The Single Vocation

[TiggerS]

That’s right, those are the quotes I was referring to. I wanted to know where in Church teaching does it say that “God has no plan B”. If CurlyCool or someone else can show me that, I will show in the CCC where it implies that it is a “plan B”. Of course, in order for us to not go in circles any more, I really need you to define “single celibate state” as I requested in my previous post.

I am very curious, Norseman82. ** Will you share the link and reference where the CCC implies that God has a “Plan B**”.

To be honest, I dont think that He does in that He is continually calling each person to holiness and unity with Him and along some particular path/lifestyle. That this is His “Plan A” with no “Plan B”. If a person refuses His Graces, He continues to call that person to holiness and unity with Him along a particular path/lifestyle as always. Religious vocation and the priesthood are invitations not commands - and an invitation to take a particular path in life with the Graces necessary to fulfill that invitation. It may involve some degree of sinfulness for one reason or another, e.g. ingratitude to God, to refuse the invitation or it may not involve sinfulness at all.

By “single celibate state”, I am referring to those who feel a call and vocation to the single celibate lay state as their vocation and for the sake of The Kingdom in some way - i.e. a ministry or apostolate and/or lifestyle.
As I most always do not forget to state, such a call and vocation would be wisely and prudently affirmed by spiritual direction and on an ongoing basis.

TS

 

[TiggerS]

Also, please define what are you referring to as the “single celibate state”. Is it the same as what is listed in CCC 914-933 when it refers to the “consecrated life” subset of “virginity for the sake of the kingdom”? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just want to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other.

No, my understanding is not included under CCC 914-933.
These fall under “consecrated life” which is a public consecration by The Church. It is not consecration to virginity for the sake of the kindom CCC 922 - 924 which, again, is a public consecration of The Church. The single celibate lay state to which I am referring is not a consecrated life by The Church.

There is no celibration in The Church attached to the single celibate lay state as embraced as one’s call and vocation. There is no celebration of any kind formally usually. It can be probably a quite misunderstood vocation in that questionable motivations can be assigned to the person who has embraced this call from God.

 

[wjp984]

Is it really a bad thing that young people are aware of the fact that they are not yet ready for marriage?

 

[TiggerS]

The single celibate lay state would fall under the final paragraph of “The Consecrated Life” in the CCC:

[933](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/933.htm’) Whether their witness is public, as in the religious state, or less public,** or even secret**, Christ’s coming remains for all those consecrated both the origin and rising sun of their life:
For the People of God has here no lasting city, . . . [and this state] reveals more clearly to all believers the heavenly goods which are already present in this age, witnessing to the new and eternal life which we have acquired through the redemptive work of Christ and preluding our future resurrection and the glory of the heavenly kingdom.478

The above “secret consecration” ties in with what Pope John Paul II had to say In Vita Consecrata on the consecrated life: vatican.va/holy_father/jo…ecrata_en.html

"We are all aware of the treasure which the gift of the consecrated life in the variety of its charisms and institutions represents for the ecclesial community. *Together let us thank God *for the Religious Orders and Institutes devoted to contemplation or the works of the apostolate, for Societies of Apostolic Life, for Secular Institutes and for other groups of consecrated persons, as well as for all those individuals who, in their inmost hearts, dedicate themselves to God by a special consecration. :

 

[TiggerS]

Is it really a bad thing that young people are aware of the fact that they are not yet ready for marriage?

The above can only be a good thing !

It is different if the person has no call or vocation to marriage, religious life nor the priesthood and embraces the single celibate lay state as their discerned vocation. This does take emotional and psychological maturity - and would most wisely and prudently be embraced only with spiritual direction and on an ongoing basis.

 

[Norseman82]

The single celibate lay state would fall under the final paragraph of “The Consecrated Life” in the CCC:

The above “secret consecration” ties in with what Pope John Paul II had to say In Vita Consecrata on the consecrated life: vatican.va/holy_father/jo…ecrata_en.html

"We are all aware of the treasure which the gift of the consecrated life in the variety of its charisms and institutions represents for the ecclesial community. *Together let us thank God *for the Religious Orders and Institutes devoted to contemplation or the works of the apostolate, for Societies of Apostolic Life, for Secular Institutes and for other groups of consecrated persons, as well as for all those individuals who, in their inmost hearts, dedicate themselves to God by a special consecration. :

So, if I’m reading you correctly, you are in fact referring to the consecrated life subset of “virginity for the sake of the kingdom”? I have no problem calling that a vocation, as the CCC defines that as a vocation. However, is that what is really promoted when people talk about “called to the single life”? What I’ve seen is mostly an excuse to shoot down people’s quest for marriage and make them feel guilty for seeking it. And from what I’ve seen in pre-Vatican 2 documents on the subject of vocational discernment, I’ve seen the term “vitrginity” and “religious life”, but no reference to just being “single”.

 

[Norseman82]

I am very curious, Norseman82. ** Will you share the link and reference where the CCC implies that God has a “Plan B**”.

I have a few in mind, but I will wait for the links to the teaching that God does not have a “plan B”.

 

[TiggerS]

I have a few in mind, but I will wait for the links to the teaching that God does not have a “plan B”.

As I am interested in the CCC where it states that God does have a Plan B while remaining unknowing what your definition of a “Plan A” and “Plan B” actually is since you do not state such.

What do you mean by “plan B” and the links you state you have to have to support your ‘plan B’ in the CCC.
I have explained what I mean by Plan A in these words in a previous post:

"To be honest, I dont think that He (God) does (have a Plan B) in that He is continually calling each person to holiness and unity with Him and along some particular path/lifestyle. That this is His “Plan A” with no “Plan B”. If a person refuses His Graces, He continues to call that person to holiness and unity with Him along a particular path/lifestyle as always. Religious vocation and the priesthood are invitations not commands - and an invitation to take a particular path in life with the Graces necessary to fulfill that invitation. It may involve some degree of sinfulness for one reason or another, e.g. ingratitude to God, to refuse the invitation or it may not involve sinfulness at all.’

To support the above from the Catholic Catechism:
CCC "**772 **

It is in the Church that Christ fulfills and reveals his own mystery as the purpose of God’s plan: “to unite all things in him.” St. Paul calls the nuptial union of Christ and the Church “a great mystery.” Because she is united to Christ as to her bridegroom, she becomes a mystery in her turn. Contemplating this mystery in her, Paul exclaims: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

With absolute respect, Noreseman82, You seem to want me to answer your questions, while avoiding answering mine. This makes our exchanges one sided and futile and I am feeling foolish in responding and my problem i.e. choosing to respond though feeling foolish in doing so when I am unable to get you to define what you mean for example by God’s Plan A and Plan B, though you claim to have evidence from the CCC of such.

I have given quotations from various sound Catholic sources to support what I am saying. To date you have given none.

If you go to this page in the CCC, you will note that there are 39 references to “God’s Plan” i.e. Plan A- not to “God’s Plans” indicating the potential existence of God’s Plan A and perhaps a Plan B as well: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=god%27s+plan&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

God only has a Plan A “to unite all things in Him” as the CCC states.

Is there a vocation and call to the single and celibate lay state per se for the sake of The Kingdom? Yes, there is. Please see my previous posts with supporting evidence from various sound Catholic sources including the CCC,.Scripture, Canon Law and Church Documents.
I am not going to respond further unless I deem it absolutely necessary in order to speak directly to the subject of this thread which has particular interest to me - i.e. that God can and does sometimes call a single celibate lay person to that state as their call and vocation from Him. It is probably not the most common of vocations, and perhaps even comparatively unsual or even rare, and best affirmed by spiritual direction on an ongoing basis.

In previous years, the vocation to the single celibate lay state was relatively unknown and unspoken about. In more recent years it is quite often discussed and most often affirmed by reliable Catholic sources as a potential call and vocation from God. As Canon Law states (see Canon 225), this call can be to some organized institution within The Church, or it can be simply as a sole individual.

Previous posts of mine into this thread gives supporting evidence to the single celibate lay state as a potential vocation and call from the CCC, Scripture, Canon Law and Church Documents.

TS

 

[TiggerS]

Quoting Norseman82

So, if I’m reading you correctly, you are in fact referring to the consecrated life subset of “virginity for the sake of the kingdom”? I have no problem calling that a vocation, as the CCC defines that as a vocation.

You would be, rather, absolutely incorrect in the above. If you refer to the passage I quoted from Via Consecrata by Pope John Paul II, you will see that it comes under the heading of: “Thanksgiving for the Consecrated Life” as follows:

We are all aware of the treasure which the gift of the consecrated life in the variety of its charisms and institutions represents for the ecclesial community. *Together let us thank God *for the Religious Orders and Institutes devoted to contemplation or the works of the apostolate, for Societies of Apostolic Life, for Secular Institutes and for other groups of consecrated persons, as well as for all those individuals who, in their inmost hearts dedicate themselves to God by a special consecration.,
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031996_vita-consecrata_en.html

The Consecration of Virgins is a public consecration by The Church and has nothing at all to do with a vocation and call to the single celibate lay state. A person may also be called to consecrate their virginity to God quite secretly. This still has nothing to do with what is under discussion in this thread. Virginity for the sake of The Kingdom and the single celibate lay state are two different vocations entirely in that there is no necessity to be a virgin to live in the single celibate lay state as one’s call and vocation. For the Consecration of Virgins, or the Order of Virgins as it is known, one must be a physical virgin, no exceptions.

The single celibate lay state as a vocation and call is mentioned in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI from which I have already quoted.

What you claim to have seen then, is completely incorrect and purely flowing from your imagination. There has been no attempt whatsoever to challenge the Sacrament of Marriage and quite insulting to claim that a Catholic would do so. There has been no attempt whatsoever to make anyone feel guilty about a vocation and call to marriage. Marriage probably is the most common vocation in The Church and is a Sacrament and therefore a very holy state in life as St Paul beautifully illustrates. His theology is moving and illustrates the sacred and holy nature of the Sacrament of Marriage. This thread has never had to my recollection marriage under any real discussion whatsoever, rather only the single celibate lay state as a vocation. You have arrived at conclusions that come from your imagination. You are also challenging what is common thought and agreement in The Church today, including in documents I have already quoted i.e. about the single lay celibate state as one’s vocation.

Also quite suddenly, erratically and accusingly, you are introducing another subject that has nothing to do really with this thread since it is not a challenge to marriage in any way whatsoever. Not even slightly remotely. Marriage has simply not been under discussion.

You still have not explained your proposal that God has a Plan A and Plan B and that this is supported by the CCC.

TS

 

[TiggerS]

What I’ve seen is mostly an excuse to shoot down people’s quest for marriage and make them feel guilty for seeking it.

Where have you seen this in this thread? It has never happened. And if it did, it would be an appalling and shocking misunderstanding of a Sacrament and vocation and probably the most common vocation and call from God in The Church. But it simply has never occured in this thread. You have imagined the above.

And from what I’ve seen in pre-Vatican 2 documents on the subject of vocational discernment, I’ve seen the term “vitrginity” and “religious life”, but no reference to just being “single”.

Are you only referrring to “pre-Vatican 2 documents” - and if so, you are missing a whole body of Church thought post V2.

TS

 

[TiggerS]

My own attitude to marriage can be found in these previous posts and threads:

Thread Title: “How do you know you are not supposed to be married?”

August 1st:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8189942&postcount=34

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8194069&postcount=37

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8194085&postcount=38

August 2nd forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8194228&postcount=40 Quote: "God calls whom He may to whatever He may with all the Graces necessary to live that call - and not because any person is any more or less special to Him than another. He loves us all equally. He loves every single one of us with a very personal and quite personal ardent love - the holiest in our midst and the most degenerate sinner in our midst. Some, however, love God more than perhaps others and not dependant on their state in life either - but on co-operation with whatever Graces are granted and all are Graced with sufficient to be great saints - great saints. Why does He call some to marriage and some to celibacy for the sake of The Kingdom - the long and short answer is simply : because He wills to do so.

It would be a world on the decline if we were all called to celibate chastity. Mankind would be dying out. Every single saint on our calendar, every priest and every religious originated in the union of man and woman. Every great person in history that was and that will be will originate in the union of a man and a woman. None of these would ever or will ever exist without the union of a man and woman. Marriage is a very holy and sacred state in life!" Unquote

 

[Norseman82]

With absolute respect, Noreseman82, You seem to want me to answer your questions, while avoiding answering mine. This makes our exchanges one sided and futile and I am feeling foolish in responding and my problem i.e. choosing to respond though feeling foolish in doing so when I am unable to get you to define what you mean for example by God’s Plan A and Plan B, though you claim to have evidence from the CCC of such.

That’s because I asked first .

Besides, I’m simply having a hard time following your posts. One minute it appears that you are saying that single celibate life is part of the consecrated life, then why I try to restate what you said to confirm, you’re saying no and giving “document dumps” on other things. I’m not trying to disrespect you, I am just simply confused. Prime example: your quote about the “plan A” to “unite all things in Him”:

As I am interested in the CCC where it states that God does have a Plan B while remaining unknowing what your definition of a “Plan A” and “Plan B” actually is since you do not state such.

What do you mean by “plan B” and the links you state you have to have to support your ‘plan B’ in the CCC.
I have explained what I mean by Plan A in these words in a previous post:

With absolute respect, Noreseman82, You seem to want me to answer your questions, while avoiding answering mine. This makes our exchanges one sided and futile and I am feeling foolish in responding and my problem i.e. choosing to respond though feeling foolish in doing so when I am unable to get you to define what you mean for example by God’s Plan A and Plan B, though you claim to have evidence from the CCC of such.

I have given quotations from various sound Catholic sources to support what I am saying. To date you have given none.

If you go to this page in the CCC, you will note that there are 39 references to “God’s Plan” i.e. Plan A- not to “God’s Plans” indicating the potential existence of God’s Plan A and perhaps a Plan B as well: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=god%27s+plan&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

God only has a Plan A “to unite all things in Him” as the CCC states.

TS

which is fine on a general level, except that the discussion we are having here has to do specifically with whether God has a “plan B” for “state of life”, i.e., marriage, religious life, etc.

 

[Norseman82]

Where have you seen this in this thread? It has never happened. And if it did, it would be an appalling and shocking misunderstanding of a Sacrament and vocation and probably the most common vocation and call from God in The Church. But it simply has never occured in this thread. You have imagined the above.

Are you only referrring to “pre-Vatican 2 documents” - and if so, you are missing a whole body of Church thought post V2.

TS

I’ve seen it in other places - threads, young adult gatherings/discussions, etc.

And as far as quoting pre-V2 documents, I think that shows that a lot of this “vocation to the single life” stuff is a recent invention, which coincidentally occurred around the same time as the women’s liberation movement and the advent of the phenomenon of the “career woman” and the mantra “you don’t need a man/husband/kids”. That is why we need to not use the term “single vocation” but rather “virginity for the sake of the kingdom” which has been the traditional church term and which has been clarified.

 

[TiggerS]

Catholic Catechism - #**772 **It is in the Church that Christ fulfills and reveals his own mystery as the purpose of God’s plan: "to unite all things in him." St. Paul calls the nuptial union of Christ and the Church “a great mystery.” Because she is united to Christ as to her bridegroom, she becomes a mystery in her turn. Contemplating this mystery in her, Paul exclaims: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

Of course, within God’s Plan top unite all things in Him, He could call a person to marriage and then say widowhood and religious life. Or some other combination of vocations over a lifetime. This would have to be an understood I would think. Does it mean that God has a Plan B for a life - under freedom of speech one could use that term, although theologically speaking in strict terms it is incorrect and misleading, nor does The Church use the term “Plan B”. Vocations is from the Latin “vocare” - to call. A variety or multiple calls within one lifetime is all within God’s original plan for the person and His Plan “to unite all things in Him”.

The single celibate lay state as vocation is not within “consecrated life” which term is most commonly used for public consecration within The Church. The term commonly in use for those in the single lay celibate state is “dedicated life” to distinguish between those formally consecrated by The Church and those not formally consecrated, although both lifestyles may have many similarities and very loosely speaking, not formally, can fall under the term of a consecrated life - one consecration by The Church publicly and the other by oneself in a less ‘public’ way or even secretly.

“Virginity” means that the person is a physical virgin. One need not be a physical virgin to be called to the single celibate lay state and for the sake of The Kingdom. The Church is very insistent that those who are Consecrated Virgins must be physical virgins and this is a consecration to virginity for the sake of The Kingdom. Dedication to the single celibate lay state is a dedication of oneself for the sake of The Kingdom, it is not a formal consecration by The Church - although what the future may bring remains to be seen.

 

[TiggerS]

New Advent “Virginity” :
newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm

" There are two elements in virginity: the material element, that is to say, the absence, in the past and in the present, of all complete and voluntary delectation, whether from lust or from the lawful use of marriage; and the formal element, that is the firm resolution to abstain forever from sexual pleasure."

Comment in passing - I am not nor have ever been a ‘women’s liberationist’. If the understanding and discussion of the single lay celibate state came about at the same time as the WLM, then this does not mean that they are directly connected.

Not only women can be called to the single celibate lay state, but men also.

Can you give some quotations to back up some of the assertions you are making and concepts that you have? To date I dont think you have quoted anything. Otherwise your opinions and concepts remain one individual’s personal opinion and personal concepts disconnected from any evidence to support such - to which you are absolutely entitled, as others to theirs.

TS

 

[curlycool89]

That’s right, those are the quotes I was referring to. I wanted to know where in Church teaching does it say that “God has no plan B”. If CurlyCool or someone else can show me that, I will show in the CCC where it implies that it is a “plan B”. Of course, in order for us to not go in circles any more, I really need you to define “single celibate state” as I requested in my previous post.

It’s just simple logic really. Although, I always cringe a little when I have to say that because it seems that people here reject logic sometimes (I won’t go into detail, it’s just a comment, not aimed at anyone here).

Number one, God has a plan for everyone (Jeremiah 29:11, among others).

Secondly, a vocation is a call. You accept that those definitely include marriage, the priesthood, and religious life.

Thirdly, nobody is entitled to any of those. Not all men are meant to be priests, not all people can become religious, and not everyone is meant to be married.

So, logically speaking, one can quite possibly not be called to any of the above, since no one is entitled to any of them.

Going back to my first point, God has a plan (vocation) for everyone. Therefore, if a person is not called to marriage or the priesthood (for men) or religious life, then the only one left is single life, and God must be calling them to that life by elimination of the other options.

God is God, he doesn’t need “plan Bs”. He knows everything that’s going to happen before it does. Humans can have “plan Bs” on the other hand. You can reject your “plan A” vocation and do something else (get married instead of becoming a priest for example), but that has nothing to do with God.
God will make the best of your decision and give you the graces to make the best of that life, but it will not be the best use of your talents. God allows you to do this because of free will, which is His ultimate gift of love to us.

I’ll PM you where I got some of this from.

 

[Bataar]

Given the two choices of vocation, married or religious, I’m pretty sure mine is marriage. However, I’m 32 and have never dated anyone so I’m kind of at a loss.

 

[TiggerS]

Given the two choices of vocation, married or religious, I’m pretty sure mine is marriage. However, I’m 32 and have never dated anyone so I’m kind of at a loss.

Being drawn towards marriage, then may God lead you to fall in love with a great life partner and soon, not that 32yrs of age is anywhere near even getting even remotely near towards too late for falling in love and marriage, some marry in their quite elderly years and happily too.

 

[nameeta]

Of course, within God’s Plan top unite all things in Him, He could call a person to marriage and then say widowhood and religious life. Or some other combination of vocations over a lifetime. This would have to be an understood I would think. Does it mean that God has a Plan B for a life - under freedom of speech one could use that term, although theologically speaking in strict terms it is incorrect and misleading, nor does The Church use the term “Plan B”. Vocations is from the Latin “vocare” - to call. A variety or multiple calls within one lifetime is all within God’s original plan for the person and His Plan “to unite all things in Him”.

The single celibate lay state as vocation is not within “consecrated life” which term is most commonly used for public consecration within The Church. The term commonly in use for those in the single lay celibate state is “dedicated life” to distinguish between those formally consecrated by The Church and those not formally consecrated, although both lifestyles may have many similarities and very loosely speaking, not formally, can fall under the term of a consecrated life - one consecration by The Church publicly and the other by oneself in a less ‘public’ way or even secretly.

“Virginity” means that the person is a physical virgin. One need not be a physical virgin to be called to the single celibate lay state and for the sake of The Kingdom. The Church is very insistent that those who are Consecrated Virgins must be physical virgins and this is a consecration to virginity for the sake of The Kingdom. Dedication to the single celibate lay state is a dedication of oneself for the sake of The Kingdom, it is not a formal consecration by The Church - although what the future may bring remains to be seen.

The Single life - without a dedication to Christ either privately as a lay person or a consecrated state - I personally think is not a Christian vocation . By baptism, every Christian is called to community .The Trinity is our model. Every Christian is also called to some mission since the Identity of the Church is a community United to Christ and called to a Mission .

If a Single desires or feels called to remain Single due to motivations like Individualism, individual freedom , Career-orientation a career which does not directly enhance the Church’s mission] then I think such Single-ness is not a Christian attitude .It is just a by-product of today’s mentality.

It is also true that the Lay Single, dedicated , private commitment to chastity differs greatly from the vocation of Consecrated Virginity according to canon 604 . The latter requires Physical virginity , the reasons for this I have mentioned in some detail in the following link :

ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.com/p/why-physical-virginity-is-essential-for.html

Hope this helps and I look forward for some comments.

 

[barb_finnegan]

The Single life - without a dedication to Christ either privately as a lay person or a consecrated state - I personally think is not a Christian vocation . By baptism, every Christian is called to community .The Trinity is our model. Every Christian is also called to some mission since the Identity of the Church is a community United to Christ and called to a Mission .

If a Single desires or feels called to remain Single due to motivations like Individualism, individual freedom , Career-orientation a career which does not directly enhance the Church’s mission] then I think such Single-ness is not a Christian attitude .It is just a by-product of today’s mentality.

It is also true that the Lay Single, dedicated , private commitment to chastity differs greatly from the vocation of Consecrated Virginity according to canon 604 . The latter requires Physical virginity , the reasons for this I have mentioned in some detail in the following link :

ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.com/p/why-physical-virginity-is-essential-for.html

Hope this helps and I look forward for some comments.

I’m single at [almost] 57 years of age because it’s the only thing left for me.

I never felt any ‘urge’ to get married, and I can’t be a religious because I am considered to be TOO OLD.

For me, it’s a combination of both choice and circumstance, being single.

And I agree with you, nameeta-it’s not a vocation, strictly speaking. The only way it would be a vocation if one was consecrated as a virgin (according to canon 604) or as a hermit.