celibacy and past relationships

[Butterfly]

I would find it quite interesting to know if and how priests and religious brothers and sisters are able to integrate their past relationships in their celibate life. I know a few priests and religious people who had serious relationships before choosing this way of life and I would find it quite interesting to know if and how these experiences influenced their own celibate life.

Any thoughts? For sure this is a very personal topic, but maybe we can discuss it in the phorum on a more objective way.

thank you for your thoughts.

 

[katherineH]

I have a good friend whose ex-boyfriend is entering seminary.  They are very good friends and I think they had a very positive relationship, which enabled her to let go of him when he discerned priesthood.  I could see them remaining friends for a long time.  I definitely think it's possible.  

[veritasluxmea]

I could see them remaining acquaintances and keeping in touch, but especially when people are in formation, most religious communities (and I know for certain some of the more popular ones in the US) are restrictive about friendships with people of the opposite sex. You probably wouldn't be allowed to contact them directly. Once you're more "in the world" after ordination/final profession and seeing your family a bit more often, it might be ok to keep in touch but you'd really have to ask yourself how prudent that would be. 

[Gabriela]

I think prudence is the key, as veritas says. If seeing an "ex" is a near occasion of sin for someone (including causing that person to doubt their religious/priestly vocation), it's a bad idea.

From a different angle, quite a few of the sisters I've spoken with have said that having past relationships isn't really a hindrance in religious life. In fact, some of them are really glad they had them, because they see women come in who haven't had them, and they often wonder what they missed. Sometimes women will leave (or be asked to leave) so that they can go have some relationships to see if that's for them. In general, I think a lot of SDs encourage people to try having a healthy, chaste relationship with the opposite sex before entering religious life/seminary. The thinking is that, if a religious/priestly vocation is there, having a relationship will only confirm it.

What happens after entrance is something the sisters on Phatmass can address. But my impression from sisters so far is that those relationships are "lifted up" to God in a very special way in the convent/monastery.

[marigold]

Gabriela's second paragraph rings true in my life. The first and third, only time will tell

[puellapaschalis]

I think prudence is the key, as veritas says. If seeing an "ex" is a near occasion of sin for someone (including causing that person to doubt their religious/priestly vocation), it's a bad idea.

From a different angle, quite a few of the sisters I've spoken with have said that having past relationships isn't really a hindrance in religious life. In fact, some of them are really glad they had them, because they see women come in who haven't had them, and they often wonder what they missed. Sometimes women will leave (or be asked to leave) so that they can go have some relationships to see if that's for them. In general, I think a lot of SDs encourage people to try having a healthy, chaste relationship with the opposite sex before entering religious life/seminary. The thinking is that, if a religious/priestly vocation is there, having a relationship will only confirm it.

What happens after entrance is something the sisters on Phatmass can address. But my impression from sisters so far is that those relationships are "lifted up" to God in a very special way in the convent/monastery.

This sentiment sits uneasy with me; it sounds as though having a relationship - albeit healthy and chaste (but then aren't all relationships supposed to be healthy and chaste?) - is to be encouraged to 'test out' your actual Plan A. I don't think the other half of the relationship should be treated that way, and in fact I don't think the relationship should be treated that way.

Surely a 'healthy, chaste' - can we use a word like 'romantic' or something? - relationship should be pursued with a view to marriage, rather than just for the 'experience'.

Edited July 22, 2015 by puellapaschalis

[josephine]

I have heard many sisters and priests who were in a happy, healthy relationship and sensed very strongly that their vocation was not marriage, that although they loved the other dearly, that they could never find their fulfillment in marriage. So after entering, they would struggle less with the thoughts of 'what ifs' because they made a very conscious choice. (not saying that people who haven't had relationships cannot make a wellinformed choice about entering a monastery, but it is more obvious and clear if you could have that and choose not to).

after entering, it depends on the community and the relationship if and how much people keep in touch. That is not neccesarily a very bad thing, I mean, most people who are married are also not in regular contact with their exes  

 

[Gabriela]

This sentiment sits uneasy with me; it sounds as though having a relationship - albeit healthy and chaste (but then aren't all relationships supposed to be healthy and chaste?) - is to be encouraged to 'test out' your actual Plan A. I don't think the other half of the relationship should be treated that way, and in fact I don't think the relationship should be treated that way.

Surely a 'healthy, chaste' - can we use a word like 'romantic' or something? - relationship should be pursued with a view to marriage, rather than just for the 'experience'.

I agree. I don't think this advice is for everyone, and I think it's sometimes given in the wrong situations. But for someone who is really torn between marriage and religious life, and who has never had a relationship, it's sometimes a good idea.

What I don't like to see is when someone tells a person who wants only religious life, and has only ever wanted religious life, to go out and date first, because "you have to have tried that/had that experience". I think that's just wrong, not only for the discerner, but for anyone that person might wind up in a relationship with.

[truthfinder]

I agree. I don't think this advice is for everyone, and I think it's sometimes given in the wrong situations. But for someone who is really torn between marriage and religious life, and who has never had a relationship, it's sometimes a good idea.

What I don't like to see is when someone tells a person who wants only religious life, and has only ever wanted religious life, to go out and date first, because "you have to have tried that/had that experience". I think that's just wrong, not only for the discerner, but for anyone that person might wind up in a relationship with.

I agree with you on this.  However, I'm sure a VD would be incredibly leery of a discerner who has effectively sequestered themselves (or someone, ie parents, has done it to them) from the opposite sex.  You don't have to have a dating relationship, but I would be a bit concerned if the person cannot make friends (or at least be friendly) with the opposite sex, or on the contrary only has friends of the opposite sex. 

[Gabriela]

I agree with you on this.  However, I'm sure a VD would be incredibly leery of a discerner who has effectively sequestered themselves (or someone, ie parents, has done it to them) from the opposite sex.  You don't have to have a dating relationship, but I would be a bit concerned if the person cannot make friends (or at least be friendly) with the opposite sex, or on the contrary only has friends of the opposite sex. 

These days, yeah.