Vocation To The Single Life

[organwerke]

[quote name='nunsense' date='11 January 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1263216117' post='2034618']
Actually you are spot on with that last point. When I found out that religious life was "only" a sacramental whereas marriage was a sacrament, I was shocked, but then it was explained to me that the Church could survive without religious but not without married people to have children, or not without priests, and then I understood. Religious life is a grace and a gift, but it is not a vital necessity to the Church (although I am not saying that it isn't extremely and highly valued by the Church - of course it is).

So perhaps in this case, only the priesthood and marriage are true vocations, but the Church has also set up what she calls "consecrated states of life" and there are four of these according to the canon lawyer I linked to earlier. That is why I think this whole topic is so hard to discuss is some ways, because it is so open to interpretation first, as to just what is a "vocation" in the eyes of the Church, because after all, it is only through the eyes of the Church that a vocation actually can exist, no matter how each of us perceives the reality individually. So I think we are still working that definition out, with varying points of view on just how the Church defines "vocation".

You are making me think a lot - thank you, I love thinking!
[/quote]

Dear nunsense, I am happy if I am make you thinking!
But, honestly, I think you are doing the things more complicated than they really are!
I too think that religious life is higly valued by the Church, and I think that religious persons are a enourmous gift for the Church.
And the Church recognized it through the centuries because she understood that this was a great service to the people of God.
The first centuries there were only monks, then saint Francis and saint Dominic founded a new form of religious life, that was thought for the needs of the people of THAT time.
And the Church recognized it.
For example, I know that many people nowadays have many oppositions toward the Opus Dei because they can't understand how can a celibacy vocation exists out of a religious order.
But Opus Dei also was founded as an answer to a specific need of modern people.
So, a vocation that didn't exist...now exists!!!
But this is a specific, particular vocation, because it is also an ORGANIZED one (I mean that Opus Dei members belong to a institution as members of religious Orders).
But this doesn't mean that ONLY people who live in an institution have a vocation to the single life.
So, I don't undesrtand why you think that this is a difficult thread, and that it is difficult to answer to the question "Does a vocation to the single life exist"?
I can understand this difficulty only if we think that a vocation is a God's order, but I think that we are free to choose the state of life that best fits to us, so honestly I have no difficults in thinking that yes, a vocation to single life exists, but, I repeat, I think we can speak of it only if the person freely chooses to live so (and of course if the person lives in the grace of God).

Edited January 11, 2010 by organwerke

[Aloysius]

[quote]a vocation can evolve during the life (for example a person who thought to get marry and then feel called to religious life; or[b] a person who thought to remain single and then gets married[/b]).[/quote]

this is exactly the type of thing that makes me say only marriage, priesthood, religious life, or consecrated virginity are vocations... because they're (theoretically) irrevocable states in life. the bolded part is what tells me "staying single" without some type of vows (and I still say that private vows should not be suggested as a regular course of action, any more than being a hermit, which Barb earlier compared to private vows, should be suggested as a regular course of action; they're irregular options for some people IMO, and it would do harm to the vocational process of discernment to present them as "just another vocation" alongside the others) isn't a vocation as I understand vocations.

a religious person can't quit and get married (without being released from his vows by competent authorities), a married person can't stop being married because they now want to discern a religious vocation, et cetera. but a single person CAN get married or become a religious. because a single person is perfectly eligible to be called to the natural vocation written on their body, their singleness is not a vocation.

aside from all the terminology of "a vocation" or "not a vocation" what I object to is people who are single deciding that they are to remain single for the rest of their life. I think single people should not write such things in stone if they are not making social commitments through the Church that make them be set in stone. that's why I don't think singlehood is a vocation in and of itself, because single people IMO ought to remain open to the other possible vocations. in other words, singlehood should not be exclusionary, while the other vocations SHOULD be exclusionary. deciding to be married should be exclusionary of all other states in life (unless your spouse dies), deciding to be a priest should be exclusionary of all other states in life, deciding to be a religious should be exclusionary of all other states in life; deciding to be single should be a temporary decision which is open to any other state in life.

[Nunsense]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 January 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1263217282' post='2034629']
this is exactly the type of thing that makes me say only marriage, priesthood, religious life, or consecrated virginity are vocations... because they're (theoretically) irrevocable states in life. the bolded part is what tells me "staying single" without some type of vows (and I still say that private vows should not be suggested as a regular course of action, any more than being a hermit, which Barb earlier compared to private vows, should be suggested as a regular course of action; they're irregular options for some people IMO, and it would do harm to the vocational process of discernment to present them as "just another vocation" alongside the others) isn't a vocation as I understand vocations.

a religious person can't quit and get married (without being released from his vows by competent authorities), a married person can't stop being married because they now want to discern a religious vocation, et cetera. but a single person CAN get married or become a religious. because a single person is perfectly eligible to be called to the natural vocation written on their body, their singleness is not a vocation.

aside from all the terminology of "a vocation" or "not a vocation" what I object to is people who are single deciding that they are to remain single for the rest of their life. I think single people should not write such things in stone if they are not making social commitments through the Church that make them be set in stone. that's why I don't think singlehood is a vocation in and of itself, because single people IMO ought to remain open to the other possible vocations. in other words, singlehood should not be exclusionary, while the other vocations SHOULD be exclusionary. deciding to be married should be exclusionary of all other states in life (unless your spouse dies), deciding to be a priest should be exclusionary of all other states in life, deciding to be a religious should be exclusionary of all other states in life; deciding to be single should be a temporary decision which is open to any other state in life.
[/quote]


Ok, now see here Aloysius is why I like what you write so much, because when I try to say the very same things, they don't come out right, and people end up getting offended. But this is exactly how I feel too, but just don't know how to express it. Thank you.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='nunsense' date='11 January 2010 - 11:36 PM' timestamp='1263215200' post='2034610']
Barb - sometimes you just take things way too personally, what I post isn't always about your situation. I don't want to feel that I have to walk on eggshells with what I say, so I am just going to tell you that when I post, it is about a general state of the single life as a vocation or not, and not about your state in particular so please don't get defensive every time I make a comment, ok? I was actually making more of a comment on Opus Dei because it was brought up as an example, and that is what I expected people to focus on. If we can try to leave your own personal situation out of it and make the discussion more general in nature, no one will get hurt feelings or feel that they are being questioned for their choices or have to be defensive.

The fact is that I am fascinated by Opus Dei and nearly had an Opus Dei priest as my SD, but fell into the Latin Mass instead.... funny how things work out.

pax xti.
[/quote]

Thank you for the above, but for my part please do not insist on what I should be posting and how I should be posting it. If you feel that a post of mine is not what you want/anticipated, simply ignore it, with respect. I did try to stress that my comments were not addressed to any one poster personally. You keep defining my personal disposition - my preference - not that this carries weight - is to address what I have to say and leave my personal disposition as you see it out of it please. If you are "walking on eggshells" that is your choice.
I did pass comment on what you had to say pointing out that it was from my personal perspective which is also a general comment on the single or celibate state as a potential vocation for reasons that I think are obvious.
I am not offended or upset, in fact I am sitting here laughing at these exchanges of ours.

Barb

[BarbTherese]

Quoting Aloysuis
[quote] any more than being a hermit, which Barb earlier compared to private vows[/quote]

I did not compare the eremetical life to private vows, rather the Catholic Catechism, as I quoted previously (and again below), states clearly that one can embrace the eremetical life under private vows and this to my information is commonly understood. I do not consider my lifestyle at all to be even close to that of a hermit, while it may have some features of this vocation.
[quote]The eremitic life
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#926
920 Without always professing the three evangelical counsels publicly, hermits "devote their life to the praise of God and salvation of the world through a stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance."460

921 They manifest to everyone the interior aspect of the mystery of the Church, that is, personal intimacy with Christ. Hidden from the eyes of men, the life of the hermit is a silent preaching of the Lord, to whom he has surrendered his life simply because he is everything to him. Here is a particular call to find in the desert, in the thick of spiritual battle, the glory of the Crucified One. [/quote]



Barb

Edited January 11, 2010 by BarbaraTherese

[Nunsense]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='12 January 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1263218903' post='2034649']
Thank you for the above, but for my part please do not insist on what I should be posting and how I should be posting it. If you feel that a post of mine is not what you want/anticipated, simply ignore it, with respect. I did try to stress that my comments were not addressed to any one poster personally. You keep defining my personal disposition - my preference - not that this carries weight - is to address what I have to say and leave my personal disposition as you see it out of it please. If you are "walking on eggshells" that is your choice.
I did pass comment on what you had to say pointing out that it was from my personal perspective which is also a general comment on the single or celibate state as a potential vocation for reasons that I think are obvious.
I am not offended or upset, in fact I am sitting here laughing at these exchanges of ours.

Barb
[/quote]

You may be laughing, but it is not a very charitable laughter since your online "tone" is very passive-aggressive, and I am not sure why, since you said that it was ok for us to disagree. I see nowhere in my post to you that I "insist on what I should be posting and how I should be posting it." so I can only suggest that you take your own advice to ignore any post of mine that you do not like. I can't always say what I meant the way I mean it, and I think that Aloysius had stated my point of view very well, and probably in a manner that is less offensive to you. I certainly hope so.

[BarbTherese]

Quoting Organwerke:
[quote]I simply think that we can speak of a vocation to the single life when persons FREELY choose to live a single life as their personal way toward holiness. [/quote]

I wonder if there are differing opinions over what "vocation" actually means ? Is there a quite strict definition and boundaries (what it is and what it is not) in Church Law or legalities somewhere?

Barb

[Jaime]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='11 January 2010 - 09:41 AM' timestamp='1263220888' post='2034675']
Quoting Organwerke:


I wonder if there are differing opinions over what "vocation" actually means ? Is there a quite strict definition and boundaries (what it is and what it is not) in Church Law or legalities somewhere?

Barb
[/quote]

You can read about the vocation of priests in Church writings. You can read about the vocation of married people . You will not find any statements made by the Church about the vocation of single people.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='nunsense' date='12 January 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1263219544' post='2034655']
You may be laughing, but it is not a very charitable laughter since your online "tone" is very passive-aggressive, and I am not sure why, since you said that it was ok for us to disagree. I see nowhere in my post to you that I "insist on what I should be posting and how I should be posting it." so I can only suggest that you take your own advice to ignore any post of mine that you do not like. I can't always say what I meant the way I mean it, and I think that Aloysius had stated my point of view very well, and probably in a manner that is less offensive to you. I certainly hope so.
[/quote]

Your judgement, Nunsense. And you are absolutely entitled to your point of view. My laughter was not based in lack of Charity - but laughing because we seem to just keep on 'clashing'. I am sorry and apologize that my posts have struck you as they have and sorry yours have struck me as they have. A happy settlement - and over and done with and moving on?

Barb

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='12 January 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1263221088' post='2034678']
You can read about the vocation of priests in Church writings. You can read about the vocation of married people . You will not find any statements made by the Church about the vocation of single people.
[/quote]

[quote]You will not find any statements made by the Church about the vocation of single people[/quote] ??? - although I think I understand what you mean since single and celibate people fall into the classification of "Laity" and if you go back over my previous posts, you will find them.

Barb

[Aloysius]

I've not seen any such thing in the Church documents you've quoted, your explanations have seemed to be quite a stretch from the actual Church statements.

anyway, the thing I object to is certainly not the way you are living your state in life, which is in effect the same as consecrated virginity without the actual consecration (understandable since that's not at all common these days, only recently "coming back" as it were), but what the vast majority of people mean by the "single vocation"... which is to say, simply planning to remain single for the rest of their life as if God is calling them to close their ears to any future possibility of either the natural vocation or the priesthood or religious life. young people discerning vocations ought to understand singlehood as eligibility for God's possible future callings.

I think most of us are operating under the understanding of vocation as someone whose state in life is recognized by the Church (the Church sees single people, even you, as people who are eligible for vocations to marriage or religious life) and in some sense irrevocable.

if one privately vows celibacy as they would as a consecrated virgin, though I don't see this as a REGULAR thing, and certainly not something to be listed in a list of vocations for people to discern since it shouldn't really be a regular thing, then that's all well and good.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Aloysius

[Nunsense]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='12 January 2010 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1263221343' post='2034683']
Your judgement, Nunsense. And you are absolutely entitled to your point of view. My laughter was not based in lack of Charity - but laughing because we seem to just keep on 'clashing'. I am sorry and apologize that my posts have struck you as they have and sorry yours have struck me as they have. A happy settlement - and over and done with and moving on?

Barb
[/quote]

Barb - I have no personal agenda here at all. I have no position to maintain or defend since I am neither committed to single life nor religious life right now, but I do have my own opinions, just as you do. And when you tell me (incorrectly) that I am insisting on what you "should be posting" and how you "should be posting it" - then what is obvious is that there is some underlying tension (that really seems to make laughter an inappropriate response to me).

Without trying to tell anyone what to post, I am now going to try to get back to generalities on this thread.

[Jaime]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='11 January 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1263221735' post='2034687']
??? - although I think I understand what you mean since single and celibate people fall into the classification of "Laity" and if you go back over my previous posts, you will find them.

Barb
[/quote]

I've read what you've posted and I stand by my statement. You will not find any mention of a "vocation to single life" in Church doctrine or documents. You've not listed any documents that talk about being single as a vocation.

[organwerke]

I don't quote others words not to do this post too heavy but:

to nunsense: as an "external observer", honestly, about Barbara Therese, I think she refers to the fact that in page 4, post 77, you made a comment about her post that in my opinion was a little disturbing (so I would feel if I were her). She was in fact simply saying a her opinion and you thought she was taking things in a too personal way.
Well, I think that it is quite normal that if you talk about private vows, a person who lives private vows wants to tell her opinion.

to Aloysius: it is curious that I agree with you, especially if I think to some friends of mine that don't want to get married only because they don't want to have boundaries.
But I don't understand why you should change other's mind if a person has freely chosen to live a single life as his vocation.
Note that the Church clairly says that nobody can force another person when chosing his state of life.

to iaime: I can't understand why you don't consider the single life as a vocation. First, we christians are all called to the universal vocation to holiness.
Then, think that in the first centuries of christianity religious orders didn't exist.
Still, saint Paul himself says that those who don't get married to care for the things of God make a very good choice.
These persons (except for the priests) were all lay persons who lived the single life.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='11 January 2010 - 08:41 AM' timestamp='1263217282' post='2034629']
this is exactly the type of thing that makes me say only marriage, priesthood, religious life, or consecrated virginity are vocations... because they're (theoretically) irrevocable states in life. the bolded part is what tells me "staying single" without some type of vows (and I still say that private vows should not be suggested as a regular course of action, any more than being a hermit, which Barb earlier compared to private vows, should be suggested as a regular course of action; they're irregular options for some people IMO, and it would do harm to the vocational process of discernment to present them as "just another vocation" alongside the others) isn't a vocation as I understand vocations.

a religious person can't quit and get married (without being released from his vows by competent authorities), a married person can't stop being married because they now want to discern a religious vocation, et cetera. but a single person CAN get married or become a religious. because a single person is perfectly eligible to be called to the natural vocation written on their body, their singleness is not a vocation.

aside from all the terminology of "a vocation" or "not a vocation" what I object to is people who are single deciding that they are to remain single for the rest of their life. I think single people should not write such things in stone if they are not making social commitments through the Church that make them be set in stone. that's why I don't think singlehood is a vocation in and of itself, because single people IMO ought to remain open to the other possible vocations. in other words, singlehood should not be exclusionary, while the other vocations SHOULD be exclusionary. deciding to be married should be exclusionary of all other states in life (unless your spouse dies), deciding to be a priest should be exclusionary of all other states in life, deciding to be a religious should be exclusionary of all other states in life; deciding to be single should be a temporary decision which is open to any other state in life.
[/quote]

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='10 January 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1263179727' post='2034340']

But the point is that I see a lot of "creeping Calvinism" in the Church today, maybe because we are being influenced by too many slick-talking evangelical TV preachers that give us the impression that God is a micromanaging God Who has our lives pre-planned, which can be an appealing thing for those who are indecisive (I remember one poster here saying something to the effect that if God didn't tell her whom to marry, how would she be able to pick a spouse?). It's almost like the Star Trek episode "Return of the Archons": when Kirk and Spock destroyed the computer Landru, the populace were wandering around crying "Landru, guide us" because they could not think on their own.

[/quote]

Pax Christi. I agree that we shouldn't just be passive and wait for a miraculous sign from God to find the right person if our vocation is in fact to marriage, but I think that the people who think this way have a certain level of truth, but then it gets lost in their approach. What they seem to believe in is trusting in God to find a spouse, but then they expect Him to do all of the work and then they don't try to actually look for one themselves or to "put themselves out there." Instead of cooperating with God, they see it as leaving it completely up to Him, which isn't what we are to do.

If I want to find a husband, I don't just lock myself up in my room away from everyone else and pray for hours on end. No, I say a little prayer and put myself in situations like a co-ed bible study, get involved in campus ministry at my school, join other clubs like a pro-life group, and observe (but not be a creeper ) at mass or the like for any single men in my age group and form friendships, etc.

I think that when people stress that we should trust in God to find someone that they might be really trying to reach people who are stressing out of their minds to find a date and who don't get what love or marriage is really for. This group of people may not even know themselves that well. [i]These people[/i] have not yet learned to trust in God and are anxious about the future which Our Lord warns against in the Gospel of St. Matthew.
This is a group entirely different from someone who really does trust in God and is actively trying to find a spouse in a healthy manner.

I think that the problem comes when people assume that if you are looking for someone that you don't trust in God enough. One shouldn't have to feel that if one is trying to look for someone that they don't trust in God enough. On the contrary, you can trust Him and still take part in the search for yourself.

Ave Maria,

tinytherese

[morostheos]

Wow, this thread has taken me a while to get through! So many words! I've learned quite a few things along the way though.

First, I didn't exactly realize the difference between private and public vows - this is still a little confusing to me. So, when one makes public vows of the evangelical counsels they are considered consecrated persons. When one makes private vows, they are not officially considered that.

I found a really good article about private vows [url="http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com/2008/08/question-on-private-vows-consecrare.html"]here[/url]. (For some reason, I can't seem to copy and paste from that blog, so I guess I won't be posting any snippets!)

In reading through this thread, the posts that mention those who die without being married or consecrated as being "vocationless" irked me. They seem to imply that something didn't go right in the lives of those people, when that is something that we are not able to properly judge. While that person may not have had a juridical vocation within the Church, they of course have the vocation given to them in Baptism which is a call to holiness. Just because someone's vocation has juridical status within the church (being married or consecrated) doesn't mean their vocation is better. There are many ways that God calls people to live their lives.

Coming back to what Aloysius was saying about how to present different vocations to young people, I agree that it doesn't make sense to list off every possible type of vocation - it would take forever and they would just be very confused at the end! But I do think it makes sense to speak of marriage, consecrated life (the priesthood and religious life), and also to mention that God calls people to other forms as well, although they are rare.

I think whenever there are discussions about the term vocation it is very easy to become offended by others' opinions and for statements to be taken personally. It's important to be very delicate in what we say about vocations. A person's vocation is something deeply personal and everyone has their own personal experiences in life and with God that shape their vocation. When someone with different experiences seems to invalidate your own, it is hard not to take it personally! In saying this, please know that I am not referring specifically to anything anyone has said in this thread, but my own emotions I experienced while I was reading through others' posts.

In Christ's peace,
Claire

[organwerke]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='11 January 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1263220888' post='2034675']
Quoting Organwerke:


I wonder if there are differing opinions over what "vocation" actually means ? Is there a quite strict definition and boundaries (what it is and what it is not) in Church Law or legalities somewhere?

Barb
[/quote]

Dear BarbaraTherese, I think that on this subject we completely agree.
I explain to you what I meant with that statement.
I think that maybe a person who feels called to married life, and who can't find the "right" person, could think: "is this perhaps a sign that God wants me to remain single in life"?
Well, I don't think that a person has "by default" a vocation to the single life simply because can't find a person to marry.
I think that we can call a true vocation only a state of life that is freely and consciously chosen.
Now, I don't think that a person who doesn't find anyone to marry hasn't a vocation... but I think that it would be wrong if we tried to convince that person that God wants him to remain alone... this is what I meant.
I think that a person could never marry for various reasons and still could feel called to the married life...
I hope you can get my point.

morostheos: I will give you a +1 tomorrow: I think your post is wonderful from the first to the last word!!