"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[BarbTherese]

8 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

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 do not think for one moment that it is only in the celibate state, religious life - whatever - that one might be able to focus more on a more intimate and exclusive relationship with The Lord. In what you state above "could be" is key and operative.   Religious life is the state of perfection and if lived ideally is the way of perfection.  Celibate persons may have more opportunity and time for prayer, study and reflection.  But I do think that many outside of religious life or the consecrated state as in Canon Law are indeed in a state of and on the way of perfection and some totally without realizing it....I do know some very holy married people (especially in my previous suburb) who would not have any idea at all, not a clue, about what I am stating.  They probably would have no interest in it at all.

 

 There are many ways of living out poverty, chastity and obedience and of living in community.

It is not so much what one is doing, as why one is doing whatever one might be doing.

I do not dispute at all that the celibate vocations/state in life can offer a witness to the fact that all will be celibate in Heaven. It also seems to me that if one is called to a celibate vocation or state in life, then to consider oneself as witnessing to Heaven in some way is a very - very-  tall order indeed.  And if God does grant that Grace, then there are responsibilities AND accountabilities coming with that Grace automatically.  

Luke Chapter 12

And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. [48] But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more

I recall my dear departed SD/Confessor replying to me when I asked:

"Father, what IS contemplation?"

"I can tell you this, girl, it is not gazing at one's navel"

Reading something earlier tonight - (in a nutshell again) that one is shaken almost (not the word I am looking for however) out of oneself and drawn into an almost riveting focus on the other.

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

11 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

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.

Yes, I was making a distinction between canon law and theology. From the point of view of canon law, private vows are not consecrated life. 

But if we're speaking in terms of theology (which we are here), there are many aspects of the theology of consecrated life which could also apply to a private vow of celibacy. E.g., if we're talking about evangelical celibacy as an anticipation of life in heaven, then a private vow of celibacy could very easily fall under this category. 

[iamnormal]

And on the other hand, the kingdom is described as a marriage banquet.  So if there were no marriage, we wouldn't know anything about the kingdom according to some of the logic used here and ecclesiology would fall apart.  Some people take themselves too seriously!  It would be just as easy to say the Church exists for marriage, or the Church exists for the poor, or the Church exists for the person.  The Church doesn't exist for celibacy in the way that is being discussed here.  Just because we claim to be theologians doesn't mean we can't have an imagination or think creatively with God.  I think it is comical that the kingdom is described in terms of marriage, that Jesus' relationship with the Church is described in terms of marriage, yet many will persist in the kind of reasoning displayed here.  Sure, the value of marriage is relative to the kingdom, but that doesn't mean that, as marriage, it doesn't anticipate the kingdom in any way or reveal something about the kingdom that celibacy is incapable of revealing.  To take the majority of Christians and tell them they are to live lifelong and faithful and sacramental marriages but that these marriages to which they have devoted much energy do not anticipate the kingdom is unjust.  To say that marriage and celibacy are complementary and that one has ultimate value and while the other has only passing value is just strange.  Celibacy, since it is defined as the absence of something, doesn't make sense in any other context but a temporal one.  So, Jesus says we won't be given in marriage...he didn't say we would be celibate in the worldly manner understood in this thread.  I repeat my earlier thought, the focus on one's sexual status borders on paganism.  To think of the kingdom only in terms of whether one is sexually active or not is a problem, and perhaps a serious one. It presents a reductionistic view of Christianity which if pressed too far is inaccurate.

Edited March 23, 2016 by iamnormal

[BarbTherese]

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

 I think it is comical that the kingdom is described in terms of marriage, that Jesus' relationship with the Church is described in terms of marriage, yet many will persist in the kind of reasoning displayed here.

I think that marriage is indeed the right word - meaning the two become one.........unity.

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

 Sure, the value of marriage is relative to the kingdom, but that doesn't mean that, as marriage, it doesn't anticipate the kingdom in any way or reveal something about the kingdom that celibacy is incapable of revealing.

I agree.  Marriage can indeed prefigure the fullness of life on earth and in Heaven.  Marriage is where two people become one, they are united and this unity can bring about new life.  This prefigures life on earth in that ideally, while on earth we strive for Unity with God, His Will and thus, indeed, become redemptive bringing about new life.   In Heaven, all that striving will be fulfilled and the human will be glorified (new life).

I have even read where marriage reflects the communion and union of The Blessed Trinity.  What indeed could be more Heavenly or of and about Heaven.   USCCB - Unitd States Conference of Catholic Bishops "Marriage"

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

 To take the majority of Christians and tell them they are to live lifelong and faithful and sacramental marriages but that these marriages to which they have devoted much energy do not anticipate the kingdom is unjust.

I agree.  It is not only unjust to me, but unrealistic - perhaps only those who have indeed been (or are) married can really grasp just how unrealistic it is.  If I consider those qualities that would have brought about The Incarnation and those qualities necessary to live out the devotion and energy, self sacrificing, required to make a good marriage............I can see a very clear witness to The Third Person of The Blessed Trinity becoming human (The Incarnation). 

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

 Celibacy, since it is defined as the absence of something,

Celibacy has a negative AND a positive aspect at once - in its fulness.  Celibacy for the sake of The Kingdom defined only as the absence of something is not the fullness of the definition (it is only half understood and possibly therefore only half lived out also) and not at all the fullness of how celibacy for The Kingdom is lived out on earth. Celibacy as only the absence of something in no way to my mind prefigures the fulness of life on earth - nor that of Heaven.

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

To think of the kingdom only in terms of whether one is sexually active or not is a problem

I think there might be a problem of me not understanding of how you define "The Kingdom"?  If we do not share a common definition, then any comment becomes talking at cross purposes.

7 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

ut if we're speaking in terms of theology (which we are here), there are many aspects of the theology of consecrated life which could also apply to a private vow of celibacy. E.g., if we're talking about evangelical celibacy as an anticipation of life in heaven, then a private vow of celibacy could very easily fall under this category.

Thanks, @SponsaChristi - I am aware of your first sentence above.  As to my particular witness, it is certainly not (to my mind and understanding - call and Grace granted, to my knowledge) an "anticipation of life in Heaven". My life and living is very much all about a life and living on earth for the sake of The Kingdom. And to think of others thinking of my life as being about life in Heaven, just brings a shake of my head and a big smile indeed. Hopefully a witness to an ordinary life lived well here on earth is the best I can come up with in my particular instance - lived extraordinary well would be my ideal.  I very much doubt absolutely that even the ordinary everyday practicing Catholic thinks of those living out celibate vocations in a quite public sort of manner for example as witnessing to them in some way of life in Heaven, of things to come - i.e. an eschatological witness (most would not understand the word at all and probably not want to know either).  There certainly is (and always is) where theologians make all their various and sometimes quite convoluted definitions/understandings, which in the real world (if I may put it that way) mean nothing at all to the ordinary devout and practicing Catholic.......generally speaking.  I do not mean to state that theology has nothing to do with the real world.

The very real problem can be (especially nowadays with the internet) that theologians and their definitions are completely misunderstood by the ordinary and everyday devout and practicing Catholic.  There is, of course, a very real place and high value for theology and theologians................but there is a 'dark side' too to their (needed) scholarship and definitions which are problematic.  I am just one of the very ordinary and everyday sort of Catholic person who aims to be devout and certainly practicing.  Hence, it is ok for me to research, ponder and speak - I have the time to do so.  Having been married with two children (now independent adults), I well know the time factor problem when marital duties and needs are calling and pressing - and very rightly given first place.  I know too the experience of given some space intending to have some relaxation and precious time to focus on my own needs and desires of simply falling asleep from exhaustion.  There was never any resentment in it.  It was simply part and parcel of loving and caring for my family.

____________

Wondering too where "Catholic Jobs" v secular jobs might be.

 

[BarbTherese]

To me, strictly enclosed contemplative nuns do give a "seen to be" witness to the life of Heaven.  Everything about their way of life is (ideally) ordered to the praise and adoration, thanksgiving, to God.  They are invested prayerfully in the hopes and dreams of earth (almost?) as much as those in Heaven. Having been in monastic life and coming out again and disillusioned, I began to wonder how I could translate their (ideal) way of life into my own very secular and quite ordinary life and one I was becoming increasingly convinced I was indeed called to by a very clear vocational call.  With a bit of creative imagination and conducive reading, adjustments creatively here and there, I was convinced it could be done - as of course it can.  By that time I had read the autobiography of St Therese of Lisieux (few times) as well as "Introduction toThe Devout Life" St Francis de Sales (a few times again) and my latest reading matter of real interest then (as well as now still) was "Abandonment to Divine Providence" (Jean Pierre de Caussade).  I began to try and marry (unite) them with each other.  To attempt to find out where they were all saying precisely the same thing, only saying it differently.  And this they indeed do as do most all the writings of The Church and the saints.

Paramount in my quest for "it can be done", was a quite short sentence from St Therese of Lisieux, a sentence which did not hit home on the first or perhaps even the second read - that in the morning she would make resolutions about the coming day only to find at night that she had broken her resolutions.  Eventually that resonated with me - it sounded almost just like me in fact.  I could be the broken often falling, even failed, creature that I very much am and still persevere with great trust and confidence and in the footsteps of St Therese who walked in the footsteps of Jesus (abandoned to Love).   I certainly do need without question the treadmill of The Sacrament of Reconciliation - a treadmill for me that is.   I used to say to myself "If Hell is paved with good intentions, then I am home and hosed for sure"........but then here was St Therese making that astounding statement about daily broken resolutions that cancelled out my perceived "Hell is paved" (non theological, non anything) factor.  Around about that time or so, I was invited to Carmel to hear an expert on St Therese, a priest and theologian, give a talk on her life and theology.  Here was a priest and theologian of quite considerable expertise who was really my cuppa tea!  All his theological genius was translated into words that any fool could understand (meaning me). He delighted me. 

Therein, to me, is the challenge too and essence of real genius - to be able to communicate that genius so any fool could understand and that embraces me for sure.  Obviously, if a run of the mill type of good Catholic (hopefully) can understand what is being stated, it is absolutely no problem to even a highly educated Catholic one would hope - that seems logical to me.  While rather often the highly educated type Catholic can leave those of far lesser and even the least of education right out in the cold - those who nevertheless are quite devout and dedicated Catholics interested in all things Catholic, committed totally to their particular vocation and call in life.

All the vocations and calls from God are indeed linked and speak to each other.  It just takes at times a bit of creative imagination.

All is Grace.

Edited March 24, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

9 hours ago, iamnormal said:

doesn't mean we can't have an imagination or think creatively with God.

  Thomas Merton wrote along the lines of that the imagination needs to be liberated.........and (he stated) along the lines of:  "I do not mean drawing airy fairy holy pictures either".  I liked that.  This is not to state that creative type art does not have an important place in liberating one's imagination.  I think the aforementioned comes from Merton's work "Contemplation in a World of Action"  What can be more liberating than to prayerfully attempt to think with creative imagination with God 'writing the lines'.  This was the genius of St Therese of Lisieux.

Thomas Merton once he started to go off the beaten track into Buddhism and Third World type of stuff is certainly questionable in some if not many aspects - but not entirely,  Don't chuck out baby with the bathwater.

_________________The Church ideally is always at once The Church of the celibate, the married, the poor and the rich, the educated and uneducated, the disabled, the criminal, the sinner etc. etc.  "All things to all men"

Edited March 24, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

10 hours ago, iamnormal said:

have an imagination or think creatively with God

Thank you for the above expression and sentence.  I will probably rather often quote you and in inverted commas, although I might forget whom I am quoting but will try to remember.,,,,,,,,,,,although iamnormal is probably quite difficult for me to forget.  

Ok, bit of thought and now quote and author in my bookmarks and hence 'memory'.  I can't get anything but Google Chrome to work on Phatmass and GC is still a mystery to me but learning I hope as I go along.

[Maggyie]

On March 23, 2016 at 12:04:24 AM, Sponsa-Christi said:

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.

But it's not true at all that the Church exists for celibate vocations. In heaven there is no marriage and therefore there can't be celibacy either. In heaven we will be "like the Angels" but Angels are not celibate. They don't marry OR refrain from marriage; they don't have sex OR refrain from sex. they are beyond sexual categories. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

I don't think it's right, though, to define celibacy (at least in the sense of the freely-chosen evangelical celibacy that we're talking about here) as the mere absence of marriage. Evangelical celibacy is a positive choice to offer oneself to God in an exclusive way. Consecrated persons are choosing celibacy precisely because they want to embrace the "angelic" state that the blessed in heaven are in. 

From apostolic times on, it's been a consistent teaching of the Church that evangelical celibacy is a way of striving to embrace this heavenly state in this present age on earth.

As a "sound bite" for a reference to this (though there are many more possible references, since this topic is addressed in nearly every document the Church has ever written on consecrated life), here is a portion from the Church's Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity:

Among your many gifts
you give to some the grace of virginity.
Yet the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.
As it was in the beginning,
your first blessing still remains upon this holy union.
Yet your loving wisdom chooses those
who make sacrifice of marriage
for the sake of the love of which it is the sign.
They renounce the joys of human marriage,
but cherish all that it foreshadows.

Human marriage is a mere foreshadowing of something greater, and this "something greater" is what the consecrated are setting out specifically to attain. 

[beatitude]

4 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Consecrated persons are choosing celibacy precisely because they want to embrace the "angelic" state that the blessed in heaven are in.

This isn't true for me. When I decided to live this life, I didn't think about my state, angelic or otherwise. I was like a child clambering onto an extremely high zip wire whose finishing point was hidden from sight a terrifying distance below, and my attitude was (and still is!) one part nerves and nine parts sheer joy and excitement. "I don't know where we're going, but You do, so I'll just hang onto this thing and enjoy the ride."

My spirituality is quite down to earth (perhaps why I feel drawn so strongly to Jesus at Nazareth, where he was known only as the carpenter's boy) and when I accepted celibacy for myself, I did so because I felt in my heart that this was how I could love best and know God most closely. Big philosophical considerations didn't come into it. I can only speak for myself on this; I expect for others it's different. But this is one reason why I don't find it helpful to take apart my vocation in search of the component that makes it 'special'; to me it's enough that God asked this of me. Any other questions are redundant.

[Maggyie]

On 3/22/2016, 4:11:43, BarbaraTherese said:

 

On 3/22/2016, 2:36:44, Sponsa-Christi said:

 

Sorry this quote thing is not working for me. Argh!!!

Marriage is a foreshadowing, but celibacy is also a foreshadowing. It points the way to the future life much more clearly than marriage, but it is still merely a sign. In Heaven there is no "sacrifice of marriage" to make.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Maggyie

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 hour ago, Maggyie said:

Marriage is a foreshadowing, but celibacy is also a foreshadowing. It points the way to the future life much more clearly than marriage, but it is still merely a sign. In Heaven there is no "sacrifice of marriage" to make

People won't be making sacrifices in heaven, but the sacrifices and good works we do during our earthly life will affect our heavenly existence (cf. Rev. 14:13). Also, evangelical virginity would seem to be something which, unlike earthly marriage, is still lasting in heaven (cf. Rev. 14:4). 

The Church Fathers, in writing to female consecrated virgins, have written that evangelical virginity much more than a mere foreshadowing--that it actually is, now, in a very real sense, the life that the blessed will have in heaven. A clear example of this is from St. Cyprian's pastoral letter titled "On the Dress of Virgins": 

Virgins, persevere in the way of life you have begun, persevere in what you are to be. For you will receive a glorious prize for your virtue, a most excellent reward for your chastity. You have already begun to be now what we shall all be in the future. You already possess, here in this world, the glory of the resurrection. You pass through this world without the world’s infection. If you persevere in chastity and virginity, you are equal to God’s angels.

1 hour ago, beatitude said:

This isn't true for me. When I decided to live this life, I didn't think about my state, angelic or otherwise. I was like a child clambering onto an extremely high zip wire whose finishing point was hidden from sight a terrifying distance below, and my attitude was (and still is!) one part nerves and nine parts sheer joy and excitement. "I don't know where we're going, but You do, so I'll just hang onto this thing and enjoy the ride."

My spirituality is quite down to earth (perhaps why I feel drawn so strongly to Jesus at Nazareth, where he was known only as the carpenter's boy) and when I accepted celibacy for myself, I did so because I felt in my heart that this was how I could love best and know God most closely. Big philosophical considerations didn't come into it. I can only speak for myself on this; I expect for others it's different. But this is one reason why I don't find it helpful to take apart my vocation in search of the component that makes it 'special'; to me it's enough that God asked this of me. Any other questions are redundant.

This was very interesting for me to read, so a sincere thanks for sharing.

I don't think, though, that there's necessarily anything wrong about getting into philosophical issues in discernment for those of us who are so inclined. After all, the Christian understanding of God is that God is a God of rationality. (Though for what it's worth, my own personal experience of vocation wasn't JUST a cold intellectual exercise, either!)

I think a lot of celibate people---even if not ALL celibate people---do embrace this way of like because they are attracted to the eschatological or "angelic" dimension. Evangelical celibacy as an anticipation of the life in heaven is also generally the main reason the Church gives for requiring celibacy for Roman Catholic priests.  

What I was trying to get at in my posts, though, is that there must be some special objective reason why the Church values celibacy. I know subjectively people embrace celibacy because that's where God calls them, and that this call might be experienced as something surprising and mysterious. But, it wouldn't be characteristic of a rational God to call someone to something for reasons that were subjective to the extent of being almost arbitrary. 

[beatitude]

24 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I don't think, though, that there's necessarily anything wrong about getting into philosophical issues in discernment for those of us who are so inclined. After all, the Christian understanding of God is that God is a God of rationality. (Though for what it's worth, my own personal experience of vocation wasn't JUST a cold intellectual exercise, either!)

I think a lot of celibate people---even if not ALL celibate people---do embrace this way of like because they are attracted to the eschatological or "angelic" dimension. Evangelical celibacy as an anticipation of the life in heaven is also generally the main reason the Church gives for requiring celibacy for Roman Catholic priests.  

What I was trying to get at in my posts, though, is that there must be some special objective reason why the Church values celibacy. I know subjectively people embrace celibacy because that's where God calls them, and that this call might be experienced as something surprising and mysterious. But, it wouldn't be characteristic of a rational God to call someone to something for reasons that were subjective to the extent of being almost arbitrary. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing philosophical issues either. You are a canon lawyer, so it's natural for you to deal in abstractions - that kind of thinking is important in understanding and applying laws. But I also think that highly technical discussions don't always help people to live out their vocations in practice, and I agree with Gabriela that this approach can alienate people without such a specialist education.

I don't think anyone here has said that God's reasons are arbitrary. Something doesn't have to be superior to all other things in order to have a purpose behind it.

[Sponsa-Christi]

26 minutes ago, beatitude said:

I don't think anyone here has said that God's reasons are arbitrary. Something doesn't have to be superior to all other things in order to have a purpose behind it.

I'm not even thinking so much in terms of something being "superior" (even though I'm not afraid of using that term in the appropriate context). To me, it's more like: what is the special value of a thing like celibacy? I know it is God's will for some people, but WHY would this be a thing God would bother calling someone to in the first place?

If we say: it's good to embrace celibacy if God calls you to it, just because God calls you to it---well, that's true, but in another sense it doesn't tell us very much. Does God call people to celibacy sort of at random? Or does He call people to it because it suits their natural inclinations and personalities (which prompts the question: What purpose does it serve for God to give some people "celibate personalities?") Or is God's will in this regard just totally mysterious and not something we should try to understand intellectually? 

Or, could we say---as I'm positing---that there is a special value to celibacy which explains why God would call some people to sacrifice the possibility of marriage, and which makes that sacrifice "worth it"?

36 minutes ago, beatitude said:

But I also think that highly technical discussions don't always help people to live out their vocations in practice, and I agree with Gabriela that this approach can alienate people without such a specialist education.

So, as an honest question...should potentially touchy academic topics not be discussed anywhere on Phatmass at all? It seems like other pastoral sensitive issues (like women's ordination, or the Church's teachings on homosexuality) are okay on the right boards?

[BarbTherese]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

So, as an honest question...should potentially touchy academic topics not be discussed anywhere on Phatmass at all?

i think that it is fine to discuss "touchy academic topics" and ideally one would be aware of the potential to confuse some since Phatmass for one comprises the educated and the less educated.  Certainly, the prevalence of celibacy as being 'superior' in probably any sort of context can probably mainly, or even only, confuse the less educated.  Therefore, I think to be aware of the potential and to include the context in order to clarify and to qualify.  I think that charity and consideration asks this.

God's Will is what is superior in both objective and subjective theological considerations.

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

You pass through this world without the world’s infection.

Certainly there are more ways of being infected by the world than by a non celibate state.  Although (not knowing much about it) I would imagine that consecration to virginity means virginity on far more than, but including, the sexual level?   Also, because a person is non-celibate does not therefore automatically imply that they will be infected by the world.

I also think that celibacy without commitment to and for the sake of The Kingdom is not what celibacy in our context is about at all.  It is the total commitment to The Kingdom that gives celibacy, in this instance, it's value.  Without a marital partner nor children to give time and effort to and in every way, the person who chooses celibacy for the sake of The Kingdom, seems more free to commit totally to The Kingdom than the non celibate.  It does not mean that they will however. But there is something amiss in that kind of statement, since all the vocations ideally are committed to The Kingdom and totally in some way.

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

If we say: it's good to embrace celibacy if God calls you to it, just because God calls you to it---well, that's true, but in another sense it doesn't tell us very much. Does God call people to celibacy sort of at random? Or does He call people to it because it suits their natural inclinations and personalities (which prompts the question: What purpose does it serve for God to give some people "celibate personalities?") Or is God's will in this regard just totally mysterious and not something we should try to understand intellectually? 

Interesting.  I think it was St Thomas Aquinas who said that Grace builds on nature.  God's Will is never random - He knows precisely what He is about in the minute and great - and why.  Certainly to some He does gift natural inclinations and personalities.  Why would this be? and to what purpose does God grant some "celibate personalities"?

First, I think Faith seeking understanding is always a valuable and important quest.  However, if one thinks one can always find understanding in life on all levels and without fail - and every where and every time along the line - then one is deceiving oneself.  Why am I celibate for example, and Mrs X down the street is not.  I have no idea and I do know that it is nothing to do with me as a person/my ego identity.  I don't know quite how to put it.  God did not look on me as the unique creature of His that I am (and all are) and think of me as a good case for bestowing celibacy.  Why did He gift me with qualities that can live out celibacy .....but not Mrs X down the road....I have no idea at all.  He simply has.  Why did He gift Mrs X down the road with qualities to live out a long and happy marriage despite many difficulties and trials, illnesses and deaths.....and not me.....no idea at all.  He simply has.

I also don't think that the subject can be discussed in it's fullest and in it's most descriptive and meaningful without including a context of the Doctrine of The Mystical Body of Christ on earth and all that it implies..........although I will charge into it on my level if I must.

As the thread is developing it still seems to me to be an insistence at times on the superior nature in some way or other of celibacy or virginity.  I know and hold that The Church teaches the superior nature of those states, but it is not the states themselves that will sanctify and save, it is the way they are lived out.  Just as with marriage for example.  I confess to my heresy and wondered from time to time if it might have been also about cheap labour and guaranteed (in hope) souls saved and sanctified...............less about God's Will for the person as prime by far.

All is Grace.  All glory and Glory to God in all things most minute and most great.

Edited March 26, 2016 by BarbaraTherese