On Use of the Term "Vocation"

[Gabriela]

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be the linguistic police here (as I hope will become clear), just raising an issue that bothers me.

1. Right now, there's a thread in the VS titled "Belated Vocations Website".

2. Earlier this week, as I was responding to someone's post, I found myself writing, "If you do feel certain that you have a vocation", at which point I stopped and inserted "religious" before the word "vocation".

3. On a regular basis, I hear Prayers of the Faithful at parishes that include something very similar to this: "That men and women would seriously consider the call to a vocation in the Church..."

Why does this stuff bother me? Cuz it makes it sound like only priests and religious have vocations. I know it's a "shortcut" that most of us feel is harmless and just get used to using (myself included; cf. #2). But I think it's harmful, because it repeatedly, all over the place, reinforces the idea that marriage, consecrated virginity, secular institutes, certain forms of work, etc. are NOT vocations, that one canNOT be called to these things. It makes it sound like the only vocations in the Church are priestly and religious ones. And that is just not true.

So I'm writing all this out not to sound grumpy or pedantic or to call anyone else out (cf. #2! ), but to plead with all of us (including myself) to be more conscious of how we use the words "vocation" and "calling", so as not to imply (unintentionally, of course) something that the Church does not teach. I think that, especially for the less well formed or for new discerners, the subtle implications of such usage can really shape their perceptions, beliefs, and decisions.

[Gabriela steps off the soap box.]

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

The easy answer is stop using the term vocation except for the priesthood.

[Julie]

10 minutes ago, Sr Mary Catharine OP said:

The easy answer is stop using the term vocation except for the priesthood.

I know people who do this. At least it's consistent...

[Gabriela]

53 minutes ago, Sr Mary Catharine OP said:

The easy answer is stop using the term vocation except for the priesthood.

Why would we do that?

I asked a theologian about this this summer when I was taking an independent study in work and vocation with him. He said that, historically, "big-V" "Vocation" has been reserved for the priesthood and religious life. But "little-v" "vocation" applies to many different states of life, and that's typically how we use the term today.

So what's the justification for restricting it to only the priesthood? Even St. Thomas classifies religious vocations as "big-V" "Vocations".

[katherineH]

5 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Why would we do that?

I asked a theologian about this this summer when I was taking an independent study in work and vocation with him. He said that, historically, "big-V" "Vocation" has been reserved for the priesthood and religious life. But "little-v" "vocation" applies to many different states of life, and that's typically how we use the term today.

So what's the justification for restricting it to only the priesthood? Even St. Thomas classifies religious vocations as "big-V" "Vocations".

I'm with you on this one Gabriela.  I think we should pursue accuracy in our language before ease.  Using vocation exclusively to refer to the priesthood makes it seem like only priests are called by God, when in fact we know that each person receives a vocation in baptism. 

[bardegaulois]

3 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be the linguistic police here (as I hope will become clear), just raising an issue that bothers me.

1. Right now, there's a thread in the VS titled "Belated Vocations Website".

2. Earlier this week, as I was responding to someone's post, I found myself writing, "If you do feel certain that you have a vocation", at which point I stopped and inserted "religious" before the word "vocation".

3. On a regular basis, I hear Prayers of the Faithful at parishes that include something very similar to this: "That men and women would seriously consider the call to a vocation in the Church..."

Why does this stuff bother me? Cuz it makes it sound like only priests and religious have vocations. I know it's a "shortcut" that most of us feel is harmless and just get used to using (myself included; cf. #2). But I think it's harmful, because it repeatedly, all over the place, reinforces the idea that marriage, consecrated virginity, secular institutes, certain forms of work, etc. are NOT vocations, that one canNOT be called to these things. It makes it sound like the only vocations in the Church are priestly and religious ones. And that is just not true.

So I'm writing all this out not to sound grumpy or pedantic or to call anyone else out (cf. #2! ), but to plead with all of us (including myself) to be more conscious of how we use the words "vocation" and "calling", so as not to imply (unintentionally, of course) something that the Church does not teach. I think that, especially for the less well formed or for new discerners, the subtle implications of such usage can really shape their perceptions, beliefs, and decisions.

[Gabriela steps off the soap box.]

In order to avoid this, I've often used the terms "ecclesiastical vocation" and "personal vocation," the former being a calling to a particular ecclesiastical state of life (which not everyone will receive), and the latter being the very particular calling one has without regard to ecclesiastical state (which all have). Often these will overlap, but the purpose in drawing the distinction is to illustrate the point that while everyone has a vocation, it is not necessarily a vocation to become an ecclesiastical person. I've found it the best way to honour both senses of the term.

[Julie]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

Why would we do that?

I asked a theologian about this this summer when I was taking an independent study in work and vocation with him. He said that, historically, "big-V" "Vocation" has been reserved for the priesthood and religious life. But "little-v" "vocation" applies to many different states of life, and that's typically how we use the term today.

So what's the justification for restricting it to only the priesthood? Even St. Thomas classifies religious vocations as "big-V" "Vocations".

So, I'm not someone that does this (I pretty much say "religious vocation" or "vocation to ____." Unless the context demands more... Like "my school has a lot of vocations" because that includes vocations to the secular priesthood.)

BUT I know people who do restrict "Vocation" to the priesthood. No other vocation leaves an indelible mark on your soul. The consecration or marriage don't call you away from what you are in that particular way. 

 

 

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

12 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Why would we do that?

I asked a theologian about this this summer when I was taking an independent study in work and vocation with him. He said that, historically, "big-V" "Vocation" has been reserved for the priesthood and religious life. But "little-v" "vocation" applies to many different states of life, and that's typically how we use the term today.

So what's the justification for restricting it to only the priesthood? Even St. Thomas classifies religious vocations as "big-V" "Vocations".

Can you point me to the reference in St. Thomas? I don't recall him using the word vocation for religious life but rather "embrace the religious state". Thanks! :-)

The code of canon law uses the word VOCATION for priesthood but not consecrated life. A priest is CALLED OUT OF the mystical body to serve the Church as an alter Christus.

In regular speech we use vocation for any sort of "calling". (We use it in secular terms as well such as vocational school.) So, this leaves a lot of confusion.  Now, nearly everything is a vocation. I don't say that to be snide. It contributes to the confusion.

Some serious work needs to be done on this subject. As a  good Dominican I have to say that making distinctions is important!

[bardegaulois]

3 hours ago, Sr Mary Catharine OP said:

Can you point me to the reference in St. Thomas? I don't recall him using the word vocation for religious life but rather "embrace the religious state". Thanks! :-)

The code of canon law uses the word VOCATION for priesthood but not consecrated life. A priest is CALLED OUT OF the mystical body to serve the Church as an alter Christus.

In regular speech we use vocation for any sort of "calling". (We use it in secular terms as well such as vocational school.) So, this leaves a lot of confusion.  Now, nearly everything is a vocation. I don't say that to be snide. It contributes to the confusion.

Some serious work needs to be done on this subject. As a  good Dominican I have to say that making distinctions is important!

Part of the logic underlying this would be likely the same addressed by Fr Richard Butler in his masterful Religious Vocation: an Unnecessary Mystery. Butler, using Aquinas extensively, demonstrates that a religious vocation is not really an unusual thing, but rather an invitation that Christ makes to all to live His life more perfectly through profession of the evangelical counsels. Many of his conclusions run very contrary the the ceaseless introspection promoted in so much of vocational discernment culture nowadays, so it's a book I'd highly recommend to anyone who desires to live more perfectly.

As for the priesthood, though, that actually does open up many of the common vocational questions, as the priest is called to conform to Christ in His specifically priestly role, not so much in the more general role that a religious person would. How religious or consecrated life is expressed, moreover, has been remarkably fluid throughout the history of the Church (from hermits to monks to friars to clerks regular, for instance), which is not the same with a priesthood whose function is unchanged. So perhaps this could be distilled down to the priesthood being a very specific vocation considering a priest's very specific role and duties, while the state of religion is a very general call, truly a call to the perfect practice of the general duties incumbent upon all Christians, albeit manifested in extraordinarily diverse ways.

[Gabriela]

14 hours ago, Julie said:

So, I'm not someone that does this (I pretty much say "religious vocation" or "vocation to ____." Unless the context demands more... Like "my school has a lot of vocations" because that includes vocations to the secular priesthood.)

Note what just happened: "My school has a lot of vocations..." suggests that other schools have less. So what is "vocation" referring to? We would understand you mean religious/clerical, but that's precisely what I'm calling out. In every school, every student (and every other person) has a vocation to something. Everyone is called to something (which is all "vocation"—vocare—means). So this sentence would be another case that, IMO, misleads people as to the true nature of calling.

 

3 hours ago, Sr Mary Catharine OP said:

Can you point me to the reference in St. Thomas? I don't recall him using the word vocation for religious life but rather "embrace the religious state". Thanks! :-)

The code of canon law uses the word VOCATION for priesthood but not consecrated life. A priest is CALLED OUT OF the mystical body to serve the Church as an alter Christus.

In regular speech we use vocation for any sort of "calling". (We use it in secular terms as well such as vocational school.) So, this leaves a lot of confusion.  Now, nearly everything is a vocation. I don't say that to be snide. It contributes to the confusion.

Some serious work needs to be done on this subject. As a  good Dominican I have to say that making distinctions is important!

Right, it's not in his terminology, but in how he talks about each. When this came up with my theology prof, we were reading this:

Saint Thomas Aquinas. (1947). Summa theologiae 2a 2ae. New York, NY: Benziger Brothers, Inc. [Questions 179–189]

Thanks for explaining the canon law. I could see that being a legitimate justification for restricting "vocation" to priests only. However, I do think that would be problematic in our times, precisely because of what you point out: Everyone thinks they have a vocation. Which, depending on how you define vocation (the whole point of this thread!), is either true or false.

I wrote a paper once on different "kinds" of "calling". Apparently, totally secular atheists sometimes insist they have a calling. To which I can't help but ask: "Really? Who called?" That makes no sense. But when you analyze statements they make (from interview research), it's clear that they're referring to a group of emotions associated with their profession/activity. Our definition of "calling" is much deeper than that. But I think there's no consensus among Catholics about "what can count" as a "calling"/"vocation". If you ask people who are kind of on the periphery of the Church (because of infrequent Mass attendance, etc.), they often say only priests and religious are "called" to "vocations". But that's just not true in the "little-v" "vocation" sense.

Now, in the "big-V" "Vocation" sense, or apparently, according to canon law, it's closer to the truth. But my point is: There's confusion.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Gabriela

[Spem in alium]

I do believe words like "vocation" and "calling" do need to be used better. Whenever I've spoken about vocations, given a speech or reflection or whatever, I've always tried to stress that ALL - priesthood, diaconate, consecrated life, single life, or marriage - need to be considered as important and as a potential legitimate call by God. At least where I live, I find the older generation (especially people from European and Asian backgrounds) tend to glorify a priestly or religious vocation -- this is often where I find the "Oh, you have a vocation" talk come in (expressing as though religious life is the only vocation there is), or people saying "You're so holy" (without really knowing me; simply making the judgement because they know I'm in religious life) or "I pray your siblings will also have a vocation" --- yes, they will, but maybe not to religious life or the priesthood! When one lady said to me that she was praying my siblings would also have a vocation to religious life or the priesthood, I told her (as politely as I could) that all vocations, if they are lived rightly, can be beautiful expressions of God's love and of our response to that love. 

 And I find similar problems arising with the distinctions between "religious life" and "consecrated life". I've met a consecrated virgin who gets offended at the fact people use the term "religious life" instead of "consecrated life", which is broader. She has her reasons for being as hurt as she is, and I really think there needs to be more respect regarding this issue.

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

Clarifying the term vocation vis a vis religious life or consecrated life to make it to be everyone has a vocation isn't exactly helpful because it doesn't respect the nature of this "thing" we call a religious or priestly vocation. Changing it to the "everyone has a vocation" is then confusing the religious or consecrated state with the call of holiness. EVERYONE by virtue of their baptism is called (has a vocation) to be a saint, called to be holy. EVERYONE. That's not Vatican II, that is the teaching of the Church from the beginning.

Embracing the evangelical counsels by vow is not the same as holiness. It is a means of holiness. It is BOTH a radical living of our baptismal vows and a new and deeper following of Christ. It is a "state of perfection" because it is a following of Christ committed to by vow and recognized by the Church. It's a PUBLIC witnessing but it is also a personal way of holiness. It is not an extraordinary calling but it is a supernatural calling. Living poor, chaste and obedient isn't possible without the particular grace to do so.

Spem, I think the "issue" of religious life and consecrated life is because it is new and there are a lot of ambiguities. They are not the same thing. There needs to be a lot more work done in this area as well. Again, it can sometimes seems that "everyone" is consecrated!

The funny thing is that in the middle ages if you followed a rule of life you were considered "a religious". Such as 3rd Orders, etc.

People use sister and nun interchangeably. Most of the time it doesn't really matter and nuns and sisters don't get offended! There are times when it DOES matter as for example, talking about Dominican women. Dominican Nuns and Sisters are distinct institutes of religious. There aren't Sisters of the Order of Preachers because the Sisters are Dominicans Sisters of Such and Such but the Nuns are the Nuns of the Order of Preachers with an entirely different way of relating and belonging. So, in that case Nun and Sister does matter.

This stuff is really good conversation and it would be great if somebody had a sort of symposium or something with papers being given and time for hot and heavy discussion afterwards.

When I think back I think it was just simply, "I want to be a nun. If I keep wanting to become a nun than that means I have a vocation to be a nun." I really mean it. It was that simple. WHAT KIND OF NUN was a whole other thing, though!

 

[vee]

Ooooh this is like vocation station debate table, what should we discuss next?  The terms monastery versus convent versus..?

 

 

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

10 minutes ago, vee said:

Ooooh this is like vocation station debate table, what should we discuss next?  The terms monastery versus convent versus..?

 

 

I keep expecting someone to correct me when I say I live across the street from a convent. Except, it really is a convent, not a monastery. (The monastery is about a block away.) 

Let's not get into heated debates here--VS is my sanctuary. For the past few weeks I've managed to almost completely avoid Open Mic and that has been a positive thing. (I learned to avoid the Debate Table years ago.) If I want debate and criticism, all I need to do is call my family who manage to find fault with pretty much everything I do, from what I eat, to the sheets on my bed. WHATEVER I do, my sister finds a way to tell me how I could do it better (in her eyes, at least).

I'm not saying we shouldn't have discussions on VS--"heated," "criticism," and "passing judgement" are the things I am avoiding. 

[Julie]

20 hours ago, Gabriela said:

1 hour ago, vee said:

Ooooh this is like vocation station debate table, what should we discuss next?  The terms monastery versus convent versus..?

 

 

 I don't know why this is showing up as a quote. This is me, Julie   But.... Is there a controversy over the words "monastery" and "convent" ? Really? Why?