Singleness

[DavidFilmer]

Not a church document but it quotes several: Is the Single Life a Vocation.

Thanks, Reed - that is an excellent piece; the author explains it much better than I do (which is not surprising, because she holds a bachelor’s degree in Organizational Communication from the University of San Francisco, and a master’s degree in Theology of Marriage and Family from the John Paul II Institute at Lateran University - so it stands to reason that she would know a whole lot more about the subject than I do, and be able to express it much better).

I would like to quote a little of it here, in reparation for my clumsy attempts to express the idea:

Reading the Holy Father’s letter on women, Mulieris Dignitatem, reinforced my suspicions. In that document, John Paul II says that God calls all women to give themselves in one of two ways — in motherhood or in consecration to Christ.

No mention of singleness in there.

In fact, I find no mention of an unconsecrated single “vocation” in Church teaching anywhere. As far as the Church is concerned, it doesn’t exist.

Here is the problem: “vocation,” in the sense the Church understands it, means “to give oneself completely.” The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes says that man finds himself only through a sincere gift of himself. John Paul II, in Mulieris Dignitatem, speaks of the “spousal disposition of women.” We — women and men — were made to give ourselves, in love, to others.

(A note to those who might take JP2’s words about “motherhood” the wrong way - a couple accepts the vocation of parenthood by always being open to the possibility of pregnancy. )

And a related quote from Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who is likewise more knowledgeable and eloquent than me:

A vocation necessarily creates a tension, a crisis, a tug of war in the soul. On the one hand, there is the call of God. On the other hand, a sense of personal unworthiness, or reluctance, to give oneself completely to Him.

 

[paul_c]

David,
I think you are being a little heavy handed here in your interpretation of a vocation… Marriage is a sacrament and as such, grace is imparted to those who are married. Similarly, Holy orders is a sacrament and grace is imparted to those men who are ordained. There is no sacrament involved in the consecrated life, yet it would seem clear that grace is also imparted on those that vow to live lives of poverty, chastity and obedience. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t graces to be had by those who remain single and unconsecrated. There are.

While the Church certainly values marriage, holy orders and the consecrated life, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with being single. And although you may have not said that there was, you stongly implied it by your choice of words. In fact, in the situation described by the OP, where she has a secular divorce in a valid marriage, she would be committing adulterry in the eyes of the church if she did anything other than remain single.
The fact is, some people are simply not good marriage partners for a variety of reasons and are not called to the consecrated life either. For these people, the only option is to remain single. These people are certainly welcome in the Catholic Church and their singleness is not an impediment to achieving holiness. To imply otherwise is a flat out wrong as well as uncharitable…

 

[Holly3278]

I see nothing wrong with singleness and I doubt that the Church does either. As for me, I have Borderline Personality Disorder which makes relationships difficult for me. Therefore, I will probably be single for my life. I do have a boyfriend and I am open to the possibility of marriage but I doubt it will ever happen to be honest with you and I have no problem with that.

 

[DavidFilmer]

While the Church certainly values marriage, holy orders and the consecrated life, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with being single.

Of course. I made this quite clear in posts #2, 11, 17, 23, 27, and 34. I find that I must say this again, and again, and again. One poster supposed that I had claimed that a secular single life was “forbidden.” Gaa!

And although you may have not said that there was [something wrong with being single], you stongly implied it by your choice of words.

The plain reading of my “choice of words” in SIX posts makes it absolutely clear that I find NOTHING “wrong” with being single. But it is not a vocation. There IS something (very) wrong with imagining that a single, unconsecrated secular life is any sort of vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church (because it is not).

In fact, in the situation described by the OP, where she has a secular divorce in a valid marriage, she would be committing adulterry in the eyes of the church if she did anything other than remain single.

I specifically addressed this issue in my initial response (post #2). I did not know the circumstances of the OP’s marriage, and I advised her that she might still be married, or perhaps she was never married in the first place (in the eyes of the Church). She later posted that she had not received proper pre-marital instruction, which suggests this was a Catholic ceremony, but lack of proper instruction may be considered an impediment to Sacramental validity. This is not for us to decide (or speculate upon) - only a proper authority (usually a marriage tribunal, appointed by her Bishop) can render this decision.

The fact is, some people are simply not good marriage partners for a variety of reasons and are not called to the consecrated life either. For these people, the only option is to remain single.

This may be true (but it is not a teaching of the Catholic Church). Maybe these people do or do not not have such a vocation offered to them (but the Catholic Church has not taught either way - there is only ONE single vocation that the Church has actually taught about).

These people are certainly welcome in the Catholic Church and their singleness is not an impediment to achieving holiness.

And I have not said otherwise (in fact, I have agreed with you many times already, and I specifically cited the Catechism article supporting this position in post #6). But (I say YET again - sigh) such people are NOT LIVING ANY VOCATION THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (how many times to I have to repeat myself in this thread?)

To imply otherwise is a flat out wrong as well as uncharitable…

I am not implying anything. I am flat-out stating (ONLY) that the Catholic Church recognizes one - and only one - vocation that a person may live while being single. It is a consecrated life. It is never uncharitable to state what the Church does (or does not) teach, even if such teaching is not welcome.

It is A-OK, all right, hunky-dory, okay, peachy keen, respectable, sufficient, swell, and unobjectionable (thanks, thesaurus.com) for a person to choose to remain in an unconsecrated single life. But it is NOT any sort of vocation that is recognized in any way by the Catholic Church.

This is the TRUTH. Truth is never uncharitable.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I see nothing wrong with singleness and I doubt that the Church does either. As for me, I have Borderline Personality Disorder which makes relationships difficult for me. Therefore, I will probably be single for my life.

My own sister has been diagnosed with this same disorder. She once tried to murder me (with a steak knife). I learned much by watching the move, “Girl, Interrupted.”

My sister has four daughters by three fathers. She is now married to the father of two of her children.

Her marriage has (so far) been successful. Do not assume you cannot achieve the same.

But, even if you do not aspire to a married relationship, you may yet accept a Vocation which is offered and recognized by the Catholic Church to a single, consecrated life. Are you willing to commit your life to the service of the people of God and to a more substantial union with Jesus?

It is possible that you are unable to accept any such vocation. There are degrees of any mental disorder (including Borderline Disorder - which (despite what the label might imply) is actually among the most serious of the personality disorders - it is “borderline” in the sense that it incorporates elements of ALL of the recognized psychosomatic disorders and is thus on the “border line” of them all).

My sister has accepted a married vocation (and she is not even Catholic). If you (who suffer perhaps a more severe form of the same disorder) are actually incapable of accepting any sort of consecrated life, then such a vocation is not available to you.

But the lack of a compatible vocation does not somehow imply that such a vocation must exist. You are not living any sort of vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church.

 

[Rence]

It’s a decision, but it is not a vocation. The two are not the same.

“Vocation” can mean many things. Merriam-Webster defines vocation as:

1a : a summons or strong inclination to a particular state or course of action; especially : a divine call to the religious life b : an entry into the priesthood or a religious order
2a : the work in which a person is employed : occupation b : the persons engaged in a particular occupation
3:** the special function of an individual** or group

The Church only teaches about what the Church teaches about (by definition). The Church never teaches about things She does not teach about (and, because such things are beyond the Deposit of Faith, the Church cannot teach about these things). The Church makes no effort to catalog everything (or anything) that she does not teach.

The Church is not shy about what what is allowed and what is not allowed, and have put out a very large rule book. If the Church taught that people have to chose amoung getting married, entering a religious life, or a nonsecular singlehood, as a way of life, they would have. There is no such Church teaching that states that people have to choose among those vocations only, and that none other are recognized. There is no such rule that says that one can’t choose a single life as a vocation - and that’s exactly what it is.

But the fact that the Church does not teach about things that She does not teach about does not implicitly demonstrate that She somehow actually teaches the things that She does not teach. Just because the Church does not explicitly teach against something does not mean She somehow endorses it. I’ve never told my children not to pee in the toaster, but that doesn’t mean they should.

Our way of life is something in which the Church tries to guide us. Again, if the only vocations recognized were the three you described, they would spell it out just like everything else they spell out.

We know what the Church DOES teach about a single vocation - it is a committed, non-secular life (and I cited this teaching).

That’s only one choice.

This is the ONLY lifestyle that the Church teaches as a valid single vocation. True, the Church has never taught that the opposite is not ALSO a valid single vocation. But it is absurd to imagine that She somehow teaches that it is ALSO a vocation by NOT specifically contradicting it.

You find it absurd that the Church wouldn’t teach what you think is the only way, but that doesn’t make it so. The Church recognizes that people choose the single life, that that is one of their vocations in life, and as long as the rules are followed, it is acceptable.

I say, yet again, the Catholic Church does not recognize the existence of a secular, non-committed single vocation. There is no such thing. If you are living such a life, you have not accepted any vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church.

Of course the Church recognizes that people choose a secular, non-committed single vocation, and of course there is such a thing: those who are unmarried, and are not part of the religious, have chosen this way of life.

I have cited what the Church DOES teach about a single vocation.

You cited what the Church teaches about one way of life. That doesn’t invalidate other options that people choose.

 

[Rence]

And I have not said otherwise (in fact, I have agreed with you many times already, and I specifically cited the Catechism article supporting this position in post #6). But (I say YET again - sigh) such people are NOT LIVING ANY VOCATION THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (how many times to I have to repeat myself in this thread?)

The decision to live a single life and choose that single life as one’s vocation is just not recognized by you. And that’s okay.

I am flat-out stating (ONLY) that the Catholic Church recognizes one - and only one - vocation that a person may live while being single. It is a consecrated life. It is never uncharitable to state what the Church does (or does not) teach, even if such teaching is not welcome.

The Catholic Church does not only recognize that a consecrated life is the only option available to single people - you do. And that’s okay. It’s just not a Church teaching…

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Catholic Church does not only recognize that a consecrated life is the only option available to single people - you do. And that’s okay. It’s just not a Church teaching…

I’m not saying that the Church could not recognize some other vocation tomorrow (but I wouldn’t hold my breath). But, as of this writing, the Church recognizes four (and only four) vocations: Religious, Holy Orders, consecrated virginity, and marriage. I can cite the Church’s teaching describing each of these vocations.

The Church should not be expected to doctrinally rule out other potential vocations. Her doctrine acknowledges four, and does not acknowledge any others. By your reasoning, someone could claim that being a druid was a valid Office under Catholic Holy Orders, because the Church does not specifically exclude it. Sure, the Church defines only three Offices (deacon, priest, and Bishop) - but She does not specifically exclude druids. So, naturally, druidism is a valid Office. Nonsense.

I’ll make you a deal - if you can show where the Church doctrinally excludes druidism from Orders, then I will show you where the Church doctrinally excludes an unconsecrated single vocation. It’s an empty wager: we both know that neither of us can deliver.

But here’s a better deal: if the Church recognizes a fifth vocation of any kind, please set the record straight and cite the teaching (FWIW, Webster’s is not doctrinal). I will gladly concede (and sincerely thank you for adding to my knowledge). Am I really asking that much? I can cite four teachings. Can you cite just one?

The Church does not recognize an unconsecrated single vocation - you do. And that’s OK. It’s just not a Church teaching (unless you care to cite something to the contrary).

Nobody is required to accept a vocation, and it is not evil or sinful to decline. It is perfectly acceptable to remain single (and unconsecrated) for your entire life. There are many people who make the choice to remain single, and the Church embraces each and every one of them. If they die in a State of Grace, they are assured a place in Heaven, just like any other Christian (vocation or not). If they die outside of a State of Grace, they are condemned, just like any other Christian (vocation or not).

 

[paul_c]

I’m not saying that the Church could not recognize some other vocation tomorrow (but I wouldn’t hold my breath). But, as of this writing, the Church recognizes four (and only four) vocations: Religious, Holy Orders, consecrated virginity, and marriage. I can cite the Church’s teaching describing each of these vocations.

Is there really a distinction between being a consecrated religious and a consecrated virgin. I thought they were one in the same…

Nobody is required to accept a vocation, and it is not evil or sinful to decline. It is perfectly acceptable to remain single (and unconsecrated) for your entire life. There are many people who make the choice to remain single, and the Church embraces each and every one of them. If they die in a State of Grace, they are assured a place in Heaven, just like any other Christian (vocation or not). If they die outside of a State of Grace, they are condemned, just like any other Christian (vocation or not).

This was well said. A vocation offers its own graces and challenges that must be weighed. In the end, they offer different ways to share our love - we must find the way that allows us to love most completely…

 

[Rence]

I’ll make you a deal - if you can show where the Church doctrinally excludes druidism from Orders, then I will show you where the Church doctrinally excludes an unconsecrated single vocation. It’s an empty wager: we both know that neither of us can deliver.

I’ll tell you what, since you are the one who claims there is no such thing as a single vocation, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. All one has to do is look around and see that there are many people (almost a majority at this point) who have chosen a single life as a vocation. The Church recognizes that many people have chosen to remain single as a vocation, and has not said otherwise. If you can’t come up with that, it’s okay. Because I don’t think you will be able to find such documentation.

The Church does not recognize an unconsecrated single vocation - you do. And that’s OK. It’s just not a Church teaching (unless you care to cite something to the contrary).

Nobody is required to accept a vocation, and it is not evil or sinful to decline. It is perfectly acceptable to remain single (and unconsecrated) for your entire life. There are many people who make the choice to remain single, and the Church embraces each and every one of them. If they die in a State of Grace, they are assured a place in Heaven, just like any other Christian (vocation or not). If they die outside of a State of Grace, they are condemned, just like any other Christian (vocation or not).

I know it’s perfectly acceptable to remain single (and unconsecrated), it’s what, in fact, many people choose as one of their vocations in life.

 

[Rence]

This was well said. A vocation offers its own graces and challenges that must be weighed. In the end, they offer different ways to share our love - we must find the way that allows us to love most completely…

Yes that’s why many people have chosen to remain single as a vocation. It comes with it’s own graces and challenges, just like any other vocation in life.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Is there really a distinction between being a consecrated religious and a consecrated virgin. I thought they were one in the same.

The only clear distinction that the Church makes is that one makes a public vow ("constituted in a public state of perfection") while the other makes a private vow.

Most (if not all) Religious make (at least) a threefold vow (poverty, chastity, and obedience), whereas a consecrated virgin makes only a vow of chastity.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’ll tell you what, since you are the one who claims there is no such thing as a single vocation, then the burden of proof is on you, not me.

But I didn’t say that. I have said that there is no such vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church. If you say there IS such a vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church, then the burden of proof is on you to simply cite the teaching.

FWIW, you may not know this - but the Church teaches that it is a mortal sin to make a teaspoon using aluminum, because the atomic number of aluminum is 13, which is (according to Church teaching) a demonic number, and (according to Church teaching) aluminum is the metal used most in hell because it has a fairly high melting point of 680 degrees celsius, and the Church teaches that the average temperature of hell is around 500 degrees (so demonic teaspoons don’t melt), although the Church also teaches that the southern part of hell gets substantially hotter than that, but not hot enough to melt demonic teaspoons. The Church teaches that the heating bill for hell is enormous, but Satan keeps his thermostat well above 233 degrees (C) - 451 degrees (F) - only because that’s the auto-ignition temperature of book paper (according to Saint Bradbury), and Satan doesn’t want anyone to smuggle any Bibles into hell - so any smuggled Bibles burst into flames.

Ah, do you say the Church teaches no such thing? Well, prove it. Can you prove that the Church does NOT teach any of that? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Church does not teach something that I made up.

Can you even prove that Ray Bradbury is not recognized as a Catholic Saint? Has the Church ever said that Ray Bradbury is not a Saint?

 

[paul_c]

But I didn’t say that. I have said that there is no such vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church. If you say there IS such a vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church, then the burden of proof is on you to simply cite the teaching.

FWIW, you may not know this - but the Church teaches that it is a mortal sin to make a teaspoon using aluminum, because the atomic number of aluminum is 13, which is (according to Church teaching) a demonic number, and (according to Church teaching) aluminum is the metal used most in hell because it has a fairly high melting point of 680 degrees celsius, and the Church teaches that the average temperature of hell is around 500 degrees (so demonic teaspoons don’t melt), although the Church also teaches that the southern part of hell gets substantially hotter than that, but not hot enough to melt demonic teaspoons. The Church teaches that the heating bill for hell is enormous, but Satan keeps his thermostat well above 233 degrees (C) - 451 degrees (F) - only because that’s the auto-ignition temperature of book paper (according to Saint Bradbury), and Satan doesn’t want anyone to smuggle any Bibles into hell - so any smuggled Bibles burst into flames.

Ah, do you say the Church teaches no such thing? Well, prove it. Can you prove that the Church does NOT teach any of that? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Church does not teach something that I made up.

Why are you taking this tact? Just let it go…

 

[DavidFilmer]

Just let it go…

Yeah, you’re right. No more posts, I promise.

But I did have a bit of fun writing that “doctrine.” And it was my first opportunity to use the Periodic Table app on my droid.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Yeah, you’re right. No more posts, I promise.

But I did have a bit of fun writing that “doctrine.” And it was my first opportunity to use the Periodic Table app on my droid.

You did a wonderful job of posting. Thanks.

 

[Rence]

But I didn’t say that. I have said that there is no such vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church. If you say there IS such a vocation that is recognized by the Catholic Church, then the burden of proof is on you to simply cite the teaching.

FWIW, you may not know this - but the Church teaches that it is a mortal sin to make a teaspoon using aluminum, because the atomic number of aluminum is 13, which is (according to Church teaching) a demonic number, and (according to Church teaching) aluminum is the metal used most in hell because it has a fairly high melting point of 680 degrees celsius, and the Church teaches that the average temperature of hell is around 500 degrees (so demonic teaspoons don’t melt), although the Church also teaches that the southern part of hell gets substantially hotter than that, but not hot enough to melt demonic teaspoons. The Church teaches that the heating bill for hell is enormous, but Satan keeps his thermostat well above 233 degrees (C) - 451 degrees (F) - only because that’s the auto-ignition temperature of book paper (according to Saint Bradbury), and Satan doesn’t want anyone to smuggle any Bibles into hell - so any smuggled Bibles burst into flames.

Ah, do you say the Church teaches no such thing? Well, prove it. Can you prove that the Church does NOT teach any of that? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Church does not teach something that I made up.

Can you even prove that Ray Bradbury is not recognized as a Catholic Saint? Has the Church ever said that Ray Bradbury is not a Saint?

Um, since you’re making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. No one needs to dig up proof that you are making things up. And I don’t mean to be rude or insulting, but with all due respect, your claims made in this post have as much reliability as the claims in the first post you made on this thread. And there really isn’t any other way to take your claims. You make a claim, you can’t prove it, so you come up with crazy other claims and tell me to prove that they don’t exist. That’s not exactly the way it works.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Is there really a distinction between being a consecrated religious and a consecrated virgin. I thought they were one in the same…

This was well said. A vocation offers its own graces and challenges that must be weighed. In the end, they offer different ways to share our love - we must find the way that allows us to love most completely…

Consescrated virginity isn’t attached to a religious order and is for women only who are virgins. See code of Canon Law #604.

Um, since you’re making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. No one needs to dig up proof that you are making things up. And I don’t mean to be rude or insulting, but with all due respect, your claims made in this post have as much reliability as the claims in the first post you made on this thread. And there really isn’t any other way to take your claims. You make a claim, you can’t prove it, so you come up with crazy other claims and tell me to prove that they don’t exist. That’s not exactly the way it works.

Can you show where the Church lists Single as one of the vocations? I’ve looked and I can’t. Something like Canon 604 I referanced above?

Did you read the article i linked upthread? What do you think abouth Mary Beth’s explanation? There are other articles and they pretty much say the same thing: Single isn’t a vocation. Does it need to be? I don’t think the Church wants to add legitimacy to people choosing not to get married.

Is “state in life” being confused with “vocation”? Seems that way. Single is a legitimate state in life but it’s not a vocation.

 

[Rence]

Single is a legitimate state in life but it’s not a vocation.

You are the one limiting the word “vocation” and its definition and meaning. The Church has mentioned the word “vocation” many times, and has not limited it to an association with marriage or religious or “consecrated singleness”.

The CCC has this to say about “vocation”:

1877 **The vocation of humanity is to show forth the image of God and to be transformed into the image of the Father’s only Son. This vocation takes a personal form since each of us is called to enter into the divine beatitude; it also concerns the human community as a whole.**1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural

44 Man is by nature and vocation a religious being

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

2392 “Love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being” (FC 11).

1699 **Life in the Holy Spirit fulfills the vocation of man **(chapter one). This life is made up of divine charity and human solidarity (chapter two). It is graciously offered as salvation (chapter three).

1886 Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which “subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:”

1533 Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist are sacraments of Christian initiation. They ground **the common vocation of all Christ’s disciples, a vocation to holiness **and to the mission of evangelizing the world

2232 … the first vocation of the Christian is to follow Jesus:

2021 Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons.

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being.

1717 The Beatitudes depict the **countenance of Jesus Christ and portray his charity. **They express the vocation of the faithful

1719 The Beatitudes reveal the goal of human existence, the ultimate end of human acts: God calls us to his own beatitude. **This vocation is addressed to each individual personally, **but also to the Church as a whole, the new people made up of those who have accepted the promise and live from it in faith.

2442 It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. **This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, **acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity "to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”

863 The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin: and in that she is “sent out” into the whole world. All members of the Church share in this mission, though in various ways.** “The Christian vocation is, of its nature, a vocation to the apostolate as well.” **Indeed, we call an apostolate “every activity of the Mystical Body” that aims “to spread the Kingdom of Christ over all the earth.”

1879 The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.

826 Charity is the soul of the holiness to which all are called: it “governs, shapes, and perfects all the means of sanctification.”
If the Church was a body composed of different members, it couldn’t lack the noblest of all; it must have a Heart, and a Heart BURNING WITH LOVE. And I realized that this love alone was the true motive force which enabled the other members of the Church to act; if it ceased to function, the Apostles would forget to preach the gospel, the Martyrs would refuse to shed their blood. **LOVE, IN FACT, IS THE VOCATION WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHERS; IT’S A UNIVERSE OF ITS OWN, COMPRISING ALL TIME AND SPACE - IT’S ETERNAL! **

 

[paul_c]

Honestly,
The OP asked if it was okay to be single in the Church. The answer should be an unequivocal “Yes” - the church definitely welcomes people in all stages of life.

All this discussion about the single unconsecrated life not being a vocation is irrelevant, misleading and unhelpful.