"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[iamnormal]

I agree that the article from First Things is pretty poor theology.  In fact it is hard to believe someone spent all the time putting all those words together for something so uninspiring.  We all live in an intermediary state, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.  It is always a drag to see professional religious complaining on the internet that people don't understand their specialness. Frankly, the fact that there is such a need to compare oneself to others is not the greatest endorsement of religious life.  But, in general, I try to remember what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians about the weaker members needing special honor.  I think there is some truth to it, and that vocation speaks more to our weaknesses than our strengths.

As far as Church jobs, I am a theologian (Ph.D.) and a canon lawyer (a fact I consider to be unfortunate, but someone has to do the crappy jobs) and I am pretty adamant about retaining my independence.  I absolutely do not want to work for the Church in the sense of having a "Church" job, and presumably my Ph.D. and J.C.L. aren't as special as some people's because I received these things while married in the literal sense, being a mother in the literal sense, managing a home, working, etc. I am awestruck by the ordinary good and generous person and see far more of God there than in the introspection and self-focus of some.  God really is almighty enough for us all to be special.

[Sponsa-Christi]

For what it's worth, the author of the First Things article is a laywoman who is a wife and mother.

The real point of the article isn't that some people are personally better or more special than others, it's that the Church rightly values those things (such as vocations to evangelical continence in celibacy) which cause us to look beyond temporal matters towards our final destiny. If we focus too much on the things of this world---even the very good and precious things of this world, such as natural marriage---then our ecclesiology falls apart. I.e., our very understanding of the Church's essential mission starts to weaken. 

[iamnormal]

I know the author of the article is a laywoman who is a wife and mother.  Just because she is a laywoman, a wife and mother doesn't mean she can't write a bad article. She complained about people romanticizing marriage and then romanticized religious life and clerical celibacy (and the point was already made that married men can be ordained).  Maybe the moral of the article is that no vocation should be romanticized.  

[iamnormal]

How do you know what makes me look beyond "temporal" matters to my final destiny?  I consider my final destiny primarily in terms of the context and content of my own life.  The idea that marriage is merely worldly and that celibacy is somehow not at all worldly is just bizarre.  If celbacy is a "sign," then it too only makes sense in the intermediate stage.  I think there is an inordinate emphasis on defining vocation in terms of one's sexual status, which almost seems pagan.  Christians don't put their faith in marriage or in celibacy, neither of these things has ultimate value.  One of the reasons I am adamant about maintaining my independence is because I think being called a Christian should be enough, it is the most important name (before martyr or virgin or priest or religious or married) and it is a shared in common by all who are baptized.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

https://youtu.be/_bUCi_8KriM?list=PLzJ5rASgxoaZVfMepRAgEMkQnOED1AstW

Why is it discriminatory to only hire catholics. The world says freedom to all at present but i am not free to only hire catholics.?

[Maggyie]

On March 20, 2016 at 11:18:27 PM, Sponsa-Christi said:

I was recently re-reading this article from "First Things," which I'm sharing here, as I think it addresses some of the issues here in a very thoughtful and eloquent way: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/04/dismantling-the-cross 

Sorry the quote thing doesn't seem to work. You point out the article is saying "if we focus too much on the things of this world, even the good things like marriage, things fall apart."

That's my other problem with the article, in that it seriously proposes the church has an overemphasis on celebrating holy marriages. It seems to me that we have a 2,000 year old church and for about 1,950 years the emphasis was on celibacy, even to the point of doing great damage (St Ignatius quote denigrating marriage is a good example. He basically expresses a Gnostic attitude). Right now the emphasis on marriage is a correction for many centuries of faulty theology and bad practice. Is it an over-correction? Again, I don't think so. Something like 90% of God's people are called to marriage and they have been getting 1% of the focus for a couple thousand years (and when they did get attention it was negative attention like St I). It seems this area was ripe for development. 

It is this whole "love is a pie" or "holiness is a pie" attitude. Where if the marriage slice is bigger then the celibate slice MUST be slighted somehow. If more people are called to marriage (and the author would do well to remember it is Almighty God who does the calling and no amount of pro-marriage marketing drives that) there is not some decrease in holiness in the world as compared to if they were single their whole lives. 

[BarbTherese]

2 hours ago, Maggyie said:

If more people are called to marriage (and the author would do well to remember it is Almighty God who does the calling and no amount of pro-marriage marketing drives that) there is not some decrease in holiness in the world as compared to if they were single their whole lives. 

Not too sure at all what you mean by the above.

It is indeed Almighty God who does the calling to the various vocations and it is that same God who bestows the Graces necessary for holiness, no matter the vocation to which He might have called a person.  We finite and fallible humans might view things out of balance and needing correcting here and there and everywhere.  But undoubtedly our Infinite and Infallible God knows what He is doing (Doctrine of God's Will - Direct and Permissive).  The Doctrine of God's Will does not excuse us from "working as if all depended on work and praying as if all depended on prayer"  But it is always God who has the casting vote as it were, whether we permit it and like it - or whether we do not.

Reminds me of a line in The Desiderata "Undoubtedly the universe is unfolding as it should".

I just think it is really sad, very sad, and probably not good witnessing either (this is the internet) when there is so much squabbling over the various vocations and this related subject and that related subject.  All the vocations speak to each other and all are necessary to the fulfillment of God's Plan for His universe...........else they would not exist.

As I said in a previous post somewhere way back.  The intrinsic value, to me, of those works that are publicly Catholic is that The Church is visible and seen to be and this is a very important witness indeed.  However, not all are called to that particular kind of witness............and there goes those two vital words again "called to".  There are many kinds of witnessing and all are important...........else they would not exist.  And in the list of the different types of witnessing, I would include the outstanding witness of Therese of Lisieux in an unknown monastery (as it were) where those twelve or so sisters with whom she lived in isolation (strictly enclosed) for 8 years considered her on her death as a "good Carmelite nun" but nothing outstanding.  Therese went on to be canonized and declared a Doctor of The Church.

Another kind of witness is someone I know.  She is in her mid seventies with so many health problems it is amazing she still lives happily alone and in the main is independent.   Her daily food it seems to me is also great confident trust in God.

I can look upon a particular list of anything in The Church and arrange them from first to last.  However, the moment my own particular call to whatever is taken into account into the list, one's personal call shoots to the top of the list. 

Nothing can be higher nor more important, nor more holy nor more to be valued than The Will of God and The Will of God would be right on top of any objective theological consideration - as it would be right on top of any subjective consideration.  It is The Will of God that does the calling to a particular vocation without which the vocation, any vocation, could not persevere even to holiness.

Edit:  Incidentally, I probably squabble as much and even more than any other person - most often it is (I hope) because my own vocation has been brought in to question somehow, or perhaps brought (negatively) into a discussion somehow.  If so, then I will continue to squabble.

[Sponsa-Christi]

13 hours ago, Maggyie said:

Sorry the quote thing doesn't seem to work. You point out the article is saying "if we focus too much on the things of this world, even the good things like marriage, things fall apart."

I said that if we focus too much on the things of this world, our ecclesiology (rather than "things" in general) falls apart. That is, we risk loosing sight of the fact that the Church exists for a primarily supernatural and eschatological purpose. The Church doesn't have as her central mission the improvement of life in this world (though obviously, it is good when this does wind up happening), but rather the ultimate salvation of mankind in the life of the world to come. We don't know much about what life will be like in heaven at the end of time, but we do know it will be very different from our life in this present age. 

13 hours ago, Maggyie said:

That's my other problem with the article, in that it seriously proposes the church has an overemphasis on celebrating holy marriages. It seems to me that we have a 2,000 year old church and for about 1,950 years the emphasis was on celibacy, even to the point of doing great damage (St Ignatius quote denigrating marriage is a good example. He basically expresses a Gnostic attitude). Right now the emphasis on marriage is a correction for many centuries of faulty theology and bad practice. Is it an over-correction? Again, I don't think so. Something like 90% of God's people are called to marriage and they have been getting 1% of the focus for a couple thousand years (and when they did get attention it was negative attention like St I). It seems this area was ripe for development. 

I would agree that it would be good to develop a more robust theology of the sacrament of matrimony. But what makes us think that the Church was wrong for 1,950 years to emphasize the value of celibacy? To me, this looks like an essentially unbroken Tradition that we ought to take seriously and learn from.

[Maggyie]

12 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Not too sure at all what you mean by the above.

It is indeed Almighty God who does the calling to the various vocations and it is that same God who bestows the Graces necessary for holiness, no matter the vocation to which He might have called a person.  We finite and fallible humans might view things out of balance and needing correcting here and there and everywhere.  But undoubtedly our Infinite and Infallible God knows what He is doing (Doctrine of God's Will - Direct and Permissive).  The Doctrine of God's Will does not excuse us from "working as if all depended on work and praying as if all depended on prayer"  But it is always God who has the casting vote as it were, whether we permit it and like it - or whether we do not.

Reminds me of a line in The Desiderata "Undoubtedly the universe is unfolding as it should".

I just think it is really sad, very sad, and probably not good witnessing either (this is the internet) when there is so much squabbling over the various vocations and this related subject and that related subject.  All the vocations speak to each other and all are necessary to the fulfillment of God's Plan for His universe...........else they would not exist.

As I said in a previous post somewhere way back.  The intrinsic value, to me, of those works that are publicly Catholic is that The Church is visible and seen to be and this is a very important witness indeed.  However, not all are called to that particular kind of witness............and there goes those two vital words again "called to".  There are many kinds of witnessing and all are important...........else they would not exist.  And in the list of the different types of witnessing, I would include the outstanding witness of Therese of Lisieux in an unknown monastery (as it were) where those twelve or so sisters with whom she lived in isolation (strictly enclosed) for 8 years considered her on her death as a "good Carmelite nun" but nothing outstanding.  Therese went on to be canonized and declared a Doctor of The Church.

Another kind of witness is someone I know.  She is in her mid seventies with so many health problems it is amazing she still lives happily alone and in the main is independent.   Her daily food it seems to me is also great confident trust in God.

I can look upon a particular list of anything in The Church and arrange them from first to last.  However, the moment my own particular call to whatever is taken into account into the list, one's personal call shoots to the top of the list. 

Nothing can be higher nor more important, nor more holy nor more to be valued than The Will of God and The Will of God would be right on top of any objective theological consideration - as it would be right on top of any subjective consideration.  It is The Will of God that does the calling to a particular vocation without which the vocation, any vocation, could not persevere even to holiness.

Edit:  Incidentally, I probably squabble as much and even more than any other person - most often it is (I hope) because my own vocation has been brought in to question somehow, or perhaps brought (negatively) into a discussion somehow.  If so, then I will continue to squabble.

What I mean is that the article claims we are over emphasizing marriage, to the detriment of celibate vocations. In other words we have too much positive "marketing" about marriage, we need to change back to promoting just celibate vocations instead. 

My point is that the current emphasis on marriage is not to the detriment of celibate vocations at all. God is the one who calls to marriage, so it's not possible that we are "forcing His hand" or somehow robbing him of celibate vocations. He knows what He is doing!

the reason for the fall in celibate vocations is complex but the biggest cause is simply a shrinking pool of practicing Catholics. Celibate vocations can only come from this pool which grows smaller constantly. In the Western world where about 25% of Catholics bother to attend Mass, there will be a huge collapse in vocations of all kinds. Most dioceses are seeing a plummeting in marriages as well. 

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I said that if we focus too much on the things of this world, our ecclesiology (rather than "things" in general) falls apart. That is, we risk loosing sight of the fact that the Church exists for a primarily supernatural and eschatological purpose. The Church doesn't have as her central mission the improvement of life in this world (though obviously, it is good when this does wind up happening), but rather the ultimate salvation of mankind in the life of the world to come. We don't know much about what life will be like in heaven at the end of time, but we do know it will be very different from our life in this present age. 

I would agree that it would be good to develop a more robust theology of the sacrament of matrimony. But what makes us think that the Church was wrong for 1,950 years to emphasize the value of celibacy? To me, this looks like an essentially unbroken Tradition that we ought to take seriously and learn from.

It is exactly to save souls that the Church needs to have a healthy balance. A true celibate vocation is relatively rare; the People of God overwhelmingly experience God's call through marriage. There is a vast hole in the Church's treasury when it comes to helping people carefully discern and persevere in holy marriages. For most people, it consists of a single day of doing worksheets and speed presentations by other married couples. And then if you are on the brink of divorce there is retrouvaille.

Meanwhile we have a massive amount in the treasury for the guidance and formation of celibate vocations. The Vocations Director in any diocese only works on celibate vocations, in spite of his/her title. 

This is why Vatican II's rediscovery of the universal call to holiness (and the laity in general) was such an earthquake; for millennia the church poured resources into building up the spiritual elites, under the correct belief that objectively they have the higher vocation. "Objectively" is the key word; a useful concept in discussing this from a technical view. Of course not one soul actually exists in this sterile "objective" framework. Every single person who has ever lived experiences salvation (and God's call) subjectively. 

In reality the church does not exist for the sake of having celibate vocations, it exists to save souls! And the huge ocean of souls to be saved will be won or lost to damnation in marriage. No amount of "talking up" religious life will change that. In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake. 

I just can't get over the author who thinks widows should hie themselves off to the monastery or else remain in solemn, dignified singleness, probably wearing weeds. Or refers to the sacrament of marriage as "a treadmill." You mean like the sacrament of penance is a treadmill...

She doesn't seem aware of the many horrifying social reasons widows often chose religious life in the past. Feminism is a thing that never happened to her. I could go on but I won't. 

[BarbTherese]

Well stated, Maggie! Props and Props and more Props - if I only could.  Thank you for clarifying re my post - I did think that I was misreading, which is why I did not comment further than "Not too sure what you mean by the above".

Some statements in your post did leap out at me.  I would very much like to return and comment but I have a day to put in and time grows short and mea maxima culpa for sure; meanwhile............. well said, Maggie!............Barb  

[Sponsa-Christi]

5 hours ago, Maggyie said:

In reality the church does not exist for the sake of having celibate vocations, it exists to save souls! And the huge ocean of souls to be saved will be won or lost to damnation in marriage. No amount of "talking up" religious life will change that. In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake. 

In one sense, though, the Church does exist for celibate vocations---i.e., the Church exists so that we can be reborn ultimately to a new life in heaven, where "there is no marrying or giving in marriage." All of us are called to this eventual angelic, heavenly celibacy. The reason why the consecrated life (and FYI @BarbaraTherese, in theological discussions like this I do consider private vows to be a form of consecrated life) is so valuable is that it's an anticipation of the life we are all called to.

I think being clear on this aspect of Church teaching can help foster holy marriages, because it keeps the ultimate purpose of marriage in mind. That is, marriage is meant as a transitory state to prepare us for union with God in heaven (and for the creation of new souls who are also destined for heaven), rather than the good of marriage being an end in itself. 

Of course, the Church has never said that it's a sin for a widow to remarry, but I don't think the idea of encouraging widows to embrace a life of evangelical celibacy is really all that crazy. It's something that numerous Fathers and Doctors of the Church (including St. Francis de Sales, who was a great champion of the idea that the laity are indeed called to a life of holiness) have supported, so there's a strong argument from tradition. Also, to me it makes perfect intuitive sense that widowhood could be the occasion of focusing on a more intimate, exclusive relationship with the Lord. 

I would agree that on a pastoral level, it is probably better for the Church to spend quantitatively more time and resources on preparing people for marriage, since most Catholics will be married. However, I don't think you can draw a true parallel with formation in a religious institute and formation for marriage. Marriage is a natural vocation to which our human nature is already ordered, so it doesn't require the discernment of a rare, special divine call. Also, as such, people have a fundamental natural human right to be married---and because this right exists, I'm a bit wary of supporting the idea of really time-consuming marriage preparation programs. Though that's probably a topic for another thread.

[BarbTherese]

23 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

and FYI @BarbaraTherese, in theological discussions like this I do consider private vows to be a form of consecrated life)

Taking a break and got three quarters of what I HAD to do in double quick time - always did have the knack of working better under pressure.  Deo Gratius.

I do wonder, Sponsa, what the qualification of "in theological discussion like this" means.  Does it mean that there are some discussions where you do not consider private vows to be a form of consecrated life?  Of course, I do realize (as all Catholics ideally should) that private vows are not included in "consecrated life" in Canon Law at this point - and in Canon Law (I think you might be a canon lawyer - forgive me for the "I think" - memory lousy rather often) only religious life, consecrated virgins, eremitical life under Canon 603 and secular insitutes make "public vows" (theological term I think with its own definition(s) and (I think, again) before a bishop.  Private vows (defined in Canon Law but not included in consecrated life in Canon Law) are not public vows, even if the private vows should be made during/before/after a Mass and/or before a priest or bishop.  The person who makes private vows of any kind including poverty, chastity and obedience, remains in every way a member of the  laity with it's secular character.

Back to work.............

[BarbTherese]

11 hours ago, Maggyie said:

What I mean is that the article claims we are over emphasizing marriage, to the detriment of celibate vocations. In other words we have too much positive "marketing" about marriage, we need to change back to promoting just celibate vocations instead. 

1 - My point is that the current emphasis on marriage is not to the detriment of celibate vocations at all. God is the one who calls to marriage, so it's not possible that we are "forcing His hand" or somehow robbing him of celibate vocations. He knows what He is doing!

2-the reason for the fall in celibate vocations is complex but the biggest cause is simply a shrinking pool of practicing Catholics. Celibate vocations can only come from this pool which grows smaller constantly. In the Western world where about 25% of Catholics bother to attend Mass, there will be a huge collapse in vocations of all kinds. Most dioceses are seeing a plummeting in marriages as well. 

3 -It is exactly to save souls that the Church needs to have a healthy balance. A true celibate vocation is relatively rare; the People of God overwhelmingly experience God's call through marriage. There is a vast hole in the Church's treasury when it comes to helping people carefully discern and persevere in holy marriages. For most people, it consists of a single day of doing worksheets and speed presentations by other married couples. And then if you are on the brink of divorce there is retrouvaille.

Meanwhile we have a massive amount in the treasury for the guidance and formation of celibate vocations. The Vocations Director in any diocese only works on celibate vocations, in spite of his/her title. 

4 - This is why Vatican II's rediscovery of the universal call to holiness (and the laity in general) was such an earthquake; for millennia the church poured resources into building up the spiritual elites, under the correct belief that objectively they have the higher vocation. "Objectively" is the key word; a useful concept in discussing this from a technical view. Of course not one soul actually exists in this sterile "objective" framework. Every single person who has ever lived experiences salvation (and God's call) subjectively. 

5 - In reality the church does not exist for the sake of having celibate vocations, it exists to save souls! And the huge ocean of souls to be saved will be won or lost to damnation in marriage. No amount of "talking up" religious life will change that. In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake. 

6 - I just can't get over the author who thinks widows should hie themselves off to the monastery or else remain in solemn, dignified singleness, probably wearing weeds. Or refers to the sacrament of marriage as "a treadmill." You mean like the sacrament of penance is a treadmill...

She doesn't seem aware of the many horrifying social reasons widows often chose religious life in the past. Feminism is a thing that never happened to her. I could go on but I won't. 

I have taken the liberty of numbering those paragraphs above to which I would like to respond.

1 - Absolutely!  It is impossible to rob God in any way shape or form - as the Doctrine of The Will of God highlights and underscores - and it is a defined doctrine of The Church.

2 - Obviously with the fall off in attendance at Mass and The Sacraments there is going to be a fall off in all sound and holy vocations - it is only logical. The foundational problem is thus obvious and this is where focus is needed.  Why are so few Catholics attending Mass and The Sacraments? Having answered that question accurately -  What can be done about the problem?  To me it seems like a failure in adult Catholic education.  One reason for this might be that almost everything in The Church is so jolly expensive.  It is relative I know - but $50, for example, is easy for one person, very difficult even impossible for the next.  And as long as that situation perseveres, it seems to me it is obvious what has happened and will happen.  The Church of the poor?

3 - Marriage is a very important vocation and aside from what Vatican 2 had to state on the subject of the laity, which of course embraces marriage, the vocation of marriage itself would not exist and as a Sacrament unless it was very important to the life of The Church (and hence to the salvation of souls).  Undoubtedly, marriage is the natural state for most human beings, but we are a broken humanity (original sin) and I think that The Church heirarchy in failing to offer comprehensive preparations for marriage is 'shooting itself in the foot'.  If a marriage is failing and in difficulty, then equally there needs to be a focus on marriage counselling for those in trouble.  Insofar as most diocesan offices are concerned, we had the problem pre V2 that marriage had no importance at all almost............and all that has happened post V2 is that the 'pole (situation) as at pre V2' has simply been painted a different colour to appear changed - the old pole has not been removed and a completely different one installed. I hope that makes sense. Diocesan offices, it seems to me, still have their vocational focus on the priesthood and religious life and/or public vows in The Church according to Canon Law.  By implication, this does put any other vocation as not really so important to The Church.

4 - The interesting thing to me about musings on the objective and subjective considerations of the various vocations, is that The Will of God would be top of the list for both categories.  Re vocations: Objectively theologically - to follow The Will of God is the highest of all vocations.  Subjectively theologically - to follow The Will of God. 

5 - "In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake."  Right! The Church heirarchy keeps shooting itself in the foot.  Had an interesting conversation with my pp after Confession one day and it was he that summarised our conversation as The Church shooting Herself in the foot - I thought to myself "That is the term for which I have been searching"

6 - "I just can't get over the author who thinks widows should hie themselves off to the monastery or else remain in solemn, dignified singleness, probably wearing weeds.."  That statement gave me a big smile.  I am not a widow but a lay person living single and celibate.  I am not at all solemn, have problems with dignified rather regularly - and problems too with the wearing of (sad-sack and dowdy) weeds...........can't fit into that mould either (the 'nun-mould' in religious life had rejected me.......twice! (although I did leave both times at my own request before 'the mould' could actually strangle me completely.   No vocation to religious life for sure).

The Sacrament of Penance is a treadmill for me for sure - but I do tread that particular mill every so often.  Shake and sweat in psychic conflict beforehand...........so much at Peace and Happy, Joyful and rested after.........and every time over my journey to date.  Until Rome stopped it, our Archbishop authorized the diocese to have the Third and Second Rite of The Sacrament of Reconciliation.  When we did have it, it was a community celebration with opportunities for (in the Second Rite) to go to individual confession (First Rite) and people actually did go.  Over the past thirty years or more, I have never seen more than two people at a time to Confession - and that would be very rare.  The Church hierarchy has shot itself in the foot again. The very sad thing is that in the heirarchy shooting itself in the foot anywhere at all, it adversely affects the whole Universal Church.  One parish I had shifted into briefly during my 20 year tour of duty with serious mental illness, it ran like this:

"Father, what times are Confession, please?"

"Young lady, I do not have sinners in MY parish!"

"Sorry Father, but you sure have one now".

[BarbTherese]

I see I got it right, Sponsa....I hope.  Looked up your blog (more time on my hands) and I see that you are a JCL, although your blog mentions that you started studying for it in 2011 and I am taking it that your studies are now complete:

I graduated with a bachelors’ degree in Philosophy from Seton Hall University in New Jersey in 2008. In 2010, I completed a Master of Arts in Theology at Ave Maria University in Florida. 

After serving for a year as a parish Director of Religious Education in New York state, in 2011 I began studying for a licentiate degree in Canon Law (J.C.L.) at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, Italy.

[BarbTherese]

Just a comment on what @Maggyiestated " In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake."   What you stated is very true and the phrase "simply as" is key and operative.  Undoubtedly from sound Catholic marriages, we The Church, will have a possibly better opportunity for sound and holy celibate vocations.  But with "simply as"operative, sound and holy celibate vocations are not the only reason for making real efforts to foster good Catholic marriages.  As stated previously, the reason the Sacrament of Marriage exists is because it is essential to the life of The Church and therefore to the salvation of souls and the praise and adoration of God.  God brings all vocations into existence because they are vital to the life of The Church and the Mission of The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ (as defined by St Paul). The Church hierarchy has indeed shot itself in the foot again, and thus all of us in the whole Universal Church with them, by not giving great importance right across every board to marriage in the day to day diocesan Church administrative functions as it were - and undoubtedly a "serious tactical mistake".

No one vocation, to my mind, is any more important or vital than another in God's Plan.............while all the vocations have different necessary functions, including ministries or apostolates and with witnessing in various ways.   I have been reading something on The Church's social justice statements.  Things are going amiss in our world because it is God's world and we are not treating it as such in the main (in a nutshell).  And if things are going amiss in The Church and it is God's Church - perhaps we have the same or similar problem(s).

_________________

Apologies Maggyie - finally got the @Maggyie to work and realised I had been spelling your name wrong.