The beauty of friendship

[Joie_de_Vivre]

When I said “the Church” I meant the Church as a whole, not just clergy.

Is what you call “idolatry of marriage” not just the recognition that marriage is a greater good than single life. If we can recognise that the vocation of priesthood and religious life is a “higher calling” than that of marriage, surely we can recognise that marriage is in turn a higher calling than the single life.

On the topic of friendship, It seems to me that the natural thing in any real friendship is for the friends to adjust their relationship based on the various goings-on in life. For me, I’m marrying my best friend, but I also have other close friends who I will surely stay in contact with after I’m married. Our friendship won’t be the same though. We will have to adjust that relationship to take into account our state in life.
One example: I have a close friend who is a religious brother. He would probably be my closest friend apart from my future wife. Our friendship has be constantly readjusted throughout the time we’ve known each other, based on our changing states in life, our work, and our location relative to the other. I think true friendship must take into account these things and adapt to them. The vocation of a person is the primary way that they will be able to reach heaven. I see my role as a friend as being a support to the primary vocations of my friends, be that marriage, religious life, or something else.

We cannot recognize marriage as higher than lay celibacy, that would be heretical, but we could possibly recognize it as superior to singleness where someone looked for a spouse, but never found one. Then again Pope Pius XII seems to have argued against such an ordering placing

When one thinks upon the maidens and the women who voluntarily renounce marriage in order to consecrate themselves to a higher life of contemplation, of sacrifice, and of charity, a luminous word comes immediately to the lips: vocation!.. This vocation, this call of love, makes itself felt in very diverse manners… But also the young Christian woman, remaining unmarried in spite of herself, who nevertheless trusts in the providence of the heavenly Father, recognizes in the vicissitudes of life the voice of the Master: “Magister adest et vocat te” (John 11:28); It is the master, and he is calling you! She responds, she renounces the beloved dream of her adolescence and her youth: to have a faithful companion in life, to form a family! And in the impossibility of marriage she recognizes her vocation; then, with a broken but submissive heart, she also gives her whole self to more noble and diverse good works. (Address to Italian Women, October 21, 1945, AAS 37 (1945), 287).

I agree with the bold. Yes, spouse should be the priority. But there should be time for (other) friends too.

Spouses should certainly be a priority, but what Church teaching says they should be the priority?

I would also say that single life is not a vocation in the same sense that marriage, religious life, and priesthood are.

See article below:

lindsayloves.com/2015/06/17/single-life-is-not-a-vocation/

That article is gravely flawed as it fundamentally misunderstands consecrated virgins. Consecrated virgins are not part of religious life, indeed they predate religious life. They also cannot be dispensed from their consecration any more than the Church can give a dispensation letting a women be validly married to two living men at the same time.

 

[AdamP88]

We cannot recognize marriage as higher than lay celibacy, that would be heretical, but we could possibly recognize it as superior to singleness where someone looked for a spouse, but never found one. Then again Pope Pius XII seems to have argued against such an ordering placing

Yeah, I’m not saying that. I do think it’s a superior calling than “accidental singleness”.

Spouses should certainly be a priority, but what Church teaching says they should be the priority?

It’s implicit in the nature of marriage. In Catholic marriage, your vocation is to love your spouse and put her above yourself. This vocation, if lived correctly, is the road to heaven for both spouses. Your spouse is supposed to be the most important person in life, next to Jesus Christ.

That article is gravely flawed as it fundamentally misunderstands consecrated virgins. Consecrated virgins are not part of religious life, indeed they predate religious life. They also cannot be dispensed from their consecration any more than the Church can give a dispensation letting a women be validly married to two living men at the same time.

I don’t think she mentioned consecrated virgins at all. In any case, part of the point she made was that for these vocations, the Church needs to “rubber stamp” them and approve people to partake of them. They also involve taking promises or vows before a Bishop, Priest, or Superior.

As far as I’m aware consecrated virgins need to make a promise to their Bishop.

In any case, the vocations of marriage, religious life, and celibate life all require a commitment to the Church to fulfill certain obligations. Single life does not.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yeah, I’m not saying that. I do think it’s a superior calling than “accidental singleness”.

Okay

It’s implicit in the nature of marriage. In Catholic marriage, your vocation is to love your spouse and put her above yourself. This vocation, if lived correctly, is the road to heaven for both spouses. Your spouse is supposed to be the most important person in life, next to Jesus Christ.

Do you differentiate between romantic love and agape love?

I don’t think she mentioned consecrated virgins at all. In any case, part of the point she made was that for these vocations, the Church needs to “rubber stamp” them and approve people to partake of them. They also involve taking promises or vows before a Bishop, Priest, or Superior.

As far as I’m aware consecrated virgins need to make a promise to their Bishop.

In any case, the vocations of marriage, religious life, and celibate life all require a commitment to the Church to fulfill certain obligations. Single life does not.

Consecrated virgins can only be consecrated by a bishop and this creates a special bond, not a vow they can be released from. It definitely isn’t a rubber stamp.

Looking at history, most people get married eventually. Some become priests or religious later in life after having never married. But we currently have a larger population of never-married Catholics who aren’t also priests or religious than ever before (at least in the U.S.), and we’ve blurred the line between vowed and non-vowed vocations in an attempt to figure out what to do with them. Some (like Dawn Eden) are intentionally remaining single. They feel called by God to a non-vowed vocation and do not feel called by God pursue any vowed vocation.Some have made promises, consecrations, or private vows to solemnify that decision to remain single for life.5 That is awesome, and I’d imagine it gives them an incredible sense of purpose, clarity, and peace. It does not, however, give them a vocation on the level of priesthood, marriage, or religious life.

You might be wondering about consecrated virgins. That is a public, vowed vocation. Consecrated virgins must be female (as far as I can tell) and either never-married or widowed (a.k.a. free to marry). If they later wish to marry, they must be released from their vows.

While she attempts to set consecrated virgins as separate the truth is they cannot be released, someone who only makes vows to be celibate could. Consecration is not some “vow”.

 

[AdamP88]

Do you differentiate between romantic love and agape love?

Yes. But my point is that romantic love in it’s fullest sense, when sealed in the sacrament of marriage, has the potential to incorporate agape love. As you mentioned before, lack of love is not an impediment to marriage, but marriage achieves it’s perfection when both romantic love and agape are present.

Consecrated virgins can only be consecrated by a bishop and this creates a special bond, not a vow they can be released from. It definitely isn’t a rubber stamp.

Ok, but that is still an official structure within the Church that requires a period of active discernment. It’s not just “the single life”.

While she attempts to set consecrated virgins as separate the truth is they cannot be released, someone who only makes vows to be celibate could. Consecration is not some “vow”.

Then the “vocational hierarchy” is something like: Priest, Consecrated Virgin/Laity, Religious, Marriage.

I would point out that a priest is also a priest forever, even in heaven. A priest can be permitted to return to the lay state but his priesthood can never be removed from him. Priests who have been “lay” for years are still allowed to hear confessions in an emergency situation. I’m pretty sure that the church is in agreement that Priesthood is the most sacred and important of vocations.

 

[Rosebud77]

Well that’s typical of the modern view where the sacrifice of religious and priests is not recognised as being a superior way of life. It seems to me that people want to ignore what the church actually says about certain vocations and invent their own way of seeing things.

If you see the priesthood or religious life as a sacrifice, or in any way a superior way of life, you got problems. Period.

 

[Rosebud77]

Well accoerding to much here I am as low as a slug… But I know that that is not true…"Accidental singleness " is an insult to God frankly .

Maybe I am in the wrong church after all!!!

 

[AdamP88]

If you see the priesthood or religious life as a sacrifice, or in any way a superior way of life, you got problems. Period.

It is a sacrifice. That’s the whole point. The priest/religious sacrifices the “normal” life of a layperson to serve God and the Church. That means sacrificing a family, career, spouse, and many of the freedoms of the lay state. That doesn’t mean there isn’t joy to be found in them.

Nobody thinks you are as low as a slug. I don’t know where you get that idea. I don’t see how I’ve insulted God. I’m just trying to put things in their context. The way I see it, a vocation, in the traditional sense of the word, refers only to vowed/consecrated vocations.

Whatever about that, that’s up for debate I guess. But what is not debatable is that Priesthood, Religious life and consecrated celibate life, is considered by the Church to be objectively superior to Married life, single life etc.

This is because it more closely resembles the life of Christ. I don’t see how that’s a hard position to take.

 

[Sarcelle]

Yes, but I don’t think this is the case within catholicism really. I really don’t think there’s a widespread “idolatry of marriage” in the church. Maybe it’s different where you’re from but in my experience the opposite is true.

It’s quite different among Catholics. Depends on your culture I guess.

The more traditional Catholics get very confused when confronted with someone who is neither married or is a religious. It just does not compute to them.

However, I have seen my fair share of marriage idolatry where people assume that being married makes you a better person.

 

[Sarcelle]

It is a sacrifice. That’s the whole point. The priest/religious sacrifices the “normal” life of a layperson to serve God and the Church. That means sacrificing a family, career, spouse, and many of the freedoms of the lay state. That doesn’t mean there isn’t joy to be found in them.

Nobody thinks you are as low as a slug. I don’t know where you get that idea. I don’t see how I’ve insulted God. I’m just trying to put things in their context. The way I see it, a vocation, in the traditional sense of the word, refers only to vowed/consecrated vocations.

Whatever about that, that’s up for debate I guess. But what is not debatable is that Priesthood, Religious life and consecrated celibate life, is considered by the Church to be objectively superior to Married life, single life etc.

This is because it more closely resembles the life of Christ. I don’t see how that’s a hard position to take.

I agree with this.

 

[Sarcelle]

Yeah, I’m not saying that. I do think it’s a superior calling than “accidental singleness”.

It’s implicit in the nature of marriage. In Catholic marriage, your vocation is to love your spouse and put her above yourself. This vocation, if lived correctly, is the road to heaven for both spouses. Your spouse is supposed to be the most important person in life, next to Jesus Christ.

I don’t think she mentioned consecrated virgins at all. In any case, part of the point she made was that for these vocations, the Church needs to “rubber stamp” them and approve people to partake of them. They also involve taking promises or vows before a Bishop, Priest, or Superior.

As far as I’m aware consecrated virgins need to make a promise to their Bishop.

In any case, the vocations of marriage, religious life, and celibate life all require a commitment to the Church to fulfill certain obligations. Single life does not.

While I agree that marriage is a superior calling to accidental singleness, we cannot say the same of persons. Being married does not make one superior to a single person nor does being in consecrated life mean being a superior person to the married or single lay person.

 

[Sarcelle]

It is a sacrifice. That’s the whole point. The priest/religious sacrifices the “normal” life of a layperson to serve God and the Church. That means sacrificing a family, career, spouse, and many of the freedoms of the lay state. That doesn’t mean there isn’t joy to be found in them.

Nobody thinks you are as low as a slug. I don’t know where you get that idea. I don’t see how I’ve insulted God. I’m just trying to put things in their context. The way I see it, a vocation, in the traditional sense of the word, refers only to vowed/consecrated vocations.

Whatever about that, that’s up for debate I guess. But what is not debatable is that Priesthood, Religious life and consecrated celibate life, is considered by the Church to be objectively superior to Married life, single life etc.

This is because it more closely resembles the life of Christ. I don’t see how that’s a hard position to take.

You will have to walk a mile in our shoes.

Yeah, a lot of people think single people are as low as slugs. I don’t give much thought to what they think of me but yeah, there are people who do think that being married makes them better than single people.

I speak as a single woman but from my experience, single men are treated much worst.

 

[AdamP88]

It’s quite different among Catholics. Depends on your culture I guess.

The more traditional Catholics get very confused when confronted with someone who is neither married or is a religious. It just does not compute to them.

However, I have seen my fair share of marriage idolatry where people assume that being married makes you a better person.

Not automatically, but marriage and all vocations are supposed to encourage one to be a better person.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that married/consecrated people are superior to anyone else, but certain ways of life are considered “objectively superior”.

The traditional vocations, for want of a better term, all have in common that they require the permission of the church, a period of discernment, and vows or consecration that requires the people who are undertaking them to make certain sacrifices or to renounce certain freedoms.
Consecrated Virgins renounce the pleasure and intimacy of sex and marriage in order to imitate the life of Christ more closely.
Religious and Priests renounce career, family, and personal freedom in order to live their lives in the service of the Church.
Married persons renounce the freedom associated with single life in order to live their lives committed to one other person and serving them and the Church as laypeople. Marriage is also a living microcosm of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in the act of procreative marital union, the couple becomes co-creators with the Father in the creation of new life.

Single life just doesn’t have these aspects, in and of itself.

 

[AdamP88]

You will have to walk a mile in our shoes.

Yeah, a lot of people think single people are as low as slugs. I don’t give much thought to what they think of me but yeah, there are people who do think that being married makes them better than single people.

I speak as a single woman but from my experience, single men are treated much worst.

Well I certainly don’t think that anyone is as low as slugs.

I’m sure there are people who think that marriage makes them better than single people.I’m not one of them though.

 

[Sarcelle]

Not automatically, but marriage and all vocations are supposed to encourage one to be a better person.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that married/consecrated people are superior to anyone else, but certain ways of life are considered “objectively superior”.

The traditional vocations, for want of a better term, all have in common that they require the permission of the church, a period of discernment, and vows or consecration that requires the people who are undertaking them to make certain sacrifices or to renounce certain freedoms.
Consecrated Virgins renounce the pleasure and intimacy of sex and marriage in order to imitate the life of Christ more closely.
Religious and Priests renounce career, family, and personal freedom in order to live their lives in the service of the Church.
Married persons renounce the freedom associated with single life in order to live their lives committed to one other person and serving them and the Church as laypeople. Marriage is also a living microcosm of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in the act of procreative marital union, the couple becomes co-creators with the Father in the creation of new life.

Single life just doesn’t have these aspects, in and of itself.

If one values their marriage, one has to grow to be a better person or else the marriage could be lost. As for consecrated religious life, the same thing goes, the vow made to God is held sacred.

However we as single people do not get a free pass. We are also under the obligation to pursue holiness. We are not all wild and loose. I observe chastity consistent with my state in life. I try to practice and acquire the virtues as best I can and to do this I avail of the sacraments of the Church.

Singleness does not automatically mean a wild and sinful life. My spiritual director tells me to pursue holiness just as zealously as a married or consecrated. I did not ask to be single. It just came to be that way but I will not let that get in the way of pursuing holiness.

Anyway I don’t want to derail the thread any further as this is about the beauty of friendship.

 

[AdamP88]

If one values their marriage, one has to grow to be a better person or else the marriage could be lost. As for consecrated religious life, the same thing goes, the vow made to God is held sacred.

However we as single people do not get a free pass. We are also under the obligation to pursue holiness. We are not all wild and loose. I observe chastity consistent with my state in life. I try to practice and acquire the virtues as best I can and to do this I avail of the sacraments of the Church.

Singleness does not automatically mean a wild and sinful life. My spiritual director tells me to pursue holiness just as zealously as a married or consecrated. I did not ask to be single. It just came to be that way but I will not let that get in the way of pursuing holiness.

Anyway I don’t want to derail the thread any further as this is about the beauty of friendship.

I agree. By objectively superior, I’m talking about the state of life in general. Not “Marriage automatically gives a person superior status.”

I agree about pursuing holiness too. Sure I spent a good few years single myself. I’m no no way trying to diminish the lives of people who are single.

 

[Rosebud77]

Not automatically, but marriage and all vocations are supposed to encourage one to be a better person.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that married/consecrated people are superior to anyone else, but certain ways of life are considered “objectively superior”.

The traditional vocations, for want of a better term, all have in common that they require the permission of the church, a period of discernment, and vows or consecration that requires the people who are undertaking them to make certain sacrifices or to renounce certain freedoms.
Consecrated Virgins renounce the pleasure and intimacy of sex and marriage in order to imitate the life of Christ more closely.
Religious and Priests renounce career, family, and personal freedom in order to live their lives in the service of the Church.
Married persons renounce the freedom associated with single life in order to live their lives committed to one other person and serving them and the Church as laypeople. Marriage is also a living microcosm of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in the act of procreative marital union, the couple becomes co-creators with the Father in the creation of new life.

Single life just doesn’t have these aspects, in and of itself.

No religious or priest I have ever known, and that is many, has ever seen their life like that. What an ungrateful joyless atttude… when so many want that life and are not able for ir…

A religion of renunciation? Not heard that for decades. And rightly , Religious and priestly life are a chance to live in a way others cannot and without want or need and with a huge amount of privilege

Singleness provides freedom in other ways. To serve the larger community than just one man and children, great as that it.

I think it is time I left the forum for a while! This is far too much.

 

[Rosebud77]

If one values their marriage, one has to grow to be a better person or else the marriage could be lost. As for consecrated religious life, the same thing goes, the vow made to God is held sacred.

However we as single people do not get a free pass. We are also under the obligation to pursue holiness. We are not all wild and loose. I observe chastity consistent with my state in life. I try to practice and acquire the virtues as best I can and to do this I avail of the sacraments of the Church.

Singleness does not automatically mean a wild and sinful life. My spiritual director tells me to pursue holiness just as zealously as a married or consecrated. I did not ask to be single. It just came to be that way but I will not let that get in the way of pursuing holiness.

Anyway I don’t want to derail the thread any further as this is about the beauty of friendship.

And YOu are not derailing the thread…

 

[AdamP88]

No religious or priest I have ever known, and that is many, has ever seen their life like that. What an ungrateful joyless atttude… when so many want that life and are not able for ir…

A religion of renunciation? Not heard that for decades. And rightly , Religious and priestly life are a chance to live in a way others cannot and without want or need and with a huge amount of privilege

Singleness provides freedom in other ways. To serve the larger community than just one man and children, great as that it.

I think it is time I left the forum for a while! This is far too much.

What exactly is your problem with that?

 

[AdamP88]

And YOu are not derailing the thread…

It’s hardly “derailing the thread” it’s the natural progression of the discussion.

 

[AdamP88]

No religious or priest I have ever known, and that is many, has ever seen their life like that. What an ungrateful joyless atttude… when so many want that life and are not able for ir…

A religion of renunciation? Not heard that for decades. And rightly , **Religious and priestly life are a chance to live in a way others cannot and without want or need and with a huge amount of privilege
**
Singleness provides freedom in other ways. To serve the larger community than just one man and children, great as that it.

I think it is time I left the forum for a while! This is far too much.

Last time I checked there wasn’t that much privilege associated with being a priest, especially not these days.
Nobody here is running down singleness. It just isn’t the same as the other vocations.