On Use of the Term "Vocation"

[Sponsa-Christi]

5 hours ago, Sr Mary Catharine OP said:

Which is the correct terminology today following the Church. I've been to something similar and I kept looking around and thinking, "Hmm, now why is HE here or why is SHE here?" It was sort of like a game of Clue! Then they got up and gave a talk on what sort of consecrated person they are and why.

 

Just wondering...was I at this event also?

[Sponsa-Christi]

Some more food for thought (and building on what Sr. Mary Catharine mentioned earlier)...there is a very old standing theological and canonical debate on whether religious life properly so-called is a special vocation (as in, something to which God calls some people but not others), or a general means of holiness equally open to all of the baptized. 

There are actually good arguments on both sides of this debate, and I don't have a strong opinion either way right now. Still, I do have a sort of pet theory that the call to relate to Christ in a spousal way---whether as a consecrated virgin, or as a "call within a call" for religious, or even as a purely private commitment---is a special vocation that not all women are called to. 

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

7 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Just wondering...was I at this event also?

Yep!

 

[AveMariaPurissima]

13 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

There are actually good arguments on both sides of this debate, and I don't have a strong opinion either way right now. Still, I do have a sort of pet theory that the call to relate to Christ in a spousal way---whether as a consecrated virgin, or as a "call within a call" for religious, or even as a purely private commitment---is a special vocation that not all women are called to. 

Interesting...are you saying that even among women who are called to religious life, not all of them are called to relate to Christ in a spousal way? (since you call it a "call within a call" for them?) Or am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Could you please elaborate a little bit?  

[Sponsa-Christi]

16 minutes ago, AveMariaPurissima said:

Interesting...are you saying that even among women who are called to religious life, not all of them are called to relate to Christ in a spousal way? (since you call it a "call within a call" for them?) Or am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Could you please elaborate a little bit?  

Yes, I don't think all women religious as a general category are automatically called to relate to Christ in a spousal way. There is nothing about religious life per se that demands this, and it seems that there are some faithful women religious who have a hard time relating to bridal imagery. I think it's perfectly legitimate for a woman to be drawn to religious life in terms of following Christ as a friend or disciple rather than specifically as a bride.

I personally would tend to see the special vocation to be a bride of Christ for women as being somewhat complementary or parallel to a vocation to priesthood for men. That is, just as a male religious may or may not be called to priesthood, a women religious may or may not have the spiritual gift of relating to Christ as her Spouse. 

I did write a fairly long post about this topic on my blog earlier this year: http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2015/03/who-can-be-called-bride-of-christ.html

But again, these are my own personal theological musings, just shared here for the sake of having an interesting discussion!

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

45 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Yes, I don't think all women religious as a general category are automatically called to relate to Christ in a spousal way. There is nothing about religious life per se that demands this, and it seems that there are some faithful women religious who have a hard time relating to bridal imagery. I think it's perfectly legitimate for a woman to be drawn to religious life in terms of following Christ as a friend or disciple rather than specifically as a bride.

I personally would tend to see the special vocation to be a bride of Christ for women as being somewhat complementary or parallel to a vocation to priesthood for men. That is, just as a male religious may or may not be called to priesthood, a women religious may or may not have the spiritual gift of relating to Christ as her Spouse. 

I did write a fairly long post about this topic on my blog earlier this year: http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2015/03/who-can-be-called-bride-of-christ.html

But again, these are my own personal theological musings, just shared here for the sake of having an interesting discussion!

But theologically you'd have to do a lot of work to explain this since the CHURCH is the Bride of Christ and that is everyone. From St Paul and from the earliest of the fathers of the Church they speak of the 3 fold relationship of Israel as Bride, the Church as Bride, individual souls relating as bride, etc. I think there is a difference between bridal IMAGERY and spousal relationship. St. JPII's theology of the body places strong emphases on sponsality.

I know you believe strongly in what you are saying so you really should do some serious theological work on this since you do. It may be more a matter of emphasis.

[bardegaulois]

On 12/5/2015, 4:13:56, Sr Mary Catharine OP said:

Spem, I think the "issue" of religious life and consecrated life is because it is new and there are a lot of ambiguities. They are not the same thing. There needs to be a lot more work done in this area as well. Again, it can sometimes seems that "everyone" is consecrated!

The funny thing is that in the middle ages if you followed a rule of life you were considered "a religious". Such as 3rd Orders, etc.

 

Sister, this really intimates to me a huge unresolved issue that casts a large shadow on all aspects of "vocations culture." We need to ask what it means to be consecrated, and who should be consecrated. Canon law has since simplified the bewildering variety of consecrated persons, regulars, persons taking particular vows, etc., that we saw in the Middle Ages, but I sometimes wonder if that simplification and legal categorization hasn't squelched a lot of the individual initiative that many seemed to have had in the age of faith.

It seems to me often that there's a group of people nowadays who aren't recognized as consecrated but at the same time aren't quite typically lay in attitude or worldview. Researching canonical definitions and taking part in discernment culture has just seemed to muddy the waters for such persons. So many seem to go their way, usually from a sense of frustration into a pious detachment in which they live often according to a rule of their own devising and without concern for the pat answers of vocations directors or canon law. I've known many such persons and can attest that they have among the richest interior lives I've encountered in my life.

What of such persons? They're largely invisible and also largely indefinable according to standard vocational definitions. I don't think they really mind that much, but should they be?

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 hour ago, Sr Mary Catharine OP said:

But theologically you'd have to do a lot of work to explain this since the CHURCH is the Bride of Christ and that is everyone. From St Paul and from the earliest of the fathers of the Church they speak of the 3 fold relationship of Israel as Bride, the Church as Bride, individual souls relating as bride, etc. I think there is a difference between bridal IMAGERY and spousal relationship. St. JPII's theology of the body places strong emphases on sponsality.

I know you believe strongly in what you are saying so you really should do some serious theological work on this since you do. It may be more a matter of emphasis.

I did get into that in my blog post, actually.

Of course the Church is the bride of Christ in the fullest and truest sense, but since Apostolic times there have always been some women who have embodied this mystery in a more direct and literal way.

E.g., we can recall St. Agnes' story of martyrdom, and how she refused to marry because she was already betrothed to Christ. Since Christians in general aren't required to forsake marriage to a mortal spouse, it would seem that St. Agnes must had some kind of experience of a special (rather than a universal) call to be a bride of Christ in a particularly radical way.

So I think we can indeed still speak of there being such a thing as a special charism to relate to Christ in a primarily spousal way which is given to some women, but not to all the baptized in general. I suppose it would be similar to how we can identify men called to the ministerial priesthood, even while we acknowledge the common priesthood of all the baptized. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by Sponsa-Christi

[Gabriela]

3 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

Sister, this really intimates to me a huge unresolved issue that casts a large shadow on all aspects of "vocations culture." We need to ask what it means to be consecrated, and who should be consecrated. Canon law has since simplified the bewildering variety of consecrated persons, regulars, persons taking particular vows, etc., that we saw in the Middle Ages, but I sometimes wonder if that simplification and legal categorization hasn't squelched a lot of the individual initiative that many seemed to have had in the age of faith.

It seems to me often that there's a group of people nowadays who aren't recognized as consecrated but at the same time aren't quite typically lay in attitude or worldview. Researching canonical definitions and taking part in discernment culture has just seemed to muddy the waters for such persons. So many seem to go their way, usually from a sense of frustration into a pious detachment in which they live often according to a rule of their own devising and without concern for the pat answers of vocations directors or canon law. I've known many such persons and can attest that they have among the richest interior lives I've encountered in my life.

What of such persons? They're largely invisible and also largely indefinable according to standard vocational definitions. I don't think they really mind that much, but should they be?

I agree absolutely, bardegaulois, and this is one of my main reasons for bringing up this issue. If you're a single woman past 30, people are always asking you why you don't marry or become a nun. As if those were the only two vocational options. I'm sure Sponsa must get plenty of that, too. @Sponsa-Christi?

On the other hand, I imagine single men past 30 are constantly asked why they don't get married or become priests. I've never encountered one who told me, "People are always asking me why I don't become a brother." Which is a whole different problem.

[Era Might]

When Dorothy Day was young during WWI she got her first real sense of vocation working in a hospital where there was no time to ponder, just to do your duty and tend to the sick and injured. She would call it the "Sacrament of Duty." I think vocation in many ways can only be discovered in hindsight. Even if you fill a specific office, the vocation is not the office itself, but what the office makes possible for you in your specific circumstances. Francis didn't become poor to be poor, he became poor to find poverty. Juan of the Cross didn't follow the way of Nothing to be nothing, but to find everything. A priest does not serve an abstract flock, he serves Jim and Jane and José. Vocation is made for man, not man for vocation. I think the best icon of vocation is the donkey Christ rode into Jerusalem, who served absoluely no human purpose until the master had need of him. And then, in that single momentary vocation, he became more famous and honored than the high priest.

And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethania, unto the mount called Olivet, he sent two of his disciples, Saying: Go into the town which is over against you, at your entering into which you shall find the colt of an ass tied, on which no man ever hath sitten: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man shall ask you: Why do you loose him? you shall say thus unto him: Because the Lord hath need of his service. And they that were sent, went their way, and found the colt standing, as he had said unto them. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said to them: Why loose you the colt? But they said: Because the Lord hath need of him. And they brought him to Jesus. And casting their garments on the colt, they set Jesus thereon.

Luke 19:29-35

[chrysostom]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

On the other hand, I imagine single men past 30 are constantly asked why they don't get married or become priests. I've never encountered one who told me, "People are always asking me why I don't become a brother." Which is a whole different problem.

It probably doesn't help that brothers are simply less visible and a much rarer sight than a priest in your average parish.

Before I was Catholic one of my few Catholic friends said he wanted to become a hermit.  I just thought it was plain weird at that point, Protestant as I was at the time.  Little did I know or try to understand what that sort of calling truly meant.

I suppose the only place I've heard phrases like "people are always asking me why don't you join X religious community?" is in the very parishes where such religious communities operate.  

[bardegaulois]

40 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I agree absolutely, bardegaulois, and this is one of my main reasons for bringing up this issue. If you're a single woman past 30, people are always asking you why you don't marry or become a nun. As if those were the only two vocational options. I'm sure Sponsa must get plenty of that, too. @Sponsa-Christi?

On the other hand, I imagine single men past 30 are constantly asked why they don't get married or become priests. I've never encountered one who told me, "People are always asking me why I don't become a brother." Which is a whole different problem.

As an unmarried man over 30, I don't get that so much, to be honest. Certainly never the marriage aspect, I should say (I must evidently not be the marrying type); every now and again someone asks me why I'm not a priest, and I always tell them to ask the bishop emeritus. If he didn't tell me why he rejected me as a seminary candidate, then he probably won't tell them either.

The priest-brother dynamic, though, is an interesting one, which I've brought up on this forum before, most recently here : http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/140051-vocation-station-for-men/ . It seems like another matter, like the present issue of vocation in general, that many have been trying to clarify since before the Second Vatican Council, but has reached the present day more obfuscated than it was then for various reasons. It's an interesting dilemma that I've alas seen scarcely little commentary upon--that is, scarcely any that really gets to the crux of the matter.

[Sponsa-Christi]

2 hours ago, Gabriela said:

I agree absolutely, bardegaulois, and this is one of my main reasons for bringing up this issue. If you're a single woman past 30, people are always asking you why you don't marry or become a nun. As if those were the only two vocational options. I'm sure Sponsa must get plenty of that, too. @Sponsa-Christi?

 

I hope this isn't a disappointing answer, but this actually doesn't bother me all that much personally! These days, people tend to guess that I'm "something like a nun" before I even say anything, and most of the time when people ask why I didn't enter a religious community it's out of genuine curiosity (which gives me a good opportunity to explain my vocation in a positive way). 

When I was newly consecrated, it seemed like I got a lot more judge-y or snide remarks for some reason. But I'm not sure if this was just the particular environment I was in at the time, or because I was less mature and felt slights more keenly, or because there is a more widespread understanding of what consecrated virginity is these days. It's probably some combination of all these things!

I do appreciate it when people remember to include consecrated virginity specifically in discussions on consecrated life, but at the same time it really doesn't bother me when non-theologians/non-canonists don't get all the technical terminology right in more causal contexts. (Like, if there are prayers for "vocations to religious life" instead of "consecrated life" in the general intercessions at Mass, I'm not going to get all huffy about "being left out." I'll just know to mentally include consecrated virgins in that general category!  )

[bardegaulois]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I hope this isn't a disappointing answer, but this actually doesn't bother me all that much personally! These days, people tend to guess that I'm "something like a nun" before I even say anything, and most of the time when people ask why I didn't enter a religious community it's out of genuine curiosity (which gives me a good opportunity to explain my vocation in a positive way). 

 

I hope you don't mind my asking, but do people think you're "something like a nun" because you wear a habit or some other particular garb or symbol, or is there something in your attitude or presentation that clues people into the fact that you're following a more supernatural calling?

[Sponsa-Christi]

I do dress much more simply than most people my age (I'm thirty), and I wear a ring and a fairly distinctive looking cross (a Confirmation gift from my parents---it's a cross with a dove sort of carved into it). And I tend to hang out in nun-ish type places (like daily Mass or Pontifical Universities...)  But I think it's more the way I would carry myself and relate to people. If you met me, I think it would be fairly clear early on that I'm not married, that I'm not looking for romance, and that my faith is the center of my life.