Homily: Marriage Is Good, But Celibacy Is Better

[BarbTherese]

 

Barbara Therese wrote in Post #97 "I have a foot in both worlds (pre V2 and post
V2) as a bridge between the two and this is also what Vatican II actually was (a bridge between the two: original teaching and the modern world) - a pastoral council bringing The Church into modern thought and culture within Catholicism and without without abandoning the Teachings of Christ, rather with a very real and acute accent on Scripture as never before almost. "

 

 

I'd like to comment on the above further.  One thing I did notice in most all of the writings of the saints (and I was reading these writings pre V2 and still read them post V2) is just how often many of them did quote Scripture.  Pre V2, this renewed my interest in Scripture and particularly the New Testament when we began to study in detail the Gospel of Matthew in college and not long after the conclusion of Vatican 2.

What is important about our Catholic culture is not that our behaviour and attitudes, perspectives and concepts, are necessarily centred on pre V2 thought, or even primarily in post V2 thought, but that we are conforming our attitudes etc. according to the Mind of Christ as expressed in Scripture.  We seek out The Church as Catholics to inform our understanding of Scripture, for we have an obligation to ensure that our consciences are RIGHTLY INFORMED i.e. informed by The Church as faithful Catholics. Certainly post V2, the constant referral in the writings out of Rome quote Scripture far more frequently than I had ever heard it prior to V2.  I am a child of pre V2 days and I understand that not all members might have had the experience.  Certainly for me Vatican 2 was a breath of fresh air clearing up many confusions that were bothering me, where our Catholic culture pre V2 seemed quite often out of touch with Scripture and The Mind of Christ.  And if one does read the writings of the saints on many matters, we were also out of touch in the laity and elsewhere, with the writings of the saints on some subjects.  This never brought into question in my mind pre V2 the writings of the saints themselves - rather I was scratching my head and asking "What on earth is going on?" and while I could not abandon what the saints had to say, why then was I being taught the way I was taught.

 

Sometimes those who are children of post V2 can idealise pre V2 in some ways that did not exist back then.  This is not at all to state that all that is taking place in Catholic culture post V2 is dead centre and right on, because (for me personally), I don't think that it is.  I never contribute to our Australian general Catholic discussion forum simply because it is so deeply infested with liberal thought that I was really 'ganged up on' and absued in a quite personal manner without any holding back whatsoever -  and I abandoned the site as a contributor.  I return now and then just to read to see where the drift might be.  The 'loudest' and leading contributors are still very liberal (and highly educated) last time I perused the site.   Being abused on a so called Catholic discussion site is not problematic in itself "They have persecuted Me and they will persecute you".  However, so loud and educated are the liberal thinkers, that it is a complete waste of time to try to have one's say.  One is literally blinded by 'science' (or what is stated as 'science) that in my estimation nothing is gained by giving time and effort to the forum, except if intent on wasting one's time. 

 

"And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you.  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. " (Matthew Ch10)    

[MarysLittleFlower]

Barbara, thanks for replying. I think it might be best for me to not discuss VII too much right now, because I get confused easily, and sometimes I need to just focus on my spiritual life. I just have some difficulties with getting confused easily about topics. In the past I spoke to my priest about VII and I might ask him some more questions. I'm not saying I don't appreciate what people have to say here.. I hope it doesn't come across that way. I just have scrupulosity or anxiety about issues and sometimes if a theological topic is unclear to me, it becomes a distraction for me. This happens especially with topics where people have different opinions. So I prefer to just pray and focus on my spiritual life. :)

 

Regarding the topic of vocations.... I guess it's hard to figure out how to talk about it. Maybe I shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion to begin with. I didn't mean to be patronizing by saying that married people can be more holy than religious... I mean, here's what I'm trying to say: I can't just reject the Church's teaching about states of life. So I try to accept the teaching, but then build my response from it, - and since the teaching is that there's something special about religious life, I added a clarifying point that married people can also reach holiness. I don't know how else to say it. I don't want to reject a teaching of the Church either. Hope that makes sense. I agree a person can become prideful, but they can also be humbled by their vocation and feel very small and unworthy of it... it depends on the person perhaps. They can also understand and love marriage too, and see everything as being important in the Church.

 

Forgive me if I said anything unhelpful, I will pray about the topic :)

[BarbTherese]

Barbara, thanks for replying. I think it might be best for me to not discuss VII too much right now, because I get confused easily, and sometimes I need to just focus on my spiritual life. Hi MLF - You know where you are at and this is what is important, not discussions in Phatmass.  I just have some difficulties with getting confused easily about topics. In the past I spoke to my priest about VII and I might ask him some more questions. I'm not saying I don't appreciate what people have to say here.. I hope it doesn't come across that way. It most certainly does not. I just have scrupulosity or anxiety about issues and sometimes if a theological topic is unclear to me, it becomes a distraction for me. This happens especially with topics where people have different opinions. So I prefer to just pray and focus on my spiritual life. :) Having been through years of scruples myself, I know just how very confused one can become and how hard it can be for those who may have never experienced scruples to realize the quite complex confusions one can need to confront.  Talking with a priest is the very best way to go I think.........and prayer, always prayer.  I was cured in Confession rather miraculously to my mind.  I had written every single sin, fault and imperfection, I had ever committed I could think of and back over the whole of my life into an exercise book.  I made a General Confession after much prayer and reflection on my life. Father patiently listened to every line and page (probably about three or four pages).  At the end he gave me my penance and absolution.  As I got up to leave, he simply said "Be happy" at that very moment, I felt a great burden taken away and I never looked back to scruples ever again.

This is not to state that others could have the same experience of Confession where scruples are concerned.  But it is to state that ardent prayer and talking with a priest is the best of moves. A very real move to make.

 

Regarding the topic of vocations.... I guess it's hard to figure out how to talk about it. Maybe I shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion to begin with. You are quite free to take part in any discussion whatsoever, although with scruples on board it might be easy to become very confused.  I am not saying, mind you, not to take part.  I didn't mean to be patronizing by saying that married people can be more holy than religious... My comment was not meant to be directly'aimed' at you, it was more of a general comment.  I mean, here's what I'm trying to say: I can't just reject the Church's teaching about states of life. So I try to accept the teaching, but then build my response from it, - and since the teaching is that there's something special about religious life,there is something very special about religious life in that it's very existence and confirmation by The Church is that rightly lived it is probably the easiest way to the perfection of Charity.  With "rightly lived" operative. But not all are called to religious life since not all experience any attraction whatsoever.  And without the Sacrament of Marriage and vocations to it, there would be no Church, no mankind, no priests nor consecrated life.  Each vocation has a particular witness to give and a vital witness to The Lord - as each has a vital and important function in the Body of Christ on earth, building up that Body.    I added a clarifying point that married people can also reach holiness. I don't know how else to say it. I think you have said it spot on, but to my mind, we need to be very careful to ensure that all others really do understand what is being stated.   I don't want to reject a teaching of the Church either.Oh my goodness, don't do that!  Hope that makes sense. I agree a person can become prideful, but they can also be humbled by their vocation and feel very small and unworthy of it... it depends on the person perhaps. They can also understand and love marriage too, and see everything as being important in the Church.Precisely!  It is not the objective theological level that is operative with The Lord, it is the subjective theological level and whether we are living out God's Will for us which is The Mind of Christ.

 

Forgive me if I said anything unhelpful, I will pray about the topic :)   I try to make my comments on an objective level, not directed in a subjective matter at the member who has posted.  Merely objectively taking up their comments and I try to do this in all my posts.

 

God bless you and yours (and this includes your intentions)................Barb :)

 

[BarbTherese]

Remember too that The Church under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit created consecrated life in all its forms many years after Christ (each at differing points in our history).  All takes place as in the Mind and Heart of Christ, The Holy Spirit - to the Glory of The Father.  While Jesus Himself instituted The Sacrament of Marriage as Sacrament : http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=82124

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm

 

 

http://www.10000vocations.org/faqconsecrated.html#c6

Is a religious vocation greater than being married or being single?
God calls only a few to embrace a life of consecrated, celibate love for the Kingdom.  He does this so that those who are in the world can be continually reminded of where we are going, that heaven is our true homeland.  Because it is a supernatural vocation, the Church upholds the great dignity that Religious Life and Priesthood is.  Because marriage is a natural vocation, it is upheld with the great sacramental dignity in the Church, it will be the way of salvation and sanctification for most of the Church.  The vocations of Religious Life and Priesthood compliment the vocation of Marriage.  God wants both to be present in the Church; our task is to fulfill His call for us personally.

Edited August 21, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[MarysLittleFlower]

Barbara, thanks for the reply! :) That's so great how God took away your scruples :) it's really confusing to go through them as I'm sure you know. I have been seeing my priest though it wasn't possible in the summer.

 

 

I completely agree with what you said here in this quote... there are special graces for perfection in this vocation but of course a person needs to cooperate with these graces and live it out. And not everyone is drawn to this life, and we need marriage too.

 

Our Lord talked about being celibate for the Kingdom, He said - he who can take it, let him take it..

 

I think it's a life of sacrifice (because even good things are given up, like marriage) and not everyone is called to it, but if they are, God would give them the grace they need :)

 

there is something very special about religious life in that it's very existence and confirmation by The Church is that rightly lived it is probably the easiest way to the perfection of Charity.  With "rightly lived" operative. But not all are called to religious life since not all experience any attraction whatsoever.  And without the Sacrament of Marriage and vocations to it, there would be no Church, no mankind, no priests nor consecrated life.  Each vocation has a particular witness to give and a vital witness to The Lord - as each has a vital and important function in the Body of Christ on earth, building up that Body

 

God bless you! :)

Edited August 21, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[abrideofChrist]

BarbaraTherese, would you mount a campaign against those who claim the priesthood is higher than non-priesthood?  Claim that being a non-cleric is inferior? Say that discussing the hierarchy is uncharitable?

 

Also, do you realize that consecrated life began at the Annunciation and therefore with the bodily existence of Christ (it wasn't a development after Jesus' time)?

Edited August 21, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[cmaD2006]

Nunsense, don't judge us rashly.  I and other CVs are not interested in claiming superiority over others.  I am interested in the truth, and part of it is distinguishing the meaning of the term Bride of Christ.  That is what the discussions have been about, with some interjections from people like you and Anneline who choose to focus on something the rest of us are NOT focusing on.  How many times have I explained to you about the equality of the dignity of consecrations, of the equality of the dignity of human beings?  You know, if you were called to marriage, would you be insulted if everyone said that your marriage to John Doe was no more of a marriage to him than to anyone else because everyone has a spousal vocation because they are part of the Bride of Christ the Church?  That is the way I feel when you consistently reject the idea that the CV has a spousal vocation that is both different and deeper than the common spousal vocation of the baptized.  If we all are brides of Christ and there is no real difference in HOW, then my vocation is worthless, thank you very much. 

 

I think we are ALL missing the point ... and the last statement (where abrideofChrist -- you say "if .... then my vocation is worhtless") shows it.

 

Isn't the point to follow the vocation that will lead to one's sanctification?  If it is -- then by NO MEANS can any vocation be simply worthless.  If it is -- then you're missing the boat.

 

Regardless of the arguments, regardless of who is/isn't a Bride of Christ, the main point is to follow the Lord.  Where ever that leads.  And in following Christ, you are sanctified in whatever vocation you are called to.

 

People can say what they say with respect to how I am choosing to live my life.  Everyone can argue until they are blue in the face as far as which vocation "is the highest."

 

I choose to not care -- why?  Because for me, the highest vocation is the one I have chosen ... the one that I submitted to proper discernment, and spent the time in prayer deciding.

 

If it is so important to define "who is a bride of Christ" then I ask everyone to consider this -- when You are before the Lord, on the day of your death, what will happen?  Is He going to say "um, you got the whole 'Bride of Christ' thing wrong so, sorry, no entering the Kingdom for you" OR, is He going to say "How much did you love my little ones?"

 

Or worse -- "You were not a witness to my love towards others, and by your attitude you made my little ones go astray."

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't think we should choose a vocation because we want to be considered the "highest" and it's the "highest" vocation... if a person truly chooses a vocation like consecrated life, they should choose it because they want to give their all to God, and they are called to doing this. In this case, they wouldn't really worry about it being "higher" but rather - is it God's will, and - is it a self gift done with love? since all vocations are a self gift done with love... if a person feels called to give everything to God as a religious, let's say, and leave everything and devote themselves only to God, - then they wouldn't truly feel peace until they have given their all, and they would be perhaps drawn to the vocation where they CAN do this. However, that would be based on love, not on pride or wanting to be "higher".

 

HOWEVER.....

 

The Church does have this teaching. And knowing the distinction can help the person see that in certain vocations, they'd be able to make this total gift only to God, not to a spouse on earth, so they'd be able to discern that. I think the benefit of knowing that certain states of life are higher is for the sake of understanding what they are and what they involve, and simply knowing the truth on them. For example, Jesus often calls religious and priests His "chosen souls"... what does this mean? does it mean that a person can proudly proclaim themselves to be chosen and look down on others? of course not! it would be so sad and wrong if we were to think that this is the ONLY way to look at these words, because these are words that Jesus uses Himself. If a consecrated person would read those words about their vocation..."chosen souls": they'd understand that they were chosen out of the world and  placed somewhere FOR something.... like for example, to offer reparation and consolation to Jesus for sin. They might have a better understanding of what Jesus expects of them.. that they're not there for themselves.. .and that they were chosen, rather than them doing the choosing: and that this choice was not based on them earning it, but was simply the will of God, for His own perhaps unknown reasons. There must be a reason why Jesus spoke to Saints about what it means - I can't claim to know the reason, but I'm totally confident it was a good one! we can criticize Our Lord for using these words or explanations...

 

Knowing what the Church teaches, what Jesus said, - doesn't mean that the person would discern a vocation because it is a higher state only, with a desire to be superior to everyone. If such a motive exists, it's good to ask God to purify it. But a person can know these things and be humble, because the pride is not found in the truth, it's found in us.

 

Yes the best vocation for me is the one that God wants for me. That would be my path to holiness. I can't rebel against God's will. But we're just talking about the states themselves.

Edited August 21, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[BarbTherese]

BarbaraTherese, would you mount a campaign against those who claim the priesthood is higher than non-priesthood?  Claim that being a non-cleric is inferior? Say that discussing the hierarchy is uncharitable?

 

Also, do you realize that consecrated life began at the Annunciation and therefore with the bodily existence of Christ (it wasn't a development after Jesus' time)?

 

• I think BoC that you are stating that I am stating something that I haven't at all.  On an objective theological level, the priesthood is always higher than non priesthood. 
• I haven't claimed that being a non-cleric is inferior, although on an objective theological level it is.
• Nor stated that discussing the hierarchy is uncharitable
• Certainly, consecrated life as we know it did not come into existence during the earthly time of Jesus. It came later in our history.  What I stated was merely an historical comment and that the 7 Sacrament, marriage one of them, was instituted by Jesus Himself. Consecrated life is not a Sacrament.

It would be very helpful if in making comment, you could quote the text on which you are commenting.  It would help as I have no recollection of stating what you say I have stated.  The exact text of my comments would allow me to clear up any misconceptions as I certainly do not hold to the concepts that you are presenting as mine. 

[BarbTherese]

The seed of consecrated life may well have been planted at the Annunciation - I don't know what The Church has to say on this point.  If the seed was planted at the Annunciation it did not germinate until later in our history when The Church began to consecrate into a consecrated state of life as we now know it in The Church.  (Our Lady certainly was consecrated by The Holy Spirit to God at conception I would have thought- at the Annunciation, she receives her mission in life, Mother of God) I do believe that CV's might have been the first form of consecrated life as we know it in The Church - I haven't researched on this point. 

 

HISTORICAL TIMELINE FOR CONSECRATED LIFE

 

Father Hardon on History of Religious Life: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Religious_Life/Religious_Life_007.htm

 

[abrideofChrist]

Try this, Barbara Therese http://www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/ministry_resources/consecratedlife/files/1988%20Homily%20from%20Mass%20of%20the%20Consecration%20of%20a%20Virgin.pdf  Consecrated virginity began at the Annunciation.  It was the first vocation and continued throughout Church history.

[BarbTherese]

Try this, Barbara Therese http://www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/ministry_resources/consecratedlife/files/1988%20Homily%20from%20Mass%20of%20the%20Consecration%20of%20a%20Virgin.pdf  Consecrated virginity began at the Annunciation.  It was the first vocation and continued throughout Church history.

 

If a bishop states this, then it is good enough for me.  But I think you have misunderstood me.  I was talking about consecrated life as a canonical form of life and formal consecration by a bishop as we now know it which began after the time of Christ.  I was talking about a point of our history. While I can concur that the vocation itself probably did take seed, as your article states, at the Annunciation.  I can even concur that The Annunciation was the first recorded consecrated life in our Christian history.

 

I don't want to contest any points as I am out of my comfort zone where CV's are concerned.   The 7 Sacraments are recognized as instituted by Jesus.  Canonical consecration of virgins and into religious life and other forms of consecrated life  - as we now know it - came later in our history. Canonical consecration is not a Sacrament.

 

I really don't know how to state it BoC in order to not be misinterpreted once more. :)

[abrideofChrist]

Barbara, for quite some time there was no "canonical" marriage, even though it was a sacrament until the 12th century.  http://www.interchurchfamilies.org/resource/marriage/can-marr.shtm As a matter of fact, the requirements for marriage as we know it didn't happen until the Council of Trent. 

 

Tradition has it that St. Matthew the Apostle was one of the earliest consecrating bishops.  The magisterial documents state that consecrated virginity traces back to apostolic times and by the time the second and third centuries came along, it was well established.

[organwerke]

  You know, if you were called to marriage, would you be insulted if everyone said that your marriage to John Doe was no more of a marriage to him than to anyone else because everyone has a spousal vocation because they are part of the Bride of Christ the Church?  That is the way I feel when you consistently reject the idea that the CV has a spousal vocation that is both different and deeper than the common spousal vocation of the baptized.  If we all are brides of Christ and there is no real difference in HOW, then my vocation is worthless, thank you very much.

 

It is curious that you feel mortified by the fact that Others reject the idea that your vocation is deeper and of superior spousal nature because they feel mortified by the fact that you reject the idea that consecrated life is not a higher state in life than the non-consecrated life where they are in.

Sorry for my English and my twistled thought, but do you catch the point?

[abrideofChrist]

No, I don't Organwerke, I don't get the point.  I simply said that if John and Jane Doe were married and were told that their marriage was nothing different than the baptized people of God's marriage with Christ, they would feel that their vocation was pointless and worthless because it would be.  We recognize that in marriage, a bond is formed between the man and the woman that is DIFFERENT than the spousal bond ALL Baptized people have with Christ.  I am saying that for a CV, a true bond is formed between the CV and Christ that is DIFFERENT than the spousal bond ALL Baptized people have with Christ.  Otherwise, the CV's vocation is pointless and worthless OBJECTIVELY speaking.  If Christian marriage IS THE SAME AS GAY MARRIAGE, then Christian marriage is pointless and worthless.

 

Just because someone chooses to feel inferior although I repeatedly showed why they shouldn't isn't my problem. 

[abrideofChrist]

Oh, and incidentally, I don't think people on this phorum reject the idea that the consecrated state is objectively superior to the lay state.  That is a heretical position against a dogmatic teaching of the Church.

[organwerke]

No, I don't Organwerke, I don't get the point.  I simply said that if John and Jane Doe were married and were told that their marriage was nothing different than the baptized people of God's marriage with Christ, they would feel that their vocation was pointless and worthless because it would be.  We recognize that in marriage, a bond is formed between the man and the woman that is DIFFERENT than the spousal bond ALL Baptized people have with Christ.  I am saying that for a CV, a true bond is formed between the CV and Christ that is DIFFERENT than the spousal bond ALL Baptized people have with Christ.  Otherwise, the CV's vocation is pointless and worthless OBJECTIVELY speaking.  If Christian marriage IS THE SAME AS GAY MARRIAGE, then Christian marriage is pointless and worthless.

 

Just because someone chooses to feel inferior although I repeatedly showed why they shouldn't isn't my problem. 

 

In your post that I quoted you were the person who chosed to feel inferior and worthless because what another person said.

I simply applied your same logical thought to the way Others sometimes perceive your posts in order to make things clearer for you. But I evidently failed.

[abrideofChrist]

No, I have never said I feel inferior and worthless.  I said I could feel insulted that the vocation that the Church HERSELF has stated AUTHORITATIVELY to make me into a Bride of Christ is not recognized by (the self righteous) people who claim that there is no difference between my vocation and that of the baptized in general.  I then rhetorically referred to the fact that my vocation is objectively worthless because if there is no ontological difference between my vocation and the general state of the baptized, then this vocation the Church has defined is fake and nothing more than a waste of time.  You didn't use logical thought based on my true claims because I did post my thoughts on ontological changes, real spousal bonds, and the question of objectively superior states in different places but NEVER have I claimed that I felt inferior EVEN THOUGH I recognize the fact that I am not a cleric.

Edited August 21, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

We ALL have the obligation to promote ALL the Vocations in life and this would include the obligation of seeking a greater understanding of what they are.  We also have the duty to protect the different institutions the Church has established.  If I attack the Franciscan charism, Franciscans and the rest of the Church have the right to defend their charism.  If I attack marriage, all of us have the right to defend what true marriage is.  If I attack consecrated virginity, all have the right to defend its nature.  If I attack the priesthood, all have the right to defend it.  These are all public institutions in the Church established by God.  We have a right to defend the patrimony of our Faith.  It is part and parcel of our faith that a true bond is established between the validly married.  If someone denies this because they deny that an ontological change takes place in the spouses, then they are denying the reality of marriage.  It is also part and parcel of our faith that a true bond is established between the CV and Christ at her consecration of virginity.  It is part and parcel of our faith that some states are inherently superior to others.  This is a fact that none of us can change.  It is part and parcel of our faith that HOLINESS is not tied to the state of life but to the person's individual level of charity.  Being in an objectively superior state in life does not make one more holy.  Nor does repeating the Church's own claim that certain states are superior to others in itself an act of pride but a statement of fact. 

[organwerke]

No, I have never said I feel inferior and worthless.  I said I could feel insulted that the vocation that the Church HERSELF has stated AUTHORITATIVELY to make me into a Bride of Christ is not recognized by (the self righteous) people who claim that there is no difference between my vocation and that of the baptized in general.  I then rhetorically referred to the fact that my vocation is objectively worthless because if there is no ontological difference between my vocation and the general state of the baptized, then this vocation the Church has defined is fake and nothing more than a waste of time.  You didn't use logical thought based on my true claims because I did post my thoughts on ontological changes, real spousal bonds, and the question of objectively superior states in different places but NEVER have I claimed that I felt inferior EVEN THOUGH I recognize the fact that I am not a cleric.

 

Even if you often speak about "Church's authority", "Objective truth", "ontological difference", in my opinion the problem in this whole thread isn't about objectivity but it is problem of psicological nature, of "how people feel perceived and judged by others".

Let me say it is evident (at least to me) that all your posts here come from your feeling insulted and offended by the idea that some people  may refuse to give to your vocation the dignity it deserves. But the fact is that you feel judged no less than Others feel judged, and diminished, by you even if it is not your intention to judge.

The fact is that I understand your point of view. I recognize that you may feel attacked and diminished by people who refuse to recognize the dignity of the vocation of a Consecrated Virgin (but I think that this perception doesn't come from phatmass but from the world outside).

But the fact is that I think that no one here really refuses to recognize this dignity but you read this into the line, exactly as many read into the lines that they are judged inferior and less valuable because they don't live in a "higher" state of life.

And no, you can't simply say that if they feel inferior or offended this is not your problem, since you too pointed out to a specifical person here that you felt insulted and offended by what she wrote. This would be hypocritical. It is your problem if someone feels offended by what you say just as it is my problem if you feel offended by what I tell you or write.