"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[BarbTherese]

When I think about it, what greater (general) personal call and vocation can there be than to be called to receive The Body and Blood of Christ and be united to Him therein in a most intimate manner, no matter that related or later call and the personal path and lifestyle to which we are called to take in life.

Is it ever proclaimed that one should without fail choose the 'most superior' objective vocation theologically? Rather in our day especially a somewhat new noun keeps cropping up everywhere it seems i.e. "discernment" which is the journey to discern God's Will for a person's life.  "Discernment" has come to embrace far more (especially through the Ignatian Exercises) i.e. those means for discerning God's Will in all areas of life.

What would be the disposition I would advocate in relation to personal vocation and call, path in life?  It is to follow the Will of God in all things as the most superior of all regardless.  And with increasing appearances of the word "discernment", I think this is that to which The Church now leans.  We recognize as never before that when God does call, He also provides the necessary without fail.

With most who feel called to some forms of celibate or even virginal life, there are certain pre-existing qualities required - this would seem to indicate that not all are called to celibacy as we know they are not.  Would God call a person to less than the most perfect and superior?  Not at all, because the moment the person enters the picture of vocation, what is most perfect and superior for that person is not necessarily at all the most perfect and superior for another.  The Mystical Body:  there are many tasks to be done in the Mystical Body and all are vital else they would not exist.  One is called here, another is called there and gifted the necessary qualities for the task.  That vocation to which one is called is not random as God is not random at all.  If I am called to the objectively superior vocation of celibacy or virginity, it is cause to humbly give thanks - and not a reflection on any sort of personal virtue warranting God should and has granted such a gift . Ridiculous and laughable!  And in the Doctrine of The Mystical Body, one gives thanks for the gifts of virtues in The Church as belonging to oneself and to all, just as we lament and grieve over all the sinfulness in The Church especially -  and as belonging to The Church, i.e. oneself and all.

"St Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350 : “While you maintain perfect chastity, do not be puffed up in vain conceit against those who walk a humbler path in matrimony…. Because you have a possession of gold, do not on that account hold the silver in contempt.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 818c)  

In speaking about celibacy and virginity and as objectively theologically superior to other official type vocations in The Church, I do think we need to be careful to speak in such a way that all other vocations are not somehow being put "in contempt".  We strive to convey a right understanding.  A half truth is not truth.

[BarbTherese]

 The vocations could be compared to gold and silver..............and as heaven is to earth.

I watched a UTube video last night on Fr. James Martin SJ commenting on St Therese of Lisiuex - the following occurred to me:

In God's garden, He has created magnificent roses, lilies and birds of paradise.......but He has also created daises and impatiens, pet grass*** (which my dog and cat love and need).  The big and the small in His Garden - the strikingly beautiful and the not so strikingly beautiful.  All are important, valuable and loved by Him, else they would not be in His garden.  St Therese sighted this and understood that He loves all equally and she regarded herself as a little daisy - some might see themselves in pet grass......looks like a weed but has useful purpose .   God has created the 'superior' vocations and the 'lesser' vocations.............to immediate appearances that is (objective theological scale).  All however have value, importance and are equally loved by Him ........... else, simply, they would not exist at  all.

We do The Lord a grave disservice if being a magnificent rose for example, I wished I could be a daisy or pet grass.  Or conversely, if the daisy and pet grass wished it could be the magnificent rose.  Further, if the rose spoke down of the daisy,  Or the daisy wished it could be a beautiful rose.

How boring would be The Garden of The Lord if there was no variations at all............indeed, how boring would life itself be.  I have often mused on the astounding variations in nature of the colour green for one only.  All around us always and everywhere God is speaking to us including through nature..........sometimes using the very ordinary and everyday to elaborate on far more complex matters.

Perspective and attitude.  I reckon therein the genius of St Therese.

______________________

*** At a barbeque here not all that long ago, a neighbour thought it very funny because I was growing weeds in pots (pet grass)   After some exposure, most get used to my idiosyncrasies and peculiarities, weirdness. My psychiatrist, most politely, calls them eccentricities.

[BarbTherese]

On 3/26/2016, 9:18:35, Sponsa-Christi said:

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). 

There is something far greater that will be lasting in Heaven than evangelical virginity or anything else whatsoever - and that is Charity.  While virginity will last with a few in Heaven, it is Charity that will bind all in Heaven to our God Who Is Love. I do have in mind, since we have just come through Holy Week, the Prayer of Jesus before His Death - that "all should be one, Father, as we are one".  At the Heart and Soul of Jesus is Unity in Charity.  While perfect Charity will unite us all in Heaven with God Who Is Love, the life of Charity begins here on earth - the quest and thirst for Charity or God intrinsic to any and all vocations.

 

23 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

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"?

There are all sorts of matters unique and especially valuable in some way to all the vocations, celibate and non celibate, which might prompt a person to make a particular choice and for the "good of The Kingdom" in some way.  I recall asking a priest why he had become a priest and he replied: "To save my soul" ....... I thought to myself "Well, that was and is for the good of The Kingdom too".  He might have started out with a "save my soul" motivation but that motivation was purified and transformed in his priestly journey was quite obvious.

Of course, if a person wanted to be superior, that person might (wrongly) choose a celibate state in life in order to feel superior based on that notion that celibacy is a superior vocation.  And motivation re any vocation at all can be and most often is changed and transformed, purified, as time goes on, one hopes - but never invests in presumption.

On 3/26/2016, 9:18:35, Sponsa-Christi said:

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. 

The above reads as if The Church values only celibacy.........there are other things too that The Church highly values.  And the greatest of all things is Charity as St Paul tells us i.e. "I will show you a more excellent way" says St Paul.  The incredible point about the statement from St Paul is that he mentions many vocations and calls, gifts, that would apply each to a restricted gifted group - and then finally states "I will show you a more excellent way" i.e. Charity ........which ideally binds, unites, all the vocations regardless.  Charity only will certainly unite all in Heaven. 

 If you can explain to me why God bestows certain Graces on one person and not another , which seems to be what you are implying, I would really appreciate your explanation.  Nothing at all is ever arbitrary with God - this does not mean, of course, that one can always unfailingly explain why He might choose one person for this, and another person for that.

Because I cannot find reasons nor rule etc for God's actions, therefore God must be arbitrary would be ridiculous.  To me, it is arriving at the sanctification and infallibility of human reason.

________________________

St Paul - First Epistle to Corinthians - Chapters 12 and 13: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53013.htm

26] And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it. [27] Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. [28] And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? [30] Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

[31] But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way.

[1] If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. [4] Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; [5] Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;

[6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; [7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. [8] Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. [9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. [10] But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

[iamnormal]

Is there something special about celibacy that gives it real meaning?  Is this what Sponsa is asking?  Is there something special about working for the Church that gives the person an advantage in the God department?  Is this what Sponsa is asking?  I think a lot of people have responded to these questions.  Gabriela wrote about how it is the person who gives value to the work.  It made a lot of sense.  Beatitude wrote about loving God.  It made a lot of sense.  Why does working for the Church need to be more special than others for you?  This is something you may need to think about for yourself because I don't think anyone can answer the question for you, Sponsa.  

Why work for the Church?  Because the Church is important to people so somebody has to work in it.  Why does it need to be any more than that?  And as far as making sacrifices, I wouldn't assume that not marrying is more of a sacrifice than marrying.  Perhaps they are different types of sacrifices but the assumption that being married is about having stuff and being indulgent, though not held by most, seems to be common among those who use marriage as a foil to talk up their own sacrifices.  Paul Evdokimov makes an interesting observation in his book, The Sacrament of Love: "The true monk will rejoice in this (asserting the full value of marriage), for he, more than anyone else, is able to discern the real value of marriage.  It's path is narrow, perhaps the most narrow of all, since there are two who walk upon it."

I think Maggyie makes a valid point. If marriage is a "mere" foreshadowing, then the same holds true for celibacy.  We are all subject to limitations of our own mortality. None of us can make claims to represent in some exhaustive and exclusive way the Church or the Kingdom.  Being celibate is no hedge against death, even if celibacy is essential to the life of the Church (and I think it is).  However, to say that celibate people are participating in the kingdom in the here an now and married people can't do this merely because they are married makes no sense. It is offensive and is an over interpretation of Jesus' remarks about not being given in marriage.   It makes it sound like the kingdom of God is just about being saved from marriage (that salvation consists in being saved from marriage, a heresy I would argue) and this doesn't make any sense given that the kingdom is described in nuptial language.

I agree that the Church made a tactical error in taking marriage for granted.  There is no clear empirical evidence that everyone is naturally capable of marriage in the way the Church understands marriage, both in terms of permanence and fidelity.  But, Catholic Christians would probably do better if they focused more on being Christian (loving God, loving neighbor, serving others and that kind of stuff) and exercised more humilty with respect to their own vocation whatever it may be. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by iamnormal

[iamnormal]

Missed the quote from St. Cyprian earlier.  I am all about not overinterpreting things. It is a kind of art, not too little and not too much and also respect the genre.  But really, is it baptism or virginity that enables a person to begin in the here and now what they will become in the coming kingdom?  There really is a correct answer to this question.  If the answer is virginity, then this excludes most Christians from a participation in the kingdom.  If you seriously expect to say to married Christians that they are to be devoted to their marriage in a way that is similar to the way celibate people are devoted to Christ in celibacy, but that there is no carry over or continuity between what they have devoted themselves to in life and their life in the kingdom, then there is no place for married people in the Church.  If marriage has no bearing on one's life with God, then why bother marrying "in the Lord"?  

I know consecrated virginity has been revived relatively recently.  I am a canon lawyer as well, and although my focus is not on consecrated life or ordained ministry, I do know that there is far more legislation devoted to other forms of consecrated life and to ordained ministry than there is to consecrated virginity.  As far as I recall, even hermits have statutes, a rule of life that has to be approved.  This is not the case for consecrated virgins.  The fact that consecrated virginity is so unregulated, but still a public form of consecrated life in the Church, may prove to be problematic.  Sponsa may want to consider whether what she has written here would contribute to a Bishop's willingness to grant the request of a member of his diocese to receive the consecration to virginity or dissuade him from doing so.  Sponsa, I think there are questions, no matter how much you want to couch them in context of a purely academic discussion, that you can only answer for yourself.

 

[BarbTherese]

It is Charity and in any vocation which links earth and Heaven to my mind.  While virginity or celibacy (as witness) points to an aspect or disposition of Heaven to which all will be confirmed (no marriage in Heaven), I don't think that virginity or celibacy can actually link earth and Heaven (Mystical Body) while it does remain an aspect of Heaven.  Charity links at once all in Heaven and those on earth and no matter particular vocation.  Charity unites, and unity was the prayer so dear to the Heart of Jesus to His Father before His Death.

If one has chosen virginity or celibacy and for the sake of The Kingdom, but lacks Charity???  Alternatively, if one is non virginal (or non celibate), but has Charity ???

Aspect:  nature; quality; character:

Link:  anything serving to connect one part or thing with another; a bond or tie:

Quote

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

 

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
OF POPE 
JOHN PAUL II

 

Go to Subject Heading:   Marriage, Celibacy and Virginity

Quote

Quote

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Sponsa-Christi]

9 hours ago, iamnormal said:

Is there something special about working for the Church that gives the person an advantage in the God department?  Is this what Sponsa is asking?  I think a lot of people have responded to these questions.  Gabriela wrote about how it is the person who gives value to the work.  It made a lot of sense.  Beatitude wrote about loving God.  It made a lot of sense.  Why does working for the Church need to be more special than others for you?

I'm not asking whether working for the Church gives someone a subjective "advantage in the God department," or whether it makes someone subjectively "more special." I completely agree that all non-sinful paths can be a call to holiness, that in terms of one's personal discernment the most important thing is doing what you're called to do, etc. So I don't think that underlining these points that I already agree with are really answering my question.

To try to restate it again, I'm asking how one would articulate, on a purely objective level, whether and in what sense there is any special (i.e., "special" as in characteristic, and not necessarily superior) value to doing work which references the Church in an explicit way. 

If there is no special value, then to me it doesn't make sense that we find it praiseworthy when apostolic religious sponsor apostolates, when people forsake lucrative professional careers to do missionary work, etc. If it really doesn't make any kind of difference whatsoever, then why shouldn't these people just join a secular institute or offer up their secular work? And if we go back to the subjective "it makes a difference because God called them..." then why would God bother calling them to this in the first place?

9 hours ago, iamnormal said:

Why work for the Church?  Because the Church is important to people so somebody has to work in it.  Why does it need to be any more than that?

Again, this is pushing everything back into purely subjective territory. What if the Church was NOT perceived as being important to people? There are very many places in the western world where the Church isn't important to most people---does that mean that in those contexts working for the Church has no value? 

[Sponsa-Christi]

8 hours ago, iamnormal said:

Missed the quote from St. Cyprian earlier.  I am all about not overinterpreting things. It is a kind of art, not too little and not too much and also respect the genre.  But really, is it baptism or virginity that enables a person to begin in the here and now what they will become in the coming kingdom?  There really is a correct answer to this question.  If the answer is virginity, then this excludes most Christians from a participation in the kingdom.  If you seriously expect to say to married Christians that they are to be devoted to their marriage in a way that is similar to the way celibate people are devoted to Christ in celibacy, but that there is no carry over or continuity between what they have devoted themselves to in life and their life in the kingdom, then there is no place for married people in the Church.  

In the St. Cyprian quote, he was quite clearly talking about virginity rather than baptism in general---it's from a pastoral letter to consecrated virgins titled "On the Dress of Virgins," and it's one of the options for the second reading in the Office of Readings for the Common of Virgins. It is a good point that baptism is the beginning of life in the kingdom, but I would argue (along with St. Cyprian, the other Fathers of the Church, the Church's liturgical tradition, the Catechism, and every Pope who has ever written anything on consecrated life) that consecrated virginity/evangelical continence chastity is a much more radical anticipation of life in the eschaton. 

Saying that marriage is not the same kind of radical foreshadowing of our future heavenly existence is not denying married people a place in the Church, or excluding them any kind of participation in the kingdom. It's just acknowledging along with St. Paul that the things of this world are passing away; and that marriage is a temporary, earthly reality. This doesn't mean that marriage is bad or has no effect on our future life in heaven---obviously, as a sacrament, matrimony is a source of grace that can help us work our our salvation, so it's valuable that way. 

8 hours ago, iamnormal said:

If marriage has no bearing on one's life with God, then why bother marrying "in the Lord"?  

There won't be marriage in heaven, but marriage does have bearing on one's life with God insofar as it's an occasion of growing in virtue and holiness. And Catholics should indeed bother with marrying "in the Lord," because to marry outside the Church without permission is essentially the same thing as living in sin!

9 hours ago, iamnormal said:

However, to say that celibate people are participating in the kingdom in the here an now and married people can't do this merely because they are married makes no sense. It is offensive and is an over interpretation of Jesus' remarks about not being given in marriage.

This is an honest question, but can you find any passage from any authoritative magisterial writing which would say this explicitly? (I'm not trying to sound snarky---I'm really curious if you know of a source that I'm not aware of.)

[BarbTherese]

 

Quote

 

Sponsa-Christi:          There won't be marriage in heaven, but marriage does have bearing on one's life with God insofar as it's an occasion of growing in virtue and holiness. 

 

 

Marriage is more than simply "an occasion of growing in virtue and holiness".  In Familiaris Consortio, Pope John II writes "Marriage and virginity or celibacy are TWO WAYS OF EXPRESSING AND LIVING THE ONE MYSTERY OF THE COVENANT OF GOD WITH HIS PEOPLE".

Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (Pope John Paul II) 1981

"16. Virginity or celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God not only does not contradict the dignity of marriage but presupposes it and confirms it. Marriage and virginity or celibacy are two ways of expressing and living the one mystery of the covenant of God with His people. When marriage is not esteemed, neither can consecrated virginity or celibacy exist; when human sexuality is not regarded as a great value given by the Creator, the renunciation of it for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven loses its meaning.

Rightly indeed does St. John Chrysostom say: "Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be particularly good. It is something better than what is admitted to be good that is the most excellent good."[38] "

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Maggyie]

It's interesting to me that the thread has gone from talking about celibacy to talking about virginity. The two are not equivalent; it is not appropriate to use the church's teaching on consecrated virginity and paper it onto celibacy. Physical virginity is also not equivalent to evangelical virginity; true evangelical virginity is even more extraordinarily rare. Evangelical virginity is only peripherally about sex.

Priesthood and marriage are similar (and again priesthood properly understood is not a celibate vocation in its essence) in that they are sacrements, which will cease in Heaven. Just as there will not be anyone given in marriage, there will also not be anyone ordained, nor will there be any Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. However these sacraments leave a mark on the soul, for lack of a better phrase. Marriage does not "wash off" in heaven. 

I guess I'm confused by the thread which has gone from talking about Catholic "jobs" to talking about the inferiority of various calls from God. I don't know if this is motivated by a personal crisis or what. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

9 hours ago, Maggyie said:

I guess I'm confused by the thread which has gone from talking about Catholic "jobs" to talking about the inferiority of various calls from God. I don't know if this is motivated by a personal crisis or what. 

I feel a bit frustrated, because I don't feel like I'm the one who keeps using expressions like "inferiority of various calls from God" or bringing the conversation around to this issue.

I really wanted to talk about what gives characteristic value to working in an explicitly Catholic apostolate. I for one don't think talking about such characteristic value necessarily needs to become a discussion about who is better than whom---but maybe that's the fundamental disagreement here? 

Even if someone here came out and said (and do note that this is a hypothetical response, not something I myself actually believe or would say): "Working for the Church is a good thing because it's higher work, and the people who do it are better in every respect!"---this still absolutely would not answer my questions at all!

Also, for those who are wondering, I was asking this question in the first place because not because I'm in the middle of a personal crisis, but I've been doing a lot of reading on the canonical/theological issues related to the idea of apostolic religious and other consecrated persons (i.e., consecrated persons who aren't secular institute members) forgoing Church-related apostolates to do purely secular work. 

However, while there are many authors who write with the presumption that this is a bad thing (which I would intuitively agree with), and many authors who can talk about some secondary reasons why religious/consecrated giving up Church-related apostolates is problematic,  I haven't found anyone who has clearly articulated in a positive way why it is actively a good thing when religious/consecrated DO dedicate themselves to direct service of the Church.

It seems like there must be some special objective value in giving oneself over to an explicitly Catholic apostolate, in the sense that this is to be expected of the consecrated in particular and is rightly considered a worthy endeavor for the faithful in general. I'm just trying to figure out the right words to explain why.

[BarbTherese]

 

Quote

 

Maggie: 

It's interesting to me that the thread has gone from talking about celibacy to talking about virginity. The two are not equivalent; it is not appropriate to use the church's teaching on consecrated virginity and paper it onto celibacy. Physical virginity is also not equivalent to evangelical virginity; true evangelical virginity is even more extraordinarily rare. Evangelical virginity is only peripherally about sex.

 

 

Marriage, consecrated virginity and a vocation to a celibate state are all entirely different vocations all gifted by The One Spirit for the good of The Church - and different ways of "expressing and living the one mystery of the covenant with God"(Familiaris Consortio)

Insofar as working directly for The Church or in secular work, I think that one is gifted with certain gifts or a charism and these determine where one will serve.  I can't see how working for The Church has some special aspect, since working for The Church or in secular work both call on the same unique Catholic characteristics of being a follower of Jesus and His Gospel.  I do think that there is probably something embedded in Catholic cultural consciousness that makes working for The Church special and probably more special than secular work - and inaccurate............or indeed something embedded in my own consciousness that cannot see the special nature of working for The Church and equally inaccurate.  Either/or.

Edited March 30, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

Historically, I think probably consecrated persons have worked for The Church and any change to that situation will be met with probably what change is most always met with........i.e. opposition.......humans generally speaking do not like change.  I do think that because of the formation of consecrated persons and on an ongoing basis that their skills and gifts can contribute in facilitating (what to me would be an essential manner) the formation, for one only of the laity whose special character is the secular.  And in undertaking lay formation the consecrated person is then working for The Church.  

 I still cannot see that there is something special about working for The Church - what might be special about it is "for The Church" just as what is special about secular work is for the "secular".  I don't think one is more important or special than the other since our command is: "go ye into the whole world":.............

[14] At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. [15] And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark Ch16)

Should consecrated persons work ONLY for The Church, I cannot answer.  It seems to me it depends on the terms, as it were, of their consecration, while for religious their particular charism.  If we get into what is "more special" etc. about Church or secular work as it were, then I think the same problems and differences will arise as when discussing "better or best" etc. about the various vocations, although I hope the thread will not go into that aspect.

I view working for The Church or in the secular as two aspects of the same call to service and for The Kingdom.  Whichever aspect one commits oneself to is dependent on variables............... gifts, type of consecration, charism etc.

[God's Beloved]

On 3/31/2016, 2:30:13, Sponsa-Christi said:

Also, for those who are wondering, I was asking this question in the first place because not because I'm in the middle of a personal crisis, but I've been doing a lot of reading on the canonical/theological issues related to the idea of apostolic religious and other consecrated persons (i.e., consecrated persons who aren't secular institute members) forgoing Church-related apostolates to do purely secular work. 

However, while there are many authors who write with the presumption that this is a bad thing (which I would intuitively agree with), and many authors who can talk about some secondary reasons why religious/consecrated giving up Church-related apostolates is problematic,  I haven't found anyone who has clearly articulated in a positive way why it is actively a good thing when religious/consecrated DO dedicate themselves to direct service of the Church.

It seems like there must be some special objective value in giving oneself over to an explicitly Catholic apostolate, in the sense that this is to be expected of the consecrated in particular and is rightly considered a worthy endeavor for the faithful in general. I'm just trying to figure out the right words to explain why.

Dear Sponsa-Christi,

I just happened to knock into this thread today.  It is indeed quite interesting. 

1. There are religious/ consecrated persons (who are not secular institute members) who dedicate themselves to the mission of the Church, by teaching Christianity in non-Church-related universities, to foster inter-religious dialogue for peace in the world.  As representatives of the Church, they dedicate themselves to indirect service of the Church and direct service of the world.

2. There are those who teach theology in Catholic seminaries and universities.  This is direct service of the Church.

3. In countries where Catholics are a majority, whether they serve in Catholic schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions, or in Government (Public) schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions, they are directly serving the Church.

4. In countries were Catholics are a minority, even in Catholic schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions, a majority of the beneficiaries belong to other or no religion.  Hence they are directly serving the Church and the world.

Apostolic Institutes are so many, with each having their own charism, that reveals a different facet of how religious can serve the Church, whether directly or indirectly.  So, it is not possible to generalize. 

The charism of every consecrated virgin is focused on her relationship with Christ as a bride, and her relationship with members of the Church, as a spiritual mother.  This motherhood is extended to those who are not Christians.  She represents the Church as Mother, who exists to evangelize and give birth to new members.  How she is called to fulfill her role as mother, would depend on the local circumstances, her spiritual gifts, and cannot be generalized.  Perhaps, in a post-Christian world, to reach out to baptized, non-practicing Catholics in the world, would be direct service of the Church.  In a country where Christians are a minority, and they are easily found gathered in parishes and Catholic institutions, she could serve the Church directly in these places.  In such countries, in my opinion, it would not be ideal for her to work in the world.  However, the fact is that in such countries, the Church usually does not pay decent salaries to consecrated virgins for their service.  Hence, in their desire to be faithful to their charism to serve the Church directly, some of them could be compelled to practice severe mortification and be deprived of basic human needs of survival.  The crown of martyrdom is then assured!  Let her who feels called, accept it.

 

 

[Benedictus]

On 09/03/2016, 07:06:09, Sponsa-Christi said:

Okay, I'm posting this in debate table because I'm genuinely interested in a variety of opinions, but I do hope this can be a productive and fruitful discussion.

My question is: Do you think there is ANY difference at all in ANY respect for ANYONE between what we would traditionally describe as "working for the Church" (e.g., teaching religion classes, running a soup kitchen, working in pastoral ministry, having an administrative role in a Catholic institution) and working in a totally secular job?

Please try to articulate the precise reasons for your answer. 

God calls people to various forms of career and that's great.  This wouldn't necessarily be seen as their 'ministry'. God calls us all to minister and so we should all be doing something to directly build up the Church in terms of our time, gifts and capacity.

I wouldn't say being a secular employed medic is less worthy than being employed by the Church to run a soup kitchen. However, there needs to be a distinction between the work in terms of what the Church expects from those it employs, at least for very specific roles. There is the issue of intrinsic factors for the role. This would require the person to live a life in accordance with the will of the Church and that's more demanding than most would expect from typical forms of secular employment.

Are all types of work equally good and beneficial though? No. This is where the person needs to discern what are the best options available to them as a whole. Often there's a difference between what we can do and what we should do in a particular circumstance. 

Edited May 8, 2016 by Benedictus