Marriage Vocation

[Not A Real Name]

20 hours ago, BG45 said:

Originally I figured I'd just be alone.  Then after dating someone for three years I felt marriage was my calling.  Spent the next two or so after the breakup discerning that and still feel that it is, God willing.  Despite the efforts of Franciscan and Salesian friends, I've never been convinced God is calling me to do otherwise.

Sorry you both feel so stuck. 

Thank you BG45 for sharing your discernment journey.  Sorry to hear about the breakup,  but I'm happy that the relationship you had helped you find your calling.  I will keep you in my prayers. Please pray for me. 

[Amppax]

20 hours ago, BG45 said:

Originally I figured I'd just be alone.  Then after dating someone for three years I felt marriage was my calling.  Spent the next two or so after the breakup discerning that and still feel that it is, God willing.  Despite the efforts of Franciscan and Salesian friends, I've never been convinced God is calling me to do otherwise.

Sorry you both feel so stuck. 

^This. Almost exactly. Though I'm not so sure about the whole religious life/priesthood thing. 

[Cam42]

Not for nothin....but this belongs in Vocation Station, right?

 

[Maggyie]

20 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Not for nothin....but this belongs in Vocation Station, right?

 

Nah. That is for priesthood/religious life only. 

@Not A Real Name I wish you luck. I don't miss that period of  life at all. Looking back it was more perilous than I realized at the time. 

[Maggyie]

1 hour ago, Not A Real Name said:

I love your insights, especially number 3. One of the beauties of the married life, to me, is the idea of having a spouse who is like your partner in crime, but in a holy way, lol.  Someone who challenges you but also someone who will be your support during tough times.  Also the challenge of dying to yourself so that you can, with God's grace, perfect the oneness of your relationship with each other.

As for having children, I'm all about that if I'm going to be married, but it isn't the primary attraction to the married life.  I have felt bad about that in the past but I've grown to feel less bad about it simply because I know I use the words primary and secondary because I lack other words to convey what I'm thinking.  In a way I don't see the two as a primary and secondary, but rather that children are the natural fulfilment of two spouses who love God and each other. In this way if my wife is not able to have kids or if I'm not able to provide her with kids, then that won't change that we're still partners in holiness.  That she is still beautiful to me and that nothing will change that.  If God does give us kids then right on, we now get to face a new challenge together. 

 

@Maggyie and @CatherineM thank you very much for sharing your stories with me. Both of them give me hope that if I pursue Christ with an open heart and a desire to do His will, that he will guide me in the right direction.  Pray for me that I keep an open heart. 

Also, I appreciate your point about welcoming children if they come. Although nowadays we go on about "unitive AND procreative," the church does always teach that procreation is the primary purpose.

As someone who has a diagnosis of infertility, that was always really damaging to my relationship with God. How could he give me a vocation and then make it impossible for me to fulfill the primary purpose of that calling? It would be like a religious who can't pray for some medical reason. And no, spiritually parenting someone or adoption does not fulfill that primary purpose in the way it has traditionally been understood. The traditional understanding is that married sex is holy because it = babies. Otherwise it's... Permitted, but 50% pointless. like ok we will allow it, its a defective image of the trinity since it doesn't generate a third person, but we know it's not your fault so...

what I'm trying to say is that I appreciate your perspective because I lived that nightmare. But the church DOES make it primary and secondary. I forget which encyclical - Casti Connubi?

[MarysLittleFlower]

2 hours ago, Basilisa Marie said:

I've always known I am called to marriage, though I've tried to give religious life a fair hearing. It just never worked. Plus there are a couple of reasons. 

1. Practically, I'm pretty convinced St. Paul would take one look at me and laugh and say go find a husband. I jokingly say I like boys too much to be a religious, but it's true. My personality is naturally flirtatious (when I was younger, without me realizing it), I've had to work to reign it in. I'm not a fornicating lust monster like St. Mary of Egypt, but I'm more at peace and can focus on good things if I'm in a relationship with a dude. 

2. The idea of marriage gives me a deep sense of peace, and the thought of being a religious makes me personally feel lonely and sad. One of the happiest and holiest young women I know (hey anyone remember TheresaBenedicta?), best friend from high school and goddaughter is a religious sister. I'd love to have what she has but I don't see it happening to me in religious life. 

3. The idea of meeting a holy guy who loves Christ and me and pushes me to up my spirituality game is terrifying. In a good way. Religious life is terrifying in a despair-y way. I'm not baby crazy in the slightest (I think this may be where a lot of women feel the natural pull toward marriage, because of motherhood) but I'm very pro "having a spouse." Procreating has always felt secondary to that. 

 

And this has been your "More than anyone ever hoped to learn about Basilisa Marie" moment.

But I hope that outlining my brain might help provide some anecdotal insight into feeling called to marriage. And I'm not married yet so for all I know God is laughing at me and I'll end up in a convent. 

 

This is really helpful for me to read to think about my own discernment it's also helpful to understand what being called to marriage "feels" like (from lack of a better word...). I remember a now married friend of mine was telling me how her fiancée really brings her closer to God. That also helped as well. I think in the end it's supposed to lead to greater holiness.

I find it's interesting how people are made.. it's almost like people's hearts are made uniquely depending on their vocation. For example how you always felt you're called to marriage, religious life was never a convincing enough option, though you tried to be open to it. The idea of marriage gives you a deep sense of peace and you feel drawn to having a spouse.

It's interesting to me now look at myself after reading this, and realize that I feel exactly the reverse about marriage, yet the same about the idea of consecrated life - I feel like I'd be very unhappy being married because I love children but don't feel drawn to a human spouse, I'm drawn to loving God without a spouse there and this gives me a sense of peace and certainty. I tried to be open to marriage just to be open but that never went anywhere. So the reason I say that is - I don't know my vocation for a fact because it hasn't happened yet and for all I know God could change me and lead me to marry, but - it really shows how people's hearts are made differently in a way that is exactly suited to their path to holiness. Of course there are graces too with both and there are supernatural components like with a call that we find very not natural (being unmarried), but it's almost like vocations is where we can be completely ourselves in the truest way, in the way God made us to be. that's  pretty neat!

I think this thread can be helpful to those considering marriage or religious life because it helps to read the various discernment stories.

15 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Also, I appreciate your point about welcoming children if they come. Although nowadays we go on about "unitive AND procreative," the church does always teach that procreation is the primary purpose.

As someone who has a diagnosis of infertility, that was always really damaging to my relationship with God. How could he give me a vocation and then make it impossible for me to fulfill the primary purpose of that calling? It would be like a religious who can't pray for some medical reason. And no, spiritually parenting someone or adoption does not fulfill that primary purpose in the way it has traditionally been understood. The traditional understanding is that married sex is holy because it = babies. Otherwise it's... Permitted, but 50% pointless. like ok we will allow it, its a defective image of the trinity since it doesn't generate a third person, but we know it's not your fault so...

what I'm trying to say is that I appreciate your perspective because I lived that nightmare. But the church DOES make it primary and secondary. I forget which encyclical - Casti Connubi?

It  might be Casti Connubii... I sometimes wonder how God works through situations. I know He often turns things to good. Sometimes there can be something really hard to understand... like a married couple who can't have children. Or someone called to religious life but something goes 'wrong' and they can't enter (like St Gemma), or can't do anything in the monastery because they are ill (that would be their path to holiness though). It seems like through any of these situations God can still work and fulfill His Will, though it might be in a different way. I find the idea of holiness = God's Will to be the most helpful, because it means literally anything can contribute to becoming a saint, and that is what a vocation is for even if there's something about the situation that seems to complicate the vocation or adds a difficult cross into it.

Edited February 11, 2016 by MarysLittleFlower

[Not A Real Name]

24 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Also, I appreciate your point about welcoming children if they come. Although nowadays we go on about "unitive AND procreative," the church does always teach that procreation is the primary purpose.

As someone who has a diagnosis of infertility, that was always really damaging to my relationship with God. How could he give me a vocation and then make it impossible for me to fulfill the primary purpose of that calling? It would be like a religious who can't pray for some medical reason. And no, spiritually parenting someone or adoption does not fulfill that primary purpose in the way it has traditionally been understood. The traditional understanding is that married sex is holy because it = babies. Otherwise it's... Permitted, but 50% pointless. like ok we will allow it, its a defective image of the trinity since it doesn't generate a third person, but we know it's not your fault so...

what I'm trying to say is that I appreciate your perspective because I lived that nightmare. But the church DOES make it primary and secondary. I forget which encyclical - Casti Connubi?

I will have to read that encyclical.  I know children are what married couples should always strive for, but I also know that there is a lot of judgment towards women who don't crank out 1,2, 3, or 12 potential apostles and I would never want my wife to feel like that judgment was coming from me or vice versa. I do know I would be livid if someone called my marriage a defective trinity because of infertility. 

I wonder if St. Joseph and Mary ever got croutons from their neighbors for not having more than one child? 

[MarysLittleFlower]

4 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

I will have to read that encyclical.  I know children are what married couples should always strive for, but I also know that there is a lot of judgment towards women who don't crank out 1,2, 3, or 12 potential apostles and I would never want my wife to feel like that judgment was coming from me or vice versa. I do know I would be livid if someone called my marriage a defective trinity because of infertility. 

I wonder if St. Joseph and Mary ever got croutons from their neighbors for not having more than one child? 

I remember reading that the parents of Our Lady were really treated harshly by others because they didn't have a child for so long... I think that's too bad that this happens because it's one thing not wanting children, it's something else entirely if God just doesn't send more children. That should be obvious but I guess sometimes rash judgement happens?

Edited February 11, 2016 by MarysLittleFlower

[Basilisa Marie]

Honestly re: marriage and unity/procreativity, today the Church says that it's both, equally.

CCC 1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

If it were meant to be largely understood as primary and secondary they would have said so here. This clearly wasn't always the case. It's also clear that marriage was thought to be more of a concession for people who can't hack celibacy, especially if you read St. Paul. 

Now, I'm pretty sure I'd have a really hard time hacking celibacy, which is a sign that I'm called to marriage, so I'm not saying that the Church got it wrong. But I'd also caution against tossing out what the Church makes clear in the catechism (and such) today over something that was published 80 years ago. Sure, 80 years is a blink in the life of the Church, but if the choice is between what the CCC says and an older encyclical, personally my instinct is to side with the plainest interpretation of the catechism and see it as a development from the older encyclical. 

But that's my personal opinion, faithful Catholics can disagree.

[Nihil Obstat]

34 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

Honestly re: marriage and unity/procreativity, today the Church says that it's both, equally.

CCC 1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

If it were meant to be largely understood as primary and secondary they would have said so here. This clearly wasn't always the case. It's also clear that marriage was thought to be more of a concession for people who can't hack celibacy, especially if you read St. Paul. 

Now, I'm pretty sure I'd have a really hard time hacking celibacy, which is a sign that I'm called to marriage, so I'm not saying that the Church got it wrong. But I'd also caution against tossing out what the Church makes clear in the catechism (and such) today over something that was published 80 years ago. Sure, 80 years is a blink in the life of the Church, but if the choice is between what the CCC says and an older encyclical, personally my instinct is to side with the plainest interpretation of the catechism and see it as a development from the older encyclical. 

But that's my personal opinion, faithful Catholics can disagree.

I think you are in kind of dangerous territory if you are looking at a 'development' which seems to actually be contrary to previous settled teaching. That is not how development of doctrine works.

[Basilisa Marie]

7 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I think you are in kind of dangerous territory if you are looking at a 'development' which seems to actually be contrary to previous settled teaching. That is not how development of doctrine works.

I don't see it as "contrary" though. Contrary would be throwing out one of the goods of marriage. 

[Maggyie]

1 hour ago, Not A Real Name said:

I will have to read that encyclical.  I know children are what married couples should always strive for, but I also know that there is a lot of judgment towards women who don't crank out 1,2, 3, or 12 potential apostles and I would never want my wife to feel like that judgment was coming from me or vice versa. I do know I would be livid if someone called my marriage a defective trinity because of infertility. 

I wonder if St. Joseph and Mary ever got croutons from their neighbors for not having more than one child? 

I've always wondered that too. Scripture makes it clear that barrenness was regarded as a curse and fecundity a sign of favor from God. So in that context it couldn't have been easy for Mary (although at least she produced a male; female would have been worse). I should note I'm sure plenty of people would object to my "defective image of the trinity" terms, that's just how I always felt reading the theology on it. Not what anyone would actually say. No Christian would be that deliberately cruel I would hope. But they do say it about childless couples who contracept. So I guess that's deliberately sabotaging the image versus accidentally not reflecting the trinity...

[Nihil Obstat]

5 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

I don't see it as "contrary" though. Contrary would be throwing out one of the goods of marriage. 

Well, Casti Connubii was pretty clear that procreation is the primary end of marriage. (#17) If you are saying that procreation and marital unity are equivalent, it does follow logically that you are also saying that procreation is not the primary end end marriage. I do not see a way to allow both.

I believe instead we are obligated to interpret subsequent teachings, including the CCC, in conformance with previous teachings.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Maggyie]

I didn't mean to derail the thread with my remark. @Nihil Obstat how did you know you were called to marriage?

[Nihil Obstat]

Just now, Maggyie said:

I didn't mean to derail the thread with my remark. @Nihil Obstat how did you know you were called to marriage?

I had previously discerned that, at least at that moment, I was not being called to the priesthood - though I did consider it. Subsequently I discerned as well that this particular relationship was one that was good, and to the best of my knowledge allowed me to continue pursuing God's will.