BarbTherese Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Barb, I accept your apology and ask your pardon if you have been offended. However, as much as there are matters here worth exploring, I'm going to bow out of this conversation. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you're willing to listen to what anyone else here is saying, and this conversation will sadly be fruitless in the end. Good luck to you. Thank you for what you have contributed and thank you for accepting my apology. Of course I forgive you and thank you very much for asking the question. I make mistakes myself far too often not to be understanding of others. For my own part - you are quite correct and I admit that I am quite convinced on the subject and might not at all a good listener - rather often in the Debate forum I have found that those who do contribute are by far my betters and perhaps 'blocked ears' is a defence mechanism, while I do feel convinced of my own understandings on the subject. Even so, I can feel myself floundering in the face of far superior education and knowledge. I have never been a fan of a debate forum and I probably should have known better than to be here. Well Barb we're going to have to disagree about that. I think I misspoke in that second paragraph, so I apologize for that. I think I'm also going to bow out of this conversation. Thank you also for what you have contributed. I wholeheartedly accept your apology and am very sorry to see you go too - and I too apologize if I have said anything I should not have said. What I have written to bardegaulois applies here too. I am hoping you both might reconsider. Thank you both........regards and God Bless..........Barb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 On the subject of the 'marriage market', while there might be some sort of argument from the perspective of whether 'the market' is healthy or not, I would not know. I think it is a question of discerning (prayerfully and best with spiritual direction) what God is calling one to for the rest of one's life. Isn't this what it is all about for Catholics? In such a decision there are numerous factors to take into consideration. But I don't think it is a question of whether one has some sort of responsibility to put oneself in or out of 'the market' because of 'market need', nor a question of directing discerners in a certain direction because of some sort of 'market' lack. I do think, however, that supposing only 'the market' is lacking it might be a something to take into consideration and consideration only. But I truly would loathe and shudder (having been married with children - annulled) to think discerners and those advising them were making serious life decisions for marriage and raising children on the basis of 'the market's needs' alone. This so-called "vocation to be single" (outside of consecrated life) is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy - you can't find a spouse, therefore, being single must be your vocation, but you probably would have found a spouse if those who would have made suitable spouses hadn't taken themselves "off the market" in the first place because they were duped by the so-called "single vocation" Goodness! That is a sweeping generalization. Definitely not so in my case and I know that I am alone. It just might apply for some, I really would not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 To be honest there are not a lot of people pursuing the single life as a vocation. the number of people who have "taken themselves off the market" for this reason is incredibly small. And if they have discerned correctly that they are not called to marriage, you wouldnt want them in the pool anyway. I don't believe at all in a poisoned dating pool, if anything the marriage market has grown more efficient. If Mary Beth is honest with herself, most Catholic people she knows have found spouses in spite of the alleged poison. However as in all markets, people who over value or under value the goods, encounter difficulty. From a statistical perspective the vast majority of people will marry at some point (approaching 90% for white women for instance) and in that roughly 10-15% who don't, there are many who are in priesthood/religious life, don't believe in the institution of marriage, or just never felt the desire to marry. Being religious, college educated and white are all advantages in the market. Being an atheist, poor, or minority are disadvantages. If the dating pool was truly poisoned inefficiencies would be much greater. now you can make your marriage market much smaller by refusing to date outside your race, or outside your social/educational class. If you are older you must expand your search to include people who already have kids or who have been previously married (annulled that is). but anyway my point is there is no vast problem with singles not interested in marriage. Given how large the current pool is, if you are encountering problems, the nature of the problem means it will probably not be resolved by making the dating pool a tiny bit bigger by warning people off the single vocation. Well, considering how many marriages end in divorce as well as the rampant cohabitation and the "hook-up" culture, I would dispute that the market is efficient; rather, it proves how poisoned the pool really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Goodness! That is a sweeping generalization. Definitely not so in my case and I know that I am alone. It just might apply for some, I really would not know. I'm an IT profssional, so it's in my nature to follow how a process flows, and all one has to do is follow the flow and connect the dots and see the pattern in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 well, the more non-negotiables a person has, the smaller their dating pool is going to be. Especially as one gets older, and the number of age-appropriate unmarried people gets smaller, some flexibility is in order. of course we must insist on a few minimum standards. such as: "not gay." wouldn't you agree norseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Well, considering how many marriages end in divorce as well as the rampant cohabitation and the "hook-up" culture, I would dispute that the market is efficient; rather, it proves how poisoned the pool really is. I wonder if the problems mentioned above arise out of the fact that the Laity do not realise that they have a clearly defined vocation and call and what the duties of their vocation are. That is - a lack of formation of the Laity. Many in the Laity, I suspect, those who do marry etc. do not realise the seriousness of their commitment as a vocational call from God and again, this is a problem of lack of formation of Laity at parish level. I think probably the problems mentioned are written off to secularization and I think that Laity can become secularized because there is little or no formation and on parish level. Most Laity who marry do not go through a process of discernment before the marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 I'm an IT profssional, so it's in my nature to follow how a process flows, and all one has to do is follow the flow and connect the dots and see the pattern in this regard. That may be so, but I think that the following is still a sweeping generalization and can state confidently that it is not so at all in all cases....... This so-called "vocation to be single" (outside of consecrated life) is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy - you can't find a spouse, therefore, being single must be your vocation, but you probably would have found a spouse if those who would have made suitable spouses hadn't taken themselves "off the market" in the first place because they were duped by the so-called "single vocation" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Norseman: "were duped by the so-called "single vocation" ...........and of course, I totally disagree with the above statement because The Church has published Documents, as well as the Catholic Catechism (both previously quoted with link), which state that the single life can be a vocational state in the Laity. Not all in the single state have been duped - and the "so-called single vocation" is indeed a vocation clearly defined by Rome as per previous posts and links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 ...........and of course, I totally disagree with the above statement because The Church has published Documents, as well as the Catholic Catechism (both previously quoted with link), which state that the single life can be a vocational state in the Laity. Not all in the single state have been duped - and the "so-called single vocation" is indeed a vocation clearly defined by Rome as per previous posts and links. You've stated a lot of documents, but not one of them has said that vows of a certain kind are not necessary for the single state to be a vocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) You've stated a lot of documents, but not one of them has said that vows of a certain kind are not necessary for the single state to be a vocation. Thank you for the comments, PP - and spot on! This was precisely my opening post for this thread :- that vows of some kind are not necessary for the single state to be a vocation and call. Certainly in Vita Consecrata, for those who might have made some kind of private vow/consecration, Pope John Paul II gives thanks for them in the same paragraph as all states in Consecrated Life. I do tend to think that probably for those (seemingly) few who do embrace the single state as their vocation and call from God, they probably have made some kind of private dedication or consecration - but no evidence to support this. Be that as it may, if one is living under private vow or vows/consecration in the Laity, in Canon Law at this time, one is NOT in Consecrated Life per se in Canon Law, rather in Canon Law one remains in every way in the Laity - and personally I am hoping it will stay this way. It does remain to be seen, however, what The Church has or has not in mind. There are no Vatican Documents that state that there must be some kind of vow/personal consecration for the single state to be a vocation. Vita Consecrata - The Consecrated Life"We are all aware of the treasure which the gift of the consecrated life in the variety of its charisms and institutions represents for the ecclesial community. Together let us thank God for the Religious Orders and Institutes devoted to contemplation or the works of the apostolate, for Societies of Apostolic Life, for Secular Institutes and for other groups of consecrated persons, as well as for all those individuals who, in their inmost hearts, dedicate themselves to God by a special consecration " Edited May 11, 2015 by BarbaraTherese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share Posted May 11, 2015 I think it is precisely because most to many laity who are not discerning elsewhere presume that they do not have a vocation and call from God, that the lay state is not taken with the seriousness that is its due. Because of this, if there is some sort of lack in the 'dating pool' (i.e.good Catholic males and females) for those who feel they are called to marriage, then perhaps the cause can be traced back to the laity not understanding that they do indeed have a very serious call and vocation from God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 well, the more non-negotiables a person has, the smaller their dating pool is going to be. Especially as one gets older, and the number of age-appropriate unmarried people gets smaller, some flexibility is in order. of course we must insist on a few minimum standards. such as: "not gay." wouldn't you agree norseman. All the more reason that we need the pool increased, not decreased! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share Posted May 11, 2015 You've stated a lot of documents, but not one of them has said that vows of a certain kind are not necessary for the single state to be a vocation. Apologies, I misread your post, PP. You are correct - Neither does any Vatican Document state that vows are necessary for the lay state to be a vocation. The Laity per se is a vocation - see Christifedeles Laici : "Vocation and Mission of The Laity" John Paul II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 The traditional idea of vocation is very medieval, assigning people a role in the church and society. There is a broader idea of vocation that is more personal/existential rather than being based on a broad social role (clergy, laity, peasant, royalty). It would probably be anachronistic to project this broader idea of vocation backwards, people back then didn't have the same personal consciousness that we have in the modern world. The traditional idea of vocation is probably closer to what we mean by "occupation" (not just what job you have, but how you define yourself, worker, administrator, minister, etc). I think of vocation today more in terms of a way of being in the world, probably closer to what we would mean (in traditional terms) by "charism" or "spirituality." To be a contemplative is a vocation, even in a secular sense (e.g., to be a writer or artist is not just to writing stuff or create stuff, but to adopt an orientation to the world and to live by that way of being). I have read books written from a very traditional perspective that support the idea of being single for the sake of Christ as a vocation... There's even a book about that from TAN. Also what about St Catherine, St Rose of Lima, St Kateri? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Well, a lot of people in the Gospel of John also had a problem with Jesus saying that people must eat His body and drink His blood... Anyway, single is a "state of life", but it is not a vocation unless some type of sacrament/vow "locks you in" on a permanent basis and creates a canonical impediment to marriage or holy orders/religious life. So, the only people who I would even remotely say are called to be single for the rest of their lives would be people with canonical impediments, such as divorced people (whose marriages were found to be valid) whose spouses are still alive, which, by the way, are the only class of people in the New Testament who are ordered to stay single for the rest of their lives. Also, laity <> single. Laity encompasses any non-ordained class of people, whether they be single, married, divorced, widowed. I think its ok to enter religious life if previously you made private vows though. You just can't go the other way and marry. Edited May 20, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now