"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[Maggyie]

On March 20, 2016 at 11:18:27 PM, Sponsa-Christi said:

I was recently re-reading this article from "First Things," which I'm sharing here, as I think it addresses some of the issues here in a very thoughtful and eloquent way: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/04/dismantling-the-cross 

Sorry the quote thing doesn't seem to work. You point out the article is saying "if we focus too much on the things of this world, even the good things like marriage, things fall apart."

That's my other problem with the article, in that it seriously proposes the church has an overemphasis on celebrating holy marriages. It seems to me that we have a 2,000 year old church and for about 1,950 years the emphasis was on celibacy, even to the point of doing great damage (St Ignatius quote denigrating marriage is a good example. He basically expresses a Gnostic attitude). Right now the emphasis on marriage is a correction for many centuries of faulty theology and bad practice. Is it an over-correction? Again, I don't think so. Something like 90% of God's people are called to marriage and they have been getting 1% of the focus for a couple thousand years (and when they did get attention it was negative attention like St I). It seems this area was ripe for development. 

It is this whole "love is a pie" or "holiness is a pie" attitude. Where if the marriage slice is bigger then the celibate slice MUST be slighted somehow. If more people are called to marriage (and the author would do well to remember it is Almighty God who does the calling and no amount of pro-marriage marketing drives that) there is not some decrease in holiness in the world as compared to if they were single their whole lives. 

[BarbTherese]

2 hours ago, Maggyie said:

If more people are called to marriage (and the author would do well to remember it is Almighty God who does the calling and no amount of pro-marriage marketing drives that) there is not some decrease in holiness in the world as compared to if they were single their whole lives. 

Not too sure at all what you mean by the above.

It is indeed Almighty God who does the calling to the various vocations and it is that same God who bestows the Graces necessary for holiness, no matter the vocation to which He might have called a person.  We finite and fallible humans might view things out of balance and needing correcting here and there and everywhere.  But undoubtedly our Infinite and Infallible God knows what He is doing (Doctrine of God's Will - Direct and Permissive).  The Doctrine of God's Will does not excuse us from "working as if all depended on work and praying as if all depended on prayer"  But it is always God who has the casting vote as it were, whether we permit it and like it - or whether we do not.

Reminds me of a line in The Desiderata "Undoubtedly the universe is unfolding as it should".

I just think it is really sad, very sad, and probably not good witnessing either (this is the internet) when there is so much squabbling over the various vocations and this related subject and that related subject.  All the vocations speak to each other and all are necessary to the fulfillment of God's Plan for His universe...........else they would not exist.

As I said in a previous post somewhere way back.  The intrinsic value, to me, of those works that are publicly Catholic is that The Church is visible and seen to be and this is a very important witness indeed.  However, not all are called to that particular kind of witness............and there goes those two vital words again "called to".  There are many kinds of witnessing and all are important...........else they would not exist.  And in the list of the different types of witnessing, I would include the outstanding witness of Therese of Lisieux in an unknown monastery (as it were) where those twelve or so sisters with whom she lived in isolation (strictly enclosed) for 8 years considered her on her death as a "good Carmelite nun" but nothing outstanding.  Therese went on to be canonized and declared a Doctor of The Church.

Another kind of witness is someone I know.  She is in her mid seventies with so many health problems it is amazing she still lives happily alone and in the main is independent.   Her daily food it seems to me is also great confident trust in God.

I can look upon a particular list of anything in The Church and arrange them from first to last.  However, the moment my own particular call to whatever is taken into account into the list, one's personal call shoots to the top of the list. 

Nothing can be higher nor more important, nor more holy nor more to be valued than The Will of God and The Will of God would be right on top of any objective theological consideration - as it would be right on top of any subjective consideration.  It is The Will of God that does the calling to a particular vocation without which the vocation, any vocation, could not persevere even to holiness.

Edit:  Incidentally, I probably squabble as much and even more than any other person - most often it is (I hope) because my own vocation has been brought in to question somehow, or perhaps brought (negatively) into a discussion somehow.  If so, then I will continue to squabble.

[Sponsa-Christi]

13 hours ago, Maggyie said:

Sorry the quote thing doesn't seem to work. You point out the article is saying "if we focus too much on the things of this world, even the good things like marriage, things fall apart."

I said that if we focus too much on the things of this world, our ecclesiology (rather than "things" in general) falls apart. That is, we risk loosing sight of the fact that the Church exists for a primarily supernatural and eschatological purpose. The Church doesn't have as her central mission the improvement of life in this world (though obviously, it is good when this does wind up happening), but rather the ultimate salvation of mankind in the life of the world to come. We don't know much about what life will be like in heaven at the end of time, but we do know it will be very different from our life in this present age. 

13 hours ago, Maggyie said:

That's my other problem with the article, in that it seriously proposes the church has an overemphasis on celebrating holy marriages. It seems to me that we have a 2,000 year old church and for about 1,950 years the emphasis was on celibacy, even to the point of doing great damage (St Ignatius quote denigrating marriage is a good example. He basically expresses a Gnostic attitude). Right now the emphasis on marriage is a correction for many centuries of faulty theology and bad practice. Is it an over-correction? Again, I don't think so. Something like 90% of God's people are called to marriage and they have been getting 1% of the focus for a couple thousand years (and when they did get attention it was negative attention like St I). It seems this area was ripe for development. 

I would agree that it would be good to develop a more robust theology of the sacrament of matrimony. But what makes us think that the Church was wrong for 1,950 years to emphasize the value of celibacy? To me, this looks like an essentially unbroken Tradition that we ought to take seriously and learn from.

[Maggyie]

12 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Not too sure at all what you mean by the above.

It is indeed Almighty God who does the calling to the various vocations and it is that same God who bestows the Graces necessary for holiness, no matter the vocation to which He might have called a person.  We finite and fallible humans might view things out of balance and needing correcting here and there and everywhere.  But undoubtedly our Infinite and Infallible God knows what He is doing (Doctrine of God's Will - Direct and Permissive).  The Doctrine of God's Will does not excuse us from "working as if all depended on work and praying as if all depended on prayer"  But it is always God who has the casting vote as it were, whether we permit it and like it - or whether we do not.

Reminds me of a line in The Desiderata "Undoubtedly the universe is unfolding as it should".

I just think it is really sad, very sad, and probably not good witnessing either (this is the internet) when there is so much squabbling over the various vocations and this related subject and that related subject.  All the vocations speak to each other and all are necessary to the fulfillment of God's Plan for His universe...........else they would not exist.

As I said in a previous post somewhere way back.  The intrinsic value, to me, of those works that are publicly Catholic is that The Church is visible and seen to be and this is a very important witness indeed.  However, not all are called to that particular kind of witness............and there goes those two vital words again "called to".  There are many kinds of witnessing and all are important...........else they would not exist.  And in the list of the different types of witnessing, I would include the outstanding witness of Therese of Lisieux in an unknown monastery (as it were) where those twelve or so sisters with whom she lived in isolation (strictly enclosed) for 8 years considered her on her death as a "good Carmelite nun" but nothing outstanding.  Therese went on to be canonized and declared a Doctor of The Church.

Another kind of witness is someone I know.  She is in her mid seventies with so many health problems it is amazing she still lives happily alone and in the main is independent.   Her daily food it seems to me is also great confident trust in God.

I can look upon a particular list of anything in The Church and arrange them from first to last.  However, the moment my own particular call to whatever is taken into account into the list, one's personal call shoots to the top of the list. 

Nothing can be higher nor more important, nor more holy nor more to be valued than The Will of God and The Will of God would be right on top of any objective theological consideration - as it would be right on top of any subjective consideration.  It is The Will of God that does the calling to a particular vocation without which the vocation, any vocation, could not persevere even to holiness.

Edit:  Incidentally, I probably squabble as much and even more than any other person - most often it is (I hope) because my own vocation has been brought in to question somehow, or perhaps brought (negatively) into a discussion somehow.  If so, then I will continue to squabble.

What I mean is that the article claims we are over emphasizing marriage, to the detriment of celibate vocations. In other words we have too much positive "marketing" about marriage, we need to change back to promoting just celibate vocations instead. 

My point is that the current emphasis on marriage is not to the detriment of celibate vocations at all. God is the one who calls to marriage, so it's not possible that we are "forcing His hand" or somehow robbing him of celibate vocations. He knows what He is doing!

the reason for the fall in celibate vocations is complex but the biggest cause is simply a shrinking pool of practicing Catholics. Celibate vocations can only come from this pool which grows smaller constantly. In the Western world where about 25% of Catholics bother to attend Mass, there will be a huge collapse in vocations of all kinds. Most dioceses are seeing a plummeting in marriages as well. 

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I said that if we focus too much on the things of this world, our ecclesiology (rather than "things" in general) falls apart. That is, we risk loosing sight of the fact that the Church exists for a primarily supernatural and eschatological purpose. The Church doesn't have as her central mission the improvement of life in this world (though obviously, it is good when this does wind up happening), but rather the ultimate salvation of mankind in the life of the world to come. We don't know much about what life will be like in heaven at the end of time, but we do know it will be very different from our life in this present age. 

I would agree that it would be good to develop a more robust theology of the sacrament of matrimony. But what makes us think that the Church was wrong for 1,950 years to emphasize the value of celibacy? To me, this looks like an essentially unbroken Tradition that we ought to take seriously and learn from.

It is exactly to save souls that the Church needs to have a healthy balance. A true celibate vocation is relatively rare; the People of God overwhelmingly experience God's call through marriage. There is a vast hole in the Church's treasury when it comes to helping people carefully discern and persevere in holy marriages. For most people, it consists of a single day of doing worksheets and speed presentations by other married couples. And then if you are on the brink of divorce there is retrouvaille.

Meanwhile we have a massive amount in the treasury for the guidance and formation of celibate vocations. The Vocations Director in any diocese only works on celibate vocations, in spite of his/her title. 

This is why Vatican II's rediscovery of the universal call to holiness (and the laity in general) was such an earthquake; for millennia the church poured resources into building up the spiritual elites, under the correct belief that objectively they have the higher vocation. "Objectively" is the key word; a useful concept in discussing this from a technical view. Of course not one soul actually exists in this sterile "objective" framework. Every single person who has ever lived experiences salvation (and God's call) subjectively. 

In reality the church does not exist for the sake of having celibate vocations, it exists to save souls! And the huge ocean of souls to be saved will be won or lost to damnation in marriage. No amount of "talking up" religious life will change that. In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake. 

I just can't get over the author who thinks widows should hie themselves off to the monastery or else remain in solemn, dignified singleness, probably wearing weeds. Or refers to the sacrament of marriage as "a treadmill." You mean like the sacrament of penance is a treadmill...

She doesn't seem aware of the many horrifying social reasons widows often chose religious life in the past. Feminism is a thing that never happened to her. I could go on but I won't. 

[BarbTherese]

Well stated, Maggie! Props and Props and more Props - if I only could.  Thank you for clarifying re my post - I did think that I was misreading, which is why I did not comment further than "Not too sure what you mean by the above".

Some statements in your post did leap out at me.  I would very much like to return and comment but I have a day to put in and time grows short and mea maxima culpa for sure; meanwhile............. well said, Maggie!............Barb  

[Sponsa-Christi]

5 hours ago, Maggyie said:

In reality the church does not exist for the sake of having celibate vocations, it exists to save souls! And the huge ocean of souls to be saved will be won or lost to damnation in marriage. No amount of "talking up" religious life will change that. In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake. 

In one sense, though, the Church does exist for celibate vocations---i.e., the Church exists so that we can be reborn ultimately to a new life in heaven, where "there is no marrying or giving in marriage." All of us are called to this eventual angelic, heavenly celibacy. The reason why the consecrated life (and FYI @BarbaraTherese, in theological discussions like this I do consider private vows to be a form of consecrated life) is so valuable is that it's an anticipation of the life we are all called to.

I think being clear on this aspect of Church teaching can help foster holy marriages, because it keeps the ultimate purpose of marriage in mind. That is, marriage is meant as a transitory state to prepare us for union with God in heaven (and for the creation of new souls who are also destined for heaven), rather than the good of marriage being an end in itself. 

Of course, the Church has never said that it's a sin for a widow to remarry, but I don't think the idea of encouraging widows to embrace a life of evangelical celibacy is really all that crazy. It's something that numerous Fathers and Doctors of the Church (including St. Francis de Sales, who was a great champion of the idea that the laity are indeed called to a life of holiness) have supported, so there's a strong argument from tradition. Also, to me it makes perfect intuitive sense that widowhood could be the occasion of focusing on a more intimate, exclusive relationship with the Lord. 

I would agree that on a pastoral level, it is probably better for the Church to spend quantitatively more time and resources on preparing people for marriage, since most Catholics will be married. However, I don't think you can draw a true parallel with formation in a religious institute and formation for marriage. Marriage is a natural vocation to which our human nature is already ordered, so it doesn't require the discernment of a rare, special divine call. Also, as such, people have a fundamental natural human right to be married---and because this right exists, I'm a bit wary of supporting the idea of really time-consuming marriage preparation programs. Though that's probably a topic for another thread.

[BarbTherese]

23 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

and FYI @BarbaraTherese, in theological discussions like this I do consider private vows to be a form of consecrated life)

Taking a break and got three quarters of what I HAD to do in double quick time - always did have the knack of working better under pressure.  Deo Gratius.

I do wonder, Sponsa, what the qualification of "in theological discussion like this" means.  Does it mean that there are some discussions where you do not consider private vows to be a form of consecrated life?  Of course, I do realize (as all Catholics ideally should) that private vows are not included in "consecrated life" in Canon Law at this point - and in Canon Law (I think you might be a canon lawyer - forgive me for the "I think" - memory lousy rather often) only religious life, consecrated virgins, eremitical life under Canon 603 and secular insitutes make "public vows" (theological term I think with its own definition(s) and (I think, again) before a bishop.  Private vows (defined in Canon Law but not included in consecrated life in Canon Law) are not public vows, even if the private vows should be made during/before/after a Mass and/or before a priest or bishop.  The person who makes private vows of any kind including poverty, chastity and obedience, remains in every way a member of the  laity with it's secular character.

Back to work.............

[BarbTherese]

11 hours ago, Maggyie said:

What I mean is that the article claims we are over emphasizing marriage, to the detriment of celibate vocations. In other words we have too much positive "marketing" about marriage, we need to change back to promoting just celibate vocations instead. 

1 - My point is that the current emphasis on marriage is not to the detriment of celibate vocations at all. God is the one who calls to marriage, so it's not possible that we are "forcing His hand" or somehow robbing him of celibate vocations. He knows what He is doing!

2-the reason for the fall in celibate vocations is complex but the biggest cause is simply a shrinking pool of practicing Catholics. Celibate vocations can only come from this pool which grows smaller constantly. In the Western world where about 25% of Catholics bother to attend Mass, there will be a huge collapse in vocations of all kinds. Most dioceses are seeing a plummeting in marriages as well. 

3 -It is exactly to save souls that the Church needs to have a healthy balance. A true celibate vocation is relatively rare; the People of God overwhelmingly experience God's call through marriage. There is a vast hole in the Church's treasury when it comes to helping people carefully discern and persevere in holy marriages. For most people, it consists of a single day of doing worksheets and speed presentations by other married couples. And then if you are on the brink of divorce there is retrouvaille.

Meanwhile we have a massive amount in the treasury for the guidance and formation of celibate vocations. The Vocations Director in any diocese only works on celibate vocations, in spite of his/her title. 

4 - This is why Vatican II's rediscovery of the universal call to holiness (and the laity in general) was such an earthquake; for millennia the church poured resources into building up the spiritual elites, under the correct belief that objectively they have the higher vocation. "Objectively" is the key word; a useful concept in discussing this from a technical view. Of course not one soul actually exists in this sterile "objective" framework. Every single person who has ever lived experiences salvation (and God's call) subjectively. 

5 - In reality the church does not exist for the sake of having celibate vocations, it exists to save souls! And the huge ocean of souls to be saved will be won or lost to damnation in marriage. No amount of "talking up" religious life will change that. In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake. 

6 - I just can't get over the author who thinks widows should hie themselves off to the monastery or else remain in solemn, dignified singleness, probably wearing weeds. Or refers to the sacrament of marriage as "a treadmill." You mean like the sacrament of penance is a treadmill...

She doesn't seem aware of the many horrifying social reasons widows often chose religious life in the past. Feminism is a thing that never happened to her. I could go on but I won't. 

I have taken the liberty of numbering those paragraphs above to which I would like to respond.

1 - Absolutely!  It is impossible to rob God in any way shape or form - as the Doctrine of The Will of God highlights and underscores - and it is a defined doctrine of The Church.

2 - Obviously with the fall off in attendance at Mass and The Sacraments there is going to be a fall off in all sound and holy vocations - it is only logical. The foundational problem is thus obvious and this is where focus is needed.  Why are so few Catholics attending Mass and The Sacraments? Having answered that question accurately -  What can be done about the problem?  To me it seems like a failure in adult Catholic education.  One reason for this might be that almost everything in The Church is so jolly expensive.  It is relative I know - but $50, for example, is easy for one person, very difficult even impossible for the next.  And as long as that situation perseveres, it seems to me it is obvious what has happened and will happen.  The Church of the poor?

3 - Marriage is a very important vocation and aside from what Vatican 2 had to state on the subject of the laity, which of course embraces marriage, the vocation of marriage itself would not exist and as a Sacrament unless it was very important to the life of The Church (and hence to the salvation of souls).  Undoubtedly, marriage is the natural state for most human beings, but we are a broken humanity (original sin) and I think that The Church heirarchy in failing to offer comprehensive preparations for marriage is 'shooting itself in the foot'.  If a marriage is failing and in difficulty, then equally there needs to be a focus on marriage counselling for those in trouble.  Insofar as most diocesan offices are concerned, we had the problem pre V2 that marriage had no importance at all almost............and all that has happened post V2 is that the 'pole (situation) as at pre V2' has simply been painted a different colour to appear changed - the old pole has not been removed and a completely different one installed. I hope that makes sense. Diocesan offices, it seems to me, still have their vocational focus on the priesthood and religious life and/or public vows in The Church according to Canon Law.  By implication, this does put any other vocation as not really so important to The Church.

4 - The interesting thing to me about musings on the objective and subjective considerations of the various vocations, is that The Will of God would be top of the list for both categories.  Re vocations: Objectively theologically - to follow The Will of God is the highest of all vocations.  Subjectively theologically - to follow The Will of God. 

5 - "In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake."  Right! The Church heirarchy keeps shooting itself in the foot.  Had an interesting conversation with my pp after Confession one day and it was he that summarised our conversation as The Church shooting Herself in the foot - I thought to myself "That is the term for which I have been searching"

6 - "I just can't get over the author who thinks widows should hie themselves off to the monastery or else remain in solemn, dignified singleness, probably wearing weeds.."  That statement gave me a big smile.  I am not a widow but a lay person living single and celibate.  I am not at all solemn, have problems with dignified rather regularly - and problems too with the wearing of (sad-sack and dowdy) weeds...........can't fit into that mould either (the 'nun-mould' in religious life had rejected me.......twice! (although I did leave both times at my own request before 'the mould' could actually strangle me completely.   No vocation to religious life for sure).

The Sacrament of Penance is a treadmill for me for sure - but I do tread that particular mill every so often.  Shake and sweat in psychic conflict beforehand...........so much at Peace and Happy, Joyful and rested after.........and every time over my journey to date.  Until Rome stopped it, our Archbishop authorized the diocese to have the Third and Second Rite of The Sacrament of Reconciliation.  When we did have it, it was a community celebration with opportunities for (in the Second Rite) to go to individual confession (First Rite) and people actually did go.  Over the past thirty years or more, I have never seen more than two people at a time to Confession - and that would be very rare.  The Church hierarchy has shot itself in the foot again. The very sad thing is that in the heirarchy shooting itself in the foot anywhere at all, it adversely affects the whole Universal Church.  One parish I had shifted into briefly during my 20 year tour of duty with serious mental illness, it ran like this:

"Father, what times are Confession, please?"

"Young lady, I do not have sinners in MY parish!"

"Sorry Father, but you sure have one now".

[BarbTherese]

I see I got it right, Sponsa....I hope.  Looked up your blog (more time on my hands) and I see that you are a JCL, although your blog mentions that you started studying for it in 2011 and I am taking it that your studies are now complete:

I graduated with a bachelors’ degree in Philosophy from Seton Hall University in New Jersey in 2008. In 2010, I completed a Master of Arts in Theology at Ave Maria University in Florida. 

After serving for a year as a parish Director of Religious Education in New York state, in 2011 I began studying for a licentiate degree in Canon Law (J.C.L.) at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, Italy.

[BarbTherese]

Just a comment on what @Maggyiestated " In treating marriage as a weakness to be tolerated or simply as a breeding field from which the better celibate vocations could be reaped, the church made a serious tactical mistake."   What you stated is very true and the phrase "simply as" is key and operative.  Undoubtedly from sound Catholic marriages, we The Church, will have a possibly better opportunity for sound and holy celibate vocations.  But with "simply as"operative, sound and holy celibate vocations are not the only reason for making real efforts to foster good Catholic marriages.  As stated previously, the reason the Sacrament of Marriage exists is because it is essential to the life of The Church and therefore to the salvation of souls and the praise and adoration of God.  God brings all vocations into existence because they are vital to the life of The Church and the Mission of The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ (as defined by St Paul). The Church hierarchy has indeed shot itself in the foot again, and thus all of us in the whole Universal Church with them, by not giving great importance right across every board to marriage in the day to day diocesan Church administrative functions as it were - and undoubtedly a "serious tactical mistake".

No one vocation, to my mind, is any more important or vital than another in God's Plan.............while all the vocations have different necessary functions, including ministries or apostolates and with witnessing in various ways.   I have been reading something on The Church's social justice statements.  Things are going amiss in our world because it is God's world and we are not treating it as such in the main (in a nutshell).  And if things are going amiss in The Church and it is God's Church - perhaps we have the same or similar problem(s).

_________________

Apologies Maggyie - finally got the @Maggyie to work and realised I had been spelling your name wrong.

[BarbTherese]

8 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Also, to me it makes perfect intuitive sense that widowhood could be the occasion of focusing on a more intimate, exclusive relationship with the Lord. 

I do not think for one moment that it is only in the celibate state, religious life - whatever - that one might be able to focus more on a more intimate and exclusive relationship with The Lord. In what you state above "could be" is key and operative.   Religious life is the state of perfection and if lived ideally is the way of perfection.  Celibate persons may have more opportunity and time for prayer, study and reflection.  But I do think that many outside of religious life or the consecrated state as in Canon Law are indeed in a state of and on the way of perfection and some totally without realizing it....I do know some very holy married people (especially in my previous suburb) who would not have any idea at all, not a clue, about what I am stating.  They probably would have no interest in it at all.

 

 There are many ways of living out poverty, chastity and obedience and of living in community.

It is not so much what one is doing, as why one is doing whatever one might be doing.

I do not dispute at all that the celibate vocations/state in life can offer a witness to the fact that all will be celibate in Heaven. It also seems to me that if one is called to a celibate vocation or state in life, then to consider oneself as witnessing to Heaven in some way is a very - very-  tall order indeed.  And if God does grant that Grace, then there are responsibilities AND accountabilities coming with that Grace automatically.  

Luke Chapter 12

And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. [48] But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more

I recall my dear departed SD/Confessor replying to me when I asked:

"Father, what IS contemplation?"

"I can tell you this, girl, it is not gazing at one's navel"

Reading something earlier tonight - (in a nutshell again) that one is shaken almost (not the word I am looking for however) out of oneself and drawn into an almost riveting focus on the other.

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

11 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I do wonder, Sponsa, what the qualification of "in theological discussion like this" means.  Does it mean that there are some discussions where you do not consider private vows to be a form of consecrated life?  Of course, I do realize (as all Catholics ideally should) that private vows are not included in "consecrated life" in Canon Law at this point - and in Canon Law (I think you might be a canon lawyer - forgive me for the "I think" - memory lousy rather often) only religious life, consecrated virgins, eremitical life under Canon 603 and secular insitutes make "public vows" (theological term I think with its own definition(s) and (I think, again) before a bishop.  Private vows (defined in Canon Law but not included in consecrated life in Canon Law) are not public vows, even if the private vows should be made during/before/after a Mass and/or before a priest or bishop.  The person who makes private vows of any kind including poverty, chastity and obedience, remains in every way a member of the  laity with it's secular character.

Yes, I was making a distinction between canon law and theology. From the point of view of canon law, private vows are not consecrated life. 

But if we're speaking in terms of theology (which we are here), there are many aspects of the theology of consecrated life which could also apply to a private vow of celibacy. E.g., if we're talking about evangelical celibacy as an anticipation of life in heaven, then a private vow of celibacy could very easily fall under this category. 

[iamnormal]

And on the other hand, the kingdom is described as a marriage banquet.  So if there were no marriage, we wouldn't know anything about the kingdom according to some of the logic used here and ecclesiology would fall apart.  Some people take themselves too seriously!  It would be just as easy to say the Church exists for marriage, or the Church exists for the poor, or the Church exists for the person.  The Church doesn't exist for celibacy in the way that is being discussed here.  Just because we claim to be theologians doesn't mean we can't have an imagination or think creatively with God.  I think it is comical that the kingdom is described in terms of marriage, that Jesus' relationship with the Church is described in terms of marriage, yet many will persist in the kind of reasoning displayed here.  Sure, the value of marriage is relative to the kingdom, but that doesn't mean that, as marriage, it doesn't anticipate the kingdom in any way or reveal something about the kingdom that celibacy is incapable of revealing.  To take the majority of Christians and tell them they are to live lifelong and faithful and sacramental marriages but that these marriages to which they have devoted much energy do not anticipate the kingdom is unjust.  To say that marriage and celibacy are complementary and that one has ultimate value and while the other has only passing value is just strange.  Celibacy, since it is defined as the absence of something, doesn't make sense in any other context but a temporal one.  So, Jesus says we won't be given in marriage...he didn't say we would be celibate in the worldly manner understood in this thread.  I repeat my earlier thought, the focus on one's sexual status borders on paganism.  To think of the kingdom only in terms of whether one is sexually active or not is a problem, and perhaps a serious one. It presents a reductionistic view of Christianity which if pressed too far is inaccurate.

Edited March 23, 2016 by iamnormal

[BarbTherese]

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

 I think it is comical that the kingdom is described in terms of marriage, that Jesus' relationship with the Church is described in terms of marriage, yet many will persist in the kind of reasoning displayed here.

I think that marriage is indeed the right word - meaning the two become one.........unity.

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

 Sure, the value of marriage is relative to the kingdom, but that doesn't mean that, as marriage, it doesn't anticipate the kingdom in any way or reveal something about the kingdom that celibacy is incapable of revealing.

I agree.  Marriage can indeed prefigure the fullness of life on earth and in Heaven.  Marriage is where two people become one, they are united and this unity can bring about new life.  This prefigures life on earth in that ideally, while on earth we strive for Unity with God, His Will and thus, indeed, become redemptive bringing about new life.   In Heaven, all that striving will be fulfilled and the human will be glorified (new life).

I have even read where marriage reflects the communion and union of The Blessed Trinity.  What indeed could be more Heavenly or of and about Heaven.   USCCB - Unitd States Conference of Catholic Bishops "Marriage"

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

 To take the majority of Christians and tell them they are to live lifelong and faithful and sacramental marriages but that these marriages to which they have devoted much energy do not anticipate the kingdom is unjust.

I agree.  It is not only unjust to me, but unrealistic - perhaps only those who have indeed been (or are) married can really grasp just how unrealistic it is.  If I consider those qualities that would have brought about The Incarnation and those qualities necessary to live out the devotion and energy, self sacrificing, required to make a good marriage............I can see a very clear witness to The Third Person of The Blessed Trinity becoming human (The Incarnation). 

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

 Celibacy, since it is defined as the absence of something,

Celibacy has a negative AND a positive aspect at once - in its fulness.  Celibacy for the sake of The Kingdom defined only as the absence of something is not the fullness of the definition (it is only half understood and possibly therefore only half lived out also) and not at all the fullness of how celibacy for The Kingdom is lived out on earth. Celibacy as only the absence of something in no way to my mind prefigures the fulness of life on earth - nor that of Heaven.

6 hours ago, iamnormal said:

To think of the kingdom only in terms of whether one is sexually active or not is a problem

I think there might be a problem of me not understanding of how you define "The Kingdom"?  If we do not share a common definition, then any comment becomes talking at cross purposes.

7 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

ut if we're speaking in terms of theology (which we are here), there are many aspects of the theology of consecrated life which could also apply to a private vow of celibacy. E.g., if we're talking about evangelical celibacy as an anticipation of life in heaven, then a private vow of celibacy could very easily fall under this category.

Thanks, @SponsaChristi - I am aware of your first sentence above.  As to my particular witness, it is certainly not (to my mind and understanding - call and Grace granted, to my knowledge) an "anticipation of life in Heaven". My life and living is very much all about a life and living on earth for the sake of The Kingdom. And to think of others thinking of my life as being about life in Heaven, just brings a shake of my head and a big smile indeed. Hopefully a witness to an ordinary life lived well here on earth is the best I can come up with in my particular instance - lived extraordinary well would be my ideal.  I very much doubt absolutely that even the ordinary everyday practicing Catholic thinks of those living out celibate vocations in a quite public sort of manner for example as witnessing to them in some way of life in Heaven, of things to come - i.e. an eschatological witness (most would not understand the word at all and probably not want to know either).  There certainly is (and always is) where theologians make all their various and sometimes quite convoluted definitions/understandings, which in the real world (if I may put it that way) mean nothing at all to the ordinary devout and practicing Catholic.......generally speaking.  I do not mean to state that theology has nothing to do with the real world.

The very real problem can be (especially nowadays with the internet) that theologians and their definitions are completely misunderstood by the ordinary and everyday devout and practicing Catholic.  There is, of course, a very real place and high value for theology and theologians................but there is a 'dark side' too to their (needed) scholarship and definitions which are problematic.  I am just one of the very ordinary and everyday sort of Catholic person who aims to be devout and certainly practicing.  Hence, it is ok for me to research, ponder and speak - I have the time to do so.  Having been married with two children (now independent adults), I well know the time factor problem when marital duties and needs are calling and pressing - and very rightly given first place.  I know too the experience of given some space intending to have some relaxation and precious time to focus on my own needs and desires of simply falling asleep from exhaustion.  There was never any resentment in it.  It was simply part and parcel of loving and caring for my family.

____________

Wondering too where "Catholic Jobs" v secular jobs might be.

 

[BarbTherese]

To me, strictly enclosed contemplative nuns do give a "seen to be" witness to the life of Heaven.  Everything about their way of life is (ideally) ordered to the praise and adoration, thanksgiving, to God.  They are invested prayerfully in the hopes and dreams of earth (almost?) as much as those in Heaven. Having been in monastic life and coming out again and disillusioned, I began to wonder how I could translate their (ideal) way of life into my own very secular and quite ordinary life and one I was becoming increasingly convinced I was indeed called to by a very clear vocational call.  With a bit of creative imagination and conducive reading, adjustments creatively here and there, I was convinced it could be done - as of course it can.  By that time I had read the autobiography of St Therese of Lisieux (few times) as well as "Introduction toThe Devout Life" St Francis de Sales (a few times again) and my latest reading matter of real interest then (as well as now still) was "Abandonment to Divine Providence" (Jean Pierre de Caussade).  I began to try and marry (unite) them with each other.  To attempt to find out where they were all saying precisely the same thing, only saying it differently.  And this they indeed do as do most all the writings of The Church and the saints.

Paramount in my quest for "it can be done", was a quite short sentence from St Therese of Lisieux, a sentence which did not hit home on the first or perhaps even the second read - that in the morning she would make resolutions about the coming day only to find at night that she had broken her resolutions.  Eventually that resonated with me - it sounded almost just like me in fact.  I could be the broken often falling, even failed, creature that I very much am and still persevere with great trust and confidence and in the footsteps of St Therese who walked in the footsteps of Jesus (abandoned to Love).   I certainly do need without question the treadmill of The Sacrament of Reconciliation - a treadmill for me that is.   I used to say to myself "If Hell is paved with good intentions, then I am home and hosed for sure"........but then here was St Therese making that astounding statement about daily broken resolutions that cancelled out my perceived "Hell is paved" (non theological, non anything) factor.  Around about that time or so, I was invited to Carmel to hear an expert on St Therese, a priest and theologian, give a talk on her life and theology.  Here was a priest and theologian of quite considerable expertise who was really my cuppa tea!  All his theological genius was translated into words that any fool could understand (meaning me). He delighted me. 

Therein, to me, is the challenge too and essence of real genius - to be able to communicate that genius so any fool could understand and that embraces me for sure.  Obviously, if a run of the mill type of good Catholic (hopefully) can understand what is being stated, it is absolutely no problem to even a highly educated Catholic one would hope - that seems logical to me.  While rather often the highly educated type Catholic can leave those of far lesser and even the least of education right out in the cold - those who nevertheless are quite devout and dedicated Catholics interested in all things Catholic, committed totally to their particular vocation and call in life.

All the vocations and calls from God are indeed linked and speak to each other.  It just takes at times a bit of creative imagination.

All is Grace.

Edited March 24, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

9 hours ago, iamnormal said:

doesn't mean we can't have an imagination or think creatively with God.

  Thomas Merton wrote along the lines of that the imagination needs to be liberated.........and (he stated) along the lines of:  "I do not mean drawing airy fairy holy pictures either".  I liked that.  This is not to state that creative type art does not have an important place in liberating one's imagination.  I think the aforementioned comes from Merton's work "Contemplation in a World of Action"  What can be more liberating than to prayerfully attempt to think with creative imagination with God 'writing the lines'.  This was the genius of St Therese of Lisieux.

Thomas Merton once he started to go off the beaten track into Buddhism and Third World type of stuff is certainly questionable in some if not many aspects - but not entirely,  Don't chuck out baby with the bathwater.

_________________The Church ideally is always at once The Church of the celibate, the married, the poor and the rich, the educated and uneducated, the disabled, the criminal, the sinner etc. etc.  "All things to all men"

Edited March 24, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

10 hours ago, iamnormal said:

have an imagination or think creatively with God

Thank you for the above expression and sentence.  I will probably rather often quote you and in inverted commas, although I might forget whom I am quoting but will try to remember.,,,,,,,,,,,although iamnormal is probably quite difficult for me to forget.  

Ok, bit of thought and now quote and author in my bookmarks and hence 'memory'.  I can't get anything but Google Chrome to work on Phatmass and GC is still a mystery to me but learning I hope as I go along.

[Maggyie]

On March 23, 2016 at 12:04:24 AM, Sponsa-Christi said:

In one sense, though, the Church does exist for celibate vocations---i.e., the Church exists so that we can be reborn ultimately to a new life in heaven, where "there is no marrying or giving in marriage." All of us are called to this eventual angelic, heavenly celibacy. The reason why the consecrated life (and FYI @BarbaraTherese, in theological discussions like this I do consider private vows to be a form of consecrated life) is so valuable is that it's an anticipation of the life we are all called to.

I think being clear on this aspect of Church teaching can help foster holy marriages, because it keeps the ultimate purpose of marriage in mind. That is, marriage is meant as a transitory state to prepare us for union with God in heaven (and for the creation of new souls who are also destined for heaven), rather than the good of marriage being an end in itself. 

Of course, the Church has never said that it's a sin for a widow to remarry, but I don't think the idea of encouraging widows to embrace a life of evangelical celibacy is really all that crazy. It's something that numerous Fathers and Doctors of the Church (including St. Francis de Sales, who was a great champion of the idea that the laity are indeed called to a life of holiness) have supported, so there's a strong argument from tradition. Also, to me it makes perfect intuitive sense that widowhood could be the occasion of focusing on a more intimate, exclusive relationship with the Lord. 

I would agree that on a pastoral level, it is probably better for the Church to spend quantitatively more time and resources on preparing people for marriage, since most Catholics will be married. However, I don't think you can draw a true parallel with formation in a religious institute and formation for marriage. Marriage is a natural vocation to which our human nature is already ordered, so it doesn't require the discernment of a rare, special divine call. Also, as such, people have a fundamental natural human right to be married---and because this right exists, I'm a bit wary of supporting the idea of really time-consuming marriage preparation programs. Though that's probably a topic for another thread.

But it's not true at all that the Church exists for celibate vocations. In heaven there is no marriage and therefore there can't be celibacy either. In heaven we will be "like the Angels" but Angels are not celibate. They don't marry OR refrain from marriage; they don't have sex OR refrain from sex. they are beyond sexual categories. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

I don't think it's right, though, to define celibacy (at least in the sense of the freely-chosen evangelical celibacy that we're talking about here) as the mere absence of marriage. Evangelical celibacy is a positive choice to offer oneself to God in an exclusive way. Consecrated persons are choosing celibacy precisely because they want to embrace the "angelic" state that the blessed in heaven are in. 

From apostolic times on, it's been a consistent teaching of the Church that evangelical celibacy is a way of striving to embrace this heavenly state in this present age on earth.

As a "sound bite" for a reference to this (though there are many more possible references, since this topic is addressed in nearly every document the Church has ever written on consecrated life), here is a portion from the Church's Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity:

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.

Human marriage is a mere foreshadowing of something greater, and this "something greater" is what the consecrated are setting out specifically to attain. 

[beatitude]

4 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Consecrated persons are choosing celibacy precisely because they want to embrace the "angelic" state that the blessed in heaven are in.

This isn't true for me. When I decided to live this life, I didn't think about my state, angelic or otherwise. I was like a child clambering onto an extremely high zip wire whose finishing point was hidden from sight a terrifying distance below, and my attitude was (and still is!) one part nerves and nine parts sheer joy and excitement. "I don't know where we're going, but You do, so I'll just hang onto this thing and enjoy the ride."

My spirituality is quite down to earth (perhaps why I feel drawn so strongly to Jesus at Nazareth, where he was known only as the carpenter's boy) and when I accepted celibacy for myself, I did so because I felt in my heart that this was how I could love best and know God most closely. Big philosophical considerations didn't come into it. I can only speak for myself on this; I expect for others it's different. But this is one reason why I don't find it helpful to take apart my vocation in search of the component that makes it 'special'; to me it's enough that God asked this of me. Any other questions are redundant.