Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[TiggerS]

The beautiful parable of the pharisee and the publican puts things so very well. The pharisee says :

Luke Chapter 18 - [11]* The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. [12] I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. [13] And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner. [14] I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. *[15]

We are all really tarred with the same brush, that of a sinner, and we need the Mercy of God desperately. It is not a question of what we are (pharisee or publican) nor status in anything at all, it is a question of self knowledge and humility before God knowing what we are and something of who God is - the great gulf inbetween only God can bridge. St Bonaventure (Franciscan) speaks about the Humilityof God and I am three quarters through a book “The Humility of God - A Franciscan Perspective” and through the lens of St. Bonaventure.
In the parable the pharisee is actually praying with himself - while the publican sees all with a measure of truth and is praying very humbly to God.
After all what we are in life (vocation) comes about through the Providence of God and is not attached in any way whatsoever to anything else at all but God’s Loving Care and Desires for each and every one of us. And the Providence of God while always and forever be with us, and is a great mystery as it unfolds in our midst and with us personally. Most myseriously while the Providence of God provides for an individual it is at once providing for all without exception. We are brothers and sisters, we are sinners, we are all connected and dependant in some way.

I know I would be in a complete mess if my garbage was not collected weekly and wouldn’t we all?

Truly my garbage man serves and serves most humbly, my garbage smells atrocious every week especially during the summer months. He not only rids me of the dreadful smelling rubbish bin, he spares my neighbours the smell of it.

TS

 

[JReducation]

I think we’re blending two things that should not be blended, the religious and the religious life. If we start to blend them, then we can get into the whole argument of whether or not the religious is living this higher calling. Without a doubt, one has to say that the answer is, No. Most of us (religious), myself included, struggle to live the ideal one day at a time. OK, I do five minutes at a time.

However, I separate myself from the religious life and I can say, that this is indisputably a higher calling than the call to the married state or to Holy Orders. The married state has its place, because holiness is mediated through each other. In Holy Orders, holiness is mediated through the ministry of the ordained,: deacon, priest or bishop. In the religious life, holiness is not mediated. It is directly offered by the very fact of being. While the Sacrament of Matrimony and the Sacrament of Holy Orders require specific action or doing, religious profession requires being. Regardless of whether you’re a priest, teacher, farmer, cook, counselor, etc, what you do is not important and has no impact on the religious life. You do not become a religious to be a priest, teacher, nurse, farmer, cook, etc. You become a religious to live a very specific way of life. Your ministry, if you have one, is accidental, not essential to the religious life. You can be a Carthusian hermit who sits all day in a cell praying, studying and putting around doing little things to give his mind some diversity and you’re still living what you were called to be, a man who is consecrated to God alone.

I like using the Carthusian hermits, though any hermit will do: Carmelite, Franciscan or Benedictine (the only orders that have hermits, to the best of my knowledge). This man or woman’s whole life has only one purpose, to live for Christ and in Christ’s presence. The cares of the world, even the cares of his environment are left to someone else. For example, in my own religious family, we have hermits. In the Rule for Hermits, St. Francis indicates how they are to do nothing, not even wipe a table or pick up a piece of paper from the floor. To each hermit there are two friars assigned to do all of these things: cook, clean, prepare meals and wait on them hand and foot. Why? Because their vocation is to be in the presence of Christ 24/7. All of these other concerns are only distractions. The other religious, who are not hermits, in our case the brothers or friars as we are often called, engage in different ministries, but not because we have to or even because it’s necessary for our identity. Many of our friars never exercise any ministry, more than half. They go through years of school to get Master’s and Doctorate degrees in theology, some are ordained, others are not, and they never see the outside world except when they go for a walk. The call is to live the Gospel, not to do something for anyone, as would be the case of a spouse or a diocesan priest. Even those who are ordained are not called to exercise the priestly ministry. They are ordained for the salvation of their souls.

We have a rather interesting custom in many orders. Those who are to be ordained must make an additional vow the night before they are ordained. They vow that the only reason for asking for Holy Orders is because they believe that they will lose their immortal souls if they are not ordained. They vow this before the community and sign a legally binding document to the effect that they will not demand or expect any consideration, privileges or rights rising from Holy Orders, except the right to celebrate the sacraments with the permission of the community.

The point of doing this is to stress the existential nature of religious life. You have entered the order to be, not to do. In the orders, the focus is on being, not on doing. You can be a priest without being a religious. You can be a teacher without being a religious and so forth.

When we say that in religious life there is no mediator between Christ and the religious, it is because even obedience is part of being. Grace is not mediated through the relationship with your superior or the rule. Grace is acquired by the virtue of obedience. It is obedience that grants grace, not the superior. Christ can use whatever he wants to use to invite you to obey. It may be a particular circumstance and you accept it in obedience to the Will of God. There is no superior and no community involved.

 

[JReducation]

For example, a few months ago, I was told that my cancer is terminal and that all that can be done at this point is to relieve my pain. I accepted this as God’s Will. There was no superior involved and no rule. One may say that the married person or the diocesan priest with the same diagnosis can also accept it as God’s Will and it is a virtuous thing to do so. One would be correct in saying so. The question becomes, what makes it different when the religious in this situation does the exact same thing that the mother of five and the priest does. The difference is that the religious is a) accepting the Will of God as are these other people. and b) the religious is fulfilling a vow that he made to God to accept His will. The married person and the ordained diocesan priest do not have the second component. They never vowed to accept God’s Will.

This does not take away from the charity of their submission to the Will of God. That has to be clearly understood. Acceptance of the Will of God is an act of charity.

The difference is the vow. In the case of the religious, he or she has vowed to exercise that charity. Therefore, there are graces dispensed for accepting the Will of God and additional graces for fidelity to the vow. This is how the state comes to be viewed as objectively superior, because it provides this opportunity to do both, to obey and to fulfill a vow to obey. There are two opportunities for grace in one assent of the will.

To take this back to being vs doing. In this case, the person is obeying (doing), he is being an obedient man or woman, which is his primary duty in life. When the rubber meets the road, the primary vow of the three vows is obedience. We are chaste out of obedience. We are poor out of obedience. Consecrated celibacy is an act of obedience to a summons from God. I’m always reminded of the passage in Scripture, “Here I am Lord. I’ve come to do your will.” Consecrated chastity is forsaking all things to do God’s will. What is God’s will for the religious? It is that he not care for or pay attention to anything but to him.

Whatever comes before you: the poor, sick, sinner, young, work, etc is attended to only because it pleases the beloved.

The married person is not called to do that. It would be contrary to the Sacrament of Matrimony to say that the wife attends to the husband or the husband to the wife, only because it pleases God. The spouses are called to please each other as Christ and the Church please each other, not only because it pleases God. They should truly desire to please each other.

The priest, deacon and bishop who are seculars do the same thing. They please the Church by responding to her needs: teaching, sanctifying and governing.

In both cases, the married person and the ordained man who is not a consecrated religious, are pleasing God through what they do. If they ceased to do what spouses and clerics are supposed to do, they abdicate their responsibility before man and God.

The religious or consecrated person pleases God by what he is or by how he lives. Even if a Benedictine priest stopped celebrating mass and never said another mass again, as long as he is a faithful monk, he is pleasing God, because that is what he is called to be. The other, priesthood, teaching or whatever else monks do, is just that . . . doing. But none of it makes them Benedictines. Living the life that God revealed to St. Benedict is what makes them Benedictine.

In conclusion, there is a difference between the religious and the religious life. The religious life is objectively superior, while the religious may be a total loser, when he ceases to make the effort to live the way that he or she is called to live. That also happens with the sacraments of Matrimony and Holy Orders too. The cleric or the spouse may be total loser when he or she ceases to do what he or she has been called to do. However, the sacrament does not cease to be a sacrament and it does not cease to give grace. When speaking about vocations, we must separate the person from the vocation. The vocation is what it is. The person may or may not live up to the vocation. That’s a whole other story.

Those who are either lay or secular clergy need not focus on which state is objectively superior. Such an exercise is an exercise in futility. What they need to focus on is how to do what they are called to do, faithfully. Saints are carved out of fidelity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

I am very sorry to read that you have terminal cancer. May God hold you very close and gift you with His Presence. I am very confident. that you would embrace lovingly the Will of God.

Some things you have written, I can agree with. Other points, I have different concepts. I need to leave things for the next couple of days. I will keep you in prayer, please keep me in yours.

TS

 

[narrowgatequest]

It would be contrary to the Sacrament of Matrimony to say that the wife attends to the husband or the husband to the wife, only because it pleases God. The spouses are called to please each other as Christ and the Church please each other, not only because it pleases God. They should truly desire to please each other.

The priest, deacon and bishop who are seculars do the same thing. They please the Church by responding to her needs: teaching, sanctifying and governing.

In both cases, the married person and the ordained man who is not a consecrated religious, are pleasing God through what they do. If they ceased to do what spouses and clerics are supposed to do, they abdicate their responsibility before man and God.

The religious or consecrated person pleases God by what he is or by how he lives. Even if a Benedictine priest stopped celebrating mass and never said another mass again, as long as he is a faithful monk, he is pleasing God, because that is what he is called to be. The other, priesthood, teaching or whatever else monks do, is just that . . . doing. But none of it makes them Benedictines. Living the life that God revealed to St. Benedict is what makes them Benedictine.

In conclusion, there is a difference between the religious and the religious life. The religious life is objectively superior, while the religious may be a total loser, when he ceases to make the effort to live the way that he or she is called to live. That also happens with the sacraments of Matrimony and Holy Orders too. The cleric or the spouse may be total loser when he or she ceases to do what he or she has been called to do. However, the sacrament does not cease to be a sacrament and it does not cease to give grace. When speaking about vocations, we must separate the person from the vocation. The vocation is what it is. The person may or may not live up to the vocation. That’s a whole other story.

Those who are either lay or secular clergy need not focus on which state is objectively superior. Such an exercise is an exercise in futility. What they need to focus on is how to do what they are called to do, faithfully. Saints are carved out of fidelity.

Sure, the husband and wife are called to please each other with much more focus and attention than religious are allowed to give to others, and yes, you can say that the romantic attention they lavish on one another takes away from the time that they have to spend alone with only God, but that doesn’t mean that the spouses love God ONLY through loving one another, nor that they can’t be mindful of God WHILE they are loving one another. Why would married people say the Rosary or go to Eucharistic Adoration or read holy books if their sole vocation was to love God THROUGH showing love to each other? That is a big part of the vocation, but it doesn’t mean you have no interior prayer life, and it doesn’t mean you can’t sacrifice every other worldly attention for the sake of God. I don’t mean to generalize, but I feel like a lot of married people these days seem to think that because they’re married they only love God through their spouse and children, and maybe through some social justice, but they neglect their interior prayer life and spend all kinds of time watching TV and doing many “worldly” things because they think only religious are called to be recollected to God at all times. I don’t know if different married people receive different amounts of grace or what, but I argue that a married person can be a lot more recollected than that, and that it is possible for married people to immolate themselves and pray ceaselessly. Just because you think about pleasing God constantly doesn’t mean you can’t simultaneously think about pleasing your spouse. If the marital act is holy and a symbol of Christ and the Church then why can it not be thought of as a kind of prayer? Though the religious state is higher because they have given up their earthly marital relations in favor of the kind of intimate relationship with God that we will share with Him in Heaven, and that they are living an extremely spiritual life, doesn’t mean married people should give up on living a very spiritual life, nor does it mean that no married person is ever intimate with God directly.

Again, I’m not arguing that the religious life isn’t a superior state, I’m arguing that those in the married state can achieve a higher level of intimacy with God than a lot of people give it credit for, so just because you’re not a religious doesn’t mean you have to forget about giving yourself to God in every way that you are able to. Obviously, I’m not saying neglect your spouse in favor of constant meditation, but what I AM saying is that in this day and age, most people have a lot of free time that they spend on trivial things and it’s the perfect opportunity to both shower affection on your spouse AND spend time alone with Our Lord.

 

[TiggerS]

Those who are either lay or secular clergy need not focus on which state is objectively superior. Such an exercise is an exercise in futility. What they need to focus on is how to do what they are called to do, faithfully. Saints are carved out of fidelity.

Talk about arrogance, condescension and patronization - a royal dismissal too!
I can’t be bothered any more.

 

[JReducation]

Again, I’m not arguing that the religious life isn’t a superior state, I’m arguing that those in the married state can achieve a higher level of intimacy with God than a lot of people give it credit for, so just because you’re not a religious doesn’t mean you have to forget about giving yourself to God in every way that you are able to. Obviously, I’m not saying neglect your spouse in favor of constant meditation, but what I AM saying is that in this day and age, most people have a lot of free time that they spend on trivial things and it’s the perfect opportunity to both shower affection on your spouse AND spend time alone with Our Lord.

The Church has never questioned this. We have many wonderful examples of such men and women who have been canonized. Look at St. Giana or the Martins, St. Therese’s parents and Monica. There is no reason to believe that a parent, wife, husband or secular cleric cannot be a contemplative. That would silly to say such a thing.

Talk about arrogance, condescension and patronization - a royal dismissal too!
I can’t be bothered any more.

That is not what I mean. What I am trying to say is that we worry about too many things that are not important to our growth in holiness. In the end, if a person is a layman or woman or a diocesan priest, how is this discussion going to change anything? How is this going to add anything to his or her spiritual growth. Even if the Church restated its position, in the end, holiness is achieved through fidelity to one’s call.

The hundreds of saints among the secular clergy and the laity have not stopped to pay much attention to this question. It’s something that they accept the Church’s answer and they move along to be faithful to their call. Mother Teresa said it best, “God does not call us to great things, only to be faithful.”

I understand asking why does the Church say this or what does the Church say about this? Once we know why she says it or what she says, it’s time to let it go. These feelings of being left out somehow or not being the same as the other person are not helpful. They get in the way. We do what we are called to do and we are what we are called to be. The doctrines and theological definitions are good to know, in case you ever need to explain it someone else. But they don’t make people more or less holy. It is better to know what the Church has to say on the matter and then move on. That’s all that I’m trying to say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rachael_maria]

Does anyone know why the church originally thought it important to define religious life as a higher calling? I am just wondering what the circumstances were, wanting to give the best benefit of the doubt as to the motivation of this definition, which apparently is DOGMA. The Church does not define dogmas for no reason. I don’t want to believe it is thumbing the nose at the majority of the baptized or the development of some “elite club.” Was religious life under some sort of attack or something?

 

[JReducation]

Does anyone know why the church originally thought it important to define religious life as a higher calling? I am just wondering what the circumstances were, wanting to give the best benefit of the doubt as to the motivation of this definition, which apparently is DOGMA. The Church does not define dogmas for no reason. I don’t want to believe it is thumbing the nose at the majority of the baptized or the development of some “elite club.” Was religious life under some sort of attack or something?

That’s an excellent question. The answer is complex. In a nutshell . . . by the time that the Council of Trent rolls around religious life is under attack from may sides. I’ll just cite a few examples.

Protestants:

The Reformers argued that the consecrated state of virginity, priestly celibacy and consecrated chastity of religious was contrary to nature. The exception did exist in a few Lutheran pockets and in the Anglican Church which did preserve some religious orders.

Because of financial issues, many of the emerging Protestant governments charged the religious orders with all kinds of bogus accusations in order to confiscate their property. Here we have to be careful. There were some abuses by those religious orders that owned large estates. They were landlords and they were not always fair to the peasant farmers. The Church felt the need to reinforce the fact that regardless of how corrupt these monks could be, they were sill consecrated men and had to be treated with the reverence and respect that their state in life required. If there were legitimate complaints about how they dealt with the local people, these complaints had to be addressed in ecclesial tribunals. The laity could not take it upon itself to confiscate property and evict religious from their houses as if they were intruders or worse. This raised the whole question of the dignity of religious consecration.

Monarchs:

Many monarchs used their influence to control religious as if they were their subjects. The Church had always held that religious were subject to no one, but to the Holy Father by virtue of their vowed state, which the Church publicly acknowledged as being one set apart from the rest of society. Back in those days, there were ecclesial tribunals to try crimes. Today we don’t have them. We use civil courts. However, the religious still remains subject to the Church, not to the state. He or she submits to the state authority, because the Church demands it. It is just that if you commit a crime against the state, that you answer to the state. But submitting to be tried by the state for a crime is not the same as a pledge of allegiance and fidelity to the state. The reason is that there can be a conflict of interest between the state and the Church. The religious was never seen as an ordinary citizen. He or she gave his life to God in a public profession and the Church accepted the gift in the name of God. This person is different from other citizens.

Catholic Laity in the West

This was never a question in the Eastern Catholic Churches. They only have monks and nuns. They don’t have active religious or religious of mixed life as the Western Church has. However, the Eastern Churches did not have a problem between the laity and the monks. In the West there was a problem.

Religious life in the west expanded with the founding of the mendicant orders. These were friars, not monks. The did not have monasteries and lands to provide for their needs and to pay their bills. They were itinerant and they depended on the charity of the faithful in order to live and to finance their work. Later, there came apostolic congregations that ran hospitals, schools and other charitable institutions. They too depended on the faithful to finance their work. Cloistered monasteries of women began to increase in numbers, especially Franciscan and Carmelites. Neither the Franciscans (Poor Clares) nor the Carmelites had a tradition of farming and factories and running schools on monastery grounds in order to pay their way. They paid rent for the houses in which they lived. They received the rent money from the faithful.

There were parts of Europe where there were truly economic hardships. Some towns had three and four religious communities and the town itself was poor. People began to resist the founding of new religious houses, because they could not afford to support them.

However, the resistance got out of hand. What started out as a legitimate concern for the financial welfare of the town or village turned into animosity and antagonism on the part of the laity toward these religious, especially in France and in Spain. Like many things in this life, we often forget how the argument started. That’s what happened here. People forgot that the argument was about finances and it became an argument about the necessity and value of religious life. Basically, you had people arguing that they did not need religious and that religious were just a burden. The latter may have been true. The religious were a financial burden to many towns. But the former was not true and the Church had to clarify this. To this day, the Church continues to repeat that religious life is essential to her life and identity.

 

[JReducation]

Clericalism:

During the late 1400s and early 1500s clericalism began to show its ugly head. Until then the number of priests in religious orders was very small. With the exception of the Dominicans and the Jesuits which were founded as orders for priests, with coadjutor brothers who worked to support the ministry of the order, the rest of the religious orders had very few priests.

With the discovery of the Americas there was a need to send priests to the New World. The missionary demand was already stretching the Church’s resources, because there were missionaries being sent to Asia. The religious orders were asked to ordain more of their men, which they did.

However, these religious who were now ordained, began to take control of the orders. They took control away from the religious who were not ordained. They created a two class system, the Fathers and the Brothers. Up to that point, they had all been brothers, even if they were priests. Not only did they take control of the government of the orders, they denied the other brothers the right to education, the right to ministry, the right to vote in community affairs, the right to associate with the ordained members of the community. Some orders had two dining rooms, one for the ordained and one for the brothers. They did not pray together. Nor did they recreate together. The ordained claimed to have a special place because they could consecrate and absolve.

The Council Fathers were upset. The sacramental powers of the priest comes from the Sacrament of Holy Orders, not from the profession of religious vows. The Sacrament of Holy Orders exists without the vows. The vows are not necessary for the sacrament. The other way around, the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not necessary for the consecration to the evangelical counsels. Since the early days of the Church millions of men and women had consecrated themselves to live chastity, poverty and obedience without being priests. The lines between the consecrated life and Holy Orders were blurred.

Their religious obligations came second to them. If they had time, after fulfilling their priestly duties in the parish, they would attend to affairs of religious life. They went as far as to consign the male religious who were not ordained to be servants. They were no longer communities of brothers. A brother was the man who cleaned, cooked, did laundry, made beds, begged for donations and did whatever was needed to keep the house running. The Fathers never picked up a piece of paper from the floor.

What made it worse was that the lay faithful, not knowing any better, believed that the religious life was all about being a priest. They treated the non-ordained religious with condescension. That’s how people, even today, began to make very offensive statements such as: “He’s just a brother.” or “If you can’t get grades good enough to be a priest, you can still be a brother.”

The Church needed to set the record straight. She needed to define the place of the consecrated life and to do so in a way that separated it from both the priesthood and the married state. Otherwise, the consecrated life was doomed, especially for men, because most of these men were more priest than religious. The religious who were not priests were seen as wasting time. In the minds of many people these men should have either become priests or become husbands.

The Church did not create a new doctrine. She officially decreed what had been believed since the first generation of Christians, that Christ called some men and women to this state of life through which perfection could be reached (if the person was faithful, obviously) and that he poured forth special graces upon these men and women whom he called to live exclusively for him. These graces were good for the Body, because while these men and women left the secular world, they remain part of the Body of Christ. Whatever graces they earn, are beneficial to the whole. Whatever penances and acts of atonement they do, are also beneficial to the whole. They had a very special place in the Church. Through their intimacy with Christ, they earned graces for the Body and atoned for the sins of the Body.

The decree of Trent clarified the value and meaning of the consecrated life. However, it did not address the abuse of the religious nor the deviation from the vision and mission of the religious life. This would not happen until Vatican II. Vatican II issued Perfectae Caritatis. Building upon the doctrine clarified by Trent, issued a decree that religious communities were to return to their roots. Clericalism had to be set aside. Begging and corporal works of mercy had to become paramount again. Parishes were to be turned over to secular priests unless the founder included parishes in his vision. Those religious communities that were founded as brotherhoods, with or without priests, had to return to that state. There were to be no distinctions between the ordained brother and the non ordained. The focus was to be on the consecration of one’s life, not the priesthood. Since all are consecrated, all are equal in dignity and in rights.

This is where we are today, trying to recover the dignity and the place of the consecrated life in the Church. It has its roots in the early Church. It is defined once and for all by Trent. Vatican II commands a return to the early days of each religious order. The execution is in progress. This takes time for everyone to get used to it. Some orders have been off track for several hundred years, others not so long, because they are younger orders or because they never deviate too much.

That’s it in a nutshell. It’s very interesting stuff.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rachael_maria]

Thanks for your time in answering my question, BR JR. Your answer was packed with information! It does help in a way to know that the church did not define this doctrine to make the laity feel like unloved or unimportant. (Although I still do feel that way.) I think the hard part is that it is God Himself Who did not choose me. I still don’t exactly get how someone can love you infinitely and not want to give you all of the best in life. Probably I feel worse than I should because my older sister was always favored and I have felt this way most of my life. What do you think about the passage in St. Faustina’s diary where she says that Jesus told her that the difference between religious and laity in heaven will be as great as the difference between the moon and the stars? (I am not sure where it is, but I can find it if you don’t know it) I guess I feel like I have to believe it because it is a saint who heard it from Jesus. I can’t pray a Divine Mercy Chaplet without thinking about it. I hope that God will bless you and your brothers.

 

[rachael_maria]

Thanks for your time in answering my question, BR JR. Your answer was packed with information! It does help in a way to know that the church did not define this doctrine to make the laity feel like unloved or unimportant. (Although I still do feel that way.) I think the hard part is that it is God Himself Who did not choose me. I still don’t exactly get how someone can love you infinitely and not want to give you all of the best in life. Probably I feel worse than I should because my older sister was always favored and I have felt this way most of my life. What do you think about the passage in St. Faustina’s diary where she says that Jesus told her that the difference between religious and laity in heaven will be as great as the difference between the moon and the stars? (I am not sure where it is, but I can find it if you don’t know it) I guess I feel like I have to believe it because it is a saint who heard it from Jesus. I can’t pray a Divine Mercy Chaplet without thinking about it. I hope that God will bless you and your brothers.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your time in answering my question, BR JR. Your answer was packed with information! It does help in a way to know that the church did not define this doctrine to make the laity feel like unloved or unimportant. (Although I still do feel that way.) I think the hard part is that it is God Himself Who did not choose me. I still don’t exactly get how someone can love you infinitely and not want to give you all of the best in life. Probably I feel worse than I should because my older sister was always favored and I have felt this way most of my life. What do you think about the passage in St. Faustina’s diary where she says that Jesus told her that the difference between religious and laity in heaven will be as great as the difference between the moon and the stars? (I am not sure where it is, but I can find it if you don’t know it) I guess I feel like I have to believe it because it is a saint who heard it from Jesus. I can’t pray a Divine Mercy Chaplet without thinking about it. I hope that God will bless you and your brothers.

No, the Church did not pull this out of her sleeve. Like many other doctrines, this one has been held by Christians since the beginning of the Church. What often happens is that the Church is forced to make an authoritative statement on the doctrine to set the record straight. For example, Christians always believed in the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, but two Holy Fathers saw the need to make Ex Cathedra statements to this effect, in the 19th and 20th century. It does not mean that Catholics began to believe it at that point. It means that the questions and discussions were brought to a close. This is what the Church tried to do with this statement.

Unfortunately, this one is not as easy as the dogmas about the Blessed Mother. In those two cases, the Blessed Mother cooperated with the dogma. There was no conflict between the dogma and the subject of the dogma.

In this case, men and women religious, being sinful creatures, have not kept up our side. The example of many religious has been far from stellar. Therefore, the doctrine raises eyebrows among many lay people. I always look at it this way. Matrimony is a sacrament instituted by Christ to give grace. That has not stopped spouses from cheating or being abusive. However, the sacrament continues to give grace even when those who are married lead less than stellar lives. The grace is poured out onto their children, their family, the Church as a whole.

I don’t remember seeing that statement in St. Faustina’s diary. It doesn’t mean that it’s not there. It’s just that it was a long piece of writing and I may have skimmed over it. We have to remember one very important thing about mystics and the things that Christ reveals to them. Often they are unable to explain what they saw and heard, because it surpasses human language. In addition, often the language is allegorical. Remember St.Teresa of Avila’s interior castles? Or today’s reading of the Gospel about the mansions. At least that was the reading in the Franciscan lectionary. The allegory is not always comprehensible to the rest of us without serious reflection and study.

If I take the symbols: moon and stars, I understand several things. They are both celestial objects, however each has a different purpose. Nonetheless, both are essential. Imagine the earth without its moon or without the sun. Is either one dispensable? Without the sun we would die and would float aimlessly through space, without a central gravitational source. Without the moon, our oceans would rise against us and drown us. Our climate would change and we would die.

Moving along to God’s love, we must remember that God’s love is infinite and he made each of us unique. Even identical twins have differences between them. I have 7 or 8 pairs of twins in my extended family. They are unique persons. God creates us very differently from each other. Therefore, he will call us to that state in life that is best suited for us.

He also has a cosmic plan. Each of us is piece of that plan. We can’t all be called to the same way of life. Otherwise, the plan is foiled. God’s plan is an infinite has his love. Therefore, each of us has a different part to play in that plan. Our holiness depends on our cooperation with God. Fidelity is the tool out of which saints are carved.

Where ever God has placed you today, that is what you must face with great love and fidelity. By the end of the day, you will be one step closer to fulfilling your part in God’s plan. The key is to trust that God has placed you in the right place at the right time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rachael_maria]

Thank you, Br JR. I tried to see a counselor about this hangup that I have, because I do realize it is my problem and not the church’s problem. The counselor kept saying that all the vocations are equal. It did not do much good because I knew she was wrong. I wish my life were over sometimes. It really does seem pointless to me. I am trying to trust God but then I just feel like I am not special to Him so what is the point? All of this really does prove to me that I never had a religious vocation in the first place because my desire for the vocation is so self-centered. Maybe I just need to get some rest. I am tired.

 

[narrowgatequest]

Even if the Church restated its position, in the end, holiness is achieved through fidelity to one’s call.

I have a question about holiness. As I said before, I already believe that the religious state is the superior state, I will happily believe anything the Church states infallibly, I just want to understand more completely what exactly that means. Here is some of what I have heard and thought, I would be most appreciative if you could explain what is correct.

a) The religious life is superior in the sense that it is a “spiritually higher” state due to the fact that the religious live more closely to how we will all live in Heaven/the New Earth. (I agree with this)

b) God loves religious more than other people. He is generous with them in a way that He is entitled to be, and just because He does not give that gift to other people doesn’t mean He doesn’t love them, it just means He doesn’t love them as much. (I don’t currently agree with this, because I have read elsewhere that God loves every one of us as if we were the only one in the world, Jesus loves us as the Father has loved Him, etc. I don’t think it’s a matter of lack of love, see c. However I would change my mind in a second if the Church told me to.)

c) God loves everyone equally, just because He gifts the religious with their superior state doesn’t mean He loves the rest of us less, it just means that, through His infinite wisdom, He sees that a lower state in life will lead us to ultimately greater holiness than if we had become religious. (I agree with this.)

d) The religious have the privilege of attaining to a higher level of holiness that others, therefore, the top most ranks of Heaven are made up of the holiest of religious and no lay person could ever hope to become as holy as a truly holy religious. Put in mathematical terms, if the minimum holiness rank to get into Heaven is a 5, a religious can hope to attain a holiness rank of 15, ten points above and beyond the bare necessity, however, a non-religious can only hope to attain a holiness rank of 10, because they are in an inferior state. (I don’t currently agree with this.)

e) Holiness is not determined by state in life, but by fidelity to one’s vocation. Therefore, the holiest religious and the holiest lay person could plausibly be side by side in Heaven’s highest tier, below Our Lady of course. (I agree with this.)

Now before anyone accuses me of presuming I’m going to be in one of those spots, of course I’m not talking about ME, I just want to understand more fully the beauty of the system which God has set up for us to live in here on Earth and in Heaven. I would never question God’s goodness. If the Church has stated that religious can “go to 15” and lay people can “only go to 10” then I will happily be the “duchess” in Heaven and the religious can be the “princesses” (I’m joking with the titles, I’m pretty sure no one rules over anyone else in Heaven, other than our Queen Mother, since we will all have perfect fidelity to our One King.) I am fine with that if it is God’s Will, I just want to know if it is or isn’t, purely because I wish to know more about the God whom I love, not because I want to compete with anyone.

 

[JReducation]

I have a question about holiness.

b) God loves religious more than other people. He is generous with them in a way that He is entitled to be, and just because He does not give that gift to other people doesn’t mean He doesn’t love them, it just means He doesn’t love them as much.

d) The religious have the privilege of attaining to a higher level of holiness that others, therefore, the top most ranks of Heaven are made up of the holiest of religious and no lay person could ever hope to become as holy as a truly holy religious.
.

B is just not true. We cannot measure God’s love. We can say that God love us differently or in different ways, just as parents love their children differently, because each is an individual. If you loved them the same, you would actually be missing their individuality. It’s in their individuality where the beauty of the person resides. I can love a son for with a certain tenderness, because he is very gentle and I can love another with a certain degree of admiration because of certain abilities that he has. Maybe he’s very independent and a very motivated to succeed. Love is not quantifiable; but it is very specific to the person who is being loved. I always point to parents. Any parent who says that he loves his children exactly the same is kidding himself. You love them all, but not the same. It’s important not to love them the same, because they deserve to be seen and loved as individuals. Each is very special.

D is pure speculation. I’m not sure who said that. The Church does believe that there is a hierarchy among the saints, just as there is among the angels. However, that hierarchy is not determined by one’s state in life. It is determined by one’s life of heroic virtue. For example, a martyr and a saintly mother are not the same. The martyrs degree of heroic virtue surpasses that of the someone like Monica who was a saintly mother. However, what makes Monica a great saint is that she accepts this. She does not aspire to receive the same reward as the martyrs.

We speak about saints like St. Francis as having been the perfect reflection of Christ and then there is someone like St. Pio who achieved great holiness through a life of penance and ministry to God’s people. St. Pio would not want St. Francis’ place. In fact, St. Pio tried to learn how to live the Gospel from St. Francis. Francis was his spiritual father. If St. Pio were to aspire to a degree of holiness equal to that of St. Francis, he would have missed the mark. He aspired to learn from Francis how to live the Gospel. In doing it faithfully, he reached his own height of sanctity.

Giana and Monica are mothers. Both achieved sanctity by being faithful wives and mothers. However, the sacrifice of Giana is objectively greater that of Monica. Monica did not give her life for her son, nor did she leave her children orphan to fulfill the Will of God. I’m not a mother. But I would imagine that any mother who knows that her children will be without her and makes the conscious choice to forfeit her life for her faith must draw strength and courage from some supernatural source. It’s not in human nature to make such a sacrifice. It is one thing to give up your life for your faith, but it requires more to give up your life and leave your children motherless for your faith. There are two sacrifices in one or two acts of heroic virtue in one choice.

My personal belief is that our place in heaven is determined by our life of virtue, not by our state in life. Even if I were a saint, which I am not, I know that I do not have the courage of Giana. Therefore, I don’t expect the same reward as Giana. I’ll settle for a reward that is proportionate to what I have been able to do in my life.

What is true about the religious life is that it offers the individual the opportunity to live the Gospel with minimum distractions, because it takes you out of the world. Through the vows, you are relieved of many complications that are typical of daily life. At the same time, giving up those complications requires courage. Despite how complicated life can be, we are all attached to the things of this world to a greater or lesser degree and there are things that are good, which the religious gives up: a career, family, home, marriage, economic success, maybe fame, freedom of choice in exchange for another kind of freedom, freedom to think what he wants to think and say what he wants to say, freedom to choose where he will live and work, when he gets up or goes to bed, what he eats, and so forth. These are good things. It is this detachment from these good things that gives the religious life its edge if you don’t want to use the word superiority.

If there is a hierarchy of rewards in heaven, it stands to reason that it is based on justice. God rewards us in the measure that we have sacrificed and in the measure that we have loved.

Even here, I’m speculating. We will not know for sure until we reach heaven. We believe that there is a hierarchy among the saints, because there is a hierarchy among the angels. That’s a clue. In the Book of Revelations John speaks about different hierarchies and levels. But we can’t say for sure that we’re understanding him correctly, because it’s a very profound piece of theology. The Church is still learning from it. While the revelation is complete, our learning is not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[narrowgatequest]

In the Book of Revelations John speaks about different hierarchies and levels. But we can’t say for sure that we’re understanding him correctly, because it’s a very profound piece of theology. The Church is still learning from it. While the revelation is complete, our learning is not.

Thanks! All of that helped a lot.

PS: One of the apologists seems to be implying that the priesthood is the most superior state in life, whereas, if I’m not mistaken, it has been stated here that the non-priest religious have a superior state in life compared to the non-religious priests. Again, not that it makes a whole lot of difference in how I live my life, just curious about God’s ways

 

[Geremia]

St. Thomas Aquinas’s commentary on

[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 7:1-9[/bibledrb]

is very good. A noteworthy quote he mentions in reference to how “All men take not this word” (that marriage is a lesser good compared to celibacy), “but they to whom it is given,” (Matt. 19:11) is:

[bibledrb]Wisdom 8:21[/bibledrb]

 

[JReducation]

Thanks! All of that helped a lot.

PS: One of the apologists seems to be implying that the priesthood is the most superior state in life, whereas, if I’m not mistaken, it has been stated here that the non-priest religious have a superior state in life compared to the non-religious priests. Again, not that it makes a whole lot of difference in how I live my life, just curious about God’s ways

Father is correct. Watch his sentence.

“there is nothing in the world that can compare with the ministry of the priest—nothing”

There is a difference between a ministry and a way of life, though they overlap. Nothing in this world is ever detached from everything else. Without mothers and fathers there would be no priests or religious. Without priests there would be no Sacrament of Matrimony. Without the Consecrated Life there would be visible sign of the Kingdom and so forth.

What Trent tried to address was the state of consecrated celibacy. In the Roman Church, consecrated celibacy is required of priests. As we know, this is not a universal requirement in the Catholic Church. In the Eastern Churches consecrated celibacy is not a requirement to be a priest, only to be a bishop. Among Oriental Catholics, only religious make this vow.

It is to the consecrated celibate state that the Church is speaking at Trent. There is a difference between the consecrated state and the ordained priesthood, though many men, such as Fr. Vincent, are both, religious and priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Geremia]

It is well written.

The post or Card. Antoniano’s book on Christian education? If you can read Italian, it is entirely online here: bibliotecaitaliana.it/xtf/view?docId=bibit001008/bibit001008.xml