Vocation: Consecration V. Marriage?

[thepiaheart]

Thank you, all, for these thoughts. Your insight is very appreciated! I read somewhere that if one feels called to religious life, one should pursue it until the Lord places a roadblock. I find it interesting that I'm not opposed to marriage (whatsoever) -- I obviously feel a tremendous desire for consecrated life -- but I've never dated and don't really desire to, and I can't think of a better "roadblock" than a potential spouse.

 

:hehe2:  

 

We'll see what the Lord brings.

[abrideofChrist]

Thepiaheart, if you have a strong desire for religious life then don't be afraid to go for it. This is such a great grace. St. Thomas is very matter-of-fact about discerning a vocation to the religious state and his is an understanding that was pretty much the norm up until about 1960 or so. First, he doesn't use the word vocation and neither does canon law. Canon law reserves the word vocation in it's most exact understanding for priesthood. St. Thomas says that the religious state is objectively a higher good so it is never wrong to desire it. (It's a higher good because of the virtue of charity.)
 

 

You know, I read that claim recently in Religious Life: An Unnecessary Mystery.  It seemed rather dated, and that may have been because it might have been true of the 1918 Code of Canon Law.  Canon 385 of the 1983 Code seems to indicate that priestly and consecrated life are vocations.

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

You know, I read that claim recently in Religious Life: An Unnecessary Mystery.  It seemed rather dated, and that may have been because it might have been true of the 1918 Code of Canon Law.  Canon 385 of the 1983 Code seems to indicate that priestly and consecrated life are vocations.

 

They are vocations, as is the married state but the 1983 code does speak specifically of priesthood as a vocation whereas it doesn't use the word vocation in regard to entering religious life. The code is using the word vocation in regard to priesthood in a very explicit understanding of the word "vocation" which is calling. A man his called forth by the Church from the people of God to serve as Christ's minister to his people as a priest. You can see that in the ordination rite. (We just had an ordination here on Saturday and it was so beautiful!)

 

 

[abrideofChrist]

Fra. John Paul, I'm not quite sure how Fr. Hardon was using the term "extraordinary" here but I was using it in the traditional sense of charism. Religious life is primary about the person saving his or her soul and becoming a saint. Priesthood is first a gift for the Church. Obviously, it is also the way that the man called to the priesthood becomes holy but he is a priest first to be a minister to the people of God. He doesn't become a priest primarily for his own sake. So it is a charismatic grace in that sense. Interestingly canon law only used the word VOCATION in reference to priesthood but not for religious life.

I'm not quite sure why Fr. Hardon emphasized the grace needed had to be supernatural as though there is such a thing as "natural" grace. I understand he is saying that we can't live religious life simply by our own natural desires and determination.

St. Thomas' understanding of religious life is a traditional understanding that I think has been lost for the most part. (He wasn't alone; this was how it was understood by the Church.) He doesn't see it as any great mystery because he looks at the desire to enter the religious state (he doesn't use the word vocation) as desiring a greater good and if one has the basic qualities needed, especially a true motive than, because of his great confidence in grace and the goodness of God, he says, than of course you can trust that you have a vocation. His emphasis is not on the person but on the good of the religious state itself.

Joseph Bolin does a really good job of talking about how St. Thomas talks about deliberating whether one should enter religious life. You can read it here http://www.pathsoflove.com/books/what-is-a-vocation.html
 

 

Sr. Mary Catherine,

 

I think Fr. Hardon was referring to the fact that religious life (and actually consecrated life in general) is an extraordinary call.  It is a special grace given to some of the faithful as can be seen in Essential Norms on Religious Life:

 

 

1. Call and consecration

§1. Religious life is a form of life to which some Christians, both clerical and lay, are freely called by God so that they may enjoy a special gift of grace in the life of the Church and may contribute each in his or her own way to the saving mission of the Church (cf. LG 43).

§2. The gift of religious vocation is rooted in the gift of baptism but is not given to all the baptized. It is freely given and unmerited: offered by God to those whom he chooses freely from among his people and for the sake of his people (cf. PC 5).-  

Underlining mine for emphasis.

 

The problem I have with both Path's of Love and A Religious Vocation is that both assume that religious life is the default vocation and marriage or other vocations are simply for those who have defects of one kind or another that prevent them from remaining in religious life.  I prefer to think that God freely gives His grace to some among the faithful to consecrated life, because I haven't seen official Church teaching that one must be defective for religious life to have a vocation elsewhere. 

[abrideofChrist]

They are vocations, as is the married state but the 1983 code does speak specifically of priesthood as a vocation whereas it doesn't use the word vocation in regard to entering religious life. The code is using the word vocation in regard to priesthood in a very explicit understanding of the word "vocation" which is calling. A man his called forth by the Church from the people of God to serve as Christ's minister to his people as a priest. You can see that in the ordination rite. (We just had an ordination here on Saturday and it was so beautiful!)

 

I do not understand.  To my mind, the Code is naming consecrated life as a vocation explicitly in canon 385 and "ministries" is more vague:

 

Can. 385 As much as possible, a diocesan bishop is to foster vocations to different ministries and to consecrated life, with special care shown for priestly and missionary vocations.

 

 

On the other hand, if you simply mean that "religious" life is not specifically mentioned, then I'm okay with that.  After all, consecrated life is broader than religious life.  I don't really care if religious life is not explicitly said as a vocation, as long as consecrated life is.  Why?  Because, frankly, it's time that we as a Church widened our horizons from just priesthood and religious life to all forms of consecrated life which happens to include religious life.

Edited July 3, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[nikita92]

There are alot more available women out there, than there is good, decent catholic single men! The ratio is very uneven. Also..my father was married 5 times and my mother 4 times. Between them a total of 9 times married. I hardly know anyone in my age grouping that have married once and to this day have remained with the same one person. Children.... Yes you give your heart and life to and for them. This day in age one needs to be so hyper keen on making sure they are safe... No perverts are lurking around the playground..Learing at them when you are out and about with them...you're babysitter or uncle or some other male member isn't abusing them behind your back.they aren't being picked on, or doing the picking upon..at school! Pulling your hair out in making sure they are not being bombarded by immoral, illicit sexual images on television and Internet... Just to have them grow up be attracted to the same sex,get "married" and present you with a grandchild that was conceived in a petetrie dish! Last but not least (and one that communities ask about) no written in stone responsibility of taking care of you when you are 82! Go ahead and romanticized marriage and having children...whatever that means!

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

Sr. Mary Catherine,

 

I think Fr. Hardon was referring to the fact that religious life (and actually consecrated life in general) is an extraordinary call.  It is a special grace given to some of the faithful as can be seen in Essential Norms on Religious Life:

 

Underlining mine for emphasis.

 

The problem I have with both Path's of Love and A Religious Vocation is that both assume that religious life is the default vocation and marriage or other vocations are simply for those who have defects of one kind or another that prevent them from remaining in religious life.  I prefer to think that God freely gives His grace to some among the faithful to consecrated life, because I haven't seen official Church teaching that one must be defective for religious life to have a vocation elsewhere. 

Actually, just the opposite. Paths of Love works out of first the universal call to holiness. I've never heard anyone even suggest that marriage and other forms of consecrated life are for those who are "defective"!

The tradition of the Church, actually, has been that a vocation to religious life (consecrated life) is not an extraordinary call. I think, though that a vocation to be a consecrated virgin or a promised member of a secular institute is more extraordinary. Those ways of life take very special graces.