MEN!

[jmjtina]

My cousin just got married for the first time. (my mom's cousin)

she's 50. I think society does alot of the pressure. We are "supposed" to be married, with 4 kids, by the time we are 30. Society doesn't look nicely on you either if your older and you get married. You know how many jokes my cousin took for getting married at her age?

I don't think the problem is us, it's just getting harder and harder to find a good, holy spouse.

I love Mary Beth Bonacci, here's a great article I fully agree with.


[quote][b][u]Is the Single Life a Vocation? by Mary Beth Bonacci [/u][/b]

Well, the first National Catholic Singles Conference was a smashing success.
Nearly 400 people attended, from 30 states. As a single Catholic, there’s nothing quite like the experience of standing in a room with 400 other single Catholics – 400 other people who have experienced what you’ve experienced, 400 people who have also felt like the only single Catholic in the world.
It was awesome.

I’m not the only person who enjoyed the conference. I’ve been getting amazing feedback. It seems that wherever I go in the country now, I run into someone who was there, or who knows someone who was there – someone who was profoundly moved by the experience.

I’m finding it interesting that, literally every time someone talks to me about their experience at the conference, they mention one particular part of the talk I gave there – the part where I spoke about “vocation.”

Specifically, I asked the question, “Is the unconsecrated single life a ‘vocation,’ in the sense that the Church understands vocation?”

It’s a danged good question, if I do say so myself.

We are, of course, all accustomed to feeling invisible within the Catholic parish. But, recently, I’ve noticed a trend emerging. People within the parish who used to talk about the two vocations, marriage and religious life, are now adding a third, the “vocation” to the single life.

I’m grateful that they’re acknowledging us, but from the first time I heard it, something rubbed me wrong about the concept of a single “vocation.”
Reading the Holy Father’s letter on women, Mulieris Dignitatem, reinforced my suspicions. In that document, John Paul II says that God calls all women to give themselves in one of two ways – in motherhood or in consecration to Christ.

No mention of singleness in there.

In fact, I find no mention of an unconsecrated single “vocation” in Church teaching anywhere. As far as the Church is concerned, it doesn’t exist.
Here is the problem: “vocation,” in the sense the Church understands it, means “to give oneself completely.” The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes says that man finds himself only through a sincere gift of himself. John Paul II, in Mulieris Dignitatem, speaks of the “spousal disposition of women.” We – women and men -- were made to give ourselves, in love, to others. That’s where we find happiness. 

Don’t singles give? Of course we do – often more than most. But vocation doesn’t mean “being a generous person.” It means giving our lives completely to another – either to a spouse in marriage or to God in consecrated virginity. And singleness doesn’t do that. In fact, the single state is defined by the lack of that gift.  We are unattached, un-given.

I wrote a newspaper column about this several months ago. The response was predictable. I received several indignant letters, all from married people who were saying “How dare you make these poor single people feel excluded?” The letters from single people, however, were unanimous. “Thank you for reaffirming what I suspected. This isn’t a vocation. Something is missing.”

So what about us? Why are we in this state? Did God forget about us? Are our lives somehow less worthy because we’re not settled into a vocation?
Most definitely not.

I believe that God has called each and every one of us to either marriage or to consecrated religious life. Unfortunately, the state of the world today has made it very difficult to fulfill that call – especially for those of us who believe we are called to marriage.  Marriage requires a partner. And good, holy, committed partners who share our faith are hard to find these days.

Is that God’s will? Not exactly. It isn’t His will that people are rejecting Him, turning away from His truths. But He allows it. He gave us free will, after all. Each one of us is free to follow Him or to reject Him. These days, a whole lot of people are rejecting Him. That’s called sin, and it has consequences.

One of the consequences of sin in the world is that people who are called to marriage are having a harder time finding suitable partners. The pool is poisoned. 
So where does that leave us? Are we the “sad sacks” who were left behind? Are our lives meaningless? Are we destined for unhappiness?
Goodness, no!

God writes straight with crooked lines. He meets us where we are. When we turn our lives over to Him, he creates something beautiful – beyond our wildest expectations.
That beautiful life will be different for every unique person God touches. But a few threads run consistently.

Singleness gives us an opportunity to turn to God in a profoundly personal way. With no other partner, He becomes partner. And when we turn to Him with that request, He answers.

As singles, we’re more aware that real fulfillment comes from giving. The absence of built-in gift in our lives motivates us to move outside of ourselves and to reach out in love to those around us.

And, for some, singleness gives us the opportunity to stand in a room with 400 other single Catholics, and to begin to live out our single lives together.  [/quote]

[url="http://www.reallove.net/index2.asp?CID=1"]http://www.reallove.net/index2.asp?CID=1[/url]

[MissScripture]

I do think there is too much pressure to not be single in society today, without becoming a priest or a nun. And by that I mean pressure to date/marry someone merely so you aren't single.
I was talking to the [b]Faith Formation Coordinator[/b] at my school. She told me she was convinced that I was going to become a nun. I said I had thought about it, but I really wanted to have kids. She told me, "Well, you need a boyfriend first!"
[b]I AM 17 YEARS OLD!! [/b]Its not like I could get married right now anyway!

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 20 2005, 04:14 PM'] And what if someone, through no fault of his own, dies "single" in middle or old age? Would you say he has "rejected his vocation?"

At what point must one "choose" a vocation (ie. "I'm too old to get married - better get to the seminary)?

Is the "intention not to stay single" the important thing?

How much effort must one put into finding a spouse? If he isn't married, does this
mean he "hasn't tried hard enough"?

Is one who dies single after much difficult and unsuccessful struggling to find a spouse necessarily more virtuous than one who dies "happily single"?

And what about those who rush into bad marriages to avoid "staying single"?


See the problems? [/quote]
There will always be extremists (i.e. rushing into bad marriages).

You keep pointing out "problems" but you still won't answer my question... what do single people do that married and religious can't?

[iggy]

Yeah, I just turned 20 and have never had a boyfriend. My mom, a cousin and I were eating lunch, when talk turned to my lack of boyfriend. My mom tells my cousin I am seriously considering entering into the religious life! I am like: where did THIS come from? Just because I have had fewer boyfriends than my 15 year old sister does not mean I cannot be called to the married life!

[rckllnknny]

FINALLY...a topic i can relate to...first of all...when you find the answer (well woman for me)...let me know!...but through my experince...this is what ive learned...dont hold on to past relationships...keep looking forward to a new one...dont take the first opportunity you get...and dont be discoraged by past relationships that dint work out(dont let jerks make us GOOD guys look bad!)...dont think that some guy is TOO good for you-youd be surprised...you probably pass about 100 acceptable men a day and dont realize it...theres probably a million men for ANY one woman...and most importantly GOD IS trying to help you find someone! i hope this helps you. it helps me....

[argent_paladin]

I think that single life can be a true vocation. HOWEVER, I think that modern culture is so anti-life and anti-marriage that I would be very careful about discerning a call. In only a generation, the average age of marriage has increased from about 23 to about 27. More and more people are staying single. And of course more and more are getting divorced. There is a crisis in the vocation of marriage. I don't think that God is suddenly calling fewer people to get married and raise children. I think that it is more likely that many are ignoring the call by focusing on their educations or careers above answering their vocation. And the older you get, the harder it gets. Read WHAT OUR MOTHERS DIDN'T TELL US: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman by Danielle Crittenden. Her thesis is that for biological and psychological reasons, women are generally best served by having children young and a career later. And she says that women tend to unfairly blame men (as this thread does). Women are going against basic biology by seeking a career while young and being sexually active and then desire marriage at about thirty. Generally speaking, women are more physically attractive at 20 rather than 30 and their children will have a greater chance of being born healthier and without complication. Look at it from the average guy's point of view. He can choose to have sex without commitment with 20-year-olds or sex with marriage with 30-year-olds. Given that choice, and basic biology it is not surprising what the average man chooses. If women were chaste and married younger, then the choice wouldn't be so stark. Today, in educated society, it is much more looked down upon to be married at 18 than at 38. And having your first baby at 18 is much less approved of than your first baby at 38. But globally and historically, it wasn't unusual for a woman to be married much younger and to have children much younger.
The idea that women are supposed to be "sexually active" by 16 but not married until they have a career (around 30) creates a society of irresponsible men, because women are providing sex with no strings attached for the peak years of their life. Then, after they have wasted their flower of youth on random men and have a solid career (because that is who they are) they decide to get married, because it is expected.
We are living in a very sick society and we need to retrieve the vocation to married life. I don't think that there is too much pressure to get married. Rather, there is too little. Feminists and others tell us that women shouldn't marry before graduating from college and even then, if they get married, they shouldn't have kids until they can have a career, and both parents will share the responsibilities of raising the socially responsible two children equally, with government provided day-care and maternity-leave.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]I think that single life can be a true vocation. HOWEVER, I think that modern culture is so anti-life and anti-marriage that I would be very careful about discerning a call. In only a generation, the average age of marriage has increased from about 23 to about 27. More and more people are staying single. And of course more and more are getting divorced. There is a crisis in the vocation of marriage. I don't think that God is suddenly calling fewer people to get married and raise children. I think that it is more likely that many are ignoring the call by focusing on their educations or careers above answering their vocation. And the older you get, the harder it gets. Read WHAT OUR MOTHERS DIDN'T TELL US: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman by Danielle Crittenden. Her thesis is that for biological and psychological reasons, women are generally best served by having children young and a career later. And she says that women tend to unfairly blame men (as this thread does). Women are going against basic biology by seeking a career while young and being sexually active and then desire marriage at about thirty. Generally speaking, women are more physically attractive at 20 rather than 30 and their children will have a greater chance of being born healthier and without complication. Look at it from the average guy's point of view. He can choose to have sex without commitment with 20-year-olds or sex with marriage with 30-year-olds. Given that choice, and basic biology it is not surprising what the average man chooses. If women were chaste and married younger, then the choice wouldn't be so stark. Today, in educated society, it is much more looked down upon to be married at 18 than at 38. And having your first baby at 18 is much less approved of than your first baby at 38. But globally and historically, it wasn't unusual for a woman to be married much younger and to have children much younger.
The idea that women are supposed to be "sexually active" by 16 but not married until they have a career (around 30) creates a society of irresponsible men, because women are providing sex with no strings attached for the peak years of their life. Then, after they have wasted their flower of youth on random men and have a solid career (because that is who they are) they decide to get married, because it is expected.
We are living in a very sick society and we need to retrieve the vocation to married life. I don't think that there is too much pressure to get married. Rather, there is too little. Feminists and others tell us that women shouldn't marry before graduating from college and even then, if they get married, they shouldn't have kids until they can have a career, and both parents will share the responsibilities of raising the socially responsible two children equally, with government provided day-care and maternity-leave.[/quote]

The only words I've read today that have been more true are found in Sacred Scripture.

God Bless you Argent

[Fides_et_Ratio]

How can the single life be a "true" vocation? God calls someone to live outside of community without being a religious? It just doesn't seem to make sense. What do single laypeople do that religious cannot?

Singleness CAN be a vocation... but it is TEMPORARY one. I still haven't seen any reasons why one should consider it to be a permanent vocation?

I'm not anti-single. I myself am single... I've gone on a few dates, but not had a steady boyfriend (well, since I've been a practicing Catholic, I haven't gone on any dates), never been kissed, etc. and I'm 20. I don't think I'm called to the religious life. At all. But if it got to a certain point in my life where I'm not married, not dating, etc. then perhaps I ought to go back and reconsider the religious life. I'm not an expert discerner, so I might need to eventually go back and have another, closer look.

But I don't think singleness is a way to truly fulfill a Christian vocation to holiness and love. Community is an important aspect of love, it's found in marriage, and, in a different way, in the religious life. Single life takes no vows, no particular Sacraments, etc. -- It's just not permanent. It's a temporary state of life.

[Skylark]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 17 2005, 09:56 PM']Personally, the best standards you should shoot for (really, the only one) is to find someone who tries to live out the Catholic Faith. I say try, because we fail at times, but trying is a sign we will it.

God bless,
Mikey[/quote]
Thanks, Mikey.
You didn't write this advice to me, but it opened my eyes too. :married:

[Skylark]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='May 21 2005, 10:54 AM'] How can the single life be a "true" vocation? God calls someone to live outside of community without being a religious? It just doesn't seem to make sense. What do single laypeople do that religious cannot? [/quote]
Well, I don't know how it is in US, but in my country (ex-communist country) there are MANY things that a religious cannot do, while a lay-single can (starting from being a teacher in a school...)

The next thing is that there are people who are so mentally or physically disabled that they are not able to marry or they simply cannot get anybody who would wish to marry with them.
Do you really think that they cannot live a good Christian/Catholic life? And that God thinks that they are doing wrong when they are single?
And what about homosexuals? As long as they feel those homosexualls desires they are not ready to marry - and some cannot change. But to choose a religious life because of that..???

For marriage you choose your wife/husband. But for religious life, God chooses you.
And as Jesus said - not everybody gets married - some because they were born like that (not able), some were made that way by people and SOME because of kingdom of God.

[Noel's angel]

So, if you are single and don't want to get married, you have to rush off and join the priesthood or become a nun? Doesn't seem right to me-surely it's better to have a few priests and nuns who have felt a strong calling, than lots who think 'hey, being single isn't a vocation and I don't want to get married, so this is my only option'

[Fides_et_Ratio]

those are all good points, but they still don't answer my question...

how does a vocation to the single life FULFILL the ultimate Christian vocation to love and holiness, when singleness by its very nature rejects an aspect of community-- an important facet of love?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='May 21 2005, 05:45 PM'] those are all good points, but they still don't answer my question...

how does a vocation to the single life FULFILL the ultimate Christian vocation to love and holiness, when singleness by its very nature rejects an aspect of community-- an important facet of love? [/quote]
Being single is not necessarily a rejection of community (and remember some saints have been hermits -are THEY doing evil by "rejecting community"). Many single people are quite involved with their communities.

Love and holiness can be fulfilled in many ways outside of marriage or religious life/holy orders. And this in no way denigrates those calling.

There are many different ways to live a godly life!

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 21 2005, 07:14 PM'] Being single is not necessarily a rejection of community (and remember some saints have been hermits -are THEY doing evil by "rejecting community"). Many single people are quite involved with their communities.

Love and holiness can be fulfilled in many ways outside of marriage or religious life/holy orders. And this in no way denigrates those calling.

There are many different ways to live a godly life! [/quote]
but weren't hermits religious? I can't think of a hermit that was hadn't taken vows of some sort...

I didn't say single people were like their own little islands and uninvolved in their communities.. but they do not have a communal relationship like a married couple do, or a communal relationship like those in the religious life. No Sacrament, no vows.

HOW can love be FULFILLED in the single life? It is radically different from both married and religious life. HOW is the single life a permanent state of life rather than a temporary one?

[Catholictothecore]

Argent_Paladin makes a very good point. I think that part of CCD, perhaps, should be to instruct that a family is a career, for both. I firmly believe the traditional "roles" of the family, perhaps with the father a little more in play.

It's like, I'd love to be a lawyer if I dn't become a priest. That's a very demanding job. I would quit before I really let anyone dictate to me that I was expected to give more attention to a case than my family.