Vocations - Which is "better"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ElizabethAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ElizabethAnne

Guest
I want to continue a discussion that started on another thread about vocations. It has always been my understanding that no one vocation was objectively better than the others, that it was up to each of us to discern God’s will in our lives and find the vocation He calls us to. Other posters informed me that the Church views religious life, more specifically the priesthood, as better than other vocations.

So my questions are:
  1. Is one vocation (religious life, married life, single life) better than the other two? Is this universal Church teaching?
  2. If one is “better,” what does that word imply? How is it better? Why? What does that mean for those who do not feel called to the better vocation? If someone feels they have the qualities necessary for the better vocation, should they seek that vocation and not another they feel called to?
I don’t expect everyone to answer all of the questions I’ve posted here. I just thought I’d throw out some of my initial questions to get the discussion going!
 
I wouldn’t think any vocation is “better” than any other vocation. The Church needs priests in order to create parents, yet she also needs parents in order to create priests. Methinks the cycle goes like this for a reason.
 
I agree with Aureole. Our Lord said …“If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35 - NIV). Sorta stands the whole “which is better” question on its head, doesn’t it?

I would say the “better” is whatever God plans for you. If you are following his will, you are doing what is better for you. All other comparisons are irrelevant.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus
 
Elizabeth I’m currently discussing with my wife whether or not to become a deacon. she is afraid it will end our life. i don’t know I love to read/lector and teach CCD. Why would that be less or greater than a monk nun priest or parent? we need all of them. Preist are deemed to be special as they have “married” the church. but are they better, no, since without parents we would have no priests.
 
40.png
Phaedrus:
I would say the “better” is whatever God plans for you.
Click to expand...
:amen:

This is the key. Thanks.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
There is a long tradition in the church of viewing those vocations involving poverty, chastity, and obedience as higher callings and “more holy” than married life. Basically because these were seen as counsels made by Christ for those who would be perfect. They’re not commanded for all, but they’re seen as a moral high road, a short-cut to holiness that is a better way of living. I’m not sure if Vatican II’s teaching on the holiness of the lay state was meant as a repudiation of this tradition or simply as a reaffirmation that married life is still holy, although perhaps not as holy (or as easy to make holy) as religious life. Regardless, the person who said the Church regards religious life as “better” was not talking out their rear, it was/is long-established thought.
 
The Council of Trent said:
“If anyone says that the married state is to be placed before that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not more blessed and better to remain in virginity and celibacy, than to be joined in marriage, let him be anathema” (session 24, canon 10)
Click to expand...
By this we see that the Church teaches that celibacy, and therefore the priesthood and religious life, are superior to marriage.
 
This is the same argument as which is better: man or woman.

Both are equal, but different!

A religious vocation is going to have certain graces and strengths that a marriage will not have and vice versa.

And the single life can give many freedoms to pursue things such as social issues that religious life and married life will never be able to cater to.
 
The Tridentine formulation of which vocation is superior seems to refer to the celibate life being a more perfect reflection of heavenly life. In no way does this denigrate marriage as a vocation. It’s not really accurate to think one is “better” than the other in normal terms. They’re both good, according to God’s plan. One just reflects heavenly life in a more perfect way.

I’d echo the sentiments above. Whatever life you’re called to is the life God wants you to live for him. If you’re called to marriage and children, then trying to live as a religious would be a denial of God’s calling.
 
Upon further study on this question I would have to correct my earlier statement since the Church has taught us that celibacy or consecrated virginity are a higher means to holiness. The Council of Trent proclaimed it, Pius XII echoes the holy council, and our Lord counseled it. If you can take it, take it. If not, don’t.

This does not detract from the holiness of marriage whatsoever, it is a sacrament afterall. But it does seem quite clear that marriage is a “lesser good”.
 
Aureole said:
Upon further study on this question I would have to correct my earlier statement since the Church has taught us that celibacy or consecrated virginity are a higher means to holiness. The Council of Trent proclaimed it, Pius XII echoes the holy council, and our Lord counseled it. If you can take it, take it. If not, don’t.

This does not detract from the holiness of marriage whatsoever, it is a sacrament afterall. But it does seem quite clear that marriage is a “lesser good”.
Click to expand...
You know, we asked this question to the priests in the seminary and the response was completely different. We were taught that no vocation is inheritly better than the other - which makes sense to me.

A priest is different, but not better than, another person.

So if the Church has not officially changed her teaching on this, I would be concerned. It seems that clericalism is still alive and well in the Church.
 
cheese_sdc said:
You know, we asked this question to the priests in the seminary and the response was completely different. We were taught that no vocation is inheritly better than the other - which makes sense to me.

A priest is different, but not better than, another person.

So if the Church has not officially changed her teaching on this, I would be concerned. It seems that clericalism is still alive and well in the Church.
Click to expand...
The Church hasn’t changed her teaching on the excellence of celibacy; Dr. Bombay quoted the particular session and canon from the Holy Council of Trent. That is the teaching of the Church. If anyone teaches otherwise he is mistaken, including a priest.

Try listening to this lecture by Fr. Thomas Nelson, O. Praem., since it ought to clear up any misconceptions concerning vocations.
 
“If anyone says that the married state is to be placed before that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not more blessed and better to remain in virginity and celibacy, than to be joined in marriage, let him be anathema” (session 24, canon 10)
Click to expand...
IMO it sounds as though this quote is being misinterpreted…
It doesn’t say “better vocation”… it says…

It is NOT RIGHT to say that the married state is a “more blessed” calling than that of virginity or celibacy…

It doesn’t say that virginity and celibacy are “more blessed” either… so that which is being inferred from that statement is not said at all…
It may be that they are equal… it may not… it’s not mentioned.

So IMO you can’t infer anything that what it’s saying…

The married state is not a “more blessed” calling than celibacy.
 
“If anyone says that the married state is to be placed before that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not more blessed and better to remain in virginity and celibacy, than to be joined in marriage, let him be anathema” (session 24, canon 10)
Click to expand...
IMO I think this statement is being slightly misinterpreted… you have to read exactly what it’s saying… and not infer anything else.

It is not stating that one vocation is “better” than another.

It is saying (in lay terms)… that it is wrong to think that the married state is “more blessed” than virginity and celibacy.

Let’s put it in mathematical terms (from an engineer)…
Marriage is NOT “more blessed” (ie, not greater than) than virginity and celibacy…

It does not state what many are infering either (that virginity and celibacy are INDEED “more blessed” than the married state)…

Nor does it mention that they’re NOT equal…

So you can’t infer anything by the* lack of statement*…
 
Em_in_FL said:
IMO I think this statement is being slightly misinterpreted… you have to read exactly what it’s saying… and not infer anything else.

It is not stating that one vocation is “better” than another.

It is saying (in lay terms)… that it is wrong to think that the married state is “more blessed” than virginity and celibacy.

Let’s put it in mathematical terms (from an engineer)…
Marriage is NOT “more blessed” (ie, not greater than) than virginity and celibacy…

It does not state what many are infering either (that virginity and celibacy are INDEED “more blessed” than the married state)…

Nor does it mention that they’re NOT equal…

So you can’t infer anything by the* lack of statement*…
Click to expand...
Read it again from the beginning … ‘IF anyone says … that is is NOT more blessed etc to remain in virginity and celibacy…’ (my emphasis). The only option appears to be that we must say that it IS more blessed.

So using an analogy that should appeal to you 😉 ‘If anyone says … that it’s NOT better to be an engineer than have another profession …’. Saying that engineering is EQUAL to other professions is exactly the same as saying that it’s NOT better to be an engineer than to be something else.
 
LilyM said:
The statement ALSO requires the faithful to believe that it IS ‘more blessed and better to remain in virginity and celibacy’

Read it again from the beginning … ‘IF anyone says … that is is NOT more blessed etc to remain in virginity and celibacy…’ (my emphasis). The only option appears to be that we must say that it IS more blessed.
Click to expand...
How do you infer that?
It says… you cannot say that one is more blessed than the other…

What about equal, but different?

“Not greater than” does not imply “not equal”… logically.
 
And not to beat anything down here… I just wanted to add a little lesson in logic…

We have two vocations which are “blessed”… married and celibate life.

They can be:
equally blessed
#1 more blessed than #2
#2 more blessed than #1

The only thing that statement say is that it is WRONG to say “#2 more blessed than #1”…

So you have two options left and the church’s opinion on that has remained unsaid.
 
It is anathametized to say that it is NOT more blessed to be virgin or celibate.

Now saying that marriage and virginity/celibacy are ‘equal but different’ is saying that they are equally blessed, yes? On the same level of blessing, yes? Which is exactly the same thing as saying that it is NOT more blessed to be virgin or celibate than married …

In mathematical terms according to you virginity = 3+2, or 5 on the blessing-ometer. marriage = 1+4, also 5 on the blessing-ometer, but different.

Let’s plug this back into Trent’s statement : ‘IF anyone says … that 5 (being 3+2) IS NOT more than 5 (being 1+4) … let him be anathema’. Doesn’t fit unless marriage is less blessed mate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top