F
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Ahhh.
OK,let’s first look at the internal difficulty with your question first. We start off with a somewhat inchoate, subjective “call” (they always start off inchoate don’t they?), then you state that the real-world role/institution/what-have-you they choose to “incarnate” that Call doesn’t match up…
Such a clear cut dissonance between internal call and external reality usually doesn’t manifest until the candidate has been living the lifestyle for some time. That is why, for religious orders and seminaries, there is a fair amount of time (4 years for vows, usually at least 5 yrs for ordination) before one is “trapped” in non reversible permanent vows. (In compassion the Church can reverse them actually, don’t ask me how that can be justified
but the compassion is worth noting).Also, a “call” is not a private internal affair that is self-owned. It is the role and duty of the human “callers” to ratify the wisdom of the person joining them to be sure that it is wise and healthy for them to make such a commitment - especially when the potential “vocation” is immature and do not know themselves. In other words the validity of the supposed call is also determined with others. The candidate may well be mistaken in their feeling wrt “the call.” I would accept that religious organisations and the Dioscesan authorities have spectacularly failed “vocations” in this responsibility for the last 50 years. Mind you, I do not believe those authorities themselves (who themselves would have joined up in a very 'sheltered" world before the 1960s) had the insight or maturity needed to wisely carry out that duty.
If the dissonance between the personal “call” and objective means of fulfilling that “call” is quite clear to mature candidates before enlisting … why enlist? Who exactly is “forcing” such a mature person? If you want martyrdom go for it but own it and don’t complain if you overestimated your abilities. God expects us to be wise, not just loving. Conditions can and do get in the way of “calls” and if they cannot be mitigated then the call, regretably, is surely not meant to be fulfilled in this way.
Some might argue why would God want to “call” someone to a way of life they reasonably know they cannot live? If God appeared to me and demanded it then OK - however I do not know of any such cases. I think there are two possible answers:
(i) the call is valid but the Age is not ready for such a “call” and it must sadly be lived out in some other way and I am sure God understands.
(ii) the call was not valid, God does not force us to do what is impossible or will make us burn.
I suppose wisdom is being able to distinguish between the above.
And yes, maybe it is the Church’s fault for not making such a vocation possible any longer. However what is bound on earth by the Pope is bound in heaven - even if its a mistaken policy and no-one wins. But who knows if this policy is really mistaken. Not I.
It doesn’t matter whether one believes the alleged apparitions of Our Lady at Garabandal (1961-1965) but I have always been taken by the obedience of “The Lady” to the public demands of the local Church authority at that time which were clearly meant to curtail the public intentions of that Lady through the four children involved (unlike another famous alleged appartion of later times). Apparantly the four children, in ecstacy before The Lady, were accustomed to being lead by her (with the growing crowds) from the hills into the village church for prayer. Early on the local bishop wanted to put a stop to all the nonsense and commanded that the children were not to be allowed into the church when in “ecstacy.” The apparition consequently never led the children into the church again.
If that truly was Our Lady (the question is still open) then the heavenly obedience to misguided (or even malicious) local, human Church authorities sets us a huge example of what we ourselves are called to do in such cases as you raise.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Celibacy is the only way if you are not married. I don’t know why people have such a weird conception of celibacy in the secular world Actually celibacy is a very free and easy existence, you are not dependent on anyone, nor are they dependent on you. If you are religious it leaves you freer to communicate and do the will of God. If not, you can pursue other interests.
I was married and had a child, and I am very glad of that. However, now I am celibate, and it’s great!
I was married and had a child, and I am very glad of that. However, now I am celibate, and it’s great!
B
bmonk
Guest
What others have said:
When married priests were allowed, there were problems with the priest’s kids inheriting the Church’s property. The diocesan clergy were reformed, generally along more monastic lines, which showed some advantages, especially freedom to minister without the stresses on the family (look at Protestant clergy for some of those issues!), and so it was retained and expanded, but not universally.
The Eastern Rites, under their own Canon Laws, retained married clergy, but not universally. Each diocese/eparchy has it’s own order of monk-priests, for those vowed to celibacy.
In recent years, some Protestant clergy, especially Anglicans, have come over with their parishes, and been allowed to be ordained and serve although married.
Further, there is no obligation to be ordained. These are the conditions–if you can live with them, you can apply for ordination. If not, there are other ways to serve.
All of us find that there are some conditions hard to accept. We do not live in an ideal world, not even ours. We must choose, not within what we would like to be, but what actually exists.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Christine
Good for you.
Can you explain further what you really mean when you say “if you are religious it leaves you free-er to do the will of God.” You make it sound like you were not doing God’s will when you were married?
This is one of the contentious points that gets discussed on this topic. I am not prying into whether or not you were happily married (I have presumed that). If one is happily married why would the rushing and never seeming to have time (in the early stages especially) not be part of doing God’s will? Isn’t that exactly doing God’s will given the vocation of marriage?
F
feed_me
Guest
Btw, thank you for answering my questions. I do have my own questions, and some will shoot up later. I don’t mean to be attack dog on this subject, like you see on the Internet. But I do have my own questions, and I do use all the scripture that is available to back it up. I don’t want my opinion to be the end all, be all opinion on it, but I am trying to figure this stuff out so I can make the best decisions I can, when the time comes. Thank you everybody. If anymore do pop up, I will ask… And remember I will bring scripture too:
R
reylas83
Guest
This is not actually what it says.
What it actually says is the following…
“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Matt 22:30 -New American Standard Bible (©1995)
D
didymus
Guest
Absolutely.
The flip side of your question is would it better never to have been born and possibly damned to Hell for all eternity?
Back to the question at hand; marriage is a vocation just like the religious life and it is an insult to married people to claim that they can’t serve God with an “undivided heart”.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
What? So doesn’t this justify contraception since giving birth is just sending new souls into misery? Doesn’t make sense.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I agree with you. If marriage is such a bad thing, why did Jesus sacramentalize marriage? And celibacy is not.
G
Gaber
Guest
The Catholic contemplative for whom I have the highest regard is married. I have found no others who satisfactorily understand and explain not only her own journey, but clarify much hat was puzzling about St. Teresa of Avila and St., John of the Cross, for example.
She was a Carmelite nun for many years, and acheived her fundamental insights while clostered. Then she decided that going “into the world” was the natural follow throug of what she discovered. And while raising a family she continued to grow spiritually.
Some traditions do recommend a period of cleibacy for no other reason than being able to focus for at time on one’s interior life without distraction. If one is married, that can happen for a day or longer at a retreat. Or just setting some time aside each day for introspective prayer. Many more do that than you might imagine.
And sexuality itself is a phenomenally rich area of spiritual practice, unless you let the Church in the bedroom and make it an excercise in scrupilosity instead of mutual edification. A woman might be as close to a gift of the infinitude God as one can get in terms of the universe engaging you in dancing conversation.
Ultimately it is a choice of how you wish to live. In addition to your own mentality, your spouse will mirrior you every possible kind and level of situation you need for spiritual transformation. Rememer, even Jesus din;t urge slaves to free themselves for their masters, but from their own beliefs. Spiritual awakening is not a matter fo physical circumstance, but of being open to Grace.
Oh, and practice not doing.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Celibacy is indeed better, IF it’s what you are called to, which is different from the chastity that we are all called to.
I have an article that I wrote on this after an encounter with an opponent here on CAF. Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!
I have an article that I wrote on this after an encounter with an opponent here on CAF. Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!
B
bmonk
Guest
This idea seems to draw near Manicheanism and other systems that imply physical existence is evil, that the soul is trapped in the darkness of the material world.
We have to be careful about saying that one life vocation is objectively better or worse than another. If God calls us to live that way, it is for our benefit. It’s when we don’t live our live well, with God, that it becomes evil.
And, as for bringing new souls into misery, that’s true in the long run only if they choose to continue in sin and damnation. We might as well say that, in having children, we are offering them the chance of eternal bliss, which we and God both will for them. How then can it be wrong to provide the best we can for them, offering them the best chance for heaven?
C
Church_Man
Guest
I don’t know that celibacy is “better.” I think it depends on what God calls you to. I went to the Seminary to search out God’s call for me. After a year, I realized that God didn’t call me to become a celibate priest. I knew God called me to marriage and to have kids. 
I left the Seminary, finished up at a Catholic University and worked in Religious Education. Later, I became a Deacon.
When I left the Seminary, I thought that I was turning my back on God. “If only I tried harder, I could be celibate.” Later, I realized that if I had said to God, “Lord, I know that you are calling me to marriage, but I choose to become a priest”, I wouldn’t have been doing God’s will.
I have so much joy! I did what God called me to do. God has blessed my marriage, my ministry, my work, and my family.
“Better” is seeking God’s will for your life and following it!
I left the Seminary, finished up at a Catholic University and worked in Religious Education. Later, I became a Deacon.
When I left the Seminary, I thought that I was turning my back on God. “If only I tried harder, I could be celibate.” Later, I realized that if I had said to God, “Lord, I know that you are calling me to marriage, but I choose to become a priest”, I wouldn’t have been doing God’s will.
I have so much joy! I did what God called me to do. God has blessed my marriage, my ministry, my work, and my family.
“Better” is seeking God’s will for your life and following it!
R
rruais
Guest
One thing that I learned in my career was to test the end points of a proposition. Is celibacy better: test the left tail - everyone is or becomes celibate – doesn’t work – end of the race; test the right tail – no one is celibate – no harm to the world – need to modify a man made rule regarding religious life.
Celibacy is fine for some but not for all. Therefore it cannot be better than non-celibacy else it would be a goal for all resulting in the end.
Celibacy is fine for some but not for all. Therefore it cannot be better than non-celibacy else it would be a goal for all resulting in the end.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Because Jesus said so.
F
fxcc
Guest
Did you know that in the OT, before a priest offered sacrifice in the Temple, he had to go through a whole range of purification rituals (prayers, multiple baths, multiple washing, change of garments, etc…) *and *that part of the routine was *abstention from conjugal relations *with his wife for 3 nights (I think… I could be wrong about the number of nights) before the day of sacrifice? It’s actually detailed in the Book of Exodus or Leviticus (something about the priest “leaving the marital bed”); I’m sorry I can’t remember the exact passage right now, but will try to locate it if anyone really insists. Now read into that stricture whatever worth you want, but remember that it was God’s law, not man’s (or Moses’) concoction.
Christ, our eternal High Priest - the Christ Who always fulfilled the Law perfectly - was celibate. Even more understandably, when it is considered that He is offering the sacrfice of Himself perpetually before the Throne of God. Now imagine if a ministerial priest is to stand in for Him on earth, and offer sacrifice daily, “from the rising of the sun even to its setting” (Mal 1:1), when (per the Mosaic Law, at least) would he be having conjugal relations with a wife?
Scratch the surface of any of the Church’s magnificent Traditions, and you’ll always find some pretty solid foundations for them. This curent hue and cry against celibacy has arisen in the Church directly as a result of the ever-creeping, insidious and opportunistic influence of Protestantism, which does not recognize a real, eternal, and ongoing eucharistic sacrifice. Little wonder then, that Protestants so comprehensively fail to understand the “big deal” with clerical celibacy.
It’s also important to remember that the Catholic *ministerial *Priesthood is a vocation which involves the laying down of one’s life by emptying and spending oneself completely - in persona Christi - for Christ’s (and, by extension, the priest’s) Bride, the Church. No one is forced to join the ministerial priesthood. There are plenty of other ways for Christians to serve God and His Church which are equally noble and indeed, even “sacrificial”.
G
Gaber
Guest
- Status