"in An Ideal World, 80% Would Be Religious And 20% Married"

[johnnydigit]

i heard a priest say this and it has stuck with me. i think he said it was Thomas Aquinas, but i have searched and have not found any evidence, yet. he has long since forgotten as well.

anyways, i've been thinking that this scenario makes a lot of sense. in an ideal world where everyone was Catholic and teaching their children the way they should be, most would become priests, brothers, or sisters. they would occupy most of the city's jobs, and the few remaining single people would marry to propogate the species and raise children. then of course the very few single people who are not called to religous or married life would remain single, but hopefully consecrated in some form at least.

now considering the reality of the situation today, we are totally off the mark and in desperate need of change in our younger generation's mentality towards religious life and the culture of death. instead of marriage being the minority and the more rare option, it's completely the opposite, and probably chosen more than 99% of the time.

ok so the point i'm trying to make is, i'm thinking that for anyone who is even considering the notion, or has even pondered the possibility of religious life in our day and age, is beyond rare, and we should be doing our best to really encourage them and point them to religious life. given the above theory, the chances they are called to religious life greatly outweigh the call to marriage.

i don't think this is being done on our part because it seems most people who discern end up choosing marriage. again, given the pure statistics of an "ideal" world, most of these people should be finding their call is to religious life. needless to say we have more than enough people to propogate the species.

"be not afraid." we need you. just try it. if you are that rare person that God has called to marriage, you will know and you can still pursue it afterwards.

(disclaimer: what i say is not always what i am able to do

[Totus Tuus]

I wouldn't go too far with that theory, because while someone (even saints) might hold it as opinion I don't think it's ever been part of any of the Church's official statements.

I don't really know if that is the ideal situation. Even in the "golden years" of Catholicism in culture (i.e., the Middle Ages), I think it was the norm for maybe a daughter and a son to dedicate their lives to the Church - and they had large families back then so that was by no means "most" of the children.

Taking St. Paul's words to heart, that it is better for a person to remain unmarried so that they may be busy about the Lord's work, I can see some plausibility in the statement you made. I would be interested in hearing other members' comments on this...

[jeffpugh]

It's an interesting thought, to say the least. I've pondered about it once or twice. A majority should be called to some kind of religious life, but, I don't think it's those numbers you say. Anywho, the point I want to make is you can't say that only the Catholics who have been discerning should go to a religious life. Some actually may be called to marriage. On the other hand, those non Catholics out there may actually have a calling to the religious life, but they're sort of not in the right place and time to make the call... it's just an unballanced world. If we get good solid Catholics having families, God Bless them! because that is another generation where some may chose the priesthood, or whatever and go evangelize this world.
Things are on a bit of a micro-level right now.

My Canadian $0.02

[philosophette]

I dunno... something does not sit right with me about that whole theory. I am sure that the priest means well, but if most of the Catholics in the world became religious or priests, then I would fear that we, as humans who often do these things, would look down upon the married as somehow not being privileged like the bulk of the Catholics in becoming religious. It almost seems like a rejection of the marital act as an imperfect service to God. Yes, it gives us children to become religious, but those who engage it in are *clearly* more fleshly and unable to control themselves... that kind of thing.

I am sure there is some heresy that is slightly reflected in that, but I am not a scholar. (Maybe one of our scholars or priests can help!)

I think that married life is a beautiful reflection of the Trinitarian mystery of God, and that that theory makes it seem as if it is not as good as religious life. Even Paul said that it is better for some to be married. It was the married life of Mary and Joseph that protected the vocation (if you will) of Jesus the High Priest. I think if more Catholics were really living their faith then there would be more vocations.... but the 20% is very unrealistic.

That is my Illinois $0.02

[the lords sheep]

I think this is a slighty bizzare topic, but my 2 cents:

In an ideal world, 100% would be holy, loving, God-fearing men and women who are striving to be at full communion with the Lord through whatever vocation He calls them too.

[farglefeezlebut]

If that were true, I'm not sure that the married 20% would be physically capable of producing enough children to sustain the population.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='the lords sheep' post='1333805' date='Jul 18 2007, 01:37 PM']I think this is a slighty bizzare topic, but my 2 cents:

In an ideal world, 100% would be holy, loving, God-fearing men and women who are striving to be at full communion with the Lord through whatever vocation He calls them too.[/quote]

Amen to that, sistah!

[quote]If that were true, I'm not sure that the married 20% would be physically capable of producing enough children to sustain the population.[/quote]

This is a very good point.

In Europe, a woman has an average of 1-2 children, and their population is seriously declining right now. Every married woman would have to have like 8 children just to keep the population where it is right now (which is already too low) for this to work out. Unless I'm doing my math wrong, which is a serious possibility :

Edited July 18, 2007 by Totus Tuus

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I disagree strongly. I can't imagine any theologian worth his salt making such abritrary statistical predictions, let alone somebody as rational and level-headed as Thomas Aquinas. A vocation is a gift from God, not a career. You can't say, "We need x number of religious to sustain our society" in the same way that you might say, "We need x number of doctors." This is because the impact of one priest or nun on our lives is defined by the quality of their prayer and nothing more. Better one passionate and holy nun than a hundred mediocre ones.

Secondly, this idea makes marriage seem pitifully inferior. It also turns women into baby machines. God does not call us 'to propagate the species'. He calls us to procreate, and there is a big difference between procreation and propagation. God creates. He does not produce blindly. The distinction is subtle but beautiful, and if you have eyes for beauty you can see it. Too many non-Catholic people have been robbed of their appreciation for beauty by casual sex, immodest TV shows, greed for money, and the like. Too many Catholics have been robbed of it by their desire to be SOMETHING rather than someone - a priest/religious specifically rather than a God-fearing, Christ-loving person. It's rampant clericalism.

I pray for an increase in religious vocations, but this must never come at the expense of our respect for marriage.

[Resurrexi]

I would say that 50% should be religious and 50% should be married.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1333840' date='Jul 18 2007, 02:41 PM']I disagree strongly. I can't imagine any theologian worth his salt making such abritrary statistical predictions[/quote]

I got the impression, when reading jd's post, that this was something the priest came up with on the spot to support a different point he was making, but not out of malice or dissidence...

None of us were there, though, except jd, and he doesn't really remember the incident very well.

[quote name='thomasmore']I would say that 50% should be religious and 50% should be married.[/quote]

Not to open a can o' worms here, but what about Singlehood? It's a legit. vocation

Edited July 18, 2007 by Totus Tuus

[farglefeezlebut]

I think the whole idea of statistics is silly.

[kujo]

Since when does God abide by statistics?

Honestly, I think agree with whomever posted the comment that, in the ideal world, everyone would love God with all of their hearts and minds and would, thus, be open to whatever vocation that He would be calling them to.

Let's not get too caught up in statistics!

[homeschoolmom]

imho, in an ideal world:
1% would be religious brothers
4% would be religious sisters
10% priests
85% holy married couples...

of course, that's my opinion...

In reality it would just be best if everyone did what they were called to do in the best way they could.

[traichuoi]

sounds kinda like Plato's ideal state...although he never said that the religious were necessarily "philosopher kings."

you still don't present sound reason for why this would be ideal. it doesn't follow.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='traichuoi' post='1334147' date='Jul 18 2007, 07:12 PM']sounds kinda like Plato's ideal state...although he never said that the religious were necessarily "philosopher kings."

you still don't present sound reason for why this would be ideal. it doesn't follow.[/quote]


I don't really know what you mean by "philosopher kings".