Homily: Marriage Is Good, But Celibacy Is Better

[organwerke]

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. 

 

I have a question at this point. What does exactly "superior" means when speaking of different states of life, if holiness is not tied to it but to a person's charity?

[abrideofChrist]

I do not personally feel insulted by any lack of dignity individual people may choose to react to the vocation of consecrated virginity because I know it is objectively what it is and that it has inherent dignity.  It's like saying I do not personally feel insulted by the murders caused by abortion because it is objectively what it is and has inherent sinfulness.  I do feel it to be my duty at times to defend the vocation to consecrated virginity when people deny truths about it.  I also feel that it is my duty to defend life when people deny truths about it to the point of murdering little ones.  It is insulting to the Creator to deny the spousal bond created at the Consecration of the CV and it is insulting to the Creator to deny the dignity of life.  It is insulting to the reality of things when better informed people deny truths about things because they don't like the truth itself and disguise it as a dislike for the reactions they experience.  For example, it is insulting to the reality of the papacy to deny its God instituted nature just because someone in it might be sinful or even prideful because they do hold a superior office of being the Vicar of Christ.  That is a very protestant way of viewing things.  Protestants deny the objective superiority of the consecrated state, and this started with Luther.  In the Protestant view of many major sects, celibacy is pointless and there is NO REAL difference between celibates and the rest of the faithful.  Therefore it is worthless and even wrong to claim that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is objectively superior to marriage.  Catholics believe that there is SOMETHING objectively, ontologically different about the state of celibacy and that it IS by its NATURE and ESSENCE superior to Marriage.  We could play the "pride" game and say Catholics are just proud.  They have a Pope but that is a matter of pride rather than true superiority of office.  They have celibates but that is purely a matter of pride and legalism than any invisible reality.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I have a question at this point. What does exactly "superior" means when speaking of different states of life, if holiness is not tied to it but to a person's charity?

 

An individual person must live out their vocation to help them grow in holiness, and have charity, as you said. Without this, they wouldn't  grow. However, religious and consecrated life involves giving up everything for Christ and a greater detachment from the world, so the Church teaches that it's an objectively higher state, which is also oriented well to personal growth in holiness, because of the level of detachment that must happen... however, it's up to the person to cooperate with the graces given to them, and people who are not religious are also called to holiness, and there were married Saints, etc - so everyone is called to holiness but priesthood and religious life have certain things about them that set them apart. For example, God often works through them to reach other souls. He can work through anyone, and works through lay people too, but with consecrated people it's like - this is their ministry,.. does that make sense? It's like how St Paul said, that a married person is concerned with their spouse, but an unmarried person can be free to concern themselves fully and only with what concerns Our Lord. Everyone is called to devote themselves to God, but people in the world, for example those who are married, have certain obligations in the world - they can also offer these works to God, and they must fulfill their duty to serve Him as faithful servants, but consecrated souls are free to only be concerned with things like salvation of souls, offering reparation, etc. It doesn't mean they should see themselves as superior in a prideful way, but rather humble themselves. Saying that the state of life is special is not exalting the person, because it's a gift, - but it's exalting the gift and God, who gives it. The person could still be very unworthy to receive the gift, and perhaps weaker and smaller than another soul who is married. We don't know how God chooses... often He chooses the little and the weak souls.

Edited August 21, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm not sure if we can say that another poster is being prideful........ just saying. That's for God to judge. A confessor can help show someone if they have pride issues but I don't think we can say things like that on the phorum because we don't even know each other in real life. Just a thought.

 

I'm just saying this because there seems to be a lot of talk about people being arrogant or prideful if they have a certain view. But we can't know this. Maybe it would be best if each person would discern this with God. Let's just talk about the topic everyone.

Edited August 21, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[organwerke]

Who did say that one poster is prideful? Anyway I don't think honestly that keeping discuss this thread can do much good.

[MarysLittleFlower]

It seems that sometimes in the thread, people's intentions or feelings were commented on, but we don't know about these things. Maybe I misunderstood, if that's the case I'm sorry.

[God's Beloved]

I think  in Medieval church history  there was emphasis on saying that  Marriage is good , but Celibacy is better.

Since the Second Vatican Council , the Church has moved in the direction of giving more and more importance to Sacramental marriage as a Vocation.

 

In the  Rite of Consecration of virgins  which was revised after Vat II , the Church made a small but significant change in the 4th century Prayer of Consecration . It said ,

 

Among your many gifts
you give to some the grace of virginity.
Yet the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.
As it was in the beginning,
your first blessing still remains upon this holy union.
Yet your loving wisdom chooses those
who make sacrifice of marriage for the sake of the love of which it is the sign.
They renounce the joys of human marriage,
but cherish all that it foreshadows.

 

 

So the Church has officially stated in this Rite present in the Roman Pontifical  , that the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.

 

I would understand this as a statement that both marriage and celibacy are good . None is better than the other.

That's what even the 1st chapter of Genesis  and the last chapter of Revelations in the Bible also seem to state. Both marriage and celibacy , according to God , are good , very good...

[BarbTherese]

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.

 

Again, BoC, you seem to have in mind something that I do not.  When I mentioned consecrated life initially it was related to when The Church first began consecrating into the consecrated state in its earliest forms as we now know it.  That was all I wanted to state.

You may well be correct in what you are stating above.  The longer this exchange takes place, the more we are loosing touch with what I originally said.

I'm getting ready to go to voluntary office work and don't have time, nor with respect, any inclination to go back and begin the exchanges once more.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think  in Medieval church history  there was emphasis on saying that  Marriage is good , but Celibacy is better.

Since the Second Vatican Council , the Church has moved in the direction of giving more and more importance to Sacramental marriage as a Vocation.

 

In the  Rite of Consecration of virgins  which was revised after Vat II , the Church made a small but significant change in the 4th century Prayer of Consecration . It said ,

 

Among your many gifts
you give to some the grace of virginity.
Yet the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.
As it was in the beginning,
your first blessing still remains upon this holy union.
Yet your loving wisdom chooses those
who make sacrifice of marriage for the sake of the love of which it is the sign.
They renounce the joys of human marriage,
but cherish all that it foreshadows.

 

 

So the Church has officially stated in this Rite present in the Roman Pontifical  , that the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.

 

I would understand this as a statement that both marriage and celibacy are good . None is better than the other.

That's what even the 1st chapter of Genesis  and the last chapter of Revelations in the Bible also seem to state. Both marriage and celibacy , according to God , are good , very good...

God's Beloved, take a look at what the Council of Trent said in the link in the original post.... it's definitively stated that celibate state is objective a higher state, and there's even an anathema attached to rejecting this. VII, a Pope, or any future Council can't change doctrine... because official doctrine doesn't change. When there's an anathema to something, that is a really serious pronouncement of what Church teaching is. What I'm trying to say is that Church teachings can't change. So what was said in Trent, continues to be true. Remember that VII didn't define dogma (in my understanding, it was more pastoral)... yet Trent did. :)

[BarbTherese]

I think  in Medieval church history  there was emphasis on saying that  Marriage is good , but Celibacy is better.

Since the Second Vatican Council , the Church has moved in the direction of giving more and more importance to Sacramental marriage as a Vocation.

 

In the  Rite of Consecration of virgins  which was revised after Vat II , the Church made a small but significant change in the 4th century Prayer of Consecration . It said ,

 

Among your many gifts
you give to some the grace of virginity.
Yet the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.
As it was in the beginning,
your first blessing still remains upon this holy union.
Yet your loving wisdom chooses those
who make sacrifice of marriage for the sake of the love of which it is the sign.
They renounce the joys of human marriage,
but cherish all that it foreshadows.

 

 

So the Church has officially stated in this Rite present in the Roman Pontifical  , that the honor of marriage is in no way lessened.

 

I would understand this as a statement that both marriage and celibacy are good . None is better than the other.

That's what even the 1st chapter of Genesis  and the last chapter of Revelations in the Bible also seem to state. Both marriage and celibacy , according to God , are good , very good...

Mary's Little Flower wrote in reply:  God's Beloved, take a look at what the Council of Trent said in the link in the original post.... it's definitively stated that celibate state is objective a higher state, and there's even an anathema attached to rejecting this. VII, a Pope, or any future Council can't change doctrine... because official doctrine doesn't change. When there's an anathema to something, that is a really serious pronouncement of what Church teaching is. What I'm trying to say is that Church teachings can't change. So what was said in Trent, continues to be true. Remember that VII didn't define dogma (in my understanding, it was more pastoral)... yet Trent did. :)

 

 

The state of celibacy is theologically above the non celibate Sacrament of Marriage, simply because the celibate state ideally embraces no intermediary but goes directly to The Lord and His Kingdom.  Marriage goes through the partner, i.e. the wife or the husband to determine God's Will for each other and for the marriage.  Hence the celibate state remains theologically above the Sacrament of Marriage and for obvious reasons.

 

Pre V2 only priesthood and/or religious life were culturally considered "vocations" per se.  Marriage as a valid and important vocation came post V2 when it was underscored by The Church as a valid and important potential call and vocation from God, along with the lay state in life per se.  Marriage as vocation has now taken root in our cultural thinking.  The lay state in life is still struggling somewhat to do so.  It takes time and effort.  

 

 I think some might have problems getting their heads around "theologically objectively superior", missing the point that nothing can be theologically objectively superior to God's Will. Hence God may call a young woman to consecrated virginity, but this does not lessen a vocation and call to The Sacrament of Marriage.  If He calls a young woman to Marriage then it is a superior call simply because it is God's Will for that person's life.  A vocation can only ever be an invitation, not a Divine Command and God's Invitations are a function of His Divine Will.  He invites to vocation, He does not command.

 

Some seem to want to stop at the objective theological determination of the various states (i.e. superior or inferior) and not take into account that nothing is superior to God's Will -  on the objective theological level as it has been discussed in this forum.

 

All from this really rickety armchair :)........or as I understand things.

 

Edited August 22, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

Subject A:  Wants to do her very best for God and desires the most superior vocation possible and hence she chooses consecrated life in the celibate chaste state - is accepted and lives out a very holy life.

Subject B:  Wants to do what God might be asking of her and decides on marriage.  She does marry and has a good marriage with children and lives out a very holy life.  She did however have the necessary qualities for the consecrated state also.

 

Both have done well and God has blessed them richly in their journey with many Graces.  Subject A chose what she wanted, while Subject B was invested or wanted what God was asking of her and spiritual direction and her own reflections indicated marriage and children. 

 

Both did choose well, though B possibly more perfect in motivation than A. Subject B wanted God's Will to be done in her.  Subject A wanted the most superior for herself and in order to serve God's Glory as best she could.

 

Sometimes in life we can do very well for The Lord and His Glory, but hindsight reveals that our motivation was not the best.  But at the time we acted according to our lights then.

 

The above, I hope, illustrates both the theological objective and subjective considerations.

Edited August 22, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[Nunsense]

Is there any chance at all that we could just let this thread die of neglect? And then, for those who want to continue the discussion, perhaps someone could start a new thread over in Debate Table about it? A link to this thread could be posted for those who want background.

 

VS needs a little help right now to restore the balance. So how about it everyone?  :)

[BarbTherese]

You could ask a moderator, nunsense.  I'm certainly happy to go with the flow and have noticed a change in VS lately - but thought it might also be due to the threads I was accessing.  Don't know which, but others seem to have noticed a change in VS lately.  I think you are right and some of the CV threads(or it might be all) are more for debate forums.  I guess it would be up to a moderator. :)

[BarbTherese]

You could ask a moderator, nunsense.  I'm certainly happy to go with the flow and have noticed a change in VS lately - but thought it might also be due to the threads I was accessing.  Don't know which, but others seem to have noticed a change in VS lately too.  I think you are right and some of the CV threads(or it might be all) are more for debate forums.  I guess it would be up to a moderator. :)

Edited August 22, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[abrideofChrist]

Subject A:  Wants to do her very best for God and desires the most superior vocation possible and hence she chooses consecrated life in the celibate chaste state - is accepted and lives out a very holy life.

Subject B:  Wants to do what God might be asking of her and decides on marriage.  She does marry and has a good marriage with children and lives out a very holy life.  She did however have the necessary qualities for the consecrated state also.

 

Both have done well and God has blessed them richly in their journey with many Graces.  Subject A chose what she wanted, while Subject B was invested or wanted what God was asking of her and spiritual direction and her own reflections indicated marriage and children. 

 

Both did choose well, though B possibly more perfect in motivation than A. Subject B wanted God's Will to be done in her.  Subject A wanted the most superior for herself and in order to serve God's Glory as best she could.

 

Sometimes in life we can do very well for The Lord and His Glory, but hindsight reveals that our motivation was not the best.  But at the time we acted according to our lights then.

 

The above, I hope, illustrates both the theological objective and subjective considerations.

 

Interesting example, BarbaraTherese.  Just a question.  Are you assuming that both A and B have been offered the grace of consecrated life? 

 

[Nunsense]

Barb - Yes, I could ask a moderator, but after dUSt's thread about restrictions in VS being a possibility, I thought this might be an opportunity to show our good will in trying to restore a sense of community and charity to Vocation Station.

 

It is not my intention to force this on anyone, so I offered this option as possible voluntary action on the behalf of all of us here at VS. Of course, if no one else wants to do it, then, by all means, continue to post. It was a hope for unity here.

Edited August 22, 2013 by nunsense

[BarbTherese]

Posted Today, 01:09 AM

From dUSt

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130869-i-will-be-restricting-access-to-vocation-station/page-1

CRAZY DOPE POST, YO!

It has been brought to my attention that certain members make Vocation Station a rather hostile place to be. This is unacceptable. This board is not the Debate Table. This board is suppose to be a holy place people come to discern and discuss vocations.

 

Therefore, I will be speaking to my mods and various members to get a good sense of who needs their Vocation Station access revoked. They will be welcome to debate and participate on other parts of the phorum, just not here.

 

God bless you guys!

 

[BarbTherese]

Interesting example, BarbaraTherese.  Just a question.  Are you assuming that both A and B have been offered the grace of consecrated life? 

 

 

 

My post was about motivation and Graces granted after the decision on vocation has been made and effected.  Very broadly speaking there can be said to be three consecutive general signs of vocation:

 

Attraction to the life

Ability to lead the life, including right motivation and qualities

Acceptance into the life

 

In my post, Subject B, I will imagine: Certainly had the qualities necessary for religious life and since she desired to be about God's Will, she would have had the right initial motivation.  Her attraction, however, was more to marriage than religious life and her spiritual director felt that she probably was called to marriage. She married and had children and lived a holy life.

 

I guess it would all break down as to how one can be aware that one has been offered the Grace of consecrated life?  For a CV, it would be, I am thinking, when she is attracted to a CV vocation, followed by an application that is subsequently accepted by her bishop - finally The Grace is  granted at her consecration.  The Grace of a CV vocation would be in 'four subsequent movements'.

 

For religious life, the final movement is final profession and there would be some sort of final act in the various forms of consecrated life I should imagine.

 

All due respect BoC, but I really don't want to get into a debate on this issue - if you had debating in mind.  Certainly, if you start a thread in the Debate Forum, I am very happy to move over there.  :)  I have answered your question, I think.

 

See this thread by dUSt http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130869-i-will-be-restricting-access-to-vocation-station/page-1

[abrideofChrist]

Barb, I saw that thread, and I also saw the original post of this thread.  I was wondering about your example because it caught my attention and made me think about the question of vocation in light of what the saints say about carefully discerning a vocation because it is more difficult to become holy in a vocation one was not originally given an invitation to.  In your subject A, for example, she reminded me of a priest who may not have had a divine vocation to the priesthood but felt compelled to become one because he felt it was the better thing to do (I am thinking of a real life example of a priest who told me that was the only reason he became a priest).  If A lacked a divine vocation to consecrated life, then even those she chooses it and lives it, her life will be a lot harder to be faithful because God didn't design her to be in the consecrated state.

[BarbTherese]

Barb, I saw that thread, and I also saw the original post of this thread.  I was wondering about your example because it caught my attention and made me think about the question of vocation in light of what the saints say about carefully discerning a vocation because it is more difficult to become holy in a vocation one was not originally given an invitation to.  In your subject A, for example, she reminded me of a priest who may not have had a divine vocation to the priesthood but felt compelled to become one because he felt it was the better thing to do (I am thinking of a real life example of a priest who told me that was the only reason he became a priest).  If A lacked a divine vocation to consecrated life, then even those she chooses it and lives it, her life will be a lot harder to be faithful because God didn't design her to be in the consecrated state.

 

Thank you for the very patient reply, BoC.  But I think we are likely to move into debating an issue -  and debate does really does belong in a debate forum - hence, I wont comment further.  Your post is certainly not debating, I think my response just might be. :locked:   I don't know for sure - never do until the post is written.  I have a tendancy to think 'on my feet' (i.e. at the keyboard typing) :)

 

It is very kind of dUSt to warn of a looming-over-us-administrative-decision.  I don't want to be 'swept out with the "new broom" ' if I can at all help it.

 

 

May The Lord bless with His Peace...........Barb :)