which I will achieve perfection. Not all are called to religious life or the priesthood.
Objectively considering, the religious and priestly life are the more perfect and condusive to perfection. What I was seeking to emphasize was that one’s state in life that is the more perfect for one, is the one to which one is called by God.

Peace…Barb

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Objectively considering, the religious and priestly life are the more perfect and condusive to perfection. What I was seeking to emphasize was that one’s state in life that is the more perfect for one, is the one to which one is called by God.

I would agree with that, it that it is objectively supperior to be in the priestly or relgious life although it may be subjectively supperior to be in another calling for the individual.

One cannot shoehorn one’s self into a calling that they are not called for. Thus, one cannot just become a priest because other people want them to or whatever. Neither can one get married even though it is not their calling but it is what is socially expected of them. I think that is probably a reason (among many) why we have failed vocations.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

ComradeAndrei:

I would agree with that, it that it is objectively supperior to be in the priestly or relgious life although it may be subjectively supperior to be in another calling for the individual.

One cannot shoehorn one’s self into a calling that they are not called for. Thus, one cannot just become a priest because other people want them to or whatever. Neither can one get married even though it is not their calling but it is what is socially expected of them. I think that is probably a reason (among many) why we have failed vocations.

I am relieved that you can hear what I am trying to say, because I was concerned that words to express my meaning and convey it were failing me.

I have just more or lest finished reading a document on priestly and religious life and the discernment of a call from God to the life. A very detailed document, found on:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4273
"Careful Selection And Training of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders …
There are many references in the document to the call coming from God as a particular call.

"…
Let us seek out quality first of all, because then, if we may use such an expression, quantity will automatically be present by itself. This will be the concern of Divine Providence. It is not our task to look for numbers, since it is not given to us to inspire vocations in souls. In this truth there is contained the whole of the theology of a vocation:

it comes from God and only God can give it. …10 (See para 13)

… But similarly, and even more severely, should rashness in embracing the religious and priestly state be denounced and its manifold dangers pointed out for those who either were not called by God …"…(see para 28)

…as I read it I did wonder why the call to marriage is not so highly selective or even nearly as …marginally so by comparison even would benefit I think… perhaps we would have less failed marriages, and as a result (and often) possibly psychologically scarred children getting a start in life that may not be a normal starting point in a relatively happy childhood…and hence rich soil for religious and priestly vocations.

I do think that The Church is taking a step towards fostering future priestly and religious vocations by highlighting married life, children and parenting, and moving towards giving this important vocation the value and formation it deserves…and perhaps in the future we will have more vocations to religious and priestly life and much needed. Although this can well be left to Divine Providence.

Without marriage, who would there be to call to religious and priestly life?..

A vocation is a call fromGod and one needs to be suited to married life, just as one needs be suited to the religious life…and where He calls God has granted suitability…and I thought you pointed this out very well where I was floundering to convey meaning…while not disputing at all that a religious or priestly vocation is a great gift to The Church and to be highly valued. Any call from God be it general or particular is to be highly valued; nevertherless, a priestly or religious call is a sign from God of His favour, not to be grasped with pride by the ego, but with the soul in deep humility for The Grace God has granted to the soul…The priestly and religious states by their very focus and aim, their existence and structure, formation, strive for spiritual perfection and Unity with God and His Will in all things. States that strive to reveal Love of God as service of neighbour in all its needs and necessities…and contemplative vocations fulfill this too by a life of prayer and sacrifice for The Church and Her needs and the world and its needs. From them ideally we take witness and example.

Indeed these states witness to the whole world of Love of God as service of neighbour “how can you say you Love God, whom you cannot see, if you do not love your neighbour whom you can”…“a new commandement I give to you love one another”…“if you love me, you will keep my commandments”. Ideally speaking and each in our own way in accord with our own particular call will follow this example.

Peace…Barb

 

[Jasny]

BarbaraTherese
sorry for not getting back sooner. My job has been busy lately. Here is the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas on acts of religion and the vows under his section on Vows:

"I* answer that, For three reasons it is better and more meritorious to do one and the same deed with a vow than without. First, because to vow, as stated above (5) is an act of religion which is the chief of the moral virtues. Now the more excellent the virtue the better and more meritorious the deed.

Wherefore the act of an inferior virtue is the better the more meritorious for being commanded by a superior virtue, whose act it becomes through being commanded by it, just as the act of faith or hope is better if it be commanded by charity.

Hence the works of the other moral virtues (for instance, fasting, which is an act of abstinence; and being continent, which is an act of chastity) are better and more meritorious, if they be done in fulfilment of a vow, since thus they belong to the divine worship, being like sacrifices to God. Wherefore Augustine says (De Virg. viii) that “not even is virginity honorable as such, but only when it is consecrated to God, and cherished by godly continence.” "*

An opposite may help explain. If One sins against castity and is vowed to chastity then one sins 2x. One is the act of sin and against the vow one made.

Since God is more willing to reward than punish it is logical to see that under the vows acts are more rewarded.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Jasny:

BarbaraTherese
sorry for not getting back sooner. My job has been busy lately. Here is the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas on acts of religion and the vows under his section on Vows:

"I* answer that, For three reasons it is better and more meritorious to do one and the same deed with a vow than without. First, because to vow, as stated above (5) is an act of religion which is the chief of the moral virtues. Now the more excellent the virtue the better and more meritorious the deed. *

*Wherefore the act of an inferior virtue is the better the more meritorious for being commanded by a superior virtue, whose act it becomes through being commanded by it, just as the act of faith or hope is better if it be commanded by charity. *

Hence the works of the other moral virtues (for instance, fasting, which is an act of abstinence; and being continent, which is an act of chastity) are better and more meritorious, if they be done in fulfilment of a vow, since thus they belong to the divine worship, being like sacrifices to God. Wherefore Augustine says (De Virg. viii) that “not even is virginity honorable as such, but only when it is consecrated to God, and cherished by godly continence.” "

An opposite may help explain. If One sins against castity and is vowed to chastity then one sins 2x. One is the act of sin and against the vow one made.

Since God is more willing to reward than punish it is logical to see that under the vows acts are more rewarded.

Thanks Jansy for going to the trouble to get the info for me…I can hear what St. Thomas is saying…also St. Augustine.

Peace…Barb
PS I am about as far from apologetics as a car is from a tree, but since marriage is a Sacrament of The Church, this would make the marriage vows also an act of religion? … a question, rather than a statement.

 

[Jasny]

BarbaraTherese:

Thanks Jansy for going to the trouble to get the info for me…I can hear what St. Thomas is saying…also St. Augustine.

Peace…Barb
PS I am about as far from apologetics as a car is from a tree, but since marriage is a Sacrament of The Church, this would make the marriage vows also an act of religion? … a question, rather than a statement.

Sorry for such a late response

Things got hectic and I forgot to respond and so things go.

Marriage is the natural vocation to Man. It was given in Genesis. The object is not directly to God. St. Paul speaks of this when he says that to be married it to be divided in pleasing your spouse.
It was raised to a Sacrament by our Lord in order to fulfil this vocation.

An act of religion though has God as its direct object. Prayer and sacrifice for example are given to God.
Marriage gives the fruit to God.
Consecrated life gives the entire tree to God.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Jasny:

Sorry for such a late response

Things got hectic and I forgot to respond and so things go.

Marriage is the natural vocation to Man. It was given in Genesis. The object is not directly to God. St. Paul speaks of this when he says that to be married it to be divided in pleasing your spouse.
It was raised to a Sacrament by our Lord in order to fulfil this vocation.

An act of religion though has God as its direct object. Prayer and sacrifice for example are given to God.
Marriage gives the fruit to God.
Consecrated life gives the entire tree to God.

Hi Jasny…I tend to have problems with the reasoning behind the above. If I marry because I believe God is calling me to marriage then this would be the better act than to enter religious life because I hold it as the more perfect state, but am not called to it. While marriage is a ‘natural state’ it can be elevated to supernatural and is by virtue of being a sacrament and by how a person lives the state.
The essence of great sanctity and holiness is in the fulfillment of God’s Will no matter what that may be…hence every life and lifestyle has the potential to raise one to holiness and the perfect state of peaceful and joyous resignation to and fulfillment of God’s Will no matter what such may be.
If I marry because God has given me the gift of human love and in order to fulfill His Will for me, this is the very best act and choice I could make and has God as its direct object. It seems to be that God as direct object is in motivation and not intrinsically in the lifestyle itself since a religious could be in religious life and not live it well at all, or a priest be a priest but not a good one. The state of perfection as it is known cannot raise one to holiness simply by choosing it.
Nevertheless I can see that religious or priestly life is perhaps easier to maintain God as object since it is the whole purpose and structure of the life itself, whereas in marriage or living and working in the world the onus becomes my immediate motivation or what I bring to the marriage. It is possible I think to live marriage with God as immediate object every bit as much as religious or priestly life. I cannot hold that God calls a person to a ‘less perfect state’ with the implication that that state cannot lead one to perfection every bit as much as priestly or religious life.

Back in the 16th century when many of our classical spiritual works were written, that particular point in time sighted ’ the world’ as taking one from God and that worldly desires were to be rejected. Nowadays however The Church insights that the world is holy and created by God and that it is through the world and not despite it that a person may achieve holiness. But that 16th. century spirituality does linger in the world sighted as ‘against’ God. After all Jesus became man to save the entire Universe including of course this world - He did not reject it at all rather elevated it to holy by His Own Love of it.
Though Jesus remained single and a virgin, in no way did he withdraw from his own social milieu rather immersed himself in it and challenged it to be what God called it to be.
The overriding factor in all matters is God’s Will which permeates all things without exception, not the state in life. “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you”…intrinsically we do not choose our state in life, or rather ideally, we fulfill God’s Will for our life no matter what such may be and therein is holiness.

Barb
I am not married incidentallym

 

[Jasny]

BarbaraTherese:

Hi Jasny…I tend to have problems with the reasoning behind the above. If I marry because I believe God is calling me to marriage then this would be the better act than to enter religious life because I hold it as the more perfect state, but am not called to it. While marriage is a ‘natural state’ it can be elevated to supernatural and is by virtue of being a sacrament and by how a person lives the state.
The essence of great sanctity and holiness is in the fulfillment of God’s Will no matter what that may be…hence every life and lifestyle has the potential to raise one to holiness and the perfect state of peaceful and joyous resignation to and fulfillment of God’s Will no matter what such may be.
If I marry because God has given me the gift of human love and in order to fulfill His Will for me, this is the very best act and choice I could make and has God as its direct object. It seems to be that God as direct object is in motivation and not intrinsically in the lifestyle itself since a religious could be in religious life and not live it well at all, or a priest be a priest but not a good one. The state of perfection as it is known cannot raise one to holiness simply by choosing it.
Nevertheless I can see that religious or priestly life is perhaps easier to maintain God as object since it is the whole purpose and structure of the life itself, whereas in marriage or living and working in the world the onus becomes my immediate motivation or what I bring to the marriage. It is possible I think to live marriage with God as immediate object every bit as much as religious or priestly life. I cannot hold that God calls a person to a ‘less perfect state’ with the implication that that state cannot lead one to perfection every bit as much as priestly or religious life.

Back in the 16th century when many of our classical spiritual works were written, that particular point in time sighted ’ the world’ as taking one from God and that worldly desires were to be rejected. Nowadays however The Church insights that the world is holy and created by God and that it is through the world and not despite it that a person may achieve holiness. But that 16th. century spirituality does linger in the world sighted as ‘against’ God. After all Jesus became man to save the entire Universe including of course this world - He did not reject it at all rather elevated it to holy by His Own Love of it.
Though Jesus remained single and a virgin, in no way did he withdraw from his own social milieu rather immersed himself in it and challenged it to be what God called it to be.
The overriding factor in all matters is God’s Will which permeates all things without exception, not the state in life. “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you”…intrinsically we do not choose our state in life, or rather ideally, we fulfill God’s Will for our life no matter what such may be and therein is holiness.

Barb
I am not married incidentallym

I’ll let Pius XII reply for me:

SACRA VIRGINITAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON CONSECRATED VIRGINITY MARCH 25, 1954

37…For there are those who maintain that the grace of the sacrament, conferred ex opere operato, renders the use of marriage so holy as to be a fitter instrument than virginity for uniting souls with God; for marriage is a sacrament, but not virginity. We denounce this doctrine as a dangerous error. Certainly, the sacrament grants the married couple the grace to accomplish holily the duties of their married state, and it strengthens the bonds of mutual affection that unite them; but the purpose of its institution was not to make the employment of marriage the means, most suitable in itself, for uniting the souls of the husband and wife with God by the bonds of charity.[61]

1. Finally, it may not be asserted, as some do, that the “mutual help,”[63] which is sought in Christian Marriage, is a more effective aid in striving for personal sanctity than the solitude of the heart, as they term it, of virgins and celibates. For although all those who have embraced a life of perfect chastity have deprived themselves of the expression of human love permitted in the married state, nonetheless it cannot thereby be affirmed that because of this privation they have diminished and despoiled the human personality. For they receive from the Giver of heavenly gifts something spiritual which far exceeds that “mutual help” which husband and wife confer on each other. They consecrate themselves to Him Who is their source, and Who shares with them His divine life, and thus personality suffers no loss, but gains immensely. For who, more than the virgin, can apply to himself that marvelous phrase of the Apostle Paul: “I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me.”

 

[batteddy]

If one is called by the Lord to a particular vocation would it be somehow better to disregard that call and seek a “higher” or “lower” one?

But some theologians believe that everyone is given a calling to the highest state first, and on declining that, God gives them the lesser call.

A vocation is an invitation. It is the providing by God, at a particular time in your life, of the graces needed to follow a certain state of life. Sometimes he provides people with the graces to do several things, and they must choose their vocation by cooperating with those particular graces.

God probably, initially invites everyone to the religious life at some point, and it is only through our hesitance, or declining that invitation, that we may be left with marriage as our only option (which is still certainly good and okay)

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Jasny:

I’ll let Pius XII reply for me:

SACRA VIRGINITAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON CONSECRATED VIRGINITY MARCH 25, 1954

37…For there are those who maintain that the grace of the sacrament, conferred ex opere operato, renders the use of marriage so holy as to be a fitter instrument than virginity for uniting souls with God; for marriage is a sacrament, but not virginity. We denounce this doctrine as a dangerous error. Certainly, the sacrament grants the married couple the grace to accomplish holily the duties of their married state, and it strengthens the bonds of mutual affection that unite them; but the purpose of its institution was not to make the employment of marriage the means, most suitable in itself, for uniting the souls of the husband and wife with God by the bonds of charity.61]

1. Finally, it may not be asserted, as some do, that the “mutual help,”[63] which is sought in Christian Marriage, is a more effective aid in striving for personal sanctity than the solitude of the heart, as they term it, of virgins and celibates. For although all those who have embraced a life of perfect chastity have deprived themselves of the expression of human love permitted in the married state, nonetheless it cannot thereby be affirmed that because of this privation they have diminished and despoiled the human personality. For they receive from the Giver of heavenly gifts something spiritual which far exceeds that “mutual help” which husband and wife confer on each other. They consecrate themselves to Him Who is their source, and Who shares with them His divine life, and thus personality suffers no loss, but gains immensely. For who, more than the virgin, can apply to himself that marvelous phrase of the Apostle Paul: “I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me.”

Hi Jasny…thank you for the quotation from Pope Pius X11 of fond memory for sure!
I dont believe I am in disagreement with what PPX11 had to say if one reads the document with care. Certainly I am saying the celibate state or state of chastity is intrinsically of itself structured to aim as its very purpose unity with God and hence holiness…and under these circumstances the means to holiness and Unity with God in the celibate states are more direct. However I am saying the married state although not of itself a direct means of Unity with God and hence holiness is still by virtue of a vocation and call from God a means of as much holiness as in the celibate state and Unity with God and holiness.

The document you quote from is dated 1954 and written 46 years ago and while the intrinsic truth of the document remains firm and not at all questioned by me, our insights today are deeper than in 1954. The Catholic Catechism and the whole section on the Sacrament of Marriage is worth a read:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#1638

IN BRIEF

1659 St. Paul said: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. . . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:25, 32).
1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).
1661** The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life** (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1799).

Unity with God or holiness does not come about automatically by whatever state of life God calls one to, rather it is effected by surrendering to God’s Will **in one’s state in life no matter what state God calls one to fulfill **and all other incidences and calls over the course of one’s entire journey through life within the particular state of life God does call one to fulfill.

Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

batteddy:

But some theologians believe that everyone is given a calling to the highest state first, and on declining that, God gives them the lesser call.

A vocation is an invitation. It is the providing by God, at a particular time in your life, of the graces needed to follow a certain state of life. Sometimes he provides people with the graces to do several things, and they must choose their vocation by cooperating with those particular graces.

God probably, initially invites everyone to the religious life at some point, and it is only through our hesitance, or declining that invitation, that we may be left with marriage as our only option (which is still certainly good and okay)

Hi Batteddy…theologians say heaps of things and we are not asked to believe every word they utter thank goodness…not until their statements are given approval in some form by Rome. Can you quote the theologian, reference etc. who make the statements to which you refer.

I cannot at this point anyway hold that God calls all to the celibate state of chastity and if they are not generous in responding, then he gives them a lesser and easier call which seems anyway to be implied but feel free to correct and qualify me.
If God called all to the celibate state without exemption and if all were generous, the human race and The Church would eventually cease to exist. The theological argument you present I think is full of holes but again this is only my assessment and I am certainly no theologian or even apologist.

I reject totally this whole reasoning that marriage is a lesser state than the celibate state. I concur however that the celibate state of itself through dedication to God alone is a more direct means of holiness. I also reject that all without exemption have a call to the celibate state and are not celibates and are married by virtue of their lack of generosity in the ‘first call’. However should Rome make a statement on these matters which challenges my own thoughts, then I will rethink but nevertheless remain obedient to my own conscience in all matters and to date and I rejoice with thanksgiving my own conscience has never challenged Rome.

It is a wondrous gift, a wondrous gift, to be called to reflect and witness to that love which Christ has for His Church…i.e. the marriage state…how can anyone think that this state cannot lead to Unity with God and holiness every bit as much as the celibate state quite defeats me. I do repeat that I am not challenging that the celibate state through consecrating onself directly to God is a more direct means of holiness. This of course is on the proviso that one gives onself totally and unreservedly to this consecration and all it implies etc.

But please do quote the theologian(s) and references to the statements to which you allude.

I am not married and have chosen the celibate chaste state. I do not have a call to religious life since for one God has not granted me the health which the laws of religious institutes require and have chosen the single state and private consecration to God under the evangelical vows. Hence God has never called me to religious life else He would have granted me the health and gladly would I, delightedly and with a huge sigh of relief, enter a religious congregation. I experience my current state as a direct call from God outside of formal religious consecration within religious life per se.
Hence if one feels called to the celibate state and for some reason is not drawn or cannot meet the requirements of these formal states within The Church, there is another option besides marraige…the single state consecrated to God privately. There are also lay Third Orders for married and single people…those who wish to consecrate themselves to God formally within a religious institute in the lay state and feel called to do so.

Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Hi Batteddy…theologians say heaps of things and we are not asked to believe every word they utter thank goodness…not until their statements are given approval in some form by Rome. Can you quote the theologian, reference etc. who make the statements to which you refer.

I cannot at this point anyway hold that God calls all to the celibate state of chastity and if they are not generous in responding, then he gives them a lesser and easier call which seems anyway to be implied but feel free to correct and qualify me.
If God called all to the celibate state without exemption and if all were generous, the human race and The Church would eventually cease to exist. The theological argument you present I think is full of holes but again this is only my assessment and I am certainly no theologian or even apologist.

I reject totally this whole reasoning that marriage is a lesser state than the celibate state. I concur however that the celibate state of itself through dedication to God alone is a more direct means of holiness. I also reject that all without exemption have a call to the celibate state and are not celibates and are married by virtue of their lack of generosity in the ‘first call’. However should Rome make a statement on these matters which challenges my own thoughts, then I will rethink but nevertheless remain obedient to my own conscience in all matters and to date and I rejoice with thanksgiving my own conscience has never challenged Rome.

It is a wondrous gift, a wondrous gift, to be called to reflect and witness to that love which Christ has for His Church…i.e. the marriage state…how can anyone think that this state cannot lead to Unity with God and holiness every bit as much as the celibate state quite defeats me. I do repeat that I am not challenging that the celibate state through consecrating onself directly to God is a more direct means of holiness. This of course is on the proviso that one gives onself totally and unreservedly to this consecration and all it implies etc.

But please do quote the theologian(s) and references to the statements to which you allude.

I am not married and have chosen the celibate chaste state. I do not have a call to religious life since for one God has not granted me the health which the laws of religious institutes require and have chosen the single state and private consecration to God under the evangelical vows. Hence God has never called me to religious life else He would have granted me the health and gladly would I, delightedly and with a huge sigh of relief, enter a religious congregation. I experience my current state as a direct call from God outside of formal religious consecration within religious life per se.
Hence if one feels called to the celibate state and for some reason is not drawn or cannot meet the requirements of these formal states within The Church, there is another option besides marraige…the single state consecrated to God privately. There are also lay Third Orders for married and single people…those who wish to consecrate themselves to God formally within a religious institute in the lay state and feel called to do so.
There is also the Canonical Consecration in the Order of Virgins … this state has now been modified to include those who are not physical virgins but have lived chaste lives all their life.
Barb

 

[thistle]

Jasny:

By trying to equalise the states we do damage to the Church. Consecrated Life was established by Christ Himself. This is a special gift to the Church. He also says who can take it take it. (that would mean that all healthy people would at least consider it) St. Paul advises not be married. The complete contemplative state is higher than contemplative\active. Because they give up more.

Is it ridiculous to say that a person has given up the great gift of having a loving family of children and spouse and the same person to submit his even greater faculty of Free Will to a religious superior of their state of life? Are you saying a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous?

Every act of a CV is two acts. An act of religion and an act of what ever virtue is practised. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinis

I’m confused by this debate. There seems to be some boasting or pride in saying that one state is higher than the other implying that anyone who chooses CV is a better person than one who chooses married life.
Also with regard to your quote from St Paul, are you suggesting or do you think he is seriously suggesting all women shold be virgins and all men ceibate? The human race would die out pretty quickly. I don’t think that is in God’s plan.
Of course I may simply have completely misunderstood the focus of this thread as I just came into it today.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

thistle:

I’m confused by this debate. There seems to be some boasting or pride in saying that one state is higher than the other implying that anyone who chooses CV is a better person than one who chooses married life.
Also with regard to your quote from St Paul, are you suggesting or do you think he is seriously suggesting all women shold be virgins and all men ceibate? The human race would die out pretty quickly. I don’t think that is in God’s plan.
Of course I may simply have completely misunderstood the focus of this thread as I just came into it today.

Hi Thistle, I am of course presupposing that I do insight what the debate is about and from my angle you have your ‘finger on the core’ of the debate.
What I am trying anyway to state is that all states in life are calls from God to holiness and Unity with Him, and that the religious and priestly states, the celibate states of consecration are by virtue of that consecration to God states that in the ideal should lead directly to holiness and Union…which is not at all to state that the other states in life cannot lead one to holiness and Union…in fact I am arguing that equally all states can.

I think that the most important state which we have not referred to here and yet one which we all share is the Baptized Person who is consecrated to Christ in Christ. This is our first and by far primary call after which in life we receive a more particular call to a certain state in life. Whatever state that may be it is holy and leads to Unity if fulfilled faithfully by virtue of fulfilling God’s Will, not by virtue of the state itself per se. The summit of the spiritual life is Unity with God’s Will in all things which can be achieved in any state whatsoever even if I am the local garbage collector - though wht is wrong with garbage collectors defeats me too since we would be in a dreadful state if we had none…priests and religious included.

I cannot conceive that a call from God to the married state to witness to and to live out that Love Christ has for His Church can be called a ‘lesser state’ that is just to me so plainly ridiculous and downright illogical and to me anyway theologically unsound.

As I see it Thistle…

Barb

 

[thistle]

BarbaraTherese:

Hi Thistle, I am of course presupposing that I do insight what the debate is about and from my angle you have your ‘finger on the core’ of the debate.
What I am trying anyway to state is that all states in life are calls from God to holiness and Unity with Him, and that the religious and priestly states, the celibate states of consecration are by virtue of that consecration to God states that in the ideal should lead directly to holiness and Union…which is not at all to state that the other states in life cannot lead one to holiness and Union…in fact I am arguing that equally all states can.

I think that the most important state which we have not referred to here and yet one which we all share is the Baptized Person who is consecrated to Christ in Christ. This is our first and by far primary call after which in life we receive a more particular call to a certain state in life. Whatever state that may be it is holy and leads to Unity if fulfilled faithfully by virtue of fulfilling God’s Will, not by virtue of the state itself per se. The summit of the spiritual life is Unity with God’s Will in all things which can be achieved in any state whatsoever even if I am the local garbage collector - though wht is wrong with garbage collectors defeats me too since we would be in a dreadful state if we had none…priests and religious included.

I cannot conceive that a call from God to the married state to witness to and to live out that Love Christ has for His Church can be called a ‘lesser state’ that is just to me so plainly ridiculous and downright illogical and to me anyway theologically unsound.

As I see it Thistle…

Barb

Okay I understand what you are saying and I agree with it.

It just wasn’t clear to me if that was what Jasny was saying. It seemed that she was saying that different states are not equal and that everyone should strive for the highest. That of course would be totally impractical, even if one was higher than the other which is not the case anyway. There are many ways to holiness and they are simply different, not greater or lesser.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

thistle:

Okay I understand what you are saying and I agree with it.

It just wasn’t clear to me if that was what Jasny was saying. It seemed that she was saying that different states are not equal and that everyone should strive for the highest. That of course would be totally impractical, even if one was higher than the other which is not the case anyway. There are many ways to holiness and they are simply different, not greater or lesser.

Hi Thistle…yep you’ve got things as I see it unless I am talking to cross purposes in this thread.

The highest state there is is to desire nothing but what God Wills and this can be desired and obtained in any state of life at all. Where our particular state in life is concerned, the ideal of course is to choose it and to follow it because it is God’s Will for one, and no matter what His Will as to our state in life actually is.
I think to fall in love, to receive the gift of human love and to be called to fulfill that love in the married state and to witness to and to strive to be that Love which Christ has for His Church is wondrous and holy…a wondrous and holy gift and I know many marriages which strive towards this ideal.

God is love and the gift of human love is wondrous in any of its forms…the highest of which is supernatural love or agape which can be fulfilled in any state of life at all. Pope Benedict has recently pointed this out in his encyclical on "God is Love’ and very courageously tackled eros and about time too that The Church did!
This business of virginity and the celibate state by consecration as being the higher all goes back to The Church’s hangups about human sexuality or eros. Now Pope Benedict has brough eros into the arena of open discussion and why would God endow every human person with a sexual drive without exception including priests and religious who ideally sumblimate that drive completely putting it to a higher purpose or service and love of God alone and in neighbour…ideally…why would God endow us this if there was something lesser and nasty about it. Even stricly enclosed contemplatives have an ardent love of neighbour and spend their whole lives praying and doing penance on behalf of the whole Church…how generous and loving of them! Our Powerhouses of Prayer. When I am unable to pray I know contemplatives everywhere are praying in my name at every second of my waking and sleeping life…and also doing penance on my behalf. The give their whole lives to this!

God commands Adam and Eve to “increase and multiply and fill the earth” - the very first command of God to humanity…and in the state of the Garden of Paradise or his initial loving and friendly relationship with Adam and Eve who walked with Him in the garden, he issues this command which involves human sexuality in order to increase and multiply. Human sexuality in its ideal expression is beautiful and the means created by God to bring a child and a soul into this world…how beautiful!

Barb

 

[thistle]

BarbaraTherese:

Hi Thistle…yep you’ve got things as I see it unless I am talking to cross purposes in this thread.

The highest state there is is to desire nothing but what God Wills and this can be desired and obtained in any state of life at all. Where our particular state in life is concerned, the ideal of course is to choose it and to follow it because it is God’s Will for one, and no matter what His Will as to our state in life actually is.
I think to fall in love, to receive the gift of human love and to be called to fulfill that love in the married state and to witness to and to strive to be that Love which Christ has for His Church is wondrous and holy…a wondrous and holy gift and I know many marriages which strive towards this ideal.

God is love and the gift of human love is wondrous in any of its forms…the highest of which is supernatural love or agape which can be fulfilled in any state of life at all. Pope Benedict has recently pointed this out in his encyclical on "God is Love’ and very courageously tackled eros and about time too that The Church did!
This business of virginity and the celibate state by consecration as being the higher all goes back to The Church’s hangups about human sexuality or eros. Now Pope Benedict has brough eros into the arena of open discussion and why would God endow every human person with a sexual drive without exception including priests and religious who ideally sumblimate that drive completely putting it to a higher purpose or service and love of neighbour…ideally…why would God endow us this if there was something lesser and nasty about it.

God commands Adam and Eve to “increase and multiply and fill the earth” - the very first command of God to humanity…and in the state of the Garden of Paradise or his initial loving and friendly relationship with Adam and Eve who walked with Him in the garden, he issues this command which involves human sexuality in order to increase and multiply. Human sexuality in its ideal expression is beautiful and the means created by God to bring a child and a soul into this world…how beautiful!

Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

To get Pope Benedict’s first encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” into the whole context one needs to read with care the whole lengthy document rather than lift from it quotations altho this can be helpful in some instances.

In Dues Caritas Est (God is Love) The Holy Father tackles eros and agape…here is a quotation from that encyclical - I apologize for the length but I deemed it necessary:

"7. By their own inner logic, these initial, somewhat philosophical reflections on the essence of love have now brought us to the threshold of biblical faith. We began by asking whether the different, or even opposed, meanings of the word “love” point to some profound underlying unity, or whether on the contrary they must remain unconnected, one alongside the other. More significantly, though, we questioned whether the message of love proclaimed to us by the Bible and the Church’s Tradition has some points of contact with the common human experience of love, or whether it is opposed to that experience. This in turn led us to consider two fundamental words: eros, as a term to indicate “worldly” love and agape, referring to love grounded in and shaped by faith. The two notions are often contrasted as “ascending” love and “descending” love. There are other, similar classifications, such as the distinction between possessive love and oblative love (amor concupiscentiae – amor benevolentiae), to which is sometimes also added love that seeks its own advantage.

In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love —eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34)."

 

[BarbaraTherese]

bekalc:

Didn’t Council of Trent say that being celibate doesn’t necessarily make you better.

Can I say something. I’m reminded of something a former teacher of mine (Pentecostal) said. He told us that God has specific vocations plans for each person. He talked about some people’s calling might be “assistant pastor.” He said that if your calling is an assistant pastor than being a senior pastor is not a promotion for you! It’s a demotion. I would say the same can apply in the Catholic Church. If God’s role is for someone to just be a deacon. That’s His plan for them. Then well becoming a bishop isn’t a promition for them…They aren’t in the will of God, and there’s something very sad about it.

I think this is the way it works. We should be about wanting to serve Jesus, not serving or glorifying ourselves. Frankly, God wants some people to get married and well raise kids! (He did say be fruitfull and multiply.) If that’s God’s plan for a person, than thats the plan they should be following. No matter what the "higher calling/the one with more honor in this world really is).

We are all important in the grand scheme of things.

Good insight Bekalc…you’ve got my vote!

Barb