Why shouldn't there be fewer people called to the religious life?

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’m a little bit concerned with a certain sentiment of both Catholics on this forum and many others at school, church, and whenever place the topic of vocations come up. That sentiment that is there are fewer people in the convents or in the seminary than in the past century and that’s supposed to be a sad thing.

My question is, were there that many people called to religious life in the first place?

I mean let’s face facts. We are not an asexual species. By nature, we have been made by God to reproduce. That’s how we’ve pretty much survived ever since the dawn of civilization. Even St. Paul admitted that those who could not exercise the self-control demanded by religious celibacy, should marry instead. I cannot say I’m naive enough to believe that 90% percent of the human race (me included) are capable of such self-control.

So with that said, why do some Catholics feel saddened by fewer in people in the convents/priesthood when it doesn’t logically add up that there should be more in the first place?

 

[Dtmccameron]

Coming away from you post, I’m of the mind to say that, it may indeed be a good thing that there are fewer Priests (and you’ll pray forgive me if I simply your position to just that portion of your point) as, from this, there might be fewer *bad *priests.

At the same time, it is equally possible that the number of bad priests might swell to such an extent that their debased behaviour overshadows that of their more righteouss counterparts.

Better to not be a priest, than a bad one, as they say.

It is of course, readily apparent a world with a shortage of clergy is one quickly spiraling towards hell in a handbasket of secularism. We need them. Whether or not it is realistic to expect them to be holy, we need holy men and women religious.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Coming away from you post, I’m of the mind to say that, it may indeed be a good thing that there are fewer Priests (and you’ll pray forgive me if I simply your position to just that portion of your point) as, from this, there might be fewer *bad *priests.

Yeah that’s what I’m saying, partly.

It is of course, readily apparent a world with a shortage of clergy is one quickly spiraling towards hell in a handbasket of secularism. We need them. Whether or not it is realistic to expect them to be holy, we need holy men and women religious.

That’s the problem, I want to be realistic here. Can we really say that the great portion of the human race that religious people would desire for the seminary/convent is capable of being holy? No. Somehow miracles of people changing into saints have reduced in frequency since the 1950s. It’s a sad fact, but let’s face it: it’s a FACT. I just wish these people would stop complaining and realize that maybe God is never really calling that many people in the first place.

I’d be worried if they were only like ten to fifteen priests/nuns left in the world but that’s not happening and I doubt that’d be happening.

 

[JReducation]

There are two things that I’d like to point out. First, when speaking of religious life, all of you seem to be talking about priests and sisters. You have forgotten the thousands of religious men who are not ordained, the brothers.

Second, not all priests are religious. In fact, more than half are not religious. They do not have a vocation to the consecrated life. They have a call to Holy Orders.

That being said, the large numbers that we saw after World War II were the exception, not the rule. The numbers that we have today are the rule. It works this way, you take the number of Catholics and the number of priests, brothers, sisters and nuns. The percentage of priests and religious men and women should be about 0.5% of the Catholic population. Today it is at 0.4%. We’re not far from the usual number.

The Church goes through periods of explosions of vocations. They seem to follow periods of war. There was an explosion during the Crusades and immediately after: Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Trinitarians. Then the numbers went down until the Protestant Reformation. Then there was another explosion: Franciscan Reform, Carmelite Reform, Cistercian Reforms and Jesuits. Then there is a decline in numbers again until the French Revolution. Again you have another explosion. The first religious congregations are founded. Things settle down and the number drop again. After World War II, they explode again.

I’m not a sociologist, so I can’t explain the connection between war and vocations. But it seems that the number increase in the midst of crisis. I have no idea why this is.

I have seen one thing now. We are entering the age of the religious brother and the deacon. The number of religious brothers is increasing very rapidly. There are also new religious communities of brothers being formed every few years since 1990. They ordain only the number of priests that they need for their own houses. Some do not ordain priests at all. Among the diocesan clergy, the deacons are growing in larger numbers than the presbyters. Among women, nuns are growing faster the sisters. In my own order, we have 20,000 nuns. We have about 100,000 sisters. But 20,000 nuns is a very high number. Our nuns have usually been around 15,000 to about 100,000 sisters.

I know that God calls few people to the priesthood and to the consecrated life. But I also see a pattern in how he calls. It seems to be in waves. Even the growth of brothers has been seen during times of heresy. The first brothers were monks right after the early heresies of the Church. The second wave of brothers came after the Protestant Reformation when the Christian Brothers, Xaverians, Alexians, St. John of God, Good Shepherd and Marists were founded. They numbered in the thousands in less than 50 years. Now we’re going through another period of weak faith and the number of brothers and brother’s congregations are growing.

It’s very interesting stuff.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There are two things that I’d like to point out. First, when speaking of religious life, all of you seem to be talking about priests and sisters. You have forgotten the thousands of religious men who are not ordained, the brothers.

Wow, thanks for the heads up… though I admit, your explanation has seriously got me jumbling my thoughts now on what to define as “vocation”.

Still, I once heard a anti-Vat2 naysayer decrying it as it “emptied convents”. My concern sorta comes from that. Care to comment?

 

[JReducation]

Wow, thanks for the heads up… though I admit, your explanation has seriously got me jumbling my thoughts now on what to define as “vocation”.

Still, I once heard a anti-Vat2 naysayer decrying it as it “emptied convents”. My concern sorta comes from that. Care to comment?

I’m not sure why anyone would define vocation as emptied convents. I really can’t comment on something that makes sense to someone else, but not to me. Vocation, as the Church defines it, comes from the Latin word “vocare”, meaning “to call”. In the ancient world the term was used a great deal. God called Abraham. Samuel heard God calling in the night. Jesus calls the Apostles. Subsequently, God calls all men to holiness down different paths, but all leading to the great road to heaven. Some paths are for the few: religious life and Holy Orders. Other paths are for the many: secular and lay paths. But they are all paths that if they are carefully followed will lead to union between the soul and teh divine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CatholicGuy22]

I think it is a good thing that there are less people called to Holy Orders and religous life. More people are doing it for the right reasons and that should explain why less are answering the call. God does not cease to call men, he is calling alot of men to the Holy Orders/religous life but so few are answering.

I agree with Br.Jr that it depends on the time. After dark times we usually see a rush in vocations. I think this situation has a double-edge sword. Sure we get more men and women to be religous and priest but that also leads a couple of bad apples to Holy Orders/religous life which leads to scandal. This is just a few of them though. There is alot of good men and women who have done great for the church who came in under these circumstances.

I think with the recent finicial situation there might be more answering the call but the numbers dont seem to say that. I have met guys like me who want to be priest during a regional vocations meeting and there are more orthodox and that is great to see. I come from a very liberal archdiocese and its great that these future priest might turn it around and do great things. We are also getting a new archbishop. We are still waiting on who it will be but im so exited. I love Cardinal Mahony but i would to see what another man can do to fix this place up.

Your servant in CHRIST,

CATHOLICGUY22

 

[JReducation]

I think it is a good thing that there are less people called to Holy Orders and religous life. More people are doing it for the right reasons and that should explain why less are answering the call. God does not cease to call men, he is calling alot of men to the Holy Orders/religous life but so few are answering.

I agree with Br.Jr that it depends on the time. After dark times we usually see a rush in vocations. I think this situation has a double-edge sword. Sure we get more men and women to be religous and priest but that also leads a couple of bad apples to Holy Orders/religous life which leads to scandal. This is just a few of them though. There is alot of good men and women who have done great for the church who came in under these circumstances.

I think with the recent finicial situation there might be more answering the call but the numbers dont seem to say that. I have met guys like me who want to be priest during a regional vocations meeting and there are more orthodox and that is great to see. I come from a very liberal archdiocese and its great that these future priest might turn it around and do great things. We are also getting a new archbishop. We are still waiting on who it will be but im so exited. I love Cardinal Mahony but i would to see what another man can do to fix this place up.

Your servant in CHRIST,

CATHOLICGUY22

Definitely, the John Paul Generation, as we in religious life call it, is much more orthodox than the Post WW II generation. That was the generation that produced all of the dissenting theologians, religious and priests.

Everyone wants to blame Vatican II as if those who implemented Vatican II had been born in 1963. The people who implemented Vatican II were born before 1940. Anyone born after 1940 was too young to be a priest or religious in 1963. Then came the baby boomers who followed the confusion and added to it. Now we have the John Paul II Generation that is more middle of the road. This is the generation that will implement Vatican II correctly.

But they are not going to come in the hundreds of thousands. It’s not the time. The crisis has to get worse and then God will raise up some charismatic bishops and religious founders who will head great reforms. That seems to be the pattern. It will be religious communities of men who will lead the reform. That seems to be the pattern. The only reform that was ever started by a community of women was the Carmelite Reform. Except that Teresa of Avila wrote in her constitutions that the nuns were to be like men: fearless, pensive, slow to act and without any kind of feminine behaviors. Kind of strange command, but it worked for them. They were able to navigate the Church and the Inquisition without the assistance and support of an order of men. They were tough cookies.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wina]

They were tough cookies.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I like these words to describe St. Theresa Avila’s followers:thumbsup:

 

[JReducation]

I like these words to describe St. Theresa Avila’s followers:thumbsup:

I have such great admiration for Teresa of Avila and Paul of the Cross that I wrote my doctoral dissertation in Mystical Theology on “A Theology of Detachment: through the eyes and words of Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila and Paul of the Cross”

I know Teresa well. We’re good friends. I love her bravado and her frankness, but always with humor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wina]

I have such great admiration for Teresa of Avila and Paul of the Cross that I wrote my doctoral dissertation in Mystical Theology on “A Theology of Detachment: through the eyes and words of Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila and Paul of the Cross”

I know Teresa well. We’re good friends. I love her bravado and her frankness, but always with humor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It seems that we have the same favorites saints (St.Teresa and St.Francis), except St. Paul of the cross?

Regarding detachment, yes I think it’s one obstacle for people to follow it. I still read “The Way of Perfection” by St. Teresa. And let me think more about detachment. How to do it and follow it? especially with family members and good friends.

 

[JReducation]

It seems that we have the same favorites saints (St.Teresa and St.Francis), except St. Paul of the cross?

Regarding detachment, yes I think it’s one obstacle for people to follow it. I still read “The Way of Perfection” by St. Teresa. And let me think more about detachment. How to do it and follow it? especially with family members and good friends.

St. Paul of the Cross is the founder of the Passionists. He is very influenced by Francis of Assisi’s love of the cross, as was John of the Cross. St. Paul preached great detachement from material things and constant reflection on the passion of the Lord.

As far as detachment is concerned Francis and Teresa understood the importance of detachment from the material things of this world, including relationships. You begin by placing God first and these other things second, including persons in one’s family.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Spiritu]

The Church goes through periods of explosions of vocations. They seem to follow periods of war. There was an explosion during the Crusades and immediately after: Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Trinitarians. Then the numbers went down until the Protestant Reformation. Then there was another explosion: Franciscan Reform, Carmelite Reform, Cistercian Reforms and Jesuits. Then there is a decline in numbers again until the French Revolution. Again you have another explosion. The first religious congregations are founded. Things settle down and the number drop again. After World War II, they explode again.

That’s a really interesting point, Brother. I don’t think I’ve heard it expressed so succintly before: I knew that the 1950s were unusually high, but to see it put it in a long-term historical context like that is quite revealing.

Maybe it’s because there’s no room for lukewarm faith during a crisis: like the veterans who come home either clinging to God for strength, or convinced that the suffering they’ve seen rules out the existence of God?

I wonder whether, if the Western trend toward aggressive secularisation continues to the extent that future Christians become subject to overt social persecution, people will stop attempting to combine Christianity with mainstream thought (ie “I’m Catholic and pro-choice/proudly homosexual”) and either accept their identity as followers of Christ or repudiate religion altogether, because the crisis eliminiates any comfortable middle ground? Or, in a less dramatic scenario: if, in twenty years’ time, the average Catholic must make a four-hour round-trip to get to a Mass with a priest every Sunday, then the degree of sacrifice demanded to practice one’s faith could see people either knuckle down and commit to being Catholic, or fall away entirely. In the twenty-first century, my theory is that it might be social factors, inside or outside the Church, that act as the catalyst for an upswing in practicing Catholics (and thus vocations). It’s interesting to think that I could in theory live to be a hundred years old - to see the Church in the year 2089. I wonder what will have happened by then?

 

[JReducation]

That’s a really interesting point, Brother. I don’t think I’ve heard it expressed so succintly before: I knew that the 1950s were unusually high, but to see it put it in a long-term historical context like that is quite revealing.

Maybe it’s because there’s no room for lukewarm faith during a crisis: like the veterans who come home either clinging to God for strength, or convinced that the suffering they’ve seen rules out the existence of God?

I wonder whether, if the Western trend toward aggressive secularisation continues to the extent that future Christians become subject to overt social persecution, people will stop attempting to combine Christianity with mainstream thought (ie “I’m Catholic and pro-choice/proudly homosexual”) and either accept their identity as followers of Christ or repudiate religion altogether, because the crisis eliminiates any comfortable middle ground? Or, in a less dramatic scenario: if, in twenty years’ time, the average Catholic must make a four-hour round-trip to get to a Mass with a priest every Sunday, then the degree of sacrifice demanded to practice one’s faith could see people either knuckle down and commit to being Catholic, or fall away entirely. In the twenty-first century, my theory is that it might be social factors, inside or outside the Church, that act as the catalyst for an upswing in practicing Catholics (and thus vocations). It’s interesting to think that I could in theory live to be a hundred years old - to see the Church in the year 2089. I wonder what will have happened by then?

I think there is going are going to be two great saints in this century. One will be another Francis of Assisi who will convert Catholics, just as the original Francis did. The other will be a female Dominic who will convert the non believer.

The new Francis will come from among the sexual abuse victims. He or she, more likely he, will be a great example of forgiveness, compassion for the sinner and faithful to the Church regardless of her sinful members, just as the original Francis was. He will teach with his life, not with words, like the original Francis.

The new Dominic will be a post-abortive woman. She will be a great witness to the Gospel of Life, of conversion, penance and God’s mercy to those who have sinned against human life and dignity.

There may be several great reformers. But I have noticed a pattern. The great reformers and most charismatic saints are those who are truly products of their times. We Catholics have to stop our complaining and start paving the way for these great reformers by working on projects and ministries at the grassroots level. Every reform of the Church has always come from the bottom up. If you notice, the great saints and reformers are not punitive toward the Church nor are they angry at the Church. They have loved the Church, been obedient even to very sinful popes and bishops, but they have managed to soften the most hardened hearts through their charm, persuasiveness, honesty, and penance. The best examples that I can offer are Francis of Assisi and Teresa of Avila. Incredible reformers madly in love with a very sinful Church, but they propped her up with their charm, prayer, example and their gentle teachings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wina]

St. Paul of the Cross is the founder of the Passionists. He is very influenced by Francis of Assisi’s love of the cross, as was John of the Cross. St. Paul preached great detachement from material things and constant reflection on the passion of the Lord.

As far as detachment is concerned Francis and Teresa understood the importance of detachment from the material things of this world, including relationships. You begin by placing God first and these other things second, including persons in one’s family.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks Bro JR.

Yes I really admire St.Francis and St. Teresa about detachment especially St.Francis, when he took off all his clothes in front of many people.

 

[wina]

I think there is going are going to be two great saints in this century. One will be another Francis of Assisi who will convert Catholics, just as the original Francis did. The other will be a female Dominic who will convert the non believer.

The new Francis will come from among the sexual abuse victims. He or she, more likely he, will be a great example of forgiveness, compassion for the sinner and faithful to the Church regardless of her sinful members, just as the original Francis was. He will teach with his life, not with words, like the original Francis.

The new Dominic will be a post-abortive woman. She will be a great witness to the Gospel of Life, of conversion, penance and God’s mercy to those who have sinned against human life and dignity.

There may be several great reformers. But I have noticed a pattern. The great reformers and most charismatic saints are those who are truly products of their times. We Catholics have to stop our complaining and start paving the way for these great reformers by working on projects and ministries at the grassroots level. Every reform of the Church has always come from the bottom up. If you notice, the great saints and reformers are not punitive toward the Church nor are they angry at the Church. They have loved the Church, been obedient even to very sinful popes and bishops, but they have managed to soften the most hardened hearts through their charm, persuasiveness, honesty, and penance. The best examples that I can offer are Francis of Assisi and Teresa of Avila. Incredible reformers madly in love with a very sinful Church, but they propped her up with their charm, prayer, example and their gentle teachings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Wow, the way you wrote them really touched my heart Bro. I wish and keep my faith that what you wrote will happen soon as I’m very sad to see the way of churches life (Spiritu, it’s not only the western but the eastern too). Sorry Bro, I don’t mean to disrespect or complain. I love the church and still have faith that the truth is still in catholic church.

 

[Sister_Helena]

The call or vocation to Religious life is such a subjective and personal experience that I don’t know how we can really find out how many people God is calling or has called but declined. When Jesus said “pray to the Harvest Master to send more laborers”, I don’t think he would have commanded it if God does not mean to send them. I think as always that the call to Religious life is solely based on faith. And to the degree that many more would take a leap of faith, we may see more young men and women commit themselves to this way of life. With the way the modern world is going, it is becoming more and more difficult because of lack of opportunity for Faith formation, lack of solid witnesses to authentic Church teachings, and more secularization of society. For all we know, many are called because when there is the need, grace abounds. But are people listening? Or if they hear the message, do they have the courage to at least explore the possibility? Or do some sing the continuous refrain “it’s not for me.” With all that being said, Religious life in my opinion, will always be in the minority compared to the vocation to married state. But quality is much better than quantity.
St. Teresa of Avila first questioned herself when she decided to establish her new Communities. How can a few enclosed women tackle the effects of the Reformation? They were not even allowed to engage in deep prayer just because they were women, never mind save the world! She concluded that with the few she had, if they follow the evangelical counsels as perfectly as they could, the Church will be served and God will make use of them. So to answer the question: I don’t think we are able to truly know that objectively.

 

[JReducation]

The call or vocation to Religious life is such a subjective and personal experience that I don’t know how we can really find out how many people God is calling or has called but declined. When Jesus said “pray to the Harvest Master to send more laborers”, I don’t think he would have commanded it if God does not mean to send them. I think as always that the call to Religious life is solely based on faith. And to the degree that many more would take a leap of faith, we may see more young men and women commit themselves to this way of life. With the way the modern world is going, it is becoming more and more difficult because of lack of opportunity for Faith formation, lack of solid witnesses to authentic Church teachings, and more secularization of society. For all we know, many are called because when there is the need, grace abounds. But are people listening? Or if they hear the message, do they have the courage to at least explore the possibility? Or do some sing the continuous refrain “it’s not for me.” With all that being said, Religious life in my opinion, will always be in the minority compared to the vocation to married state. But quality is much better than quantity.
St. Teresa of Avila first questioned herself when she decided to establish her new Communities. How can a few enclosed women tackle the effects of the Reformation? They were not even allowed to engage in deep prayer just because they were women, never mind save the world! She concluded that with the few she had, if they follow the evangelical counsels as perfectly as they could, the Church will be served and God will make use of them. So to answer the question: I don’t think we are able to truly know that objectively.

Just two comments, Sister: 1) I totally agree with what you say about Teresa. I remember doing my dissertation one thing stood out about her, she lived in a sate of “spiritual tension”, which is good for the soul. The person who is too confident that they can achieve something and the one who despairs of not being able to do anything are both lacking in faith. But the soul who sees its limitations and questions “Dear God why do you put me in these situations?” That soul is one who is humble and faithful. Humble, because he acknowledges his limitations and faithful, because he follows God’s lead not knowing where it will all end. This was Teresa’s journey. She lived in a constant spiritual tension. What we have to understand is that some tension is good. She was caught between her limitations and God’s omnipotence. She prayed herself to a point where she was able to live with both, by becoming detached from fear. This is what we lack today, detachment from fear. We live in a world of paranoia.

1. I love what you did with your blog for Easter. It’s awesome. I found some inspiration there. Thank you.

Fraternallly in the Risen Lord,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wina]

This is what we lack today, detachment from fear. We live in a world of paranoia.

Fraternallly in the Risen Lord,

Br. JR, OSF

This is very true. Detachment from fear is very difficult. Only with God’s grace and we surrender to God’s love/God’s will then we can truly be free from fear.

 

[Sister_Helena]

Just two comments, Sister: 1) I totally agree with what you say about Teresa. I remember doing my dissertation one thing stood out about her, she lived in a sate of “spiritual tension”, which is good for the soul. The person who is too confident that they can achieve something and the one who despairs of not being able to do anything are both lacking in faith. But the soul who sees its limitations and questions “Dear God why do you put me in these situations?” That soul is one who is humble and faithful. Humble, because he acknowledges his limitations and faithful, because he follows God’s lead not knowing where it will all end. This was Teresa’s journey. She lived in a constant spiritual tension. What we have to understand is that some tension is good. She was caught between her limitations and God’s omnipotence. She prayed herself to a point where she was able to live with both, by becoming detached from fear. This is what we lack today, detachment from fear. We live in a world of paranoia.

1. I love what you did with your blog for Easter. It’s awesome. I found some inspiration there. Thank you.

Fraternallly in the Risen Lord,

Br. JR, OSF

You’re welcome, Brother. I love blogging but it takes a lot of time!