What is The Problem With Attracting Vocations Today?

[JReducation]

JReducation/

I see… but I can’t help but feel a pang of regret at not having you guys as our parish priests, or at least as some sort of spiritual support for the laity.[/qiuote]

I’m deeply humbled by this statement. But I must clarify that I’m not a Carthusian. I’m a Franciscan Brother of Life. I don’t have such a noble and sublime vocation. My call is to live the contemplative life as a mendicant, begging and serving the unborn, the vulnerable. My life to is to preach the Gospel of Life, to do penance for those who do not, and to live in brotherhood as St. Francis did. I don’t have what it takes to be a Carthusian. Those are very special souls.

As to parish priests, it’s a sad state of affairs that dioceses do not have the large enough numbers to staff every parish. The administration of parishes is the proper duty of diocesan priests, not religious men.

There are some communities of religious men that were founded to run parishes, but most of them were founded to run parishes in the mission fields, not in the developed countries. In the past, many religious orders and religious congregations came to America to run parishes. We were a mission country then. As time progressed, it became evident that the religious were doing more harm to themselves than the good that they were doing for the Church.

For that reason, we don’t see many religious congregations and religious orders taking up new parishes. In fact, many religious orders, especially Franciscans, are leaving parishes behind. They are closing them or giving them back to the bishops. What happened during before Vatican II was a disaster. Many people who yearn for the good old days don’t realize the other side of the story. The good old days destroyed many good religious men.

Vatican II tried to save the day and save religious life. It ordered religious to recover their roots and to return to the vision and mission of their founders. Unfortunately, there was a lot of damage done. We lost many good men.

You see, when you take a religious out of his monastery, friary, or priory and put him into a parish you have to make certain concessions. Men in parishes didn’t have the structure of community life. The parish demanded their attention. They had to say mass everyday, be at the office, visit the parishioners, attend meetings, do the administration of the parish and the parish school, do whatever else the bishop required to keep the parish going.

As the number of parishes grew, the religious were asked to take up more of them. This meanst that they were spread out. You no longer had a community of brothers living together. You often had religoius who lived in tiny communities or alone.

What happened? Well, when superiors called these men back to live in religious houses they had problems adapting. They were no longer used to praying the liturgy of the hours around the clock, eating and recreating together, doing housekeeping and laundry, not having a car or their own telephone, asking for permission to step outside the house, asking for clothes and shoes, wearing a habit all the time, being obedient to superiors who were not priests (they had gotten used to parishes where there were only priests in charge). In religious houses your superior can be layman in vows. But we obey him and revere him as we revere Christ. These men came in from parishes and were no longer used to the idea of following a community schedule. They had gotten used to managing their own time, their own money, their prayer life. Now they were subjugated to a rule again. The result was tragic. They left in the thousands. It has taken almost 40 years to bring up those numbers again.

I go to several different churches, so I’ve seen several different priests. I perhaps know or have seen around 8 in recent years. Two of them are brought from Africa. Two others are from the immigrant community (Koreans), serving the ethnic parish community near my house. Only two out of those 8 or so are young. The other six are rather venerable, and one has a failing voice. I don’t need to tell you, this really points towards a severe strain on the priesthood and its failing ability to meet the spiritual needs of the laity, let alone to re-evangelize. Can you blame me for thinking that at this rate, the laity will disintegrate, and the Church will be left without its foundations?

 

[JReducation]

conclusion

Some religious communities have tried to staff parishes with entire battalions of religious men. In some parishes this has been successful, but not without issues. The laity has had to adapt to the idea that they may have a large staff of religious who are not priests and only one priest in the group. They had to accept that each religious only spends three to four hours at the parish and they are not available during prayer, community meals and recreation, at night for meetings, and that hey close down the parish when they have community functions such as retreats or chapters or vacations together. The laity has had to accept that they community life takes place over the life of the parish. The laity has had to begin to live by the spirit of the founder of the religiuos in their parishes in order to feel comfortable with this arrangement. This has worked in some parishes. And where it has worked, everyone is happy. In other parishes, it has not worked. The laity became disappointed and the parish fell apart and eventually closed. In other places, the religious were disappointed by the lack of support from the laity and decided to leave the parish and the parish closed down or was merged.

I know of such a case with an Oblate parish. The Oblates tried very hard to recapture community life. They had to give up one parish and merge their men into one house, instead of two. They could not live community life with just three people in a house, when those three people were on demand 24/7. When you have a larger community each person can take a few hours a week. No one is on demand 24/7. You can keep up with the demands of a parish and the demands of religious life.

The Franciscan family is moving away from parishes. The large Franciscan branches are in parishes. They have many men and can run parishes and have a healthy community life. The newer branches of the Franciscan family are not taking on parishes. We work among the poor, homeless, unborn, youth, drug addicts, AIDS victims, immigrants, communication media, pregnancy centers, soup kitchens, etc. Some Franciscan communities have no designated ministry. Their ministry it to be present in a neighborhood and to evangelize by their presence and their holiness. Others are contemplatives who rarely leave their friaries. This is part of the return to the vision of the founder and obedience to the founder. We are not ordaining as many men as we did in the past. That was a disaster. Between 1800 and 1970 we ordained so many men that we were shocked when we found that we had turned the Franciscan family into an order of priests. Nothing could be so far from the mind and will of St. Francis. We always had a few priests, even during Francis’ time. But we were never governed by them. That had to be corrected.

Sometimes the good old days are only good for some people. There are many reforms taking place, not just among Franciscans. Benedictines are going through many reforms to recover the spirit of St. Benedict. They too are returning to the enclosure of the abbey. They come out to serve the laity in small doses, as I call it. Many Benedictine monks became so secularized that you could not tell the difference between them and a diocesan priest. They too ended up with so many priests that they didn’t know what to do.

Friars and monks usually had enough priests to say a daily mass and hear a few confessions. To look around and see all these priests was a shock. If you recall them to the friary or the abbey, what do you do with them?

Dominican and Carmelite Friars were a little different. They always had the idea of doing priestly ministry. They needed the priests. Then you had the clerks regular: Jesuits, Salesians, Passionists, Fathers of Mercy, Redemptorists. The clerks were founded as communities of priests. But they had another mission that was not parish. They were usually missionaries, teachers, preachers, retreat masters, scholars who also lived in religious communities.

I am pretty sure that somewhere in the Bible, Jesus said something to the effect ‘Christ has no hands on earth but yours’… perhaps this applies to the maintenance of the Church in the earthly world as well.

I’m not sure about that. But there are two promises that Jesus makes. 1) He will not leave us orphans and 2) The Church will be around until he returns. Don’t get discouraged. Just pray for diocesan vocations. BUT DON’T FORGET TO PRAY FOR RELIGIOUS VOCATIONS FOR MEN TOO.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cowfold]

JReducation/

Quick question, you mentioned that the Carthusians are young, able to sing, healthy, outgoing, can do manual labour (and have a skill), have Masters or Ph.Ds, and are yet able to totally cut themselves off from the temptations of the world.
Well, this got me thinking… those guys are really a prime material for priesthood and supporting the Church on a wider scale. I mean, wouldn’t it be a better allocation of human resources if these guys went out and supported the Church in the wider world through their skills?

Really!!!

 

[jimcav]

They do more for the Church than the average parish priest, religious, bishop, deacon or lay person. The power of the conteplative life is inmeasureable. They are doing for the world the same thing that Mary the mother of God does. They intercede for us and are the Church’s greatest human source of grace upon grace. Theirs is the most noble of all religios vocations.

That’s why there are so few of them in the world. Not many souls have such a rare gift. Imagine your life lived in the constant presence of God, interceding for his people. What a great gift of charity. The religiuos life is a call to the perfection of charity in intimate relationship with Christ. The life of the hermit is as intimate as it can ever get. The greater the intimacy, the greater the charity. The greater the charity, the greater the blessings upon the world. Those called to that life accomplish more for the Church than an army of us could ever do for her.

The mystics understood this mystery. That’s why the Dessert Fathers embraced this life and the Holy Spirit has protected it.

The hermits are physically disconnect from us, but they are connect to the Church through the daily routine of the liturgy. Their life is built around he liturgical life of the Church. No parish priest or active religious can live a live that way. There are too many distractions.

Parish priests can do many things that are necessary. But there is one thing that they cannot do. They cannot be intimately consecrated to Christ to the degree that Carthusians can be. They have don’t have that special call. The hermit lays down his life for the people of God, as Christ did. He intercedes before Jesus Christ, as Mary does.

We who are active religious can only do a small portion of what they can achieve. We combine contemplation with active apostolic work. But our work is very limited. It can only reach so many. Their apostolic work transcends time and space, because they live in the eternal presence of God in the msytery of the liturgy and silence.

You would be amazed at how many bishops ask for monastic and heremetical religious to found houses in their dioceses. History has proven that these men and women have been the means that Christ has used to preserve not only the Church, but human culture.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Wow, that is easily the best and most beautiful description on the life of a Carthusian or monk that I have ever read. Their lives can often be a mystery to many of us lay people, but I think you really made a wonderful explanation of their lives, what they do and how they live.

Actually, all of the contributions you have made to this thread have been quite enlightning!

 

[kathleen52]

Friends,

As I know many of us pray for increased vocations, I was thrilled to read about Grant Desme, said to be one of the best prospects for Major League Baseball leaving … to become Catholic Priest.
Here is the link —>>> catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35267&cb300=vocations

In addition, I continue to hear about Catholic Religious Congregations who make exceptions on a case-by-case basis … for women who are discerning religious vocation in their 40’s, 50’s etc. I participate in a “Praying with the Sisters” - Monday through Thursday weeknight podcast at 6PM CT and also participate in “Ask Sister” podcast every Friday night at 6PM CT.
Here is the link —>>>www.anunslife.org

I believe I can make a difference in discussing/promoting Religious Life by communicating the many wonderful experiences with relatives and friends who are Priests and Sisters and … by trying to set an example as a faithful laywoman serving my Church in various roles.

Offering continued prayers for increase in vocations.

Peace be with all,
Kathleen

 

[Angels_Heart]

Well that cuts me off I am too old already to be a nun and I don’t have a college degree either .I was under the false imperssion that if you had a calling to GOD ,it should’t matter the age ? Brother , was I wrong .

 

[anode]

Well that cuts me off I am too old already to be a nun and I don’t have a college degree either .I was under the false imperssion that if you had a calling to GOD ,it should’t matter the age ? Brother , was I wrong .

Very, very few women’s religious orders require a college education. Most require 2 years college OR work experience.

Many women’s orders, habited and habit-optional, are open to ‘older’ vocations. Go through the www.religiousministries.com site for all orders, or get a $10.00 copy of the Guide to Religious Ministries,-- 31st ed. coming out soon from Catholic News Press–, or go to the Institute for Religious Life site, www.religiouslife.com, for habited orders.

 

[JReducation]

Well that cuts me off I am too old already to be a nun and I don’t have a college degree either .I was under the false imperssion that if you had a calling to GOD ,it should’t matter the age ? Brother , was I wrong .

This is a difficult answer to understand. Let me try to explain it as gently and clearly as I can do so. The faith of the Church is that Christ calls men or women to the consecrated life (sisters or brothers) through the major superior of the community. The major superior, in turn, promises obedience to his or her subjects when they decide in a chapter of the community what the requirements and criteria for membership should be. Therefore, Christ speaks to the superior through the voice of the community and to the candidate through the superior.

Therefore, in religious life we always assume that if a religious community does not accept a candidate for whatever reason, it is because Christ is not calling that person to that religious community.

This does not mean that Christ does not call us to another community. The sign is when you find a community whose criteria for admission you do meet.

As to education, there is a difference between communities of men and women. Almost every community of men requires a college degree and studies in philosophy and theology, as well as an academic area. Traditionally, communities of women have not required studies in theology or philosophy. Therefore, most sisters have no background in these sciences. They have general religious studies provided in the formation program, which is not equivalent to theology or philosophy. It’s usually more apologetics.

That being said, religious communities of sisters and nuns require academic studies that prepare the woman for the ministry of the community. For example, a teaching community usually requires an advanced degree in education or a nursing community a degree in nursin or other healthcare related discipline. Some communities do not have a single ministry, such as teaching or nursing. Therefore, they do not require degrees.

Age is another issue. The concern that communities of men and women have about is is based on several factors.

There is a concern that older people are more set in their ways and are used to a particular lifestyle; therefore, will have greater difficulty changing. This is not a hard science. But it does concern vocation directors and chapters of religious communities. Thus, they place age ceilings on admissions.

Another concern that religious communities have is health. As we get older, we begin to suffer health problems. This can be a great financial responsibility for a religious commmunity.

Finally, apostolic communities are concerned that admitting an older person (over 50) may not work, becaues their formation program and their academic preparation can often take from six to 10 years.

The good news is that there are communities that are not bound to any particular apostolate, but have a great deal of diversity. They don’t have protracted education programs. Also, there are communities that are enclosed. The formation program focusses around the spiritual life, not too much around theology, philosophy or other academic disciplines. These communities have more flexible admission policies.

For those men who are reading this, it does not apply to male communities. Generally, male communities want a college degree or higher. Many do require a Master’s in Theology or Divinity, even if you’re not going to be a priest. Some trade off the Master’s in Theology for an advanced degree or diploma in a another field, either academic or technical. For example, I know a friar in the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word who has an MBA and is one of the accountants at EWTN. There are several other friars who have degrees in Communication or TV Production.

Being able to meet the requirements of the community in which you’re interested is a sign of being called by Christ to that community.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[zaramarie81]

The problem is - before, families used to be the springs of vocations. Nowadays the instutution of family is less appreciated, people have less children, not to mention that family prayer life is poor.

I don’t think the problem is in the older vocations - religious life shouldn’t serve as a spiritual shelter for people who lived in the world for half a century. Vocation discernment should primarily be done in the younger years, as it is now - because formation itself is much easier when people are young, healthy, eager to learn, ready to give their best years to the Church. I think that, with the renewal of true catholic families, we will have a renewal of vocations.

I agree… a decline in the vocation of marriage within the Church is key to a decline in vocations to religious life. In fact, the Bishops recently issued a pastoral letter about this… “The First Vocations Crisis.”

Not only are families becoming less and less Catholic, but young people in general are taking longer to decide on their vocation whether it be marriage or anything else (so yes, it may be hurting communities that cut off in the late 20’s early 30’s because many young people today aren’t even getting married that “young!”)

As someone who feels called to marriage, I do sort of take offense to the picture of the giggling immature girl desiring marriage… marriage is a serious vocation too, and many of us singles have really agonized over the delay in our own desires for a married vocation. We’ve prayed and cried and discerned best we can. I’ve often found it frustrating how Catholics sort of pit the two main vocations almost against each other as if it’s the desire for marriage that is to blame for lack of religious… no, it’s a lack of love for the faith overall that has caused dwindling numbers in both of these vocational paths.

 

[moho81]

zaramarie81,

I totally agree with your sentiments about the vocations being pitted against each other, with religious life being the more “holy” and desirable. I have a Baltimore Catechism, and in the section on vocations, there are two sets of pictures, one of a priest and a nun, and the other of a couple being married. Above the couple at the altar, is a caption reading “good,” but above the priest and nun, “better.” Sometimes, I’ve been given the impression that marriage is only for those not pious or serious enough about their faith to go into religious life. For example, one time in confession, a priest enthusiastically declared to me that he thought I should be a nun because of my desire to become a better Catholic. Shouldn’t all people, no matter what their calling, strive for holiness? In marriage, that’s something that’s lacking these days. (Before I go on, I have to clarify that I am recently married ) It always saddens me, too, when during the prayers of the faithful, there’s almost always a prayer for an increase in vocations, but not often for marriages and families.
Restore marriage and family to their former glory, and the vocation problem will more than likely be resolved. Treating people who desire matrimony as less holy or in need of prayers isn’t helping, it’s just frustrating.

 

[zaramarie81]

zaramarie81,

I totally agree with your sentiments about the vocations being pitted against each other, with religious life being the more “holy” and desirable. I have a Baltimore Catechism, and in the section on vocations, there are two sets of pictures, one of a priest and a nun, and the other of a couple being married. Above the couple at the altar, is a caption reading “good,” but above the priest and nun, “better.” Sometimes, I’ve been given the impression that marriage is only for those not pious or serious enough about their faith to go into religious life. For example, one time in confession, a priest enthusiastically declared to me that he thought I should be a nun because of my desire to become a better Catholic. Shouldn’t all people, no matter what their calling, strive for holiness? In marriage, that’s something that’s lacking these days. (Before I go on, I have to clarify that I am recently married ) It always saddens me, too, when during the prayers of the faithful, there’s almost always a prayer for an increase in vocations, but not often for marriages and families.
Restore marriage and family to their former glory, and the vocation problem will more than likely be resolved. Treating people who desire matrimony as less holy or in need of prayers isn’t helping, it’s just frustrating.

Congrats on your recent marriage! I am hoping this year will be the year for my own wedding (my boyfriend and I met with a local friend/priest last night to discuss some things ). I didn’t realize the Baltimore Catechism said that marriage is “good” compared to religious life “better.” Wow. I think this has been an issue for many years in the Church… this treating the married vocation as the lesser vocation… even though I know the intentions are good, it is very deflating for those of us who do not have a call to religious life. Very!

I too have been frustrated that at Mass we pray for more religious vocations and leave off prayers for married vocations (or mention married vocations only in context of natural or political terms only… such as prayers for laws supporting traditional marriage). So many young people are struggling to stay pure, to cultivate holiness, to heal from parents’ divorces, to prepare spiritually for the sacrifices and joys of sacramental marriage… both vocational paths need prayer, big time!!! I think we were really blessed with JPII’s timely writings on marriage… I think the Church can only benefit from a renewed look at this vocation, and I think there will be a lot more appreciation for the religious life, too, when we understand what a gift both vocations are.

 

[hansa447]

I was never introduced to a religious vocation in my childhood. I only knew what a priest was, and I discovered what a lay brother was as well when my former parish hired a religious brother to be in charge of religious formation. Even he did not expound on vocations during Confirmation classes. I ended up leaving the Church on a hiatus for a while because I didn’t understand the faith and I did a lot of “soul searching” to find the the denomination that was right for me. This included a lot of research in other faiths. It turned out that Catholicism was the right one for me, but I didn’t discover religious vocations until I attended a retreat with religious. My mom never talked to me about the possibility of a “vocation” because she didn’t even know what a vocation was (and she was born and raised Catholic as well). I think it has a lot to do with Catechism which is very poor these days, low family rates, and the constant pressure of outside influences saying that you must earn a whole lot of money and have a big family to be truly happy. After discussing my discernment with some family members, I’ve had some even try to talk me out of it! Two of my aunts said they couldn’t picture me as a religious Sister.

The good thing is that a lot of religious communities are reforming their age limits (so I’ve heard) and understand that a call to religious life is lifelong and doesn’t end when you are 30, 40, or 50 (or above).

Your post mentions many valid points. A couple of examples: a number of families will support, even encourage plainly a child’s choice to pursue some sort of career or trade, whether or not college is in the picture. But many families, when faced with a child’s desire to be a nun, priest or brother, have actively urged their child to wait for more experience", or have simply discouraged this choice, while supporting others. Why? I can’t imagine all the reasons, but one I’ve heard is that “there’d be no grandchildren”. Now, the light of faith and eternity, this active discouragement is problematic at best, and bad at worst. You could ask the question, "Whose interest does that family have in mind? Theirs [the loss of grandchildren], or that of the child [of any age], in the light of faith? If not in this light, such discouragement would be almost automatic.

Another example: More than one Hispanic family (could be of another language) has complained to priests and bishops that they “need” Spanish-speaking priests for them, and that they should be supplied with such priests. One bishop and one priest, in different contexts, responded this way: “And how many vocations have you fostered and/or encouraged in your family?”

In each case, the answer was silence.

 

[anode]

Another point which could make concerned parents discourage a vocation: that many religious orders, and not just the habit-optional ones, have an uncertain future and may not survive. What used to be a very stable lifelong choice is no longer so stable.

 

[zaramarie81]

Another point which could make concerned parents discourage a vocation: that many religious orders, and not just the habit-optional ones, have an uncertain future and may not survive. What used to be a very stable lifelong choice is no longer so stable.

Interesting… yes, I suppose even devout parents could discourage a vocation. My parents, in spite of coming late to the faith, did not discourage. My father asked me one day (when I was about 19) if I had considered a religious vocation. I said I had a strong desire for marriage. He replied, “Baby, that’s the harder vocation.” I said, “then so be it.” I am now 29… occasionally I have gone to my father for help with discernment for marriage and vocations in general… as I have traveled through my 20’s, it has become more and more obvious that my gut instinct was right… marriage was really the right path for me… he even went so far as to say he can’t see a religious vocation in me at all, not to discourage me but to encourage me in my call… he felt I was stressing too much and getting distracted with the “what if I am called to religious life” question when my heart got broken. I feel blessed to have such great parents.

I have also seen the opposite phenomenon where parents are a bit too forceful with religious vocations… claiming a son will be a priest when said son is still only 5 years old. I see this happen a fair amount and while I respect these “on fire” parents desire to contribute to the Church, I do wonder if there will be unfair pressure on the kids. Interestingly enough, I rarely see parents pressure girls to be nuns… it seems the greater pressure is on boys to be priests.

 

[JReducation]

zaramarie81,

I totally agree with your sentiments about the vocations being pitted against each other, with religious life being the more “holy” and desirable. I have a Baltimore Catechism, and in the section on vocations, there are two sets of pictures, one of a priest and a nun, and the other of a couple being married. Above the couple at the altar, is a caption reading “good,” but above the priest and nun, “better.” Sometimes, I’ve been given the impression that marriage is only for those not pious or serious enough about their faith to go into religious life.

This is a teaching that comes from St. Paul. It is often expressed poorly or the explanation is not clearly understood, unless the speaker or writer provides the reference to Paul. St. Paul wrote that the best way to live the faith was to remain celibate, but those who could not do this should marry.

What has to be understood here is that Paul is speaking aboiut being called. We are called to live our faith, whether married or celibate. And if one can live ones faith as a celibate deacon, priest, bishop, brother or sister, then that’s the way to go. But if the requirements of celibacy are an obstacle rather than an aid to living the faith, then the person should marry. The goal is to live the faith. Marriage or celibacy are the means.

The difference between the two, besides the physical differences, are also spiritual. The celibate man or woman lives in an intimate relationship with Christ and the Church without the obligations of marriage and family. Therefore, he or she loves and encounters Christ in a very direct manner. The covenant is between the celibate person and Christ and is lived in the context of the Church. The married person loves and encounters Christ through the spouse. The covenant is between the spouses and Christ is found within their relationship and is lived int he context of the Church.

Both are covenants. Both covenants are lived within the context of the Church. The difference is in the inclusion of a spouse in the marriage covenant. What Paul tries to explain to the first Christians is that if they can live in a covenant with Christ, without the sacrament of marriage, then it is the best choice, because their life is simplified.

However, not everyone can be celibate nor is Paul saying that everyone should be celibate. He’s simply posing it as the better option, if you can do it. If you cannot do it, then it’s a horrible option, because you will fall and you will not be able to live according to the faith.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[zaramarie81]

This is a teaching that comes from St. Paul. It is often expressed poorly or the explanation is not clearly understood, unless the speaker or writer provides the reference to Paul. St. Paul wrote that the best way to live the faith was to remain celibate, but those who could not do this should marry.

What has to be understood here is that Paul is speaking aboiut being called. We are called to live our faith, whether married or celibate. And if one can live ones faith as a celibate deacon, priest, bishop, brother or sister, then that’s the way to go. But if the requirements of celibacy are an obstacle rather than an aid to living the faith, then the person should marry. The goal is to live the faith. Marriage or celibacy are the means.

The difference between the two, besides the physical differences, are also spiritual. The celibate man or woman lives in an intimate relationship with Christ and the Church without the obligations of marriage and family. Therefore, he or she loves and encounters Christ in a very direct manner. The covenant is between the celibate person and Christ and is lived in the context of the Church. The married person loves and encounters Christ through the spouse. The covenant is between the spouses and Christ is found within their relationship and is lived int he context of the Church.

Both are covenants. Both covenants are lived within the context of the Church. The difference is in the inclusion of a spouse in the marriage covenant. What Paul tries to explain to the first Christians is that if they can live in a covenant with Christ, without the sacrament of marriage, then it is the best choice, because their life is simplified.

However, not everyone can be celibate nor is Paul saying that everyone should be celibate. He’s simply posing it as the better option, if you can do it. If you cannot do it, then it’s a horrible option, because you will fall and you will not be able to live according to the faith.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for this explanation and for the scriptures. I can see some of the practical elements in these Scriptures, but I have to admit, I’ve read other angles on these Scriptures that don’t necessarily emphasize the celibate life being superior. I suppose we could split hairs over which vocation is harder or better… but I have no desire to . I think your point about living our calling, living out the faith, being the most important is right on.

I also wasn’t sure if St. Paul was referring to being single or religious… as the Church makes a distinction between being single and being religious (there are many “familial” obligations to a religious community as some have pointed out here, this is why there are age cut-offs… because of the cost of caring for older religious). Being a single “free” person for 29 years, I can say it is quite different than being religious and the obligations and vows that come with that. I guess in a lot of JPII’s writings, and explanations of those writings, I’ve gotten the impression that it’s not so simple as one vocation being “better” even if each vocation has it’s unique advantages or disadvantages.

 

[moho81]

This is a teaching that comes from St. Paul. It is often expressed poorly or the explanation is not clearly understood, unless the speaker or writer provides the reference to Paul. St. Paul wrote that the best way to live the faith was to remain celibate, but those who could not do this should marry.

What has to be understood here is that Paul is speaking aboiut being called. We are called to live our faith, whether married or celibate. And if one can live ones faith as a celibate deacon, priest, bishop, brother or sister, then that’s the way to go. But if the requirements of celibacy are an obstacle rather than an aid to living the faith, then the person should marry. The goal is to live the faith. Marriage or celibacy are the means.

The difference between the two, besides the physical differences, are also spiritual. The celibate man or woman lives in an intimate relationship with Christ and the Church without the obligations of marriage and family. Therefore, he or she loves and encounters Christ in a very direct manner. The covenant is between the celibate person and Christ and is lived in the context of the Church. The married person loves and encounters Christ through the spouse. The covenant is between the spouses and Christ is found within their relationship and is lived int he context of the Church.

Both are covenants. Both covenants are lived within the context of the Church. The difference is in the inclusion of a spouse in the marriage covenant. What Paul tries to explain to the first Christians is that if they can live in a covenant with Christ, without the sacrament of marriage, then it is the best choice, because their life is simplified.

However, not everyone can be celibate nor is Paul saying that everyone should be celibate. He’s simply posing it as the better option, if you can do it. If you cannot do it, then it’s a horrible option, because you will fall and you will not be able to live according to the faith.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, I understand where St. Paul is coming from, and I know that Jesus himself said something similar in the Gospels. Everybody should be encouraged to move towards and thrive in the vocation called to, my problem is just the “favoritism” I see extended towards religious life. In no way do I denigrate that vocation or see it as inferior, as there is no such thing as an inferior vocation, but like zaramarie81 and I have observed, matrimony seems to be seen as less holy, or for everybody else who isn’t, perhaps, the “cream of the crop” when it comes to piety. I cited my experience in the confessional with the priest who insisted that he saw me becoming a nun. I explained to him, gently, of course, that I don’t feel the call, but he pressed on, saying that he just absolutely saw it in me. I think it took my “No, Father…” at least three times for it finally to sink in that I was not called in that direction. This came because I was confessing some relatively minor offenses that I wanted to get off my chest, and he took my desire to be a better Catholic as an absolute sign that I should go into religious life. I was rather perturbed by the thought, because if people who are called to be married aren’t striving for holiness in their marriages or in raising their children, where does that leave the Church, and as we’ve been seeing in recent generations, the whole of society? Pious people are called to all vocations, and I wish that that would be acknowledged, and that the very real problem of nominally Catholic families would be addressed, as well.
(This is turning into a bit of a rant, but please bear with me) In graduate school, I was fortunate enough to be a part of a wonderful Catholic student ministry that provided a lot of good fellowship and spiritual nourishment. Something I noticed about some people (just a few, not all) was that they espoused the idea that romantic relationships were almost something to be avoided, and that a person only needs God to be happy. I most certainly agree that a relationship with God is absolutely paramount to be ultimately happy, but to imply that a certain kind of healthy human relationship isn’t important is unfair. I don’t condone dating just for kicks, but in order to marry, one needs to find people to discern that with. If one doesn’t enter the fray, so to speak, how does one go about this? Relationships lead to marriage, which is a holy vocation. I contrast this with another attitude I noticed both in the ministry, and other message boards and Catholic advice columns. The call to marriage seems to be brushed off, you know, grow up a little bit and see how you feel in a few years. But the very thought of the possibility of a vocation immediately brings up questions of what orders one might consider and seeming rapturous joy from the person whose advice is sought. A five-year-old child might enjoy re-enacting a Mass or playing nun, and some people take this as an absolute sign that the child will enter religious life. That may or may not be, as the child needs to grow up and find out where God wants him or her to be.
The long and short of this whole rant is that vocations need to be seen as equals. As St. Paul has said, there are many parts, but one body. No one part is superior or inferior to the other, so why don’t we start showing that kind of equal respect to those called to religious or married life?

 

[remjsmom76]

I have to say that a lot of it has to do with the parents. Not so much them not GOING to church but actually supporting them in there choice.

For example. My husband told his parents at the age of 16 he was thinking of becoming a priest. HIS DAD FLIPPED!!! My dh did all he could to be good, live well, and his dad would attack him. Tell him he was acting like he was better than everyone…stupid things. Then he met me. I think his dad encouraged him to go “after me” I was his first girlfriend…everything to be exact. Well, Im glad he didnt become a priest, I wouldnt have my beautiful girls right now. My husband and I are very active in our churc community.

Still I think it has to do with the support parents give out. I know that If I had just ONE SON…I might flip out at him saying he wanted to be a priest. BUT if I had more than one son…I dont see anything wrong with one of my sons becoming a preist. I think that has another thing to do with it. FATHERS, esp the hispanic genre, ARE A PROUD RACE! They want STRAPING YOUNG LADS!! The MY SON IS THE MAN…type person. So in turn they want that son to produce more sons. At least thats how I was raised…being a hispanic woman, I have more male cousins that I do female cousins. It was expected of my cousins to marry and have families.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I understand where St. Paul is coming from, and I know that Jesus himself said something similar in the Gospels. Everybody should be encouraged to move towards and thrive in the vocation called to, my problem is just the “favoritism” I see extended towards religious life. In no way do I denigrate that vocation or see it as inferior, as there is no such thing as an inferior vocation, but like zaramarie81 and I have observed, matrimony seems to be seen as less holy, or for everybody else who isn’t, perhaps, the “cream of the crop” when it comes to piety.

I’m wondering if the problem that some people may have with the theology of vocation is with the nuance of words. In today’s world the word equality means equal in dignity, whereas in theology it has two different meanings. One is equal in dignity, which is true of all of God’s children. All are equal in dignity as sons and daughters of the Father.

The other meaning that equal has in theology is equal in degree. That is not the case with callings. The Church divides callings into four categories: 1) the call to Holy Orders, 2) the call to religious life (consecrated life), 3) the call to Marriage, and 4) the call to the single life.

In Church doctrine, there is a difference in degrees of intimacy with Christ between the four vocations. The highest form of intimacy with Christ is found in the consecrated life, also known as the vowed life or the religious life. The vowed religious enters into the most intimate convenant or relationship with Christ, because he or she voluntarilly surrenders all of his/her natural rights as a person through the profession of vows.

The call to Holy Orders, which is the call to the diaconate, the priesthood and the episcopal state is not a call to a concecrated life. The ordained man does not make any kind of vows, unless he happens to be called to both: a priest and a brother. We call these men religious priests. But these are a minority among priests. Most priests are not religious or members of religious life. They are secular men. They promise to obey a bishop in matters regarding their work and their assignment. But they have not obligation to obey a bishop or any superior in matters that concern their relationship with Christ. No one can tell them what they can own, when and how to pray, what to wear, where they can go or whom they can see or speak to, or what they can own or not own. They have no vow of poverty. Like any other secular man, they retain their natural right to self-determination, to receive compensation for their work, to hold on to personal property and they keep their natural right to have relationships with whomever they wish. They do not live in a community to which they are bound and which replaces the biological family. The role of the ordained is to proclaim the Gospel through preaching, to bring God’s grace to his people through the sacraments, and to sanctify God’s people through the power to bless. To be free to do these things, the man who is not married, makes a PROMISE, not a vow, of celibacy.

The married person is called by Christ to be a sign, a living witness of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Therefore, two people make a covenant of love that we call marriage. They love each other as Christ and the Church love each other. But the married person keeps his freedom to make choices, to bear children and raise a family, to earn from his work, to acquire property as an individual, as a couple and as a family. In the marriage covenant the degree of obedience is not the same as it is in the religious life. Whereas the religious submits to others as his superior. The term superior is very literal. It means just what it says. You are subordinate. You do not have free will, nor the right to choose. When you join a religious order, you do not choose your spiritual values. You submit to the values established by the founder and your vision and mission in life has to be bent and formed to accommodate to that of the founder. This does not happen in marriage. In marriage, the vision and mission of a couple is shared and one partner molds the other.

As you can see, the degree of intensity in the relationship with Christ is different between the religious life, Holy Orders and Marriage. Therefore, the Church has built a doctrine around this experience. The Church did not decide that the call to the consecrated life is more intimate covenant than other roles and ways of life. These evolved naturally through revelation.

While the married person, the religious and the priest are equally sons and daughters of the Father, they do not live in the same degree of intimacy with Christ. None of these ways of lfie are guarrantees that a person is going to heaven. You go to heaven if you are faithful to the covenant into which you have entered, not because you become one or the other. A bad priest and a good husband are not match and are not equal in holiness. But the lifestyles of the three are very different, they range in degrees of intimacy of with Christ the greatest form of intimacy is found in the consecrated life. However, the Church cannot stand without the ordained and without parents who give birth to children who will become religious or priests.

What has happened in the Catholic Church in America is that it has been influence very much by Protestantism. It has placed the priest on a pedestal to the exclusion of religious brothers or sisters and married men and women. This is because we Americans tend to be very utilitarian. We value people by what they produce. Since the priest is the only one who can consecrate the Eucharist and who can forgive sins, we have developed an idea that a priest is somehow called to be closer to Christ than anyone else, not true. I don’t know if this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

I think that in the old days, ie. pre-Vat II, sisters were very much put onto pedestals, and the consecrated life , along with the priesthood, was definitely considered superior, more desirable, and a surer way of getting into heaven. Women often entered religious life to ‘save their souls’ and families were very proud to have priests and sisters in the family. Vat II ended this with the reminder that *all *are called to holiness and that the religious state was no more special than the married state. This was a big surprise to a lot of sisters and, as many of them had been living very difficult lives, was one of the factors in the big exodus. Whether all of this was theologically correct I cannot say, but it was definitely believed that religious and priests were called to a superior existence.