Two Opposing Conceptions Of Vocation

[Gabriela]

I'm going to hash out my thoughts here first, because these things have been dueling in my head for a long time, and then I would REALLY like to hear all your thoughts on this subject!

 

 

Conception #1

God made each person for a particular purpose, and only in that vocation will the person reach their fullest potential, peace, and happiness. Let's say Jane was made for religious life in community. If Jane enters religious life in community, she will be more fulfilled, at peace, and happier in that life than she ever could be anywhere else. If Jane gets married, remains single, etc., she may feel fulfilled, at peace, and happy, but her struggles to achieve these things will also be greater, and she will never reach the levels of fulfillment, peace, and happiness that she would have had she entered religious life.

 

Conception #2

God made each person for a particular purpose, but will work for the greatest good in that person no matter what s/he chooses. Let's say John was made for the parish priesthood. If John enters the parish priesthood, he will be more fulfilled, at peace, and happier in that life than he ever could be anywhere else. If John gets married, God will work with that to change his heart—to change his whole substance, really—such that he may still reach his greatest possible fulfillment, peace, and happiness. His struggles may be greater at first, but ultimately, he will not struggle anymore than he would have in the parish priesthood, because God will, essentially, "re-create" John for the life he chose.

 

 

Consequences

The difference between these two conceptions of vocation, as I see it, is this: We either are or are not irrevocably made for one purpose. The practical result of either one does not manifest if we choose the purpose for which we were originally made by God. Rather, it only manifests if we do not choose the vocation for which God originally made us.

 

I see all kinds of logical implications for each conception. I often wonder about these implications myself. For example, I struggle a great deal in my current workplace. This could be because I was made for religious life, and so living in the world is exceptionally difficult for me. That implies Conception #2, and suggests that, if I enter religious life, my problems will not all disappear, but I will be able to bear them better, being then in the place for which I was created.

 

However, my current struggles could also have nothing to do with what I was created for, but be solely attributable to the fact that I have not yet reached a level of holiness that allows me to deal humbly and lovingly with difficulties in general. This does not necessarily imply either conception of vocation, but it hints at #1, as it suggests that my troubles are not caused to any degree by the "mismatch" between the life for which I was created and the life I am currently living, but only by my own failure to attain holiness.

 

Which conception one assumes makes a big difference in how one approaches difficulties, discernment, and the like. If I accept #1, then I may view my discontent and constant struggle in my current life as a sign that I am called elsewhere. If I accept #2, then I may view my discontent and constant struggle in my current life as a warning sign that, in considering religious life, I am perhaps only trying to run away from present difficulties.

 

As I see it, these two conceptions of vocation present big differences, big consequences, and potentially big—practical—problems.

 

 

 

Help. What do you think? Scholars, theologians, priests, and religious: You are particularly bidden to offer your thoughts. But regular ol' PMers: I always enjoy hearing your wisdom, too. :-)

[Kateri89]

Well I'm just a 'regular ol' PMer'   :hehe2:  but I'll offer my opinion anyway.  I've had the same exact thoughts that you posted.  I think that there is a difference between a discomfort in your present life due to not being where God has called you and discomfort due to struggles with holiness no matter where you are.  For instance, I also am unhappy at my job but I believe it's for both reasons you listed.  I have no doubt that some of my unhappiness is really just impatience at being stuck in this job when I dream of being in the convent, entirely devoting my life to Christ.  However, I also know that the other part of it stems from the fact that although I work in a Catholic hospital, I'm surrounded by very minimal Christian influence.  Gossip, lies, unholy conversation, and general cattiness are what I encounter daily.  My struggle is that I don't speak up more to be that Christian witness that I wish existed in my workplace.  I often think of how shocked my coworkers will be when I eventually leave my job because I'm entering religious life.  That's the problem.  They shouldn't be shocked at all because they should already know of my religious beliefs but I'm far too cowardly to speak up.  So my uneasiness is two-fold.

 

I think I tend to gravitate toward Conception #1 more than #2 because in the first one God will still give us peace and fulfillment, just not to the same degree.  I think of St. Rita of Cascia who was first a wife and mother, then a nun.  I don't know if there is any sort of church teaching on this but this is purely my opinion.  I believe that she was called to religious life ultimately because it's where she ended up but that doesn't mean that she didn't have peace and fulfillment in motherhood.  However, if she had total peace and fulfillment in motherhood she probably wouldn't have felt the desire to enter the convent.  Like I said, this is just my opinion but I think both viewpoints deserve merit and study.

 

Hope this helps  :bounce:

[nikita92]

Let's add to that...what happens if you have all this information, beliefs etc. and find ourself in a position surrounded by family and or have a mate/partner..and friends and try to explain to these people how we feel and or think..and THEY don't have or havent had a spiritual/religious life/upbringing ...how would one get any of these people (you choose) to try and understand one's discontent/struggle in life as being a possible mismatch etc. without the risk of them thinking/feeling "what the heck is she/he talking about?" Or other negative impression etc. especially if they don't have a clue/knowledge about vocations?!! This is rhetorical...but add that to the mix and WOW! Not only is one trying to figure things out for one's self, but on top of it one has other people to try and make understand these things..Or one could just keep it to themselves, and have Mom or dad just keep thinking my son/daughter seems to be always be struggling with their life! I'll leave others to answer/input to your post....I am curious as well!

[ChristinaTherese]

Here are my thoughts, from an I'm-not-even-Catholic-yet-and-I-don't-know-terribly-much-so-feel-free-to-disregard-everything-I-say perspective:

 

This sounds a lot like the debate in Protestant circles about predestination and free will. I have never fully understood where the Calvinist-type predestination side is coming from, and I'm not sure that I have ever fully embraced free will alone, without any predestination. Also, I don't know if I fully understand the Catholic response. But I have some amount of understanding, however flawed it may be. So, scholars, theologians, etc. please correct me if I'm wrong in any way.

 

The way I see it is by analogy with Mary. She was given a choice at the Annunciation, and had the ability to reject what God offered her. She could have continued her life as the world around here expected. I don't know what the results of that choice on her soul would have been, but she could have made that choice. However, she chose to accept God's offer. Because of this choice that she made, God had already purified her from original sin at her conception so that He could dwell in her womb. He had done so because she was predestined to bear His Son, but He had still given her the opportunity to reject what He offered. (The implications of her actually rejecting His offer are as hairy as the implications of going back in time and killing your father before you're conceived, but... I think she still had free will there. Please, anyone and everyone, correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

In the same way, we are given a free choice about our vocation. But God knows where we will go and has prepared a place for us and called us to it already. That is why we discern (from the Old French discerner, "distinguish (between), separate" (by sifting)) our vocation, that is, because we are searching for where God has called us. But, at the same time, God is leading us there and giving us a choice. One of my favorite analogies for our relationship with God is a dance. In a dance, particularly a dance like a waltz, both parties are following each other. I lean back, putting my weight on my partner's arm (assuming that I'm dancing with a guy), but he also has to put trust in me and follow me. I follow where he leads, as he looks ahead and makes sure that we don't dance into another couple our a wall or something, but if I falter he should gently change the step or guide me more with his arm or even his voice if need be. In this way, I tend to view our relationship with God as a give and take. I follow God, but He deals with me gently and follows what I do with care. So long as I trust in Him, all will remain well. If I refuse to trust (or to lean onto my partner's hand), nothing can happen, but if I am willing to trust Him, all will be well, however it occurs.

 

These are just my thoughts, as a discerner, someone who has danced on both sides of the pair, and one who does not know terribly much just yet. I hope it helps though, and look forward to seeing other people's responses.

[somethingfishy]

I wish vocations promoters wouldn't so much emphasize the idea that you will be happiest in the vocation specific to you. I think that idea can (ironically!) cause a lot of stress and anxiety to discerners, who become paralyzed with fear that they will make the "wrong" decision.

 

All people are, on a natural level, called to marriage. It is the natural (primordial?) vocation of the human person, instituted from the beginning. We are made for each other, to get each other to heaven through holy marriages -- that's why vocation directors (rightly) think there's something wrong if a person does not on some level desire marriage.

 

God calls some to fully live out the evangelical counsels, perhaps individually, perhaps in community. If individually, this is discerned between the person and God (and perhaps a spiritual director). In the case of a community, a large part of the discernment is reserved to that community. But what if the decision made by the individual or the community is wrong? Life goes on, and God continues to write straight with crooked lines.

 

There is no such thing as perfection here on earth -- no perfect community or perfect spouse or perfect discernment -- everyone is occasionally miserable. Life in a fallen world involves making the best of things and loving God anyway, and going about our daily lives unworried and confident that he will manage to work things out.

Edited January 24, 2013 by somethingfishy

[Gabriela]

Well I'm just a 'regular ol' PMer'   :hehe2:  but I'll offer my opinion anyway.  I've had the same exact thoughts that you posted.  I think that there is a difference between a discomfort in your present life due to not being where God has called you and discomfort due to struggles with holiness no matter where you are.  For instance, I also am unhappy at my job but I believe it's for both reasons you listed.  I have no doubt that some of my unhappiness is really just impatience at being stuck in this job when I dream of being in the convent, entirely devoting my life to Christ.  However, I also know that the other part of it stems from the fact that although I work in a Catholic hospital, I'm surrounded by very minimal Christian influence.  Gossip, lies, unholy conversation, and general cattiness are what I encounter daily.  My struggle is that I don't speak up more to be that Christian witness that I wish existed in my workplace.  I often think of how shocked my coworkers will be when I eventually leave my job because I'm entering religious life.  That's the problem.  They shouldn't be shocked at all because they should already know of my religious beliefs but I'm far too cowardly to speak up.  So my uneasiness is two-fold.

 

I think I tend to gravitate toward Conception #1 more than #2 because in the first one God will still give us peace and fulfillment, just not to the same degree.  I think of St. Rita of Cascia who was first a wife and mother, then a nun.  I don't know if there is any sort of church teaching on this but this is purely my opinion.  I believe that she was called to religious life ultimately because it's where she ended up but that doesn't mean that she didn't have peace and fulfillment in motherhood.  However, if she had total peace and fulfillment in motherhood she probably wouldn't have felt the desire to enter the convent.  Like I said, this is just my opinion but I think both viewpoints deserve merit and study.

 

Hope this helps  :bounce:

 

This brings up the interesting confounding consideration that God sometimes calls us to different places at different times in our lives. But even so, the general problem I described still applies, I think. Either I am where God wants me to be right now, or I am not. And then the two conceptions kick in again.

[somethingfishy]

All people have a natural call to marriage by virtue of being male or female -- to suggest otherwise would be to misunderstand the fundamental nature of the human person.

 

"The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator." Catechism of the Catholic Church section 1603

 

“Only the person blinded by the passion of controversy could deny that woman in soul and body is formed for a particular purpose.  

The clear and irrevocable word of Scripture declares what daily experience teaches from the beginning of the world: woman is destined to be wife and mother.” St Edith Stein, Essays on Women

 

"The human body, with its sex, and its masculinity and femininity, seen in the very mystery of creation, is not only a source of fruitfulness and procreation, as in the whole natural order, but includes right 'from the beginning' the 'nuptial' attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love: that love precisely in which the man-person becomes a gift and—by means of this gift—fulfils the very meaning of his being and existence." John Paul II, General Audience, January 16, 1980

 

This article, from the Homiletic and Pastoral Review journal, might be helpful.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2013 by somethingfishy

[savvy]

 

I know a sister, who always drawn to be in religious life, but kept post ponding it for one thing or another, such as career, marriage etc. She did have a successful career, and got married. Her husband died within 2 years of the marriage. This made her truly think about if God was really calling her to religious life all along. 

 

So, if you do not say, yes, I suppose God has a way of communicating things to some people sometimes. It may not always be this drastic, but it does happen. God could put obstacles in the way of your other plans, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HisAlone]

All,

 

I recently read a VERY good book on just this subject!  It's published by TAN and is titled "Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery" by Fr. Richard Butler, O.P.

Fr. Butler uses the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject and it is very enlightening - not an easy read, though.

 

The author is very careful to distinguish a "vocation to the priesthood" from "entering the religion" (religious life).  They are not the same.

Regarding religious life, St. Thomas' central thought is that...we are ALL called to follow Christ perfectly, "Be ye perfect..." through the evangelical counsels of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience - religious life being the best way to live out the counsels, thus the surest way to perfection.

And following the teaching of St. Paul to the Corinthians, "I am not imposing a rule on you.  I wish you were all in the same state as myself; but each of us has his own endowment from God, one to live this way, another that......I would say that they will do well to remain in the same state as myself, but if they have not the gift of continence, let them marry...." 1 Cor 7:7-9.

 

An excerpt from the book:

        "In a single article  (of the Summa Theologica), he (St. Thomas) dismissed as quite unnecessary our contemporary emphasis on prolonged and dubious deliberation and frantic discussion about entering the religious life."

 

The author also states that, in addition to addressing the evangelical counsels at length in the Summa, St. Thomas wrote three works in defense of and in praise of the religious life, one of them titled "Against the Despicable Teaching of Those Preventing Men from Entering Religion."  He even wrote positively about about children entering religious life!

(Our newest Doctor, St. Hildegard von Bingen was given to the Church as a tithe when she was ten years old)

 

So basically, the idea is that ALL are called to perfection through the evangelical counsels - religious life being the surest way to acheive it, but if one has impediments or is not properly disposed, then married and other forms of unconsecrated life will be the path to perfection.  This doesn't mean that other ways of life are bad or that we are better because we feel drawn to the religious life, conversely, if we know that religous life is the "better part" (Martha and Mary), then we should approach our discernment with great humility and gratitude.  The fact that one feels drawn to religious life at all is a great grace and is in itself a "green light."

 

Another interesting point of the book is that, after one decides to "enter religion," St. Thomas doesn't think it matters much where one enters - only that the person feels positively about the order and doesn't seriously delay entering to find the "perfect" order.

 

So you can see that this book really calls into question some of our great discernment issues! 

It's also interesting to note that it was written in 1960, before the massive decline in "religious vocations."  The author spends much time debunking the discernment myths of the time which were experientially based i.e. looking for intense feelings or mystical attraction to prove a "call" to the religious life.

 

Well...it's worth a read, especially since it's based solidly upon the writings of St. Thomas.

 

 

 

[Gabriela]

All,

 

I recently read a VERY good book on just this subject!  It's published by TAN and is titled "Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery" by Fr. Richard Butler, O.P.

Fr. Butler uses the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject and it is very enlightening - not an easy read, though.

 

The author is very careful to distinguish a "vocation to the priesthood" from "entering the religion" (religious life).  They are not the same.

Regarding religious life, St. Thomas' central thought is that...we are ALL called to follow Christ perfectly, "Be ye perfect..." through the evangelical counsels of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience - religious life being the best way to live out the counsels, thus the surest way to perfection.

And following the teaching of St. Paul to the Corinthians, "I am not imposing a rule on you.  I wish you were all in the same state as myself; but each of us has his own endowment from God, one to live this way, another that......I would say that they will do well to remain in the same state as myself, but if they have not the gift of continence, let them marry...." 1 Cor 7:7-9.

 

An excerpt from the book:

        "In a single article  (of the Summa Theologica), he (St. Thomas) dismissed as quite unnecessary our contemporary emphasis on prolonged and dubious deliberation and frantic discussion about entering the religious life."

 

The author also states that, in addition to addressing the evangelical counsels at length in the Summa, St. Thomas wrote three works in defense of and in praise of the religious life, one of them titled "Against the Despicable Teaching of Those Preventing Men from Entering Religion."  He even wrote positively about about children entering religious life!

(Our newest Doctor, St. Hildegard von Bingen was given to the Church as a tithe when she was ten years old)

 

So basically, the idea is that ALL are called to perfection through the evangelical counsels - religious life being the surest way to acheive it, but if one has impediments or is not properly disposed, then married and other forms of unconsecrated life will be the path to perfection.  This doesn't mean that other ways of life are bad or that we are better because we feel drawn to the religious life, conversely, if we know that religous life is the "better part" (Martha and Mary), then we should approach our discernment with great humility and gratitude.  The fact that one feels drawn to religious life at all is a great grace and is in itself a "green light."

 

Another interesting point of the book is that, after one decides to "enter religion," St. Thomas doesn't think it matters much where one enters - only that the person feels positively about the order and doesn't seriously delay entering to find the "perfect" order.

 

So you can see that this book really calls into question some of our great discernment issues! 

It's also interesting to note that it was written in 1960, before the massive decline in "religious vocations."  The author spends much time debunking the discernment myths of the time which were experientially based i.e. looking for intense feelings or mystical attraction to prove a "call" to the religious life.

 

Well...it's worth a read, especially since it's based solidly upon the writings of St. Thomas.

 

You should post a lot more often!

[Nihil Obstat]

I posted this last week, but it looks relevant again:

 

 

This little blurb here represents my view of vocation.

 

Communio (summer 2010, "Living and Thinking Reality in its Integrity", David L. Schindler). The first kind of sets the stage, and the second brings home what I'm trying to say.

16: "There is much that needs to be sorted out here. A state of life, properly understood, gives objective form to an "existential" as distinct from "office-bearing" participation in Christ's eucharistic love. Each of the baptized participates in Christ's Eucharist both existentially and "officially", in the sense that ordained priests are always first members of the Church, and that all members of the Church, by virtue of their Baptism, exercise a priestly office, manifest, for example, in the capacity themselves to baptize in certain circumstances. This emphatically need not, and does not, imply attenuation of the clear and profound difference between the laity and the ordained priesthood. What I mean to emphasize here is simply that a state of life, for example, consecrated virginity, is as such not a clerical state. It seems to me that an awareness that this is so opens the way to a deepened appreciation for the state of consecrated virginity as a distinctly lay state, recognized already officially by the Church in Pius XII's Provida Mater, and indeed in Vatican II's renewed teaching regarding the laity and their "wordly" vocation. My statement is also meant to carry the implication that the vowed life of the three evangelical counsels, which expresses the gift of one's whole self- possessions, body and mind- indicate the most objectively fitting existential form for the priest's office-bearing participation in the Eucharist and the sacramental life of the Church. But again, all of this needs more sustained development that can be offered in the present forum. For a reflection on the relation of the life of the evangelical counsels and the vocation of the laity, see Balthasar, Laity and the Life of the Counsels (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003).
17: The suggestion here that there are only two states of life [consecrated virginity or sacramental marriage] raises many questions within the Church today. On the one hand, there is the common perception that the priesthood as such is a state of life, which in the proper sense it is not. On the contrary, it has its sacramental-ontological reality as an office, indeed as an office that, as I have suggested, bears an objective fittingness for a vowed life of the three evangelical counsels. On the other hand, there is also an increasing tendency today to affirm that singleness as such can qualify as a state of life. But neither is this properly so, because a state of life requires saying forever to God in a vowed form. And the character of this vow that constitutes a state of life has its ultimate foundation in the dual character of the human being's original experience, in original solitude and original unity, or filiality and nuptiality, both of which have their center in God. A state of life, properly speaking, is the mature person's recuperation in freedom of one's call to fidelity to God forever, which occurs either through consecrated virginity, and thus remaining "alone" with God; or through marriage, and thus promising fidelity to God forever, through another human being. But it is nevertheless crucial to see here that the single life, if not (yet) actualized by either of these vows, does not thereby remain merely in a kind of neutral place where one remains suspended in a mode of inaction and unfulfillment. On the contrary, as we have indicated, there is a call for the gift of one's whole self implicit already in the act of being created: and this call is immeasurably deepened in the act of being baptized. The point, then, is that this call is actualized in the tacit and mostly unconscious fiat which, in receiving creation, and in turn the new creation in Christ, already begins one's participation in a promise of the gift of one's self to God. The call to be faithful to God forever with the wholeness of one's life is implied, and is already initially realized, in a natural form, at one's conception, and again, in a supernatural form, at one's Baptism. As long as one remains single, then, the relevant point is that one can already begin living the fiat of total availability to God, and, in this sense, realize the fundament of what becomes a state of life when recuperated in the maturity of one's freedom in the form of a vow of consecrated virginity or marriage. What one is meant to do as long as one is single, in other words, is to live one's total availability: to wait with active availability for God's will. Of course, it has to be recognized that humanity, and the cosmos as a whole, exists in a deeply disordered condition by virtue of sin. And therefore it has to be recognized as well that the call objectively to a consecrated state of celibacy or to marriage may never be historically realized- as is the case that everything in the cosmos exists in a broken condition, sometimes a seriously disordered condition that must be accepted, even with much suffering. 

 

[savvy]

 

I sometimes struggle in the world/with secular life because I feel out-of-place in it, like I'm on a different wavelength than other people... have different goals and priorities, and I feel most at peace whenever I'm at church or at a retreat or whatever.  However, I discerned with a community for a time that was convinced I was only trying to run away from difficulties, when I shared some of my struggles. It really bothered me because there's no such thing as a "perfect nun", everybody has a past, everybody has baggage.  I tend to wonder if the idea of nuns entering the convent to escape, has been so publicised by the media (e.g. "The Sound of Music", "Sister Act") that now people are overly-cautious about it and if anybody discerning religious life mentions any problems she has in her life, it automatically raises a red flag like "is she only entering to escape from this??"

 

 

Coralie,

 

I have exactly the same experiences, that I belong somewhere else. I too am most at peace, when I am at church or a retreat etc. I have also encountered vocation directors who would see the slightest thing, I brought up as a red flag. I have realized there are two reasons for this, they have had a past experience with someone with a similar issue or they think, that's the only reason, you are entering, not because you are attracted to the way of life. The best thing, I have realized is not opening up about certain struggles, until you get to know a community and vice versa.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2013 by savvy

[Catholicterp7]

All,

 

I recently read a VERY good book on just this subject!  It's published by TAN and is titled "Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery" by Fr. Richard Butler, O.P.

Fr. Butler uses the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject and it is very enlightening - not an easy read, though.

 

The author is very careful to distinguish a "vocation to the priesthood" from "entering the religion" (religious life).  They are not the same.

Regarding religious life, St. Thomas' central thought is that...we are ALL called to follow Christ perfectly, "Be ye perfect..." through the evangelical counsels of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience - religious life being the best way to live out the counsels, thus the surest way to perfection.

And following the teaching of St. Paul to the Corinthians, "I am not imposing a rule on you.  I wish you were all in the same state as myself; but each of us has his own endowment from God, one to live this way, another that......I would say that they will do well to remain in the same state as myself, but if they have not the gift of continence, let them marry...." 1 Cor 7:7-9.

 

An excerpt from the book:

        "In a single article  (of the Summa Theologica), he (St. Thomas) dismissed as quite unnecessary our contemporary emphasis on prolonged and dubious deliberation and frantic discussion about entering the religious life."

 

The author also states that, in addition to addressing the evangelical counsels at length in the Summa, St. Thomas wrote three works in defense of and in praise of the religious life, one of them titled "Against the Despicable Teaching of Those Preventing Men from Entering Religion."  He even wrote positively about about children entering religious life!

(Our newest Doctor, St. Hildegard von Bingen was given to the Church as a tithe when she was ten years old)

 

So basically, the idea is that ALL are called to perfection through the evangelical counsels - religious life being the surest way to acheive it, but if one has impediments or is not properly disposed, then married and other forms of unconsecrated life will be the path to perfection.  This doesn't mean that other ways of life are bad or that we are better because we feel drawn to the religious life, conversely, if we know that religous life is the "better part" (Martha and Mary), then we should approach our discernment with great humility and gratitude.  The fact that one feels drawn to religious life at all is a great grace and is in itself a "green light."

 

Another interesting point of the book is that, after one decides to "enter religion," St. Thomas doesn't think it matters much where one enters - only that the person feels positively about the order and doesn't seriously delay entering to find the "perfect" order.

 

So you can see that this book really calls into question some of our great discernment issues! 

It's also interesting to note that it was written in 1960, before the massive decline in "religious vocations."  The author spends much time debunking the discernment myths of the time which were experientially based i.e. looking for intense feelings or mystical attraction to prove a "call" to the religious life.

 

Well...it's worth a read, especially since it's based solidly upon the writings of St. Thomas.

 

I really struggle with the sentence above in bold, not because I disagree with it fundamentally but because it's so different from what I've experienced. I have felt positively about all of the communities I've visited and yet, for one reason or another God has prevented me from entering yet. I know some people might look at my discernment and make a case that I'm looking for the "perfect" community but, believe me, if it were up to me I would have entered long ago. 

My experience seems to be that though God has called me to something particular, which at the moment is living in the world as a lay person but in the future I hope means religious life, but if I were to say no He wouldn't stop loving me or leave me to be miserable. I just wouldn't be as happy as if I said yes and went where He wants me. 

The idea of "until I get where He ultimately wants me I'm never going to be fully happy or satisfied" is something that I've struggled with for the past three and a half years consistently. I'm only now starting to learn how to embrace my present vocation while not forgetting about the future one. I know for me there is something that I deeply long for that is missing from my life as a lay woman but God has been teaching me to be content with being discontent. It's really hard, I would like nothing more than to join a community tomorrow, but there's something to learning how to simply and joyfully accept your present circumstances as the will of God. 

 

 

 

Let's add to that...what happens if you have all this information, beliefs etc. and find ourself in a position surrounded by family and or have a mate/partner..and friends and try to explain to these people how we feel and or think..and THEY don't have or havent had a spiritual/religious life/upbringing ...how would one get any of these people (you choose) to try and understand one's discontent/struggle in life as being a possible mismatch etc. without the risk of them thinking/feeling "what the heck is she/he talking about?" Or other negative impression etc. especially if they don't have a clue/knowledge about vocations?!! This is rhetorical...but add that to the mix and WOW! Not only is one trying to figure things out for one's self, but on top of it one has other people to try and make understand these things..Or one could just keep it to themselves, and have Mom or dad just keep thinking my son/daughter seems to be always be struggling with their life! I'll leave others to answer/input to your post....I am curious as well!

I don't have a whole lot of experience with this as I have been very blessed to be fully supported by those close to me but I have a few friends who simply don't understand it. Their perspective is "well if that's what  you want to do then go for it, but why?" I have one friend in particular who is a wonderful Christian man and he and I have had conversations lasting two hours about the vows and he still doesn't get it. I was really frustrated at one point because he's a really good friend of mine and he doesn't get one of the most important aspects of who I am. I was talking to a friend of mine who is in seminary and he said "you can talk about it all day but really a vocation is something so personal that you can't talk about what's at the heart of it. There are some parts of who you are that only God will understand." I really struggled with that for a while but I realized how right he is, if I were called to marriage there would be things that only my spouse would know or understand so it's not going to be different just because my spouse is Jesus. It is really hard to not be understood but I think it's a situation where the only thing you can do is take your frustrations/hurts/longings to Jesus and allow Him to be the one to understand you. 

JMJ+ :heart: 

[savvy]

 

I don't have a whole lot of experience with this as I have been very blessed to be fully supported by those close to me but I have a few friends who simply don't understand it. Their perspective is "well if that's what  you want to do then go for it, but why?" I have one friend in particular who is a wonderful Christian man and he and I have had conversations lasting two hours about the vows and he still doesn't get it. I was really frustrated at one point because he's a really good friend of mine and he doesn't get one of the most important aspects of who I am. I was talking to a friend of mine who is in seminary and he said "you can talk about it all day but really a vocation is something so personal that you can't talk about what's at the heart of it. There are some parts of who you are that only God will understand." I really struggled with that for a while but I realized how right he is, if I were called to marriage there would be things that only my spouse would know or understand so it's not going to be different just because my spouse is Jesus. It is really hard to not be understood but I think it's a situation where the only thing you can do is take your frustrations/hurts/longings to Jesus and allow Him to be the one to understand you. 

 

 

I totally understand, my friends at church are supportive and excited, but others do not get it. When I first told my best friend who is not religious, she was shocked. She knew I was involved in church, but she just did not see this coming. She was like, "Everyone has their own path" etc. But, you are right, a lot of people, think this is something you can sign up for like being a teacher or a doctor. The best way, I have found to explain things, is that it's more like a marriage, less like a job.

 

People who try and talk you out of it, are basically saying, "your marriage is not good enough, because the grass is greener on the other side." But, even they have not seen the other side, of "what might be." Nobody has.

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2013 by savvy

[nikita92]

Curiousing- where you ever able to figure out your conundrum on this topic???