What Are Bad Reasons To Join An Order

[johnnydigit]

St. Padre Pio wanted to be a Capuchin because he liked the pointy hood.

i like the big pointy hood, but even more, i want to pretend i'm a jedi knight (for Our King and Our Lady) and make light saber sounds, probably on the day of my investiture, if God wills it.

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='InHisLove726' post='1745861' date='Jan 8 2009, 07:49 AM']I know of one such sister that left her order very recently. I met her in person on a vocations retreat, and wondered why she hadn't made her final vows yet. I asked her as such, because she had been there about 9 years, and she didn't have an answer. I found that odd. I wondered if it was because there was something missing from her life that she was trying to find. She left this past December, and all I know is that she knows what she is supposed to do now. Because of privacy and personal reasons, I won't divulge her name. I just continue to pray for her. [/quote]

I think I know who you mean. And if I'm right, I know of another sister of the same congregation who did the same.

It's tough on the community, but they're very supportive for discerners in general - in whichever state of discernment they might be (and that's until final vows).

I'm joining the Dominican Sisters of St. Joseph because they have the best puddings ever.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1745672' date='Jan 7 2009, 08:25 PM']People have used religious orders to escape for a long time. The problem is they tend to bring their problems with them behind the walls.[/quote]

My sister-in-law asked me if I were joining a convent to escape from life, but only someone who has never been in a convent would think that it is a good way to escape life's cares and worries! Depending on the community, it isn't much of an escape plan!

I also heard one person say that people wanted to enter religious life so they could have a good retirement plan -- WHAT??

Reasons for entering might be various and numerous, but sometimes even [u]staying [/u]in the community is going to be the hard part - and this is where discernment comes in. The vocation might be real but finding where God wants one isn't always easy. Even St Therese's sister, Leonie encountered a lot of trials in her vocation, trying first the Poor Clares and then the Visitation three times before she was able to persevere. God doesn't give up on us - so we mustn't give up on ourselves.

Edited February 9, 2009 by nunsense

[Didacus]

How would any of you respond to this argument in favour of gay marriage?

[quote]First, a prequalifier - I'm talking from the point of view of gay marriage in the United States.

Your point makes absolutely no sense in terms of the history or the law of the United States. There is only one set of conditions that banning gay marriage would be defensible:

A) The only purpose for having sex was to create offspring,
B) The only permissible sex in society was between a unionized mating pair,
C) The only permissible having of offspring was between a unionized mating pair.

Under those conditions, banning gay marriage would make sense. For the most part, this is the rationale used in strict Islamic countries ala Taliban Afghanistan (though it's been debunked as well). Otherwise, banning gay marriage is prejudicial, pure and simple. Why is it prejudicial?

A) Americans are allowed to have sex with people they are not married to, regardless of sexual orientation.
B) Americans that are married are allowed to have sex without creating children.
C) Americans are allowed to have children outside of marriage.

Without banning those aforementioned practices, the only rationale left to ban gay marriage is that it's "perverse", "unnatural", and all the other catch-terms created, which are really all secret code for "God says you can't do it".

The United States has several avenues that would make sense:

A) Remove the word "marriage" from any government-sanctioned union, give all couples "civil unions", and leave "marriage" to the religious organization of your choice. All rights are equal;

B) Do away with government-recognized unions at all; religious organizations can have whatever ceremonies they want, but there will be no special legal rights for any kind of union without those people embarking upon legal journeys just like anyone else (ie no marriage tax deductions, etc).

C) Recognize all unions as "marriage", meaning a government-recognized union.

D) Place into law code just as I've written above, with the rationale that government-sanctioned union between a man and a woman is necessary to perpetuate the species, and that only a committed union can raise such offspring properly. I think it goes without saying that if this path was most desirable, divorce would be banned at least until the children were emancipated.

Bottom line: in the United States, "marriage" is a legal contract, no more and no less in the eyes of the government. It defines who gets what property, rights to death benefits, authority to make decisions, etc and codifies it so that those rights are assumed by spouses - they don't have to go to special lengths to get those rights, and it's beaver dam near impossible for someone outside the union to take them away. There is no legal argument for denying two consenting people (or really three, four, etc if they're all consenting) the right to enter into a voluntary union that gives them equal rights and protections with other people.

The anti-gay marriage people try to spin it as anything but theological, because they understand that simply saying "God says it isn't right" is a quick way to defeat. So they use the same angles continuously:

- Marriage is to create and rear offspring (then why aren't single mother babies killed instantly?)
- Homosexual sex is perverse (sex, or the intention to have sex, isn't a prerequisite of marriage)

Behind every anti-gay is one of two things: a repressed homosexual or a budding theocratist.[/quote]


Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[VeniteAdoremus]

Bottom line: the premises are wrong, which nulls the entire argument.

We don't talk about "sex only being permissible if".

The sexual act should be an act of total self-giving between two people. You can't do that outside of an exclusive bond - because you can't give what you're also throwing at other people. You can't do that with anticonception - because total giving includes your procreative power. And you can't give all if you're the same gender - because of the procreative power, party, but also because we believe that God created us man and woman, and I could offer my whole female sexuality, which is much more than anatomy, only to someone who doesn't already have it.

You can't brush your teeth with two brushes.

I'll try to re-post after the board has rebooted

[Didacus]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1779515' date='Feb 12 2009, 04:34 AM']Bottom line: the premises are wrong, which nulls the entire argument.

We don't talk about "sex only being permissible if".

The sexual act should be an act of total self-giving between two people. You can't do that outside of an exclusive bond - because you can't give what you're also throwing at other people. You can't do that with anticonception - because total giving includes your procreative power. And you can't give all if you're the same gender - because of the procreative power, party, but also because we believe that God created us man and woman, and I could offer my whole female sexuality, which is much more than anatomy, only to someone who doesn't already have it.

You can't brush your teeth with two brushes.

I'll try to re-post after the board has rebooted [/quote]
Somehow I don't think that argument will be well met. The forum I'm debating on are adamently atheistic and anti-christian. I need to argue on the atheist level of things.

Thanks for your comments though, and I believe your correct, just that in the circumstance I don't know if it would be very effective.

[Didacus]

bump

[TradMom]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

A quick reply:

The "bad reasons" to join an order are the same "bad reasons" to do anything. Bad reasons usually include some sort of selfish or self centered pull and/or unrealistic expectations.

I would hope that all of us, in whatever stage or place in life, are focused on getting to heaven, being better people, living the Gospel message and finding Christ in the center of our lives. We don't always have control over how we meet Him, but we do have control over what we do once we encounter Him.

As for taking advantage of the privilege that is afforded religious in "trying out" the life before making solemn profession (or in the case of men, receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders), this should never be seen as a failure or loss, or even an indication that someone entered an Order or particular way of life for a "bad reason." As Jung would say, "Called or not called, God is present."

I hope this helps!

TradMom

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1778851' date='Feb 11 2009, 03:18 PM']How would any of you respond to this argument in favour of gay marriage?
First, a prequalifier - I'm talking from the point of view of gay marriage in the United States.

Your point makes absolutely no sense in terms of the history or the law of the United States. There is only one set of conditions that banning gay marriage would be defensible:

A) The only purpose for having sex was to create offspring,
B) The only permissible sex in society was between a unionized mating pair,
C) The only permissible having of offspring was between a unionized mating pair.

Under those conditions, banning gay marriage would make sense. For the most part, this is the rationale used in strict Islamic countries ala Taliban Afghanistan (though it's been debunked as well). Otherwise, banning gay marriage is prejudicial, pure and simple. Why is it prejudicial?

A) Americans are allowed to have sex with people they are not married to, regardless of sexual orientation.
B) Americans that are married are allowed to have sex without creating children.
C) Americans are allowed to have children outside of marriage.

Without banning those aforementioned practices, the only rationale left to ban gay marriage is that it's "perverse", "unnatural", and all the other catch-terms created, which are really all secret code for "God says you can't do it".

The United States has several avenues that would make sense:

A) Remove the word "marriage" from any government-sanctioned union, give all couples "civil unions", and leave "marriage" to the religious organization of your choice. All rights are equal;

B) Do away with government-recognized unions at all; religious organizations can have whatever ceremonies they want, but there will be no special legal rights for any kind of union without those people embarking upon legal journeys just like anyone else (ie no marriage tax deductions, etc).

C) Recognize all unions as "marriage", meaning a government-recognized union.

D) Place into law code just as I've written above, with the rationale that government-sanctioned union between a man and a woman is necessary to perpetuate the species, and that only a committed union can raise such offspring properly. I think it goes without saying that if this path was most desirable, divorce would be banned at least until the children were emancipated.

Bottom line: in the United States, "marriage" is a legal contract, no more and no less in the eyes of the government. It defines who gets what property, rights to death benefits, authority to make decisions, etc and codifies it so that those rights are assumed by spouses - they don't have to go to special lengths to get those rights, and it's beaver dam near impossible for someone outside the union to take them away. There is no legal argument for denying two consenting people (or really three, four, etc if they're all consenting) the right to enter into a voluntary union that gives them equal rights and protections with other people.

The anti-gay marriage people try to spin it as anything but theological, because they understand that simply saying "God says it isn't right" is a quick way to defeat. So they use the same angles continuously:

- Marriage is to create and rear offspring (then why aren't single mother babies killed instantly?)
- Homosexual sex is perverse (sex, or the intention to have sex, isn't a prerequisite of marriage)

Behind every anti-gay is one of two things: a repressed homosexual or a budding theocratist.





Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks![/quote]
This is not vocation related. Did you post this on the wrong board?
I think it needs copied elsewhere.

[DameAgnes]

Nunsense wrote: Even St Therese's sister, Leonie encountered a lot of trials in her vocation, trying first the Poor Clares and then the Visitation three times before she was able to persevere. God doesn't give up on us - so we mustn't give up on ourselves.

You know...perhaps you should ask Leonie to help you in your discernment with her prayers...who knows, maybe someday you'll be Sr. Mary Leonie!

[johnnydigit]

so for whatever reason, just try! God will either not even let you through the door if there is a serious reason, kick you out later, or relocate you to the appropriate place. just pick one and give God a try! no matter what, it will be an invaluable experience, even if you end up at home again. God will reward you 100-fold for your total surrender.

worst reason not to join an order - not even trying. (most young adults)

[Totus Tuus]

Basically if you're running away from something, you should reexamine your motives.

[MithLuin]

Most people would deny that they are running away, precisely because they haven't honestly examined their motives.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1787233' date='Feb 21 2009, 07:31 AM']Most people would deny that they are running away, precisely because they haven't honestly examined their motives.[/quote]

I'm not so sure that this is really true these days. To enter religious life takes a lot of soul searching because there are a lot of sacrifices involved, and the process of entering is usually quite involved, if not complex. I doubt that anyone really uses a convent or monastery to "hide from the world" or to "run away" these days, although I could be wrong about this.

I once heard it said that women enter religious life for a good retirement plan - that made me laugh because the monastery where I was living was hardly a relaxing retirement home for older women! We woke up at 5.30am and didn't go to bed until 10pm, and we prayed and worked hard in between, with no individual choice of food or drink. This is hardly appealing as a choice of retirement home!

I guess there are communities where the lifestyle is a lot more relaxed, but I doubt that women (or men for that matter) really choose religious life to "get away from it all"!

What do others think? Does anyone know someone who entered religious life just to hide or run away?? Personally, I don't, and I know a lot of women who have entered, but I would be interested to know if this is still done (I do believe that once upon a time, women did enter religious life because they didn't feel they had many other options). Opinions on this????

[remaoung]

Obviously if the motive is not right, they will never last long in the convent or monastery. The sad things is they will blamed the community when they were ask to leave or when they leaving.
I have see it happen here.