Homily: Marriage Is Good, But Celibacy Is Better

[BarbTherese]

. I think its by dying to the world that the vocation is a higher state.

 

 I appreciate your sentiments, or what I think are your sentiments, I really do.  But in stating the above, you are in fact stating that only in celibacy can one die to the world and it is in dying to the world that one is in a higher state.  And, indeed, if one does die to this world, then one is in a higher state because one is in a supernatural state (above the natural order).  But dying to this world is not confined to the celibate vocation.   Holiness and dying to this world is not confined to celibate states of life.  The probable canonization of Mr. & Mrs Martin (parents of St Therese of Lisieux) illustrates this point.

 

I think its by dying to the world that the vocation is a higher state. This both elevates the state and humbles the person

 

 

Ideally, embracing celibacy for the sake of The Kingdom should elevate the state and humble the person.  Sometimes, however, what actually can happen is that the person elevates themselves in their own mind -  and the state in life suffers because of this.  Not always, thank The Lord, but sometimes.  Because one has embraced a state in life that is celibate for the sake of The Kingdom is no guarantee at all of holiness.  It is a potential for holiness like any other vocation.

 

 Jesus talks about the religious state being special

 

 The celibate state for the sake of The Kingdom is very special as are those related vocations,  It is that state in which, ideally, the person puts aside the things of this world to embrace the things of the next or what belongs to The Kingdom.  One can do this in marriage, or in a non celibate state also perhaps only - not as easily. Grace is forever present to holiness in all states in life.

 

What the Council of Trent was stating is that it would be anathema to state that the celibate state was not superior to the non celibate state.  This is an objective theological declaration and I don't think anyone in this thread is contesting this, although I am unsure.  Certainly, the subject of this thread does imply something questionable.  It may not have been the intent - but the unintended implication is there.  This is what this thread is about, it seems to me i.e. underscoring that celibacy for the sake of The Kingdom as the superior vocation is an objective theological declaration.  Nothing subjective about it.  Nothing is superior theologically to The Will of God.

 

"Marriage is good, but celibacy is better" is really patronizing and condescending towards those in the Sacrament of Marriage in my book.  I don't think at all it was intended, it is in the wording and I think entirely unintentional.

 

I don't think at all that pre V2 was all negative at all; what was getting very shady was our understanding of our Faith and The Church and this is what V2 set about trying to correct - our Catholic cultural thinking.  Having lived through pre V2 days and having become thoroughly confused because of what I was taught (Catholic cultural thought back then) versus what I was reading in Scripture and in the writings of saints and The Fathers presented very real contradictions to me.  Back then, documents out of Rome were not free and I had no money to purchase same. One hardly ever heard about them if at all.  No internet back then.  Our family had no telephone nor television.  Vatican II rescued me from all that confusion.  I love the Latin Mass, not because of the Latin so much which I never got friendly with (gave up studying Latin), but because it is The Mass.  Vatican II was a Pastoral Council of The Church and largely addressed our cultural Catholic thinking trying to straighten out misconceptions and misunderstandings.

 

For me, it did.  And I am not alone.  I do not reject what was taught by The Church pre V2 because now, post V2 Pastoral Council, I understand what it was that The Church had always really taught.  I think it is wonderful that the Latin Mass is now widely accepted and attended - not because it is in Latin, but because those who, in shock, left The Church might now be returning to Her.  Also because those who prefer a Latin Mass now have the Latin Mass.   My Mum back during the very early days post Vatican II said "This is the protestanisation of Catholicism".  She was very wrong and she lived to totally regret the day she said it and believed it, but thankfully she did realize eventually the error of her previous thinking.

 

Vatican II was a journey for all of us and still is and will be.

Edited August 17, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

I don't think that there is any "blurring distinctions between vocations".  All the distinctions are very clear theologically and duty wise, the particular witness to be given to The Church and the world.  Each vocation is very carefully defined.  Forgive me, but I don't understand what you mean by this:-

 

        " Im called to holiness, but this doesnt mean that Im like Father X at Mass and can do what he does". 

 

        Of course, in striving for holiness, I am called to do so within the terms of my own vocation in life, whatever vocation that might be - and these determinations are very carefully spelt out for us by Rome and sometimes in numerous places.  The various vocations speak to each other as it were and build up the Mystical Body of Christ ideally.  

 

Vatican II never contradicted previous Councils of The Church.  What has happened is (as has happened with all the Councils of The Church) after each Council there has been a period of much unrest in The Church as implications of a particular Council were discussed and debated.  This is what is happening post Vatican II.  We are still trying to sort out in our minds the implications of Vatican II and this "sorting out" takes place through discussions and debates and very healthy indeed.  And these discussions and debates are taking place on numerous levels in The Church and we receive the feedback, sometimes the texts of the various venues themselves.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[MarysLittleFlower]

Barbara, thanks for replying. I didnt mean that one can't die to the world without religious life. I meant that religious life is ordered towards this to make it easier, and God gives the grace for it, according to His will. I think the original post isnt saying at all about pride and elevating the self, only about the objective state.. and the fact that the state is higher doesnt mean it was not given as an undeserved gift. Regarding V2, Im not very sure what you mean about culture preV2? do you mean that sometimes the teachings were not told to you? I meant more about the teachings themselves, which are of course eternally true :) I think today the Church is faced with liberalism that affects and limits catechesis.. a lot of the liberal theologians reject everything preV2, which is why I think we need to keep our tradition and of course because it is true. :)

[Maggyie]

I watched the whole homily. First of all there are better ways to talk about the indissolubility of marriage without dragging out "anathema sit." This style of homiletics is singularly unconvincing.

 

Second, it's absolutely true that objectively celibacy is a higher vocation. But that's at the objective, theological level. For individuals, the "best" vocation is the one that will lead them to heaven. The priest counsels ALL single people to ask for the grace of perfect chastity and says more or less "ask and you shall receive." I really feel this attitude is harmful.

 

More often in the old days, many people entered priesthood or religious life because they felt the universal call to holiness and misinterpreted it as a call to a religious vocation. If you have ever known a priest who has realized he did not have an authentic vocation, it's a terrible thing. And this still happens.

 

I think the sad experience of the Church over thousands of years is that the grace to live a celibate vocation is NOT just there for the asking. And especially in recent times we can see this, painfully. It's not a universal gift at all in my opinion.

 

More to the point - Celibacy is "higher" but that doesn't mean marriage is "lower." A man who discerns he is called to marriage and not priesthood/religious life is not experiencing failure to "shoot for the stars" nor is he failing to pray for the right graces or being denied important graces. If you don't have a religious vocation, begging for God to give you a religious vocation is not going to work.This homily almost makes me concerned about the formation program in this order. It's strange because most of what he says is correct but you can detect an unhealthy odor somewhere. Something seems wrong.

[God's Beloved]

In my previous post I said that Vat II tried to reduce the gap between clergy and laity, religious and laity . I did not mean a 'blurring' of the identities of each vocation. On other threads in fact I have been promoting the fidelity of each vocation to its own charism .

 

Pre Vatican II  clergy and religious  seemed to be too triumphalistic  , not giving enough emphasis to the fact that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son to become one of us through the Incarnation.

 

11 I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world whereas I am going to you. Holy Father, keep them in your Name (that you have given me,) so that they may be one, just as we are.
12 When I was with them, I kept them safe in your Name, and not one was lost except the one who was already lost, and in this the Scripture was fulfilled.
13 But now I am coming to you and I leave these my words in the world that my joy may be complete in them.
14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them because they are not of the world; just as I am not of the world.
15 I do not ask you to remove them from the world but to keep them from the evil one.
16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world;
17 consecrate them in the truth - your word is truth.
18 I have sent them into the world as you sent me into the world,
19 and for their sake, I go to the sacrifice by which I am consecrated, so that they too may be consecrated in truth.
20 I pray not only for these but also for those who through their word will believe in me.
21 May they all be one as you Father are in me and I am in you. May they be one in us; so the world may believe that you have sent me.
 

[John 17 :11-21]

 

 

Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.

 

§2. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

 

Can. 207 §1. By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons.

 

§2. There are members of the Christian faithful from both these groups who, through the profession of the evangelical counsels by means of vows or other sacred bonds recognized and sanctioned by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and contribute to the salvific mission of the Church; although their state does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, it nevertheless belongs to its life and holiness.

 

Can. 208 From their rebirth in Christ, there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and action by which they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to each one’s own condition and function.

 

 

To be frank , on VS  I've noticed  in hundreds of posts that there is a condescending attitude towards  those who  are called to live their vocation in the world [ 99 per cent of all Catholics]. There really is no 'need' to discuss about the objective superiority of religious life  or to state that a state of life that is separated from the world is Superior . Jesus Christ has not said so ! He incarnated Himself in the world that God the Father loves so much . As Christians we are called to  be in the world but not of the world[ly values] .

 

This site is read by all kinds of people , what impression will they have about the Church if  there are hundreds of posts  stating that religious life is superior to other vocations just because it is separated from the world ? Is this attitude Christ-like ?  99.99 per cent of all humanity lives in this world created by a God who said His creation is good , very good  !

[God's Beloved]

The First Chapter of Genesis in  the OT  and the Last Chapter of Revelations in the NT , both mention the beauty of marriage  and of chastity .

 

Something to reflect upon !

[Marie Villalovos Smith]

adding my two cents for what it might be worth: I believe that God made all of us to love Him, and gave us all a calling to live by and within, and if we follow Him faithfully not one of those callings are better than the other and we will all be with Him in His Kingdom. To suggest that someone is better/high than another because of their type of calling is just unchristian and tells the other calling that they are lower in gods eyes. I just don't see God seeing anyone as less that anyone else.  He is God and He loves us all equally.

[BarbTherese]

Barbara, thanks for replying. I didnt mean that one can't die to the world without religious life. I meant that religious life is ordered towards this to make it easier, and God gives the grace for it, according to His will. I think the original post isnt saying at all about pride and elevating the self, only about the objective state.. and the fact that the state is higher doesnt mean it was not given as an undeserved gift. Regarding V2, Im not very sure what you mean about culture preV2? do you mean that sometimes the teachings were not told to you? I meant more about the teachings themselves, which are of course eternally true :) I think today the Church is faced with liberalism that affects and limits catechesis.. a lot of the liberal theologians reject everything preV2, which is why I think we need to keep our tradition and of course because it is true. :)

 Thank you for the comments, MLF.

 

Apologies, I misunderstood.

 

The problem becomes when speaking about celibate state as objectively theologically superior, is that many if not most of very ordinary Catholics-in-the-pews as it were get it wrong and take it that it means that the subjective element (the person called to celibacy) is superior and I have heard talks by religious and the video referred to in the OP was one of them, where 'getting it wrong' on the part of the viewer of the video was not highlighted so that viewers did not get things wrong.  What exactly "objective theological level" means needs to be spelt out very clearly, or some are going to get it wrong and not only Catholics.

 

  I don't think for one second that our opening poster had 'getting things wrong' as his objective - but I am sensitive to the issue because for many years I had it wrong and due to pre V2 cultural thought.  Later, in my forties, I again entered monastic life thinking that Vatican II meant that in religious life things would have sorted out.   However, I found that I was expected in that community and as their general attitude to see themselves as superior spiritual women because God had chosen them for religious life and one of the reasons why I left.  They regarded themselves as loved more than those outside religious life and that they loved The Lord more. This was all pre V2 cultural thinking.

 

"Catholic cultural thought" means the way we think about Catholic matters which can be either in line with what The Church actually teaches, or we can get things screwed up and quite generally i.e. it becomes cultural amongst Catholics to think in a certain way about a subject but it is not what The Church actually teaches (in this instance).  This type of 'getting it all wrong' was what was occurring pre V2 and quite generally.  The laity were seen as the lesser body of people i.e. "unworthy" while religious and priests were viewed as the superior spiritual elite.  It was generally considered that the laity were on the natural level alone and lived in society at society's secular level alone as a valid option under The Lord and in The Church. That this was the norm for laity while indeed some did strive for holiness.  Priests and religious, non celibate states, were regarded as the spiritual elite concerned with spiritual matters and theirs the duty to spread the Faith.  Vatican II as Pastoral Council did strive to correct Catholic cultural thinking so that the Identity of The Church and all members of The Church and their relationship with each other was both highlighted and corrected if necessary.  Vatican II was newly explicit on the pastoral level.

Edited August 17, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

More to the point - Celibacy is "higher" but that doesn't mean marriage is "lower." A man who discerns he is called to marriage and not priesthood/religious life is not experiencing failure to "shoot for the stars" nor is he failing to pray for the right graces or being denied important graces. If you don't have a religious vocation, begging for God to give you a religious vocation is not going to work.This homily almost makes me concerned about the formation program in this order. It's strange because most of what he says is correct but you can detect an unhealthy odor somewhere. Something seems wrong.

 

 I agree with the above comments from Maggie.  The homily in the video made me feel decidedly uneasy, and I noticed that the expression on Father's face changed to almost a satisfied smile once he brought forward Scriptural quotes to support his agenda.  Not only this, once Father began speaking about any Grace was there for the asking while he was basically correct, where he veered from Catholic Teaching is that his homily indicated that one could ask for a quite specific Grace and it would be granted as one imagined it should be granted.  This is contradicted by another place in Scripture which I have already quoted.  Not only this, it then means that The Lord is at our Mercy, rather than we at His.  That we can manipulate His Will through intercessory prayer.

 

I did attend an introductory day for a religious order some years ago. I was very disturbed indeed by the tone of the main addresses given by a priest and then by a superior in the religious order.  It was very disturbing to me that such a talk would be give post V2 where the incorrect cultural thought pre V2 was clearly being stated and presented to young people and as Church teaching.  Those attending in the main would have been mid to late teens.  I did attempt to ask questions (this was permitted) to try and sort things out.  I was taken aside in a break and told that if my line of questioning continued, I would be asked to leave.  I did cease my questions and I stayed to the end of the day simply to see what unfolded and by talking to others attending in breaks to be able to discern the affect on their way of thinking.  The all without exception (the ones I listened to) had taken onboard as Catholic teaching what had been said in the various addresses.  Not only was the thinking of those attending not Catholic Teaching at all - but they in their turn would go out and talk to others.  They might indeed enter religious life, or they might marry and raise their children with the same inaccurate teachings presented as Catholic Teaching. This is an example of where V2 was regarded as an event not to be upheld and pre V2 cultural thought (inaccurate Church teaching) was reinforced and by a priest and a religious superior - and roughly around the year 2000/2001 or so, some 12 - 13 years ago.

 

 

[Laurie]

Now WHY do you think the Popes would bother to defend this DOGMA that was not explicitly said out of Jesus Christ's mouth but has been the constant teaching of the Church?  Seems to me that I recall that it is because the Church teaches that for those who are called to it, the consecrated state is more efficacious way in and of itself for bringing people to salvation.  This is important for people to know so that they can better understand what it is that they might be called to.  It is very hard to understand the consecrated state and flippant statements that everyone is called to holiness aren't helpful when one is sincerely discerning.  It's like saying the presidency, the army, and the navy are all ways of serving the country.  But don't worry.  All that matters is charity.  Focus on charity and you'll know what you need to be.  That is simply not true.  You need to know what it means to hold the office of president or what the difference is between the army and the navy. 

 

This brings to mind the general consensus among theologians through the centuries that there is an angelic hierarchy. (Though this differs radically from your discussion here, in that it's not dogma.)

 

The consensus is that it is OBJECTIVELY HIGHER to be a Seraphim rather than an archangel. But I don't think St. Michael's feathers get ruffled when the great minds of the Church expound upon this.

 

The highest calling for St. Michael, is to be St. Michael. That doesn't mean that among the angels God chose the objectively highest state for him. But God did choose precisely who and what He wanted Michael to be. St. Michael is fully conformed to and entirely fulfilled and perfected by God's will for him. His not being a Seraphim is no lack for him. That doesn't mean the Seraphim aren't, objectively, higher.
 

[BarbTherese]

adding my two cents for what it might be worth: I believe that God made all of us to love Him, and gave us all a calling to live by and within, and if we follow Him faithfully not one of those callings are better than the other and we will all be with Him in His Kingdom. To suggest that someone is better/high than another because of their type of calling is just unchristian and tells the other calling that they are lower in gods eyes. I just don't see God seeing anyone as less that anyone else.  He is God and He loves us all equally.

 

Hi MVS  :)  ............This is the very type of thinking that "objective theological level" does NOT mean i.e. that the person called to a celibate vocation is higher than a person called to a non celibate vocation.  The vocation itself as role is higher on the objective theological level, however on the subjective level we all remain equal and loved equally no matter our vocation. This is something of a mystery, something unfathomable.  It is something that Faith is all about i.e. to hold as Truth what one cannot understand.  That electricity causes a room light to come on with the flick of a switch is a truth, but not all can insight and understand.  Some just simply believe.

 

  In fact, a person called to a non celibate vocation may be far more holy than a priest or religious (celibate vocations for example).  Our goal, ideal, is not the highest theological vocation on the objective level, our vocation and call is to holiness and to embrace God's Will in all things in order to achieve holiness - and we know that God's Will for us is in part laid out in the duties of our particular vocation and state in life.  Holiness does not mean that God loves us more or less than any other person whatsoever.  What it does mean is that the holy person loves God more than a non holy person, has The Lord paramount and primary in their lives - and neighbour for The Love of God.  "How can you say you Love God, whom you cannot see, if you do not Love your neighbour whom you can see" (John Ch4).

[Laurie]

Though, I'll add, subjective holiness seems to play a role in human beatitude that it doesn't play in angelic beatitude. The angelic persons seem to have the clean division of good versus evil. The good are all conformed, as fully as possible for each, to the will of God. Whereas the vocations/personal holiness of human persons fall across a wide spectrum.

[MarysLittleFlower]

In my previous post I said that Vat II tried to reduce the gap between clergy and laity, religious and laity . I did not mean a 'blurring' of the identities of each vocation. On other threads in fact I have been promoting the fidelity of each vocation to its own charism .

 

Pre Vatican II  clergy and religious  seemed to be too triumphalistic  , not giving enough emphasis to the fact that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son to become one of us through the Incarnation.

 

11 I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world whereas I am going to you. Holy Father, keep them in your Name (that you have given me,) so that they may be one, just as we are.
12 When I was with them, I kept them safe in your Name, and not one was lost except the one who was already lost, and in this the Scripture was fulfilled.
13 But now I am coming to you and I leave these my words in the world that my joy may be complete in them.
14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them because they are not of the world; just as I am not of the world.
15 I do not ask you to remove them from the world but to keep them from the evil one.
16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world;
17 consecrate them in the truth - your word is truth.
18 I have sent them into the world as you sent me into the world,
19 and for their sake, I go to the sacrifice by which I am consecrated, so that they too may be consecrated in truth.
20 I pray not only for these but also for those who through their word will believe in me.
21 May they all be one as you Father are in me and I am in you. May they be one in us; so the world may believe that you have sent me.
 

[John 17 :11-21]

 

 

Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.

 

§2. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

 

Can. 207 §1. By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons.

 

§2. There are members of the Christian faithful from both these groups who, through the profession of the evangelical counsels by means of vows or other sacred bonds recognized and sanctioned by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and contribute to the salvific mission of the Church; although their state does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, it nevertheless belongs to its life and holiness.

 

Can. 208 From their rebirth in Christ, there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and action by which they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to each one’s own condition and function.

 

 

To be frank , on VS  I've noticed  in hundreds of posts that there is a condescending attitude towards  those who  are called to live their vocation in the world [ 99 per cent of all Catholics]. There really is no 'need' to discuss about the objective superiority of religious life  or to state that a state of life that is separated from the world is Superior . Jesus Christ has not said so ! He incarnated Himself in the world that God the Father loves so much . As Christians we are called to  be in the world but not of the world[ly values] .

 

This site is read by all kinds of people , what impression will they have about the Church if  there are hundreds of posts  stating that religious life is superior to other vocations just because it is separated from the world ? Is this attitude Christ-like ?  99.99 per cent of all humanity lives in this world created by a God who said His creation is good , very good  !

 

God's Beloved, I think that all vocations are important but it's also a doctrine of the Church about consecrated life... I don't think this means we should or could be condescending towards those in the world. There are also Saints who've lived in the world but also gave up everything for Christ, like St Catherine of Siena, who had a private vow and was a Third Order Dominican. It's not so much about religious life vs living in the world, it's how the consecrated people give up everything, but that doesn't mean they're somehow "superior" as people, it means the state is higher but people in other vocations are called to holiness too. I'm not at all talking abuot personal characteristics. Each vocation follows its own charism and *each one is needed*, so we're not saying that some are not needed, or not important, only what 'state' is "higher': higher seems to refer to simply being more like Heaven: like how religious don't marry, and enter into the reality more fully of which marriage is a sign.

 

Regarding your comments on preVII, I'm a little confused about what you mean, I mostly read preVII books and they've helped me so much :)

 

God bless!

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't think that there is any "blurring distinctions between vocations".  All the distinctions are very clear theologically and duty wise, the particular witness to be given to The Church and the world.  Each vocation is very carefully defined.  Forgive me, but I don't understand what you mean by this:-

 

        " Im called to holiness, but this doesnt mean that Im like Father X at Mass and can do what he does". 

 

        Of course, in striving for holiness, I am called to do so within the terms of my own vocation in life, whatever vocation that might be - and these determinations are very carefully spelt out for us by Rome and sometimes in numerous places.  The various vocations speak to each other as it were and build up the Mystical Body of Christ ideally.  

 

Vatican II never contradicted previous Councils of The Church.  What has happened is (as has happened with all the Councils of The Church) after each Council there has been a period of much unrest in The Church as implications of a particular Council were discussed and debated.  This is what is happening post Vatican II.  We are still trying to sort out in our minds the implications of Vatican II and this "sorting out" takes place through discussions and debates and very healthy indeed.  And these discussions and debates are taking place on numerous levels in The Church and we receive the feedback, sometimes the texts of the various venues themselves.

 

Sorry what I meant by blurring vocations is about theologically liberal thinking, I didn't mean anyone in this thread though. :)

 

With the quote, I meant that as a lay person I'm called to holiness, but vocations are still distinct, so I can't give the Sacraments etc, like a priest, and what I do is different.

 

One of the reasons I addressed the topic of VII is because it seems like people with really liberal views often reject all the other Councils and use this one to promote whatever they want, but if we have our Tradition and know it, that would help us understand our faith.

 Thank you for the comments, MLF.

 

Apologies, I misunderstood.

 

The problem becomes when speaking about celibate state as objectively theologically superior, is that many if not most of very ordinary Catholics-in-the-pews as it were get it wrong and take it that it means that the subjective element (the person called to celibacy) is superior and I have heard talks by religious and the video referred to in the OP was one of them, where 'getting it wrong' on the part of the viewer of the video was not highlighted so that viewers did not get things wrong.  What exactly "objective theological level" means needs to be spelt out very clearly, or some are going to get it wrong and not only Catholics.

 

  I don't think for one second that our opening poster had 'getting things wrong' as his objective - but I am sensitive to the issue because for many years I had it wrong and due to pre V2 cultural thought.  Later, in my forties, I again entered monastic life thinking that Vatican II meant that in religious life things would have sorted out.   However, I found that I was expected in that community and as their general attitude to see themselves as superior spiritual women because God had chosen them for religious life and one of the reasons why I left.  They regarded themselves as loved more than those outside religious life and that they loved The Lord more. This was all pre V2 cultural thinking.

 

"Catholic cultural thought" means the way we think about Catholic matters which can be either in line with what The Church actually teaches, or we can get things screwed up and quite generally i.e. it becomes cultural amongst Catholics to think in a certain way about a subject but it is not what The Church actually teaches (in this instance).  This type of 'getting it all wrong' was what was occurring pre V2 and quite generally.  The laity were seen as the lesser body of people i.e. "unworthy" while religious and priests were viewed as the superior spiritual elite.  It was generally considered that the laity were on the natural level alone and lived in society at society's secular level alone as a valid option under The Lord and in The Church. That this was the norm for laity while indeed some did strive for holiness.  Priests and religious, non celibate states, were regarded as the spiritual elite concerned with spiritual matters and theirs the duty to spread the Faith.  Vatican II as Pastoral Council did strive to correct Catholic cultural thinking so that the Identity of The Church and all members of The Church and their relationship with each other was both highlighted and corrected if necessary.  Vatican II was newly explicit on the pastoral level.

Thanks for clarifying Barbara. I think we're talking about objective reality of a 'state' here, not saying that people in the world are not loved. God does choose souls to give themselves fully to Him, but He works through them to help others :)

 

Regarding VII... maybe I have a different problem, being a convert. As a convert, I struggled a lot with the realization that there's liberalism in the Church. I was born after VII, and I'm a recent convert. I can't really comment on anyone's experience. I mostly read books that were published pre-VII, like books by TAN publishers, and lives of the Saints. etc. They're preVII and many of them  mention religious life in some way. However, there's nothing there at all about God not loving people in the world - much of the books are about how the Saints in religious orders tried to bring all souls to God, and God often told them how much He longs for souls to come to Him, etc :)

 

I think that we still need to undersand that Church's teaching about consecrated life being a 'higher state' because it's a Church doctrine. I think if someone feels hurt or unloved by God from these comments, (and I hope no one feels that way!) - it could help them to think about how God chooses some to reach the others, about how there are Saints who lived in the world, and also about how we don't actually know how God chooses someone for consecrated life.

 

I think there are differences between laity and religious and priests, I mean I'd be contradicting Church teaching otherwise.. however, laity do have a role in the Church, of course. I'm not saying they don't :) I'm a lay person right now.

 

I think the problem with todays' cultural thought is probably liberalism, so it's always important to just focus on the teachings and go from there :) Hope that makes sense!

[MarysLittleFlower]

Some points :) I agree that a person should discern God's will for them, and not want "what is higher" for a prideful reason. If they want to give everything to God and so want the state that contains the greatest amount of self giving, that's a good reason, and more about love. Jesus told Sr Josefa in WAY OF DIVINE LOVE, how some want to give up everything for God, and to them, God says to sell their possessions, etc. I think ther'es nothing wrong with saying that this state of giving up everything, is a special state of life. If a person isn't called to that, they're still called to live good holy lives, and are called to love, and Jesus talks about these people too and then talks about those who don't love and only fear, and then those who reject Him. Then He calls those who reject Him, to repentance. It's a really beautiful passage from the book. All are loved by God... but there are some who do give up everything, and that's a great preparation for Heaven not just because the person gives up sin and worldly ways, but also because they give up GOOD things for God's love. There are Saints who were married and had to fulfill their duties in their state of life but weren't attached to anything, - God gave them the grace for this.

 

This brings to mind the general consensus among theologians through the centuries that there is an angelic hierarchy. (Though this differs radically from your discussion here, in that it's not dogma.)

 

The consensus is that it is OBJECTIVELY HIGHER to be a Seraphim rather than an archangel. But I don't think St. Michael's feathers get ruffled when the great minds of the Church expound upon this.

 

The highest calling for St. Michael, is to be St. Michael. That doesn't mean that among the angels God chose the objectively highest state for him. But God did choose precisely who and what He wanted Michael to be. St. Michael is fully conformed to and entirely fulfilled and perfected by God's will for him. His not being a Seraphim is no lack for him. That doesn't mean the Seraphim aren't, objectively, higher.
 

 

Great point! :)