The Dedicated Single Life/lay Celibacy

[Agatha]

I know that we remain in the lay state, that we are not consecrated. But, it is still a vocation and I ask the grace each day to remain faithful to it !!

It is a calling , a vocation very much need in the Church! We are called to be a light in the middle of the darkness!!

[Agatha]

Barbara thank you for the links!!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Agatha said:

I know that we remain in the lay state, that we are not consecrated. But, it is still a vocation and I ask the grace each day to remain faithful to it !!

It is a calling , a vocation very much need in the Church! We are called to be a light in the middle of the darkness!!

I like very much what is said of St Therese of Lisieux, that she lived an ordinary life extraordinarily.  I think it is a beautiful summary for those living a quite ordinary life - Therese, (now Doctor of The Church too), probably summarized in her Little Way, how to live a very ordinary life in an extraordinary manner.  The nuns in her monastery living daily side by side with her thought of her as an ok sort of Carmelite nun, but nothing out of the ordinary !!!  She was in fact not only a great saint, but one of the three only women Doctors of The Church.

The world to me is indeed deep in darkness desperately in dire need of Jesus.  Emeritus Pope Benedict when still Cardinal Ratzinger gave a beautiful message of Hope in darkness in his book "Faith and The Future"https://www.amazon.com.au/Faith-Future-Joseph-Ratzinger/dp/1586172190 (now available on Kindle) -

...........quoting an excerpt from "Faith and The Future":

Quote

 

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/spiritual-life/the-church-will-become-small.html"The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members....

It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek . . . The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain . . . But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man's home, where he will find life and hope beyond death

 

 

58 minutes ago, Agatha said:

Barbara thank you for the links!!

You are very welcome, Agatha.  

[Agatha]

St Therese did little things with great love!!!

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Agatha said:

St Therese did little things with great love!!!

  She did indeed see the great holiness potential for the very ordinary every day type of tasks done with love.   She applied the spiritual dynamics of our great saints' spirituality to the very ordinary and every day tasks including in relationships within her monastery.  Her underlying motivation and drive was love.  She wrote "All is Grace" and indeed it is.  She was an open book on her failings drawn from her self knowledge and did not draw back from revealing same openly and honestly.

She was and is a gem - a real spiritual treasure.  

[Jaime]

So here’s my struggle.  The state of being single is not a vocation for several reasons.  

You aren’t born into a vocation, you choose it.  Everybody is born single

Being single takes zero effort.  I was single until I was 48 and whether or not i worked on it, I was still single.  As opposed to being married where if I want a good sacramental marriage, I have to work on it every day.  Priests I know have to do the same if they want to be good and holy priests.  St Therese did not identify as single, she identified as a nun.  That was a choice that she committed to every day. 

I know several good and holy single people.  Some have consecrated their lives to Jesus or Mary or Joseph.  The ones that I know are way holier than I am. I have no problem believing BarbaraTherese and Agatha are holier than I am as well.  But that doesn’t mean that being single by itself is a vocation.  

A vocation isn’t something your born with.  A vocation includes a vow.  Vows by definition are declared in front of a priest or deacon.  This doesn’t infer that single people are “less than”.  As.I said I spent a majority of my life single. If I hadn’t found my wife, I’d still be single. And I argued the same thing back then, being single in and of itself, is not a vocation

[MIKolbe]

Can being single be a choice? Can one choose to neither be married nor be a religious? Would you say vocation is more about a choice or a call? Are they synonymous in your opinion? if so, why? if not, why not?

do you like tacos?

Edited February 10, 2021 by MIKolbe
tacos

[Jaime]

1 hour ago, MIKolbe said:

Can being single be a choice? Can one choose to neither be married nor be a religious? Would you say vocation is more about a choice or a call? Are they synonymous in your opinion? if so, why? if not, why not?

do you like tacos?

who are you asking?

[ReasonableFaith]

6 hours ago, Jaime said:

A vocation includes a vow.  Vows by definition are declared in front of a priest or deacon.

This would remove a whole host of ‘brothers’ from the vocation category. Ie. Paulist, Vincentian, Precious Blood, Josephite brothers, etc. I’m sure some ‘sisters’ as well...I just can’t name them off hand. 
 

Secular priests don’t make a vow.  Does this leave them without a vocation?

I don’t think a priest or deacon are essential to the definition of a vow. Religious vows are regularly received by non-ordained religious. 

[MIKolbe]

1 hour ago, Jaime said:

who are you asking?

my WORD James, YOU!

[Jaime]

1 hour ago, ReasonableFaith said:

This would remove a whole host of ‘brothers’ from the vocation category. Ie. Paulist, Vincentian, Precious Blood, Josephite brothers, etc. I’m sure some ‘sisters’ as well...I just can’t name them off hand. 
 

Secular priests don’t make a vow.  Does this leave them without a vocation?

I don’t think a priest or deacon are essential to the definition of a vow. Religious vows are regularly received by non-ordained religious. 

Paulists take vows Franciscan brothers take vows, Diocesan priests take vows, Deacons take vows. I don't know what you are referring to.

Yes religious vows are taken by those who aren't priests.  Nuns consider themselves the actual brides of Christ.  And yes some folks are consecrated. 

But the Catholic use of the word vocation is specific and it doesn't include being single.

 

3 hours ago, MIKolbe said:

Can being single be a choice? Can one choose to neither be married nor be a religious? Would you say vocation is more about a choice or a call? Are they synonymous in your opinion? if so, why? if not, why not?

do you like tacos?

You can be single by choice.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  You can be consecrated as a single person and live a holy life. 

A vocation is both a choice and a calling.  Free will is necessary.  But being single is not an act of free will.  Your children were born single.  That is not their vocation. When you got married (and when you are ordained) that is a vocation.  You stood up before God and your community and declared your vows to each other

 

I would say that a vocation is something that is permanent and takes a public declaration of vows and is overseen by a priest or a deacon.  

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Jaime said:

Paulists take vows Franciscan brothers take vows, Diocesan priests take vows, Deacons take vows. I don't know what you are referring to.

  Nuns consider themselves the actual brides of Christ.  And yes some folks are consecrated. 

But the Catholic use of the word vocation is specific and it doesn't include being single.

 

You can be single by choice.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  You can be consecrated as a single person and live a holy life. 

A vocation is both a choice and a calling.  Free will is necessary.  But being single is not an act of free will.  Your children were born single.  That is not their vocation. When you got married (and when you are ordained) that is a vocation.  You stood up before God and your community and declared your vows to each other

 

I would say that a vocation is something that is permanent and takes a public declaration of vows and is overseen by a priest or a deacon.  

 

Numerous errors, valid as opinion only.  Public vows ask consecration by a Bishop, not a priest or deacon.

There are religious orders of men where they are both priests and religious.  Vincentians and Oblates of Mary Immaculate for example.

Quote

 

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
VITA CONSECRATA
OF THE HOLY FATHER
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS AND CLERGY
RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND CONGREGATIONS
SOCIETIES OF APOSTOLIC LIFE
SECULAR INSTITUTES
AND ALL THE FAITHFUL
ON THE CONSECRATED LIFE AND ITS MISSION
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD 

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031996_vita-consecrata.html

THANKSGIVING FOR THE CONSECRATED LIFE:  "We are all aware of the treasure which the gift of the consecrated life in the variety of its charisms and institutions represents for the ecclesial community. Together let us thank God for the Religious Orders and Institutes devoted to contemplation or the works of the apostolate, for Societies of Apostolic Life, for Secular Institutes and for other groups of consecrated persons, as well as for all those individuals who, in their inmost hearts, dedicate themselves to God by a special consecration."

 

 

I have numerous other reliable source quotations, but too occupied elsewhere just now.  Anyway, whether the vocational call to chaste celibacy in the laity or the single life is an argument that I have never seen won by those proposing there is no such thing - and an old and tired, overworked argument too.  I just don't like it when opinions are put forward as Church Teaching, which are not Church Teaching.  But the clock asks I be elsewhere tonight.

Edited February 11, 2021 by BarbaraTherese

[ReasonableFaith]

On 2/10/2021 at 9:14 AM, Jaime said:

Vows by definition are declared in front of a priest or deacon.

Members of religious institutes make, profess, deliver their vows to non-ordained legitimate religious superiors (brother, sister, mother, abbess, etc)  regularly.  May there be a priest or deacon present for profession? Sure. Must there be a priest or deacon present? No.  I would suggest this indicates your definition of vocation  needs a little adjusting. 
 

As a note on language do you consider non-public promises or commitments to be ‘vows’. I mean like the promises or commitments made by members of societies of apostolic life or diocesan clergy. 

[Jaime]

5 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

 

Numerous errors, valid as opinion only.  Public vows ask consecration by a Bishop, not a priest or deacon.

There are religious orders of men where they are both priests and religious.  Vincentians and Oblates of Mary Immaculate for example.

 

I have numerous other reliable source quotations, but too occupied elsewhere just now.  Anyway, whether the vocational call to chaste celibacy in the laity or the single life is an argument that I have never seen won by those proposing there is no such thing - and an old and tired, overworked argument too.  I just don't like it when opinions are put forward as Church Teaching, which are not Church Teaching.  But the clock asks I be elsewhere tonight.

So it's a fair statement not to like when personal opinion is offered as Church teaching.  However, I'm not doing that, you are. 

I've read the whole exhortation and I've read it before (not that I remember much from the prior reading). JPII actually reinforces everything that I've said and can only support your opinion if you take it out of context.  

Every single time he references "vocation" he specifically mentions priests, sisters and brothers. Every time.  He talks about the struggles to support these vocations and how we as a faithful people need to be more active to support them.  He talks about the consecrated life and that it's important but he really does (when read in context) differentiates between consecrated lives who are in religious orders (vocations) and lay people.

Men and women hermits, belonging to ancient Orders or new Institutes, or being directly dependent on the Bishop, bear witness to the passing nature of the present age by their inward and outward separation from the world. By fasting and penance, they show that man does not live by bread alone but by the word of God (cf. Mt 4:4). Such a life "in the desert" is an invitation to their contemporaries and to the ecclesial community itself never to lose sight of the supreme vocation, which is to be always with the Lord.

He specifically calls out that there is a formal community.  Vows have been taken and are recognized by the bishop

"Ahh but Jaime what about the mention of laity? "

 

In the unity of the Christian life, the various vocations are like so many rays of the one light of Christ, whose radiance "brightens the countenance of the Church."The laity, by virtue of the secular character of their vocation, reflect the mystery of the Incarnate Word

"BWAHAHAHA I GOT YOU NOW!!"

The laity he's referring to (when read in context) is in fact brothers, nuns, hermits etc.  He's not talking about the whole laity.  When read in context, it actually makes a lot of sense.  The entire document is about recognizing the importance of sisters, brothers, monks, hermits etc. and how we need to support those groups. 

 

Here's another example of who this exhortaio is directed to 

Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.

and one more

 For this reason, as the liturgies of the East and West testify in the rite of monastic or religious profession and in the consecration of virgins, the Church invokes the gift of the Holy Spirit upon those who have been chosen and joins their oblation to the sacrifice of Christ.

also 

To consecrated women and their extraordinary capacity for dedication, I once again express the gratitude and admiration of the whole Church, which supports them so that they will live their vocation fully and joyfully, and feel called to the great task of helping to educate the woman of today.

He's talking about nuns. How do I know? The next section is called

II. CONTINUITY IN THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT: FAITHFULNESS IN THE COURSE OF CHANGE

Cloistered nuns

JPII isn't making a left hand turn (or right hand in Australia) he's a pretty good writer and respects how the flow of his exhortation will be read. In fact he has sections (where vocations are referred) about promoting sisters, brothers and other religious orders.  

In this way the vigour of the different forms of consecrated life, from the oldest to the most recent, as well as the vitality of the new communities, will renew faithfulness to the Holy Spirit, who is the source of communion and unceasing newness of life.

 

New communities. Not individuals

Again (and I can't stress this enough) single people can consecrate themselves to Jesus, Mary and Joseph and that is a wonderful thing! Single people can be holy and have the same potential to holiness as priests, nuns brothers married etc. Nobody (especially me) is suggesting a consecrated single life is "less than". It's not a vocation. 

Lots of saints, and potential saints are recognized by the Church who have never had a vocation. Carlo Acutis comes to mind.  There's nothing magical about having a vocation. 

So this is pretty long but that's out of respect for you and Agatha.  I don't take this lightly.  But you have only provided evidence to back my assertion not yours.  Show me something from the Vatican that specifically mentions single lay people and the word vocation and I will retract my statement.  But it doesn't exist.

45 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Members of religious institutes make, profess, deliver their vows to non-ordained legitimate religious superiors (brother, sister, mother, abbess, etc)  regularly.  May there be a priest or deacon present for profession? Sure. Must there be a priest or deacon present? No.  I would suggest this indicates your definition of vocation  needs a little adjusting. 
 

As a note on language do you consider non-public promises or commitments to be ‘vows’. I mean like the promises or commitments made by members of societies of apostolic life or diocesan clergy. 

So I'm happy to adjust it but I'm not aware of any religious community that accepts new members who take formal vows without a priest deacon or bishop present.  However, I would modify your statement as well.  There are a lot of situations where there must be a bishop priest or deacon there to witness it.  My marriage is a perfect example. But if there is evidence of a religious order that does this, I'm happy to modify my statement.  

[ReasonableFaith]

47 minutes ago, Jaime said:

So I'm happy to adjust it but I'm not aware of any religious community that accepts new members who take formal vows without a priest deacon or bishop present.  However, I would modify your statement as well.  There are a lot of situations where there must be a bishop priest or deacon there to witness it.  My marriage is a perfect example. But if there is evidence of a religious order that does this, I'm happy to modify my statement.  

I would suggest the presence of a cleric is related to the context in which vows are commonly professed. The most common context is within Mass.  A public religious vow is  ‘received by a legitimate superior in the name of the church.’  The cleric is not necessary for entering into the vow but is necessary for the accompanying liturgical action.  The only requirement I am aware of is the presence of the legitimate superior, who may be non-ordained in many cases.  
 

It is also interesting a valid and licit catholic marriage may be entered into in the absence of a cleric in some, although extraordinary, circumstances (in danger of death or in the absence of any cleric for an extended period of time).

I ask these questions and offer these observations because I too am interested in how we define a ‘vocation.’  

[Jaime]

Just now, ReasonableFaith said:

I would suggest the presence of a cleric is related to the context in which vows are commonly professed. The most common context is within Mass.  A public religious vow is  ‘received by a legitimate superior in the name of the church.’  The cleric is not necessary for entering into the vow but is necessary for the accompanying liturgical action.  The only requirement I am aware of is the presence of the legitimate superior, who may be non-ordained in many cases.  
 

It is also interesting a valid and licit catholic marriage may be entered into in the absence of a cleric in some, although extraordinary, circumstances (in danger of death or in the absence of any cleric for an extended period of time).

I ask these questions and offer these observations because I too am interested in how we define a ‘vocation.’  

I'm not sensing an adversarial tone at all RF.  But since I like to argue I will use my own marriage.  We did not have a mass but we had a deacon witness our marriage.  That was necessary. And yes I've seen some extraordinary circumstances with marriage where a lay person was given permission to witness the wedding.  However the key to that is "permission from the bishop" because normally it needs a priest or deacon. 

Again you might be right about some religious orders.  The ones that I know of require a priest deacon etc to oversee the initiation into that order.  But I haven't extensively studied them all.  But as with the extraordinary marriage example, I am confident in the notion that those religious communities induct new members with the express permission of the bishop.  So I would amend my statement.

Thanks for the discussion! That helped

[ReasonableFaith]

56 minutes ago, Jaime said:

. And yes I've seen some extraordinary circumstances with marriage where a lay person was given permission to witness the wedding.  However the key to that is "permission from the bishop" because normally it needs a priest or deacon. 

Yup!  That’s the normal condition. However, the law seems to suggested a valid and licit marriage may exist even if a lay person selected by the bishop is unable to assist. 
 

Granted this would likely only occur in very remote or tragic circumstances. 
 

1 hour ago, Jaime said:

I am confident in the notion that those religious communities induct new members with the express permission of the bishop

I can see how it may appear this way.  Religious institutes (at least of pontifical right) do not require the express permission of ‘the bishop’ to incorporate, accept first vows, or accept final vows of a religious.  If an institute wishes to ordain newly finally professed members they most certainly will need permission of the bishop.  This could be especially confusing in heterogenous (mixed...brothers and priests) male religious institutes.

In some cases you will see a final vows liturgy on one day followed by diaconate ordinations the following day. The bishop will be around.  He  will say stuff about accepting the candidates for orders and such in addition to conducting the actual ordination rites.  So it might seem the final vows are somehow connected to him and his permission.  The vows are the business of the legitimate superior (and their council). The local bishops are not uninvolved or totally disinterested parties when it comes to non-ordained religious. They will be notified when incorporated, temporarily, or finally professed religious are assigned to reside, study, and/or minister in their particular diocese. 

There is nothing which would require the Alexian Brothers or Christian Brothers to go round up a cleric in order to be able to accept vows from one of their members.  The same is true of brothers in homogenous provinces of heterogenous institutes unless there is a requirement in their particular law.

[I am less familiar with female institutes but believe the same should apply]

I share these observations because I think them important if the definition of vocation requires ‘vows’ witnessed by a cleric (priest, deacon, bishop.)  Hopefully this can contribute to a good discussion about the definition.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Jaime said:

In the unity of the Christian life, the various vocations are like so many rays of the one light of Christ, whose radiance "brightens the countenance of the Church."The laity, by virtue of the secular character of their vocation, reflect the mystery of the Incarnate Word

"BWAHAHAHA I GOT YOU NOW!!"

Our Baptism is a vocational call to a specific state of life i.e. laity.  Some might live out their baptism without any sense of vocation at all.  Others might have a specific vocational call to the laity and make private vows.  Some, of course, do not make vows - and while they have a vocational call to the laity, they live out their lives without any sort of vow at all, other than our Baptismal Vows and commitment to a life striving for holiness, baptismal vows renewed every Easter.  Religious build on their baptismal vocation by entering into the state of perfection as their means of journeying to holiness.

There was talk in Rome about somehow allowing those in private vows to be included in consecrated life; however, the whole nature of the lay vocation is secular dedicated to the temporal sphere.  My personal call is to the latter.  I do not have a vocation to the consecrated life in any form and this has been discerned, confirmed by a priest religious and theologian then lecturing in our seminary.  Also confirmed by my Archbishop in writing.

A vocational call from God and a state of life are two entirely different matters.  Every baptized Catholic has a state in life.

If the conversation in Rome had gone ahead (probably abandoned due to the scandal, thus more pressing and urgent matters asking attention) and those in private vows have an opening to be included in consecrated life, I would not have considered it, nor would I today.  My call is definitely to the secular and the temporal sphere in the laity in private vows - and for quite specific reasons.  There are religious orders that make private vows and are not technically fully in consecrated life therefore.  I think the Daughters of Charit y is an example. Indeed St Philip Neri stated that his congregation was to make no vows.  The Oratory of St Philip Neri was founded some 17 years after his death and remains priests without vows to the evangelical counsels other than obedience I think it is.

Quote

 

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Religious_Life/Religious_Life_033.htm  "There is a fourth category contemplated by the Holy See in anticipation of the new Code of Canon Law, so that something may be done for the thousands of women who seem not to want religious life yet seem to want to live especially dedicated lives in the Church. The secular institutes are a recent development of the Catholic Church. If there would be a fourth category, it would be some form of what we now call “secular institutes,” but the implications still have to be worked out.

These are the common classifications, with scores of subdivisions under each, especially in the second category. However, that classification – while surely a correct one – is based on structure; it is not based on the essential qualities of every vocation to Christian perfection. This bears emphasis. Members of secular institutes, then, are as much called to a life of Christian perfection as the most cloistered nun or monk or active religious. It is the structure of the way of life that allows for this important classification."

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/being-single-state-life-vocation-or-both/ It is just here that an important new book makes an immense contribution—written by Luanne D. Zurlo (see below), a woman who has already gone down this vocational path and lived it for many years. The book opens with a foreword by Wojciech Giertych, OP, the Theologian of the Papal Household, who was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI and has been retained by Pope Francis. It is fittingly entitled Single for a Greater Purpose: A Hidden Joy in the Catholic Church.

Zurlo covers the fundamental vocation shared by all Christians; the distinction between vocation and state of life; the spiritual importance of celibacy; the difference between singleness by default and singleness for a greater purpose; discerning the calling; distinctions among consecration, vows and dedicated singles; living the evangelical counsels; the importance of witness; friendships for dedicated singles; relationships with priests; and the joy of the vocation. Appendices offer tips for discernment, sample vows, relevant Bible passages, and reflections from Venerable Madeleine Delbrêl.

 

 

Quote

And see: https://www.google.com/search?q=vatican+-+single+life+as+vocation&oq=vatican+-+single+life+as+vocation&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.1445j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Jaime]

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Our Baptism is a vocational call to a specific state of life i.e. laity.  Some might live out their baptism without any sense of vocation at all.  Others might have a specific vocational call to the laity and make private vows.  Some, of course, do not make vows - and while they have a vocational call to the laity, they live out their lives without any sort of vow at all, other than our Baptismal Vows and commitment to a life striving for holiness, baptismal vows renewed every Easter.  Religious build on their baptismal vocation by entering into the state of perfection as their means of journeying to holiness.

There was talk in Rome about somehow allowing those in private vows to be included in consecrated life; however, the whole nature of the lay vocation is secular dedicated to the temporal sphere.  My personal call is to the latter.  I do not have a vocation to the consecrated life in any form and this has been discerned, confirmed by a priest religious and theologian then lecturing in our seminary.  Also confirmed by my Archbishop in writing.

A vocational call from God and a state of life are two entirely different matters.  Every baptized Catholic has a state in life.

If the conversation in Rome had gone ahead (probably abandoned due to the scandal, thus more pressing and urgent matters asking attention) and those in private vows have an opening to be included in consecrated life, I would not have considered it, nor would I today.  My call is definitely to the secular and the temporal sphere in the laity in private vows - and for quite specific reasons.  There are religious orders that make private vows and are not technically fully in consecrated life therefore.  I think the Daughters of Charit y is an example. Indeed St Philip Neri stated that his congregation was to make no vows.  The Oratory of St Philip Neri was founded some 17 years after his death and remains priests without vows to the evangelical counsels other than obedience I think it is.

 

 

 

again you are taking the quote out of context.  In context it's clear that he is referring to nuns brothers and monks when he refers to the laity.  

The rest of the stuff you post would fall under "wouldn't that be nice" but it doesn't make it true. 

Maybe your own personal example is an exception.  But you went through a priest and it was made known to your arch bishop. I respect that!  I really do. But if it's an exception, it's by definition not the rule. And because of that I stand by (as a rule) single life is not a vocation.  

This used to be a site for young Catholics to come and learn. I don't know if that still happens but I'm still in the mindset of reading everything as if a teen was reading it.  To state that being single can be a vocation does a disservice to them.  For them to think they are possibly in a vocation just by breathing and not being married is bad.  You're single, you've made private vows. You've talked with your priest and bishop.  You understand the gravity of the decision and of it's permanence.  But the problem I have with your approach here is like Oprah and cars "You get a vocation and YOU get a vocation and EVERYBODY GETS A VOCATION" and that is why I push back.  

 

 

[Guest]

It is not that I cannot respond to your post, Jamie.  It is that I have invested too much (my problem) time in to responding to you when I have calls elsewhere.  I feel that if anyone is truly interested in what The Church has to state about chaste celibacy in the laity as a commitment and vocation, there is plenty available on the internet for researching (as well as an excellent book I have quoted previously above, recommended by the Papal theologian)and to make up one's own mind.  Research from reliable and sound Catholic sources and very important when researching.

There is a vast difference between personal opinions, valid as personal opinions, and what The Church is stating and adhering to it.  Of course, there can be misinterpretations of what The Church is stating and fair enough in a certain sense.  However it remains misinterpretation.

We are at odds in our understandings/interpretations and can, I hope, agree to disagree.  I certainly can.

Pace and joyeux voyage!  

Edited February 12, 2021 by BarbaraTherese