What is The Problem With Attracting Vocations Today?

[JReducation]

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.

Bold is mine

Actually, Vatican II did not say this. It still held religious life “in the highest esteem”. What Vatican II said was that all are called to holiness. But it maintained that the consecrated life is the perfection of charity. For that reason the Council dedicated an entire document just to religious life.

It must be understood that even though religious life, not the priesthood, religious life is considered the perfection of charity, that does not mean that others cannot achieve perfect charity or that every religious achieves it. It simply means that religious life makes the perfection of charity much easier; therefore, it should be the lifestyle of choice.

The reason that the priesthood is not part of this is that it is not a way of life. The priesthood and marriage are sacraments, not ways of life. The Church separates lifestyles into two categories: secular and religious. Most priests and all married people are secular. Some priests are religious, but they are a minority among priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[albertziggy]

Bold is mine

Actually, Vatican II did not say this. It still held religious life “in the highest esteem”. What Vatican II said was that all are called to holiness. But it maintained that the consecrated life is the perfection of charity. For that reason the Council dedicated an entire document just to religious life.

It must be understood that even though religious life, not the priesthood, religious life is considered the perfection of charity, that does not mean that others cannot achieve perfect charity or that every religious achieves it. It simply means that religious life makes the perfection of charity much easier; therefore, it should be the lifestyle of choice.

The reason that the priesthood is not part of this is that it is not a way of life. The priesthood and marriage are sacraments, not ways of life. The Church separates lifestyles into two categories: secular and religious. Most priests and all married people are secular. Some priests are religious, but they are a minority among priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

For a secular priest or married person’s lifestyle to be held in the ‘same esteem’ as that of a religious, he can enter a Secular Order (that is, if he is called to be one).

If a person enters a Secular Order, his profession changes his lifestyle to equal that of a religious.

albertziggy

 

[JReducation]

For a secular priest or married person’s lifestyle to be held in the ‘same esteem’ as that of a religious, he can enter a Secular Order (that is, if he is called to be one).

If a person enters a Secular Order, his profession changes his lifestyle to equal that of a religious.

albertziggy

That’s because secular orders are part of a religious family and have a long established religious tradition and discipline. A secular order takes the mission and vision of its religious family into the secular world; but it retains its lifestyle.

Fraternallly,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[climer97007]

What’s the problem with young people and religious vocations today? Even this thread, which discusses vocations, moves very slowly with fewer views than the other threads.

I think it is two major factors. One factor is the orthodoxy of the Seminary. If you have a very liberal or unorthodox seminary (meaning unholy) then by its very nature, it will not be attractive to good vocations. Moths are attracted to light, and the true light of Christ needs to be alive, present and taught at the seminary to attract vocations.

Another factor is like the first. Holy orthodox families. I don’t mean perfect families, rather, families who strive in love toward perfection in Christ. This means a family that is still integrated with both biological parents. It means homes which look catholic, have pictures of the holy family, or statues of Christ, or Mary, or the Saints.

And then homes where prayer and intimacy with God is more than a Sunday mass event, but, a way of family life, where foregiveness is a reality, where love is more than physical passion or romance and the sacrifices of the parents are present to the children, where the children know that faith takes sacrifice, that love takes sacrifice, that there is joy in service, and where true holiness is nurtured and honored.

And a Parish priest and Bishop who are good examples and who are attractive in their teaching, in their actions, in their service at the altar, in their devotion to prayer, in their sacrificial love for the members of their parish family. In such a family, it is not a giant leap to consider the Priesthood, or the Sisterhood. Indeed, the super natural life is normal for such families.

After reading this, just think for a moment of the culture we have in this country… Watch a couple hours of TV and compare. Spend 30 minutes on Facebook, Myspace, Read the News Headlines, etc… It says a lot…

Gene

 

[JReducation]

I think it is two major factors. One factor is the orthodoxy of the Seminary. If you have a very liberal or unorthodox seminary (meaning unholy) then by its very nature, it will not be attractive to good vocations. Moths are attracted to light, and the true light of Christ needs to be alive, present and taught at the seminary to attract vocations.

Another factor is like the first. Holy orthodox families. I don’t mean perfect families, rather, families who strive in love toward perfection in Christ. This means a family that is still integrated with both biological parents. It means homes which look catholic, have pictures of the holy family, or statues of Christ, or Mary, or the Saints.

And then homes where prayer and intimacy with God is more than a Sunday mass event, but, a way of family life, where foregiveness is a reality, where love is more than physical passion or romance and the sacrifices of the parents are present to the children, where the children know that faith takes sacrifice, that love takes sacrifice, that there is joy in service, and where true holiness is nurtured and honored.

And a Parish priest and Bishop who are good examples and who are attractive in their teaching, in their actions, in their service at the altar, in their devotion to prayer, in their sacrificial love for the members of their parish family. In such a family, it is not a giant leap to consider the Priesthood, or the Sisterhood. Indeed, the super natural life is normal for such families.

After reading this, just think for a moment of the culture we have in this country… Watch a couple hours of TV and compare. Spend 30 minutes on Facebook, Myspace, Read the News Headlines, etc… It says a lot…

Gene

I believe that what you have said about family life is very true. But with that said, the picture is not as bleak as many people think. There is a marked shortage of priests. However, there is a boom of brothers coming along. The number of religious communities of brothers is increasing exponentially. We are seeing the largest number since the 1960s. Men are responding to the call to religious lives in large numbers. We Catholics have to show gratitude and joy for these young men, some not so young, who are responding to this call.

We have more brothers today in contemplative life, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, street ministry, communications, AIDS ministry, pregnancy centers, theologians, spiritual directors, pastoral counselors, youth ministers, among the elderly and among the poorest of the poor. We did not have these brothers before. Most of the men that we had entering religious life were teaching brothers or monastic. Monasteries are getting more brothers, but not apostolic congregations among the poor are on the rise. Old ones are recovering and new ones are being founded. The fastest growing groups are Franciscan, Missionaries of the Poor, Missionaries of Charity, and Benedictines.

Many people get a little scared because we normally don’t see these men in parishes. They are not destined for parish work. That’s not where the Holy Spirit is calling them to be. He’s calling more men to be on the streets and in enclosures. It seems that this is the age of the two poles: the monastic and the mendicant. I compare it to the reform of the 13th century. The Church saw a springtime of mendicants being born and a low number of priests. The tide turned after the French Revolution. We have to do our part to promote vocations, but at the same time, we must also thank the Holy Spirit for the gifts that he is currently giving to the Church in these wonderful men who are making the presence of Christ the first-born among many brothers and sisters felt among the poor and the forgotten members of the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[plato3]

Well, I think we all proved the OP of this thread wrong, because he certainly got alot of responses and views in a short amount of time on one of the quieter forums here at CAF, yet he himself hasn’t returned yet or given us any of his feedback?

Have really been shocked over all of the very thoughtful answers to my post.Your answers should be required reading by vocation directors. I did not want to break in and put any spin on these very well stated points, so I did not respond.I can only speak with confidence about my own vocation as a permanent deacon. As a cradle Catholic, I had the usual bumpy ride of being very lax in my faith, as a young person. While doing non-religious volunteer work at a Catholic hospital, my wife and I were approached by a Sister who asked us to help her with religious services. She trained us to bring the Eucharist to the patients and listen to their needs. We also assisted in the hospital Mass as lectors. We adopted the Franciscan spirituality and I was professed in the Secular Order. Meanwhile, the need arose for help in my own parish. At this time, there was no deacon program. After more than 10 years of ministry, the program started and my parish made it known they were calling me to discern this vocation. After prayer, discernment and seven years of study, I was ordained a deacon. I am now a parish deacon and do prison ministry. In my case, there was an invitation, a chance to become involved in many phases of ministry, and a call by my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[zaramarie81]

Bold is mine

Actually, Vatican II did not say this. It still held religious life “in the highest esteem”. What Vatican II said was that all are called to holiness. But it maintained that the consecrated life is the perfection of charity. For that reason the Council dedicated an entire document just to religious life.

It must be understood that even though religious life, not the priesthood, religious life is considered the perfection of charity, that does not mean that others cannot achieve perfect charity or that every religious achieves it. It simply means that religious life makes the perfection of charity much easier; therefore, it should be the lifestyle of choice.

The reason that the priesthood is not part of this is that it is not a way of life. The priesthood and marriage are sacraments, not ways of life. The Church separates lifestyles into two categories: secular and religious. Most priests and all married people are secular. Some priests are religious, but they are a minority among priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I guess I don’t see the productivity in saying one is “better.” When you’ve seen up close the incredible sacrifices a mother makes for her child or a father for his family (or a priest for his congregation… which is HUGE given that many priests do not enjoy the community of religious life so their existences can be quite lonely), it seems almost silly to say that one charity is “higher.” In fact, may families are answering the call now to adoption, so it’s not even biology that is “motivating” them but pure love and charity.

It seems to me that if the Church really insists that the religious life is the “higher calling” they have downplayed it a lot, and it was more emphasized pre-Vatican II. Also, it’s my understanding that the Sacraments are our primary ways of connecting with God and growing in holiness, so I am not sure if I understand why two Sacraments: the priesthood and matrimony, would be categorized as “less charitable” or lower than religious life.

Also, I think what many have commented on here is not even so much the Church teachings but on the spin that’s put on them… the spin that religious life is for Saints and holy people and the secular life is for just “average” Catholics. That is what rubs us the wrong way and is very unfair and disheartening… and that erroneous spin has certainly been widespread in different eras of the Church.

It’s like a father sitting his two children down and saying to the first, “I am proud of you, your life is good.” Then turning to the second and saying, “I am more proud of you, your life is better/higher/ etc.” Kind of yucky, don’t you think?

I think God looks on his children and sees our “highest” callings as the ones HE has given us, whichever vocation that is. And that is what’s most important.

Religious life is special and unique and it’s my understanding that it points to the relationships we’ll have in heaven or after the Second Coming. It’s a beautiful thing but married life is also the first vocation, imitates Trinitarian love, and is the foundation of society and the Church. Neither is “better”… each serves a unique purpose.

Also I am a bit confused as to the distinctions you are making with religious life and secular… priests make a vow of celibacy and that was your primary focus in your first response. Now you’ve switched to referring to priests as “secular” and not included in “religious life.” Which is it? Is it celibacy that is “highest” or religious life that is “highest”? B/c St. Paul was referring to celibacy.

 

[SCGiants]

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?

I agree - all parts are equal. This means also anyone who is called into Catholicism at any age. This means people who were terrible sinners before they came around also. Does it make a person less of a good Catholic - or less of a great candidate to be a priest - deacon - religious - nun because they were a sinner for 20 - 30 yrs?
It is a good thing that Jesus wasn’t as picky and as most all I encountered in Catholicism are. Thank Jesus that he didn’t view the apostles or St. Paul as not good enough because of their past sins and thank Jesus that there wasn’t all of these prerequisites of good health - no debt etc before they were allowed to preach etc.
To me from my view there is a lot of similarities between the Pharisees and Catholics who are in charge of saying who is in and who is out as far as vocations are concerned. Where is the humility in allowing just this type of person - or just that type? That is judging pure and simple and then passing it off as “it just isn’t where Jesus is calling you” - …and that reminds me of the pre-reformation times of having to buy your indulgences because “we said so in the name of Jesus in all of our authority - although we want you to think we are just so humble and poor” - yea right. I also don’t see where it is good to be alone and not DO and where “just being” is better. Where is that in our teaching? Jesus already paid the price for our sin we certainly don’t need men to do penance for those who don’t. We do however need men to be priests to “do”. Although I seriously appreciate the thinking behind that why wasn’t Jesus’ sacrifice enough for that? Won’t each man be judged on his own actions anyway? Did Jesus say that we can suffer and that will save others? The greatest love is to what? Giving ones life for another? Giving is a action word - as in DO - as in be a priest - or be a religious that does something in the community. Other than the humility how is begging for food or clothes good? How is that helping another? The streets here are filled with bums who do that daily and I promise you that they are not holy because they refuse to be obedient to a boss - because they refuse to want to listen to people who they view as completely different than themselves, That’s not humility when your doing something you want to do. Humility to me is getting up - going to work for someone who laughs at you for being a Catholic - or believing in God at all. Humility is knowing that you have been through hell and pulled out just by the grace of Jesus - and then listen to a priest who hasn’t experienced the worst in the world tell you by his experience and limited teaching that he cannot absolve you of a sin you committed when you were living in sin 12 years ago and that you cannot undo without causing another sin. I just don’t see how anything other than getting out there and doing something is what Jesus wanted. Prayer is something all of us should do - as is charity. So how are these communities better than the guy or woman who works all day, then prays, takes care of home duties and goes to church, Bible study, and helps volunteer in the church? How is locking yourself in a closed community with no belongings better? That’s escaping the real world who desperately needs people to take ACTION to help get morals and proper character back.

 

[LoyalViews]

I find that the more traditional orders and congregations have more vocations than other more “liberal” ones. Most of the religious Sisters that do not wear habits are declining, but look at the traditional Nuns and Sisters that do wear habits – just look at their numbers! The Sisters of Life, St. Jude Domincans, Sisters Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus (ICTKSP), Sisters Adorers of the Precious Blood, Sisters of St. Benedict Centre (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which were founded by Feeney, but are not “Feeneyites”)
And the Monks! The Downside Abbey! The Jesuits are on the decline … why? They are becoming too progressive. The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Transalpine Redemptorists…have many vocations. And for the Brothers … the Lasallian Brothers, the Mercy Brothers, and so on.

 

[zaramarie81]

There are many other much viewed threads similar to yours. Do a search and see what others have had to say.

Recently I was thinking about how differently men and women view life because of recent socio/economic changes.
In the past, men might have viewed religious life as a means of be taken care of similar to the way some men view marriage to a super career woman as a means of economic security. Today men can be married – or not (have responsibility free sex) with the added advantage of additional income and economic security. Why would a man seeking economic security choose to be an over worked religious (and they are especially over worked these days) for the sake of economic security when they can have the same plus sex with a woman. When the balance between safety and security as a religious out weighs the benefits of marriage or living with a woman then maybe a certain percentage of men will turn to religious vocation again. I’m not saying all men become religious for this reason – I believe some do and will especially as the recession deepens.

I am a proponent of people seeking religious or married life for the right reasons.

my :twocents:

I think your points are interesting but not sure if it’s playing out that way? I think culturally speaking, economics are pretty low on the list of why people marry these days. When couples choose to meld their lives together for financial reasons, it is more often than not in the form of cohabitation, not marriage.

I think culturally we have a very romantic view of marriage, and many are almost afraid to enter into it for fear of having a less than ideal marriage or because they feel like they need to find the perfect romance. I think men who are motivated to marry mostly feel or are seeking to be “in love” (watch “The Bachelor” lol). The men who want to sleep around rarely marry now (why bother? as you pointed out).

I do think it’s important to note that with such advances in medicine, women can reasonably expect healthy pregnancies and babies, which makes married life even more appealing than in the past. We just expect we’ll have cute, clean nurseries and lots of healthy kids and long lives for all… definitely not a luxury all women have had through the centuries. I could see how convents in some eras could be safe havens for women seeking an education or seeking to serve the Lord in ways that married women can now also participate in (to some extent… there are still things religious women can do that married women can’t!).

 

[SCGiants]

Also don’t get me wrong - I just re-read what I wrote and my tone reads pretty attacking and thats not how I meant it. I am just frustrated to be honest. I used to live a life that was pretty bad - been back to the Church for many years now and love my Church as you all do. It is just that it seems to me that here in the US we are in a time of crisis with members, clergy etc. For many reasons and in many ways. Then you get someone like myself who appreciates everything I have because I had nothing - I was down to nothing - no roof over my head (homeless) - no car - no license - no ANYTHING. I was blessed by Jesus and have a completely different life today. I have a lot to offer the Church and the people I believe. I am shunned though because I didn’t have a perfect prissy life. I am more like the people Jesus came to save. Being as it is like that I wonder why the Church who is supposed to be His Bride wants no part of people like me except in the most menial useless manor. I can relate to people who need converting better than any priest that I ever met can and maybe thats because I was one of them. I don’t look down my nose at people that most of you would - even the way they are now. I know not to as I know that if I was able to change ANYONE can. Fr. Corapi has a story similar to mine - except mine was a bit worst. Thats why I can relate to him so well I think. Anyway apologies if I came on to strong. I just believe we are in deep trouble and need more action along with prayer not people hiding away in communities that can do a whole lot of good on the street where the rubber of faith meets the road of trial and evil to overcome. It is easy being a Christian when your surrounded by Christians.

 

[JReducation]

Also, I think what many have commented on here is not even so much the Church teachings but on the spin that’s put on them… the spin that religious life is for Saints and holy people and the secular life is for just “average” Catholics. That is what rubs us the wrong way and is very unfair and disheartening… and that erroneous spin has certainly been widespread in different eras of the Church.

It is not erroneous. It is part of the doctrine of the Church. You can find it in the CCC and in the Catechism of Trent before that. What the Church says is that those whom God calls into an intimate covenant with him have been given a grace that others are not given. What makes this calling so very special is that it is made to very few. We can see it in the scriptures where Jesus speaks about the master who pays his workers different wages for the same job. When they complain, the master reminds them that they were all paid a just wage, but that those who received more did so out of his mercy. God’s mercy cannot be managed or decided by man. He gives his mercy to whom he wishes and to the degree that he wishes. But it is not based on our merrit. It is based on God’s eternal plan for the salvation of humanity.

Why is that? Because the sacraments are not ways of life. They are signs that give grace. But the person who receives the sacraments is not bound to a particular way of life. He shapes his/her life as he/she goes along according to his will and needs. The religious gives up his needs and will. Here is where the phrase “perfection of charity” enters the equation. There is no charity greater than giving up one’s rights to enter into a relationship where everything is about giving.

We do not compare the sacrifice of a mother with that of a religious, because the issue is not about who makes more sacrifices or whose life is more challenging. What makes one way of life more special to the Church is how God’s mercy is revealed. While spouses and diocesan priests do struggle with loneliness or family issues, here you have Christ calling a select few and handing them a way of life that, if lived correctly, will have no loneliness and none of the issues that are part of marriage. Yet, despite the absence of these great sacrifices, Christ promises them that if they obey their rule and their founders, they will have eternal life. The Church publicly guarrantees this, which she does not do at ordination or at marriage. She is saying that here we have Christ calling certain men and women to a way of life that is a sure path to holiness and that it’s requires nothing more than obedience, poverty and consecrated chastity.

Also I am a bit confused as to the distinctions you are making with religious life and secular… priests make a vow of celibacy and that was your primary focus in your first response. Now you’ve switched to referring to priests as “secular” and not included in “religious life.” Which is it? Is it celibacy that is “highest” or religious life that is “highest”? B/c St. Paul was referring to celibacy.

I can see where the confusion exists. Consecrated celibacy is not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. When a single man is ordained a deacon he makes a simple promise of celibacy, not a vow of celibacy. They are different. The promise of celibacy is a promise not to marry. But it does not carry with it the obligations of a vow of consecrated celibacy. Only religious make such a vow, not secular deacons, priests, or bishops.

Consecrated celibacy is a covenant between the individual and his brothers. He surrenders his natural right to marriage and the fruits of marriage and joins a family of brothers that replaces the biological family that he would have if he were married. It also replaces the biological family from which he comes.

A diocesan or secular cleric does not enter into a covenant relationship with a family of brothers, nor does he surrender his membership in his natural family. He continues to be a part of his family. He surrenders his right to marriage and its fruits, but does not replace it with a religious family in a community with the same vision and mission. In making a vow of chastity, the religious not only gives us all rights to a biological spouse and family, but he takes it to the next level. He trades in his entire worldview for the worldview of his brothers, which has been handed down to them in the rule of the religious institute. In essence, he vows not only to remain celibate, but to be one with his brothers.

It is this act of self-denial of one’s natural rights and inclinations that the Church has termed the perfection of charity. Because there is no greater love than to cease to be oneself, in order to become one with the Incarnate Christ governed by others, especially by the founder. It is this total abandonment of our identity to take on a new identity that the Church admires as a living sign of perfect love. In perfect love, we cease to be so that Christ may be or as St. Paul said, “not I that lives, but Christ who lives in me.”

It is this kind of submission that is attracting thousands of men to the religious life today. There are some priests whom Christ calls to be religious as well as priests. They enter the religious life and become religious brothers, but they retain their priestly ministry. However, since they are religious, they can only exercise their priestly ministry according to the wishes of their brothers. The Superior speaks for the brothers. The Church believes that Christ speaks through the community, which the Superior serves and represents. Priests who join religious orders are often referred to as regular priests or religious priests. Regular because they follow a regula (rule of life) or religious (because they profess the three evangelical counsels).

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

*Dear Br. Jr,

With what you said here:*

It is this act of self-denial of one’s natural rights and inclinations that the Church has termed the perfection of charity. Because there is no greater love than to cease to be oneself, in order to become one with the Incarnate Christ governed by others, especially by the founder. It is this total abandonment of our identity to take on a new identity that the Church admires as a living sign of perfect love. In perfect love, we cease to be so that Christ may be or as St. Paul said, "not I that lives, but Christ who lives in me

*It has been my understanding that we are all called to strive for and have this form of perfect charity. Regardless of what our vocation may or may not be and the vows that may or may not come with it. In obedience, with humility, with poverty and with chastity.
*

You say here:

What the Church says is that those whom God calls into an intimate covenant with him have been given a grace that others are not given. What makes this calling so very special is that it is made to very few. We can see it in the scriptures where Jesus speaks about the master who pays his workers different wages for the same job. When they complain, the master reminds them that they were all paid a just wage, but that those who received more did so out of his mercy. God’s mercy cannot be managed or decided by man. He gives his mercy to whom he wishes and to the degree that he wishes. But it is not based on our merrit. It is based on God’s eternal plan for the salvation of humanity.

*Are you saying that priests, married couples or a single person can not be called to have this intimate covenant with God? It has been my understanding that the church calls all of us to have an intimate covenant with Him. Am I wrong to believe this? Like you said here God’s mercy cannot be managed or decided by man. He gives His mercy to whom He wishes so why would we ever believe that He would limit this intimate covenant to just religious?

I pray that you can see my confusion and I apologize if I seem to be plaguing you with this question, but it really has always made me wonder…

 

[JReducation]

*Dear Br. Jr,

With what you said here:*

*It has been my understanding that we are all called to strive for and have this form of perfect charity. Regardless of what our vocation may or may not be and the vows that may or may not come with it. In obedience, with humility, with poverty and with chastity.
*

You say here:

*Are you saying that priests, married couples or a single person can not be called to have this intimate covenant with God? It has been my understanding that the church calls all of us to have an intimate covenant with Him. Am I wrong to believe this? Like you said here God’s mercy cannot be managed or decided by man. He gives His mercy to whom He wishes so why would we ever believe that He would limit this intimate covenant to just religious?

I pray that you can see my confusion and I apologize if I seem to be plaguing you with this question, but it really has always made me wonder…

No no no. Pleaase don’t anyone think that asking questions is annoying or plaguing. It’s one of my ministries, to teach.

The answer to both of Simple Soul’s points is the same. The response is “DEGREE”.

1. All are called to die to themselves so that Christ may live, rather than us, as St. Paul says. But not all are called to do so to the same degree. There are two states in the Church, only two: secular and religious. Ordained men can be either secular or religious. Married persons can only be secular.

Now, the degree to which Christ calls relgious to die to self is much more intense, focussed, structured, asecetic, than the degree to which he calls secular men and women. As we have already explained. Just the very idea that a religious man or women lays aside his identity, feelings, opinions, values and worldview to adopt those of the founder of his/her community is different and much more profound than what a secular man or woman is asked to do or what is proper for a secular man or woman to do.

The Church has observed, since the dyas of the Apostles that those who consecrated themselves to the cenobitic and heremetical life styles live much more intense the literal imitation of Christ than those who remained in the secular state. One practical reason is obedience. Those in the secular state, be they ordained or married, do not surrender their will to the will of another. Another difference in degree is poverty. A married person and a secular cleric cannot give up the right to ownership, the right to inherit, the right to get paid, the right to own his idea, the right to use his talents for his benefit and that of his family, the right to make plans for the future and so forth. The religious surrenders those rights when he or she makes the vow of obedience. You have a greater degree of identification with Christ.

1. We are all called to an intimate covenant with Christ, but time and Tradition have revealed to us that the degree and intensity of the covenant between religious and Christ go further than the degree and intensity of the marreid and ordained secular man. This is where celibacy enters the picture. The religious not only surrenders the right to marriage and family, but assumes a new family. When he or she becomes a Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, Carmelite, etc, he is not just a member of a group that follows the same rules. He is a brother to brothers given to him by the Holy Spirit.

As the founders told the religious, a religious must love his brothers according to the Spirit much more so than a man loves his brothers according to the flesh; because the brothers according to the flesh did not choose you nor did you choose them. But you hae chosen your spiritual brothers and they chose you and together you have formed a bond between you, just like the bond between Christ and the Apostles. Therefore, this bond is never to be broken for any unjust reason. We can see here is a degree of familial ties that is deeper than biological tamilial ties.

Let us also remember, that just because people have familial ties, biological or spiritual, it does not mean that they love as they should. What is holy is the familial ties, biological or spiritual. The persons invovolved can sometimes be very nasty and ugly

Anyway, the answer to the comments above is that we are all called to put on Christ, but not all are called to do so to the same degree. The evidence goes back to the early Church. There were disciples and apostles. There were the seculars and the dessert fathers and mothers. The Church always distinguished between the two ways of life. Jesus carried it over from Judaism when he separated the apostles from the disciples. The Apostles did the same when they separated the widows, consecrated virgins and eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom from others. The disciples of the apostles did the same when they separated the desert fathers and mothers from the secular Christians of the second generation.

Tradition has revealed to the Church that there are to ways of life and they are both called to put on Christ, but not to the same degree.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

No no no. Pleaase don’t anyone think that asking questions is annoying or plaguing. It’s one of my ministries, to teach.

The answer to both of Simple Soul’s points is the same. The response is “DEGREE”.

1. All are called to die to themselves so that Christ may live, rather than us, as St. Paul says. But not all are called to do so to the same degree. There are two states in the Church, only two: secular and religious. Ordained men can be either secular or religious. Married persons can only be secular.

Now, the degree to which Christ calls relgious to die to self is much more intense, focussed, structured, asecetic, than the degree to which he calls secular men and women. As we have already explained. Just the very idea that a religious man or women lays aside his identity, feelings, opinions, values and worldview to adopt those of the founder of his/her community is different and much more profound than what a secular man or woman is asked to do or what is proper for a secular man or woman to do.

The Church has observed, since the dyas of the Apostles that those who consecrated themselves to the cenobitic and heremetical life styles live much more intense the literal imitation of Christ than those who remained in the secular state. One practical reason is obedience. Those in the secular state, be they ordained or married, do not surrender their will to the will of another. Another difference in degree is poverty. A married person and a secular cleric cannot give up the right to ownership, the right to inherit, the right to get paid, the right to own his idea, the right to use his talents for his benefit and that of his family, the right to make plans for the future and so forth. The religious surrenders those rights when he or she makes the vow of obedience. You have a greater degree of identification with Christ.

1. We are all called to an intimate covenant with Christ, but time and Tradition have revealed to us that the degree and intensity of the covenant between religious and Christ go further than the degree and intensity of the marreid and ordained secular man. This is where celibacy enters the picture. The religious not only surrenders the right to marriage and family, but assumes a new family. When he or she becomes a Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, Carmelite, etc, he is not just a member of a group that follows the same rules. He is a brother to brothers given to him by the Holy Spirit.

As the founders told the religious, a religious must love his brothers according to the Spirit much more so than a man loves his brothers according to the flesh; because the brothers according to the flesh did not choose you nor did you choose them. But you hae chosen your spiritual brothers and they chose you and together you have formed a bond between you, just like the bond between Christ and the Apostles. Therefore, this bond is never to be broken for any unjust reason. We can see here is a degree of familial ties that is deeper than biological tamilial ties.

Let us also remember, that just because people have familial ties, biological or spiritual, it does not mean that they love as they should. What is holy is the familial ties, biological or spiritual. The persons invovolved can sometimes be very nasty and ugly

Anyway, the answer to the comments above is that we are all called to put on Christ, but not all are called to do so to the same degree. The evidence goes back to the early Church. There were disciples and apostles. There were the seculars and the dessert fathers and mothers. The Church always distinguished between the two ways of life. Jesus carried it over from Judaism when he separated the apostles from the disciples. The Apostles did the same when they separated the widows, consecrated virgins and eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom from others. The disciples of the apostles did the same when they separated the desert fathers and mothers from the secular Christians of the second generation.

Tradition has revealed to the Church that there are to ways of life and they are both called to put on Christ, but not to the same degree.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

*Dear Br. Jr,

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing these thoughts. I believe I understood this at one time but somehow over the years forgot. I did so need to hear/read these words again.

 

[jimcav]

Have really been shocked over all of the very thoughtful answers to my post.Your answers should be required reading by vocation directors. I did not want to break in and put any spin on these very well stated points, so I did not respond.I can only speak with confidence about my own vocation as a permanent deacon. As a cradle Catholic, I had the usual bumpy ride of being very lax in my faith, as a young person. While doing non-religious volunteer work at a Catholic hospital, my wife and I were approached by a Sister who asked us to help her with religious services. She trained us to bring the Eucharist to the patients and listen to their needs. We also assisted in the hospital Mass as lectors. We adopted the Franciscan spirituality and I was professed in the Secular Order. Meanwhile, the need arose for help in my own parish. At this time, there was no deacon program. After more than 10 years of ministry, the program started and my parish made it known they were calling me to discern this vocation. After prayer, discernment and seven years of study, I was ordained a deacon. I am now a parish deacon and do prison ministry. In my case, there was an invitation, a chance to become involved in many phases of ministry, and a call by my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am so glad you returned to see your thread!

I’m not to surprised by the number of posts here, because the matter of vocations is of serious concern to all Catholics. It might actually be the most serious matter facing the Church today. So I expected that it would draw many comments and suggestions. I am surprised however, as you were, at the thoughtfullness, the sound suggestions presented and well spoken posts I have read here and I agree, that this thread should be required reading by vocations directors. But this problem does not begin and end with them, it is a problem that all Catholics must take up and solve.

One good thing I do see is the number of older people willing to answer their calling to a vocation that they did not respond to when they were younger, such as yourself. Our poor catechesis, lax Catholic parenting and the changes that Vat. II brought to the Church probably played the major part in that problem. But now that we are older and wiser we are returning in large numbers and are willing to do our part. Todays problem of lack of vocations are more likely to be smaller families, broken families and non-Church going families. Different symptoms - same problem!

Congatulations on your ordination to permanent deacon!

 

[JReducation]

I’m wondering if part of the problem that is happening today is not only that the world has changed, which it has, but also the fact that the focus of religious life has also changed. For those of us who are older, we grew up in a world where our parishes were staffed by priests and our schools were staffed by sisters or brothers. Everyone had a place.

Along came Vatican II and demands that religious return to the vision and mission of their founders. This means that we’re not going to find too many priests who are religious in parishes or too many religious brothers and sisters there either. Therefore, we don’t get to see them close up every day of the week as we did when we were kids. Let’s face it, how many of us spend our time at the homeless shelter, a pregnancy center, on the streets in the slums, in a soup kitchen or an oratory? Those are not common places where the lay person usually hangs out, unless he volunteers to serve alongside these religious.

That leaves secular priests in parishes. Having to fill in the gaps left open by the departure of religious from parishes and Catholic schools, many secular priests that belong to a diocese find themselves spread very thin. They run the parish and sometimes are the director of the parish school, even if someone else is the principal. They are responsible for every detail that is involved in parish ministry. These men spend so much time in administrative work that what they do does not appear very attractive to many men.

In the meantime, the religious men and women who are in the apostolate of their religious institutes are not very visible to the average person in the pew. Therefore, they are not going to attract the large numbers of the past. They don’t have the exposure. But that’s the price you have to pay if you want to be faithful to the founder. You will have to deal with smaller numbers.

Finally, for many young men, the idea of joining a religious order to be a religious, wait until you make perpetual vows before you can be ordained, only if the brothers in your community belief that Christ is calling you to be ordained, is not very attractive to many men. Many men want to join a religious order to a Dominican priest, Franciscan priest, Carmelite priest, and so forth. But these orders do not recruit that way. They are more interested in whether or not you have a call to live according to the rule and the spirit of the order, not whether you are called to be a priest. That will take care of itself down the road, if the superior calls you forward to Holy Orders. And if he does not, then you are still called to the consecrated life of the friar, monk or mendicant. In a very real sense, the return to the roots that male religious communities have undergone is also a step into the ambivalence. Nothing is guaranteed. Each day is new and your dreams and idea of how you would serve Christ and the Church may not be what Christ wants. Soon you will find out what he wants through your brothers.

Let’s face it. This kind of life is very hard. If you are called to be a priest in a diocese, you will be alone much of the time. You will be spread very thin. If you join a religious institute, you will have to remember that you vision of your life is not always compatible with the vision that Christ will reveal through the community and you’ll have to make a choice: follow what you hear or leave and look elsewhere. Either choice requires the courage to trust God and let him have fun in our lives.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

I find that the more traditional orders and congregations have more vocations than other more “liberal” ones. Most of the religious Sisters that do not wear habits are declining, but look at the traditional Nuns and Sisters that do wear habits – just look at their numbers! The Sisters of Life, St. Jude Domincans, Sisters Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus (ICTKSP), Sisters Adorers of the Precious Blood, Sisters of St. Benedict Centre (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which were founded by Feeney, but are not “Feeneyites”)
And the Monks! The Downside Abbey! The Jesuits are on the decline … why? They are becoming too progressive. The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Transalpine Redemptorists…have many vocations. And for the Brothers … the Lasallian Brothers, the Mercy Brothers, and so on.

You are generalizing somewhat. Regarding women’s institutes in the US, there are 3 rapidly growing orders of women in the US: Nashville Dominicans, Ann Arbor Dominicans and the Servants of the Lord and Virgin of Matara. Maybe also the Salesian sisters. Others are professing (final profession) 1-2/year on average, despite large novitiates. The Sisters of Life professed 2 last year, Carmelites of the SH of LA -one, Franciscans of the Renewal–one. These numbers may change, may reflect only a statistical glitch. The Dominican nuns of St. Jude are barely hanging on. Sister Adorers of the Royal Heart aren’t in the US yet. I couldn’t find any recent stats on the Slaves, but in 2005 they had 6 sisters and 4 postulants. They are not canonically recognized in their home diocese of Manchester.

 

[JReducation]

You are generalizing somewhat. Regarding women’s institutes in the US, there are 3 rapidly growing orders of women in the US: Nashville Dominicans, Ann Arbor Dominicans and the Servants of the Lord and Virgin of Matara. Maybe also the Salesian sisters. Others are professing (final profession) 1-2/year on average, despite large novitiates. The Sisters of Life professed 2 last year, Carmelites of the SH of LA -one, Franciscans of the Renewal–one. These numbers may change, may reflect only a statistical glitch. The Dominican nuns of St. Jude are barely hanging on. Sister Adorers of the Royal Heart aren’t in the US yet. I couldn’t find any recent stats on the Slaves, but in 2005 they had 6 sisters and 4 postulants. They are not canonically recognized in their home diocese of Manchester.

I think that Mother Agnes, Superior General of the Sisters of Life, said it best. We’re never going to see the large numbers of novices again, not until another cycle. But what we are seeing is very dedicated men and women entering religious life, especially the more traditional communities. Just a clarification, traditional is not the same as traditionalist. The Sisters of Life, Nashville Dominicans, Franciscans of the Renewal, Missionaries of Charity, Missionaries of the Poor, Poor Clares, Little Sisters of the Poor, Franciscan Brothers of Life and others are not traditionalist communities, but are very traditional in terms of following the ancient rules of their respective religious families. I do know that the Missionaries of the Poor professed a very large number of brothers this past year and the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal are doing very well. They are opening friaries in Europe, South America and Africa.

Another FYI, the Jesuits are getting vocations. Someone said that they are not doing well. There is no shortage of Jesuits. They remain the second largest religious society in the Church with 18,000 clerks. The Franciscan family is still holding the first place with 1.7 million men and women. Things are not as hopeless as they seem. It’s just that these communities are no longer seen in the public sector as much as they were.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Royston]

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 .

Not mine.but let thy will be done.come to me those whom are weary I shall give thee rest.ask the father in my name and you shall receive.NOWHERE does the lord say ask the church in my name or ask any one in my name.In the end time people will worship me in sprit, your answer leys withen. GOD BLESS YOU