Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[JReducation]

Thank you.

I guess, what I’m asking is, do you think or do you interpret these statements as saying that objectively married people are less holy than those in religious orders/consecrated life?

GOOD GRIED NO NO NO! That’s not what the doctrine on religious life says. It’s saying that the religious life and the life of celibacy are superior to the married state, not that those who are priest or religious are holier than married people… A man or woman is called to a higher calling, but can go to hell as quickly as the next guy if he or she is not faithful in his response to the call. Then you have people like St. Giana Molla who was called to marriage and motherhood and was much holier than I am. She’s a canonized saint and I’m still struggling to be faithful to prayer.

If so…do you really think that’s coherent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

The holiness of the consecrated state and the priestly state are consistent with the Gospel. Jesus does choose celibacy for himself and speaks of its sanctifying effect for the sake of the Kingdom. He also chose the religious life which he lived with his apostle, a life in community and also lived in the Trinity. But if you notice, Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him and Thomas doubted. Even though they were called to a holier life, they did not always act very holy.

Having an “objective superiority” is ok…depending on what that statement is referring to. Is it referring to a superiority to Christian marriage?

The doctrine that was handed down by Christ and St. Paul was that the celibate state was superior to Christian marriage. However, both are very clear on the fact that marriage is a good thing and Peter goes on to explain it very well that marriage is a great source of grace and an opportunity for charity between the spouses. That’s how the Church concluded that marriage was a sacrament, because it had two qualities: the power to sanctify (if lived correctly) and it is binding until death, just as faith should be binding until death.

Is there anything you find in the teachings of Vatican II or the Catechism that support your claim?

Let’s clarify. This is not my claim. I just gave you the doctrine of the Church. I didn’t make any of those statements. Their sources are next to each statement.

Second, there is a document from Vatican II called Perfectae Caritatis; however, it does not go into the doctrine on religious life. Vatican II did not deal on too many doctrinal issues. What it did was tho explain for religious and for the world how religious life is to be lived in the 20th century. The last statement on the doctrine of religious life was made by Benedict XVI in a public address. He simply repeats what was handed down to us from Trent, in different words. John Paul II wrote a document called Vita Consacrata, which also speaks about the consecrated life.

The Council of Trent citation is ok. I’m not claiming one state is superior to the other, which is what Trent seems to be teaching against.

Trent does not make a claim, it goes a little further than that. Trent repeats the doctrine as it was handed down from Paul and declares that whoever does not believe it should be anathema, which can lead to excommunication. To be anathema is to be loathed, to be pushed aside, to be condemned in some way. Modern Church language uses different wording to say the same thing, just not so harshly. We would say that such a person is not in full communion with the Church.

Does this help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

GOOD GRIED NO NO NO! That’s not what the doctrine on religious life says. It’s saying that the religious life and the life of celibacy are superior to the married state, not that those who are priest or religious are holier than married people…

Thanks. But I’m not sure that distinction is readily apparent or meaningful to most. What’s “superior” --in terms of vocation, discipleship, etc. – if not “holier”?

The doctrine that was handed down by Christ and St. Paul was that the celibate state was superior to Christian marriage.

It’s highly debatable that Paul’s teaching meant, for all times, that celibacy is superior to Christian marriage. That’s extrapolating one verse/passage, in only one letter, out of its context. Hardly a definitive teaching for all times.

Thanks for your response.

 

[nsper7]

When it says that consecrated life is “superior” to marriage, does that mean that if one is a consecrated/religious that they have a better chance of Salvation? Remember that one could argue that being a religious brother/sister (or even a secular Priest) actually decreases your chances of Salvation since vows and Priestly promises are binding under penalty of grave sin.

Basically, a layperson is held to the precepts under pain of sin, but not the evangelical counsels. A religious is held to the evangelical counsels through their vows under penalty of sin. A secular Priest is held to their promises under penalty of sin.

Hypothetically speaking, if being consecrated objectively decreases one’s chances of Salvation, then why would anyone go that route?

 

[JReducation]

Thanks. But I’m not sure that distinction is readily apparent or meaningful to most. What’s “superior” --in terms of vocation, discipleship, etc. – if not “holier”?

It’s highly debatable that Paul’s teaching meant, for all times, that celibacy is superior to Christian marriage. That’s extrapolating one verse/passage, in only one letter, out of its context. Hardly a definitive teaching for all times.

Thanks for your response.

I’ll begin at the end of your post. The Council of Trent made it a definitive teaching for all times. The Church subscribes to this.

As to the difference between the celibate state and the celibate person, what the Church teaches is that the call to celibacy is superior to the call to matrimony. It is superior because it is a call to an intimate relationship with Christ without the mediation of a spouse. Spouses love Christ through each other. At least we hope they will. That’s what’s supposed to happen in a good Christian marriage. A celibate man or woman, who makes a public vow, is in a covenant relationship directly with Christ. Another dimension that the Church looks at is the perpetuity of celibacy vs the finiteness of marriage. Marriage comes to an end when the spouse dies. Celibacy begins on earth, but continues in eternity where men and women are not given to each other in marriage. Celibacy is an anticipation of the Kingdom of God. Marriage is the sign of the relationship between Christ and the Church. At the second coming,t he Church as we know it will cease to exist, since it will no longer be necessary. However, celibacy is a vocation or covenant that is not for everyone. It is for a few, because most people are not cut out for this, as St. Paul points out.

You mention taking the quote out of context. We have to be very careful here. A Council such as Trent, which defined doctrines, has the authority to define the meaning of scripture. We Catholics are not allowed to question those interpretations that are doctrinal. You don’t want to go there. We can ask for their meaning, that’s OK. We cannot question their validity. That’s not OK for a Catholic to do.

Does this clarify it a little more?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Michael_Saint]

I disagree that Catholics consider celibacy and consecrated chastity as superior to marriage. Where does the Church teach this?

As I understand it, if this were true, then if everyone in the Church pursued the “higher path” (which would seem to be laudable, by this argument) the Church would cease to exist (i.e. once all these celibates and consecrated religious died…no more Catholics).

Thank you.

Read Sacra Virginitas 32. Google it. It is dogma. To deny this is to commit heresy - which is fine, but then you should admit you are in heresy.

Also, Google “Optatam Totius” and read number 10, paragraph 2. This is not “pre-Vatican” because it is a document of Vatican II!

 

[Michael_Saint]

Thank you.

I guess, what I’m asking is, do you think or do you interpret these statements as saying that objectively married people are less holy than those in religious orders/consecrated life?

If so…do you really think that’s coherent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Having an “objective superiority” is ok…depending on what that statement is referring to. Is it referring to a superiority to Christian marriage? Or merely some more anonymous superiority to some secular state in life (which of course may include marriage, secular or otherwise)?

Is there anything you find in the teachings of Vatican II or the Catechism that support your claim?

The Council of Trent citation is ok. I’m not claiming one state is superior to the other, which is what Trent seems to be teaching against.

Thank you.

The proper translation of Trent is this: “If any one saith … that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.” Some translations say: “that it is better to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity”, or words to that effect. This is an erroneous translation (whether intentional or not, I don’t know).

Married people can be holier than Celibates depending on how each respond to their call. However, holiness is easier in the celibate state, which is more conducive to perfection. Marriage is the harder path to holiness. Furthermore, the celibate is, all things being equal, able to reach a higher degree of holiness. However, as I said, this does not always happen - I know a lot of priests who have squandered their graces, and thus are probably * less holy than many married people who did more than the grace they had.*

 

[JReducation]

I believe the problem here is the title of the thread is misleading. The question should not be whether the priestly state is moer blessed. The Church has always placed priesthood, marriage and religious life on a horizontal line.

The question should be the celibate state. Then we can think vertically.

In terms of hieararchy, the priesthood is at the top, religious the step below and the laity the step below that. But that’s a hierarchical paradigm. It has nothing to do with grace. Each state has its own special graces.

When you ask the Church which is objectively superior: consecrated celibacy or marriage, that’s a very different question. The doctrine of the Church is that consecrated celibacy is superior and the Church takes this from the Gospels and the teachings of Paul. It does not have to be declared a de fide dogma, because it’s already revealed in scripture. It falls under the category of doctrine, meaning a teaching that has been handed down from Christ himself. We don’t need to declare Christ’s teachings to be dogmas. They are infallible, because the source is scriptural. When the Church looks at Matt’s Gospel and Paul’s writings on the question about whether or not it is better to be married or to be celibate, the answer is given there, very clearly.

But it must be understood that the answer given by Christ and by Paul does not take away from the sacredness of the marriage vows. Christ is very clear on the bond of marriage. Peter is too. The point that Christ and Paul are making is that if one can be celibate for the Kingdom of God, then that’s the better way to go. It’s not a matter of important and insignificant. It’s a matter of a hierarchy of intimacy with the Divine. Celibacy is a greater intimacy with the Divine.

That being said, the celibate person must work at that intimacy. God is not going to do all the work for you. It’s an uphill battle. If you drop the ball, you’re not doing anyone any favors. This takes away from you as an individual, but not from the call. Christ is calling you to be in a covenant relationship with him and to begin here on earth what will continue in the next life. But if you do not persevere and you are unfaithful, you’re not a holy person. You have been blessed with a very high calling, but you have not stepped up to the plate.

Another way of looking at it is from the temporal point of view. Marriage comes to an end at death. The celibate state does not. It it brought into its fullness at death. The soul that has lived in this intimate relationships with Christ is finally free to see him and be eternally with him.

For the married person, the one-on-one intimacy with Christ begins at death. For the faithful celibate it begins when he makes the vow. Therefore, the celibate has already entered into the kingdom in an invisible manner. It is his job to remain in that covenant through fidelity so that it can be brouth to its fullness after this life.

There is the superiority of which the Church speaks. No other state in life is a temporal extension of eternity into time, except celibacy. Do you see what I mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

*Dear Br JR,

I know I am jumping in on this thread but something you said here caught my attention and I was wondering if you could elaborate or clarify it for me. What do you mean or what are you referring to when you say this.*

For the married person, the one-on-one intimacy with Christ begins at death. For the faithful celibate it begins when he makes the vow. Therefore, the celibate has already entered into the kingdom in an invisible manner. It is his job to remain in that covenant through fidelity so that it can be brouth to its fullness after this life.

*I am really wondering about the part that I bolded. What do you mean or what are you referring to when you say a one-on-one intimacy with Christ?

Simple soul*

 

[JReducation]

*Dear Br JR,

I know I am jumping in on this thread but something you said here caught my attention and I was wondering if you could elaborate or clarify it for me. What do you mean or what are you referring to when you say this.*

*I am really wondering about the part that I bolded. What do you mean or what are you referring to when you say a one-on-one intimacy with Christ?

Simple soul*

To understand that statement, I must first go back to the theology of marriage. St. Paul and St. Peter remind us that husbands and wives must love each other as Christ and the Church love each other. Married persons are a sign of the love that exists between Christ and his Church. They achieve their intimacy with Christ through each other and as a couple.

The person who is called to celibacy is also called to be a sign, but not a sign of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The person called to consecrated celibacy is called to be a sign of the relationship between the soul and Christ. This relationship between the soul and Christ is a one-on-one relationship. It does not involve another person. It is a direct relationship with Christ. Marriage is a mediated relationship. Husbands and wives have a sacred duty to mediate Christ to each other, in other words, make Christ visible to each other.

The consecrated celibate has no significant other through whom he sees Christ and through whom he loves Christ. His or her relationship with Christ is without mediation. Thus the consecrated celibate is a sign of the relationship that all of us will have with Christ in the Kingdom of God.

That’s why the apostolate or ministry is accidental to the religious life, not essential. The religious can still live in an intimate relationship with Christ even if he or she is a hermit. Because the covenant does not require another human being in order to fulfill it.

The marriage covenant obviously requires another human being in order to fulfill it. A married person who lives like a cloistered nun, a monk, a friar, a hermit or a consecrated virgin is not fulfilling his or her covenant, no matter how much prayer they do or how much they serve others. The duty of the married person is to meet Christ through the spouse, then the children born to them, and finally those outside of the family. A married person cannot opt for this private individual relationship with Christ. This contrary to the call to marriage. The Church and Christ never separate from each other. Therefore, the married man and woman can never achieve their salvation ignoring each other and living as if they were celibate in a one-on-one relationship with Christ.

In our times, the greatest example of this is St. Giana Molla. She was a wife, mother and physician. Her life of prayer and her service to others were always governed and revolved around her marriage and her children. You see what I mean by saying that it’s not a one-on-one relationship? It’s an “Us” relationship with Christ. My spouse and I come to Christ as one. Our personal relationship with Christ is through our spouses and children. That is not the case of a consecrated celibate man or woman. There is no US, just I and the Beloved.

If the celibate person belongs to a religious community, there is an us, but it’s not the same as marriage. Christ is not mediated through the community. The community is a school where the religious learns from his brothers or sisters how to be more intimate with Christ. The religious is not married to his brothers or sisters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

Hey Brother JR! Thanks for your informative posts! I have not read all of this thread, but am really interested in the distinction between the One-on-one relationship between Christ and the consecrated person versus the Christ-and-Us relationship in marriage. How would a single person who is not officially consecrated fit into this? Does that person have the exclusive relationship with Christ in a similar way to the religious because it is not mediated through another person? I am especially interested in this for a person who is intentionally single- and desires great intimacy with Christ, for instance one who felt a desire for religious life but did not prove to be a fit candidate…

 

[JReducation]

Hey Brother JR! Thanks for your informative posts! I have not read all of this thread, but am really interested in the distinction between the One-on-one relationship between Christ and the consecrated person versus the Christ-and-Us relationship in marriage. How would a single person who is not officially consecrated fit into this? Does that person have the exclusive relationship with Christ in a similar way to the religious because it is not mediated through another person? I am especially interested in this for a person who is intentionally single- and desires great intimacy with Christ, for instance one who felt a desire for religious life but did not prove to be a fit candidate…

Elizabeth, you’re asking a very hard question and I’ll tell you why. The Church has never made a pronouncement on the single life, except for consecrated virgins and hermits. These are not religious, but they are consecrated celibate men and women.

There are two comments that I have heard. The one came from Fr. Mitch Pacwa just last week. Someone asked him the same question. He said that the single state, without the vows of religiuos life, the consecration to virginity, or the profession of hermit, still has the potential for marriage and is therefore a temporary state. Because things can change for the single person. He or she may meet his future spouse at any time or can hear a call to the priesthood or to the religious life.

The other statement that I have heard actually comes from observing the life of Catherine of Siena who was a single woman, not a nun as many thing. God preserves some souls for himself and draws them into a mystical marriage. In that case, there is that intimate one-on-one relationship between the individual and God, without have to love God by loving one’s spouse and family. But we will only know who has been selected by God to this life when the person dies. While the person is alive, there is always the chance that he or she may marry, become a deacon, priest or religious.

My suggestion to someone who wants to remain single for the sake of the Kingdom is to consult a spiritual director. In the case of a woman, she can explore with the spiritual director the consecration of virgins, if it applies. Not all single women are virgins. Some are widows and others divorced, etc.

There is always the possibility of making private vows under the direction of ones spiritual director or ones bishop. In this case, the person must adopt one of the existing rules: Benedictine, Franciscan, Basilian, Carmelite or Augustinian. The other option would be to write a rule of life for himself or herself and present it to the spiritual director who will help the perosn polish it.

If the person does not want to go through all of this, there is another possibility here. Do not close off the possibility of ever getting married, even if you’re not looking or the possibility of entering religious life, even if you do not feel called right now. But leave yourself open to the Will of God.

Even though consecrated celibate men and women have a one-on-one relationship with God, this does not mean that others do not have a personal relationship with God.

One-on-one simply means that you are reserved for God alone, not for a spouse or for children. That’s why people like me have to wait until our children are independent before entering religious life. I’m a widower and father of two. But they are now adults. At this point my love does not have to be shared with my children. This is what one-on-one means. I still love them, but they are no longer my responsibility. They are responsible for their own journey.

A married person also loves God, but he shows his love for God through his love for hsi spouse and his children, until he is no longer married and no longer responsible for his children. That’s the US-God relationship. You come to God as part of a couple.

All this being said, everyone has a personal relationship with God, whether you are married, single or consecrated. No two people are the same. God does not want us to be clones of each other. Spouses are not clones. Religious are not clones, even though we may look like it, . God speaks to us in different ways according to our needs and according to our understanding. We speak to God in different ways. We come to God as we are.

Again, to recap, the religious comes to God alone. The married person comes to God as part of a couple. The single person comes to God open to his Will for his future.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Read Sacra Virginitas 32. Google it. It is dogma. To deny this is to commit heresy - which is fine, but then you should admit you are in heresy.

Also, Google “Optatam Totius” and read number 10, paragraph 2. This is not “pre-Vatican” because it is a document of Vatican II!

Pius XII says himself it’s doctrine. Not dogma.

 

[JReducation]

Pius XII says himself it’s doctrine. Not dogma.

Let’s clarify here. Doctrine and dogma are equally binding on the faithful. They come to us differently, hence the difference in terminology.

A doctrine is something that is taught as truth. It is usually part of a bigger truth. For example, everything in the bible is doctrine. Celibacy is taught in scripture first by Jesus and then by Paul. The Church does not have to define doctrine that comes from scripture as being truth, because the sriptures are inerrant. Even though a doctrine is divinely reveald, if it is clear in the scriptures, nothing more needs to be said about it.

A dogma is also something that is taught as truth and is based on revelation. An example is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There are hints to this in the scriptures. It was a doctrine of the early Church and was always believed. But to close the discussion, the Church makes a dogmatic declaration that Mary is conceived without sin. Like this, there are other dogmas that are taken from scripture, but where the meaning has been debated, often because of a lack of clarity and the Church has settled the debate with a dogmatic decree.

In the end, doctrines and dogmas are truths and all truths are binding on the faithful. We know that they are truths, because the Church cannot teach falsehood.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Michael_Saint]

Pius XII says himself it’s doctrine. Not dogma.

Read it again carefully:

“32. **This doctrine **of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church.”

 

[rachael_maria]

Wow. Since it is actually important enough to be a dogma that their life is inferior would someone please explain how it is that lay people are not supposed to feel like second class citizens in the church? Seems pretty clear that the church does after all see it that way.

 

[JReducation]

Wow. Since it is actually important enough to be a dogma that their life is inferior would someone please explain how it is that lay people are not supposed to feel like second class citizens in the church? Seems pretty clear that the church does after all see it that way.

Hold on here. Dogmas do not come from the Church. They come from Divine Revelation. This was God’s will to set it up this way. The Church’s job is to teach what God has revealed. You’re pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

Second, there are no second class citizens. This has nothing to do with membership in the Church. This has to do with the sacredness of a calling. My Jewish mother always wanted her sons to be doctors and lawyers. I was the only one who chose not to go that route. That does not make me a second class member of my biological family. But it does not change the fact of what my mother preferred.

The same happens here. Being married does not make you a second class citizen. But it does not change the fact that Jesus had a preference for the celibate state. He was celibate and he taught celibacy as the highest call. He does this several times.

Once he is speaking of those who become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom.

Another time he tells people that unless they leave father, mother, wife, family, posessions, etc and follow him, they cannot be his discples.

Another time he tells the young man to go and sell everything he posesses and folllow him. Obviously the young man was single or Jesus would not have asked him to get rid of his posessions which he needed to sustain his family.

Then Paul says that he wishes that all could be like him.

Then he says that if you need not marry it is better not to do so.

Then we have the example of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul and John the Evangelist who were celibate. We also have the early martyrs who were celibate or consecrated virgins. This has been part of Sacred Tradition since the time of Christ. That’s how it becomes a doctrine, because it is taught in scripture. The Council of Trent reaffirmed the doctrine. When you reaffirm a doctrine or a belief, that’s called a dogmatic decreee or Dogma for short. But all doctrines are infallible and they don’t have to be clarified through a decree to be binding on all the faithful.

Even among the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox, celibacy is viewed as the higher calling. They have priests and they have monks. The monks are not always priests, but they consider the monks to have followed a higher calling than their married priests. They trace this back to Christ himself.

This changes nothing in one’s membership in the Church. The fact is that even with the higher calling, the religious in the Church have no canonical rank. To have canonical rank you must be ordained. Even if you’re following the higher calling of consecrated celibacy, if you are not ordained, you do not have canonical ranking. This means that you are bound to obey just like Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their 10 children. The hierarchy and the pope look at celibate religious with special respect and awe. But they don’t turn over the government of the Church to us.

The ranking goes like this, from top to bottom

bishop
presbyter
deacon
laity

The religious are not even in that list. We do not fit into the hierarchy of the Church, even with the superior vocation to the celibate life. We are outside of that list. There’s a good side and a down side to it. The good side is that we are not bound to the bishops or the laity, we are autonomous. The down side is that people often mistreat us. Oh well, you take the good with the bad.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

According the dogma of the Church, those who give up the natural desires of marriage and family to be a religious are more blessed than those who don’t. It was very difficult for me to understand this at the beginning, but I understand why now. It doesn’t detract from marriage at all. God calls people to the vocation He destined for them. Here’s a website for more information:

religious-vocation.com/

Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.

This is exquisitely beautiful. Thank-you so much for posting that article; it has greatly blessed me.

 

[simple_soul]

Wow. Since it is actually important enough to be a dogma that their life is inferior would someone please explain how it is that lay people are not supposed to feel like second class citizens in the church? Seems pretty clear that the church does after all see it that way.

*Dear Rachael_maria,

I do not know that I can explain this thoroughly but I will try to explain what I understand so far.
Fist of all I do not believe that I would use the word “inferior.” My mother was always reminding me that I was not “strange,” “weird,” or “different.” She would always say “you are unique!” I believe we all have our own unique relationship with God. Or like a Brother recently told me, our own personal relationship with Him, and we need to nurture it through His Will and His help whether He helps us directly or through others.
By us all nurturing our own relationship with God I do believe that we will be helping to work toward the salvation of all mankind.

On a personal note I thought my relationship with God was a one-on-one relationship with Him. I am always bouncing things off of Him that I do not understand and He always seems to help me see it and understand it more clearly. What I have come to understand, through the help of a brother, is even though I “think” I have a one-on-one relationship with God it really is not. Because if I abandon my responsibilities that come with being married with children to pursue this one-on-one relationship with Him I will in reality lose it or it would not be the same. I never want to lose it or the intimate nature of it. Thus in order to keep it I need to continue serving Him by taking care of my family. Thus what I “thought” was my one-on-one relationship with Him is dependent on my relationship with my family thus making it not a one-on-one relationship with Himself.

But this is not always easy to remember and follow. I believe at times I am actually envious of the religious because they do not seem to have to wait. They get to start right now. Every time I get that yearning to be with God one-on-one I seem have to catch my breath and remind myself I have to wait I have a family. Trust me, it’s hard sometimes because I do not want to loose my own personal unique relationship God has with me and I am willing to wait for that one-on-one with Him. I like to believe that if absence makes the heart grow fonder then the one-on-one union with Him would then be all the more sweeter if I patiently wait for it.

I do not know if this helps but I pray it does. *

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Brother JR, thank-you very much for your posts on this thread. They are very illuminating.

One thing I would like to hear more about is what you were just saying about dogma and doctrine both being binding. Theologians have debated over many doctrines, including the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s Assumption, Papal Infallibility and Transubstantiation. However, once these were defined as dogmas, all debate ceased to be legitimate.

Similarly, there is debate among many Catholics over Mary’s role as Mediatrix of All Graces and Co-Redemptrix, even though both roles are Catholic doctrines. The Church seems to permit this debate. So I don’t understand why you’ve said that doctrine cannot err and is absolutely binding. True doctrine obviously cannot err, but the question of what exactly the true doctrine is is for the Church to decide, and on many questions of debate, she seems to only close the matter through dogma.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Wow. Since it is actually important enough to be a dogma that their life is inferior would someone please explain how it is that lay people are not supposed to feel like second class citizens in the church? Seems pretty clear that the church does after all see it that way.

Think about it this way. Celibacy is an easier path to perfection, and married life is more difficult. Yet married Catholics can certainly be far more holy than religious. Both paths are good. It’s the difference between running on a level field (matrimony) and running downhill (the religious vocation). In truth, any time someone offers a sacrifice to God with humility and love, their path to His glory becomes easier, whether that person is married or not. This is why it’s easier also for the poor to enter Heaven than for the rich, or to receive greater glory in Heaven. They have more opportunity for sacrifice.

Running downhill (sacrificing much) is easier, but a good runner on a level plain can certainly beat some runners that are running downhill (by which I mean they can become more holy). The journey to Heaven is not a competition, and we should not be trying to be more holy than our neighbors but to be as holy as God wants us to be. However, I think this analogy might help make the difference between the religious vocation and matrimony clearer. The religious vocation often requires more sacrifice than matrimony, and it gives a believer time to devote him or herself wholly to God without having to fight so many worldly distractions. This can “speed the way” for a soul on this path, though some religious won’t take advantage of this grace and remain more sinful or tardy in their union with God than people who aren’t in this vocation.

There can be athletes on the level plain and losers on the downhill slope, and visa versa. The downhill slope (the sacrifice and totality of self-giving to God) makes it easier to run toward holiness, though. It’s in that sense that the religious vocation is “superior,” and eases the way to higher glory in Heaven.