“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call” (Eph. 4:4).
St. Francis de Sales, whose feast we celebrate today, is known for his teaching that all Christians are called to holiness. The teaching of the universal call to holiness did not originate with the Second Vatican Council, but was also taught before. In Casti Connubii, for example, Pope Pius XI says that “all men of every condition,” in whatever state of life they are, “can and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness,” Christ himself, “and by God’s grace to arrive at the summit of perfection.” (n. 23) Nevertheless the universal call to holiness is a particularly special emphasis of the Second Vatican Council; it is taken up expressly in Chapter 5 of Lumen Gentium, which we look at today. The following is an attempt to draw out briefly some of the basic important points made in this chapter on this universal vocation of all Christians.
The Fathers of the Council see the call to holiness as deriving from two sources: the mystery of the Church, and more fundamentally, the mystery of Christ himself.
The Church and Holiness
“The Church is believed to be indefectibly holy” (n. 39), for Christ gave himself up for her “that he might sanctify her,” uniting her to himself as his body and perfecting her by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Because the Church is holy, all members of the Church are called to be holy, “to become what they are,” and to manifest this holiness in their lives, by faithfulness to the movement of the Spirit, by the practice of charity.
Christ and Holiness
Christ himself preached holiness of life to all. “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” He provided the means for holiness, sending the Spirit, who pours love into men’s hearts, that they might love God above all, and love each other as Christ loves them. Moreover, in baptism the faithful put on Christ, becoming sons of God and sharers in the divine nature. Thus they are made holy by the grace of God. They must then hold on to this holiness and live it out in their concrete lives, they must live in a manner that is fitting to those who are holy.
The Council concludes then, that all members of the Church, all Christ’s faithful, whatever their rank or status, are called to the fullness of Christian life and the perfection of charity.
Attainment of Holiness
The concrete way of attaining holiness and the perfection of charity depends on one’s situation and duties, yet some things can be said in general:
(1) we should use our strengths and talents as a gift from Christ.
(2) We should follow Christ and become like him, seeking the Father’s will in all things, the glory of God and the good of our neighbor.
(3) We should use our personal gifts and fulfill our duties in the spirit of faith working through love.
(4) We should receive all things with faith from the hand of the heavenly Father.
These four means of attaining holiness can be grouped into two basic attitudes: the spirit to accept all things as coming from the loving hand of God, and the aim to do all things in accordance with God’s will out of love for him.
The Council in the following paragraphs makes a number of particular remarks on the paths to holiness of bishops, priests, clerics, married persons, and those who suffer. It then returns to the theme of holiness as the common pursuit of all. Holiness is first of all a gift of grace, the gift of love by which we love God above all things and our neighbor for God’s sake. But in order for love to grow, we must cooperate with this grace, completing what God has begun in us. (n. 42)
Some actions flowing from grace are common to all Christians: the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, participation in the liturgy, prayer, self-denial, service of our brothers and sisters, and the practice of all the virtues. All such actions are to be ruled by charity, enlivened by charity, and expressions of charity.
Some exceptional expressions of love, which are not actually common to all Christians, are given particular mention by the Council.
Martydom
The greatest proof of love is martyrdom. There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for Christ and one’s brethren. Not all will be faced with martyrdom, but all must be prepared to confess Christ, whatever may come, whether it means losing one’s job, one’s reputation, or even one’s life.
Virginity, Poverty, and Obedience
The evangelical counsels of virginity/celibacy, poverty, and obedience are special means for fostering the holiness of the Church, each being in its own way a particular imitation of Christ.
The chapter closes with the summary statement: “all the faithful of Christ are invited to strive for the holiness and perfection of their own proper state. Indeed they have an obligation to so strive.”
Call to Holiness in Marriage
See also the article on the call to holiness in Christian marriage.
Universal Call to Poverty?
The spirit of poverty, and even a degree of actual poverty, is a invitation and call not only to religious, but to all Christians. A very worth-while book on the gospel call to poverty is Happy Are You Poor: The Simple Life and Spiritual Freedom by Thomas Dubay. This book is written for all Catholics (not just for those considering or discerning a religious vocation!) and seeks to present the Gospel challenge simply and directly, and thus help them to live their Christian vocation.
Source:Universal Call to Holiness
“Puer natus est nobis, et filius datus est nobis!“
Today a child is born to us, a son is given us!
These words upon the joyful Mass of Christmas day, in which we recall the birth of our Lord into the world, and into our hearts. The God who is above all stoops down in humility and love, manifesting his glory in the little child of Bethlehem. Born from the Father from all Eternity, he was born in time in Bethlehem, so that he might be born in our hearts.
Pope Benedict XVI’s homily for the Midnight Mass and the Urbi and Orbi address.
Source:A child is born to us
The following is taken from notes for a talk I gave last week. I’ve divided into two parts for this blog.
The theme I’ve taken for today is that of judging, and the right attitude towards falsehood, bad things, etc. As the point of departure I take two seemingly incompatible demands: the first, the prohibition of judging, the other, the requirement to live according to the truth and to help others to life according to the truth.
The tension between these two demands is not a unique case in Christian teaching. There are a number of tensions in the teaching, tensions that cannot be simply overcome by a deeper understanding. They remain, and they should remain; they help us to keep to the correct mean. For example, St. Augustine is alleged to have said, “Pray as though everything depended on God. Act as though everything depended on you.” Whether or not St. Augustine actually said this, similar apparent contradictions can be found in Scripture itself; St. Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith rather than works, “If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God… to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Romans 4:2,5), while St. James says that he was justified by works: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” (James 2:21) While there is no real contradiction between the two–since everything we do is both from God, and from ourselves—this tension is necessary so that we may neither become negligent, nor try to live rightly on our own without God’s grace, which is impossible.
In the case of judging, Christ says “Judge not, that you be not judged.” This saying is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37). Also in the Gospel of John, Jesus says that he was not sent into the world to judge the world (John 3:17), that he judges no one (John 8:15); even when someone hears his words and does not follow them, he does not judge him (John 12:47). This may be seen as the biblical ground for “tolerance,” and in a certain sense is.
St. Paul lays down a similar rule. Regarding the decision to eat meat or not, he says, “How can you judge the servant of another?” (Romans 14:4). It is the Lord who judges (1 Cor 4:4), not we.
St. James says the same: “He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you that you judge your neighbor?” (James 4:11-12) And again, “Do not grumble, brethren, against one another, that you may not be judged” (James 5:9).
Is the modern replacement or at least equation of the law of love with the love of tolerance therefore justified. That would be a precipitate claim. There are also many scripture texts which presuppose or require some form of judgment. Immediately before the commandment of love of neighbor in Leviticus is a prohibition of hate: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart”; and immediately following, “but you shall reprove (yakah, which can be translated “judge, rebuke, correct”) your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him” (Leviticus 19:17).
Jesus says “Matthew 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15-17). In order to act when “your brother sins,” one must first make a judgment that he does.
And although Jesus gives as advice, “if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” (Matthew 5:39), when before the high priest “one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, ‘Is that how you answer the high priest?’” Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” (John 18:22-23). It is not, then, a matter of never defending oneself, but of being ready not to defend oneself, to be silent before accusation when that is helpful for charity’s sake.
St. Paul, too, is not silent when unjustly struck, but says, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” (Acts 23:3) clearly speaking on the basis of the judgment that Ananias is acting unjustly. Again he says, “If a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Galatians 6:1). “Restoring him” requires first recognizing the trespass.
This tension arises from an important fundamental principle, the inseparability of love and truth. Love and truth must remain linked, for two reasons: first, a person, in contrast to a thing, is distinguished by the ability to attain truth and to act according to it. If love or a loving relationship is to be really personal, it must correspond to the nature and truth of the persons. In his homily for the beatification of Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Pope John Paul II paraphrases or cites her: “Accept nothing as truth, if it is without love. And accept nothing as love, if it is without truth. One without the other becomes a destructive lie.” And St. Paul says that love, “Does not rejoice at the wrong, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor 13:6).
The second, and deeper basis for the inseparability of truth and love, is their identity in one person, in Christ. As Christians we believe in a truth which is a person, which is the God who is love itself, and whose love we have the privilege of experience through his giving himself for us.
This necessary connection between love and truth is one of the main criteria by which the Church recognizes whether or not something is from God. St. John says expressly, on the side of truth and acknowledgment, “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2), an on the side of love, “Everyone who loves, is from God and knows God” (1 John 4:7) As we heard in the reading for today, when we live in the darkness, i.e., in hate, we do not do the truth, and do not know where we go. When we live in love, we are in the light, i.e., in the truth, and know where we go.
But although love and truth are mutually complementary, and in Christ are identical, they possess different aspects, and it is not always easy to see in concrete cases how they are to be united. Hence arises the tension that we saw in the simultaneous prohibition of judging and the requirement of “correcting”
To be continued…
Source:Judging, Part 1 (Scripture)
The Second International Theology of the Body Symposium, in Maynooth, Ireland, will be held on the weekend of the Feast of Corpus Christi, in anticipation of the thirtieth anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s visit to Ireland. 2009 also marks thirty years since the first Papal Audience on the Theology of The Body.
The Symposium on the Theology of the Body aims at exploring ever deeper the goodness, truth and beauty of the Divine plan for human love. It will present the Theology of the Body itself as a unified whole, approaching it from spiritual, theological, philosophical, anthropological, and ethical perspectives. The Speakers (Dr. Michael Waldstein, Kathy Sinnott, Fr. Donald Calloway, and others) will present individual sections of the work according to their expertise, complemented by talks placing the Theology of the Body in its historical-cultural, political and medical context. The talks will be given in a language that is broadly accessible, that is, not accessible to scholars alone.
The registration fee is €135 for waged participants and €95 for students and unwaged. The fee includes attendance, meals (excluding breakfast), and tea/coffee breaks for the four days of the Symposium and a wine reception on Thursday evening. Those who cannot come, but would like to support the event, are encouraged to make a donation for it.
Source:Theology of the Body Symposium
I came across an interesting article by Fr. Peter Ryan, How to Discern Elements of Your Personal Vocation.
The article is a bit disorganized, jumping back and forth between points, but it is thought provoking, and raises some interesting questions, which I’ll address in upcoming blogposts.
He gives several points to bear in mind when preparing to discern, which I’ll summarize here:
(1) Discernment pertains to morally acceptable options, so we should eliminate options that are simply wrong, before making discernment. (this is not strictly true; the most important discernment we do is to discern or distinguish good options from bad options, in order to choose the good. See the post on the object of discernment: what do we discern – JB.)
(2) It is possible to discern one’s personal vocation. God has a preference regarding what he wants us to do: he wants us to do the very best thing. God would not have a plan for us, yet keep us from discovering it, so it must be possible to discern this plan.
(3) One must be motivated to discern one’s personal vocation. He gives three reasons for discerning one’s vocation: (1) the first and least helpful reason, is that we are morally obliged to do so (I comment on this statement in a later post: Commandments and Counsels – JB); (2) it is in our own interest to discern; (3) discerning our vocation is pleasing to God.
(4) The proper disposition for discerning one’s vocation presupposes that one is detached from any agenda of one’s own. Having such an agenda hinders the discernment of God’s plan, and also the acceptance of that plan. (See the post Detachment and Discernment – JB)
(5) As regards the future, we cannot discern whether we should do something, but only whether we should try to do it.
(6) Nothing is wasted in God’s providence. Even when what we judged God was calling us to seek does not work out, this attempt has a place in God’s plan.
(7) Discerning one’s personal vocation is not accomplished once and for all, but is ongoing. Even a major commitment such as that of marriage or religious life does not settle or eliminate all future questions and discernment.
The process of discernment Fr. Peter gives is based on the third time for discernment given by St. Ignatius Loyola.
(1) We should seek only what God wants, and ask him to make us see what he wants us to do.
(2) We should look at our gifts and experience, and relate them to the world around us, considering all our options, and the pros and cons of each option. If one option remains as clearly the best, the discernment may end there.
(3) If several options remain, and are not settled by the consideration of pros and cons, then we should look at our affective response to them, our how heart moves in regard to them. We must distinguish those movements that are in us, but are not really integrated into our “converted selves”, from those which arise from our converted hearts, and be moved in our discernment only by the latter kind of desires.
Source:Discerning Your Personal Vocation
The Vocation of Marriage
Is marriage only for the weak? Are only those called to marriage who don’t have a strong enough will to give themselves totally to Christ and his Church in virginity or celibacy? It could certainly seem so from St. Paul: “If his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin…. he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Cor 7:37-38).
Following a classic procedure, I will first give arguments in favor of this position, then my response to the question.
The saints on marriage and celibacy
In the first place, it seems that the authority of the saints indicates that marriage is only for those who are too weak to persevere in continence for the kingdom of heaven, while virginity or celibacy is for all those who have the strength of will to take it.
Marriage is attributed to weakness
Those of us who have wives we advise, with all our power, that they dare not judge of those holy fathers after their own weakness (St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, n. 34)
Has the apostle, think you, both shown sufficiently to the strong what is highest, and permitted to the weaker what is next best? Not to touch a woman he shows is highest when he says, “I would that all men were even as I myself.” But next to this highest is conjugal chastity, that man may not be the prey of fornication. (St. Augustine, On the Morals of the Catholic Church, ch. 35)
If under the Gospel it is permitted to have children, it is one thing to make a concession to weakness, another to hold out rewards to virtue. (St. Jerome, Against Jovianius I, n. 37).
The one sins not if she marries; if the other does not marry, it is for eternity. In the former is seen the remedy for weakness, in the latter the glory of chastity. The former is not reproved, the latter is praised. (St. Ambrose, Concerning Virgins I, ch. 6)
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry” (1 Cor 7:8-9). You can see Paul’s common sense here. He says that continence is better, but does not force a person who cannot attain it, fearing that defeat may result. “For it is better to marry than to be burn” (v. 9); here he shows how great a tyranny the passions exercise over us. What he means is something like this: if you suffer with violent, burning passion, then relieve your pain and sweat through marriage, before you utterly collapse. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on 1 Cor.)
These are the two purposes for which marriage was instituted: to make us chaste, and to make us parents… The purpose of chastity takes precedence… If you desire children, you can get much better children now, a nobler childbirth and better help in your old age, if you give birth by spiritual labor. So there remains only one reason for marriage, to avoid fornication, and the remedy is offered for this purpose (St. John Chrysostom, Sermon on Marriage).
In order to avoid an unbalanced impression of St. John’s Chrysostom view of marriage, I also quote another text of his describing a holy marriage:
Some wise man in the list of blessings sets many things, and also sets this in the list of blessing: “And a wife,” he says, “in harmony with her husband.” And again elsewhere he puts this among the blessings, “the wife being in agreement with her husband.” And from the beginning God appears to have made providence for this union, and has spoken of the two as one… There is no relationship between men as great as that of a wife to her husband, if they are coupled as they ought to be… Indeed the household is a little Church. Thus by becoming good husbands and wives, it is possible to surpass all others. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians, PG 62, 135 & 143)Furnish your house neatly and soberly… Remove from your lives shameful, immodest, and Satanic music, and don’t associate with people who enjoy such profligate entertainment… Pray together at home and go to Church… Remind one another that nothing in life is to be feared, except offending God. If your marriage is like this, your perfection will rival the holiest of monks. (Ibid.)
Alphonsus de Liguori is also quite as strong on this point as St. Jerome, Origen, or Tertullian.
The married state I cannot recommend to you, because St. Paul does not counsel it to any one, except there be a necessity for it, arising out of habitual incontinence, which necessity, I hold for certain, does not exist in your case. (St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Reply to a youth considering which state he should choose)
… But if you resolve not to become a religious, I cannot advise you to enter the married state, for St. Paul does not counsel that state to any one, except in case of necessity, which I hope does not exist for you. (St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Advice to a woman in doubt as to what state she should choose)
Virginity or celibacy is for those of strong will
Many texts of the Fathers and saints also seem to show that virginity or celibacy is for those who have the strength of will to take it, which seems to imply, conversely, that marriage is for those who are weak-willed.
Virginity is something supernaturally great, wonderful, and glorious… Chastity with men is a very rare thing, and difficult of attainment, and in proportion to its supreme excellence and magnificence is thre greatness of its dangers.
For this reason, it requires strong and generous natures, such as, vaulting over the stream of pleasure, direct the chariot of the soul upwards from the earth, not turning aside from their aim, until having, by swiftness of thought, lightly bounded above the world, and taken their stand truly upon the vault of heaven, they purely contemplate immortality itself as it springs forth from the undefiled bosom of the Almighty. (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6, discourse 1, p. 310)
The Master of the Christian race offers the reward, invites candidates to the course, holds in His hand the prize of virginity, points to the fountain of purity, and cries aloud “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (Against Jovinianus, St. Jerome, in NPNF 2nd series, Volume VI, p. 355)
“He who can receive this, let him receive it.” What is this? If natural ability is meant, no one is able, while if supernatural ability is meant, all are able. I say that ‘can’ includes the power of the will. For some have a firm will, while others do not. And it is manifest that he who has a firm will does not fear many impulses, while he who does not, falls by a slight impulse. Whence it is as though one were to say, he who is able by firmness of will, not from nature but from God, let him receive it. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Matthew, Lecture 19, n. 1572).
This recommendation for which the Pope takes the whole responsibility is a very paternal word which is inspired solely by the good of religious communities. It is this: “Be rigorous.”…
By these words his Holiness wished to allude not only to the severity of discipline in general, but above all and in a very special manner, to the severity which is necessary when accepting postulants. Someone may say that they are already too severe; the Pope authorizes the answer that it is he who wishes it to be so… If, in fact, we desire to preserve the splendor of religious life, we must be severe above all where vocations are concerned, because divine grace helps, but does not destroy human nature, and therefore it remains necessary to struggle, a necessity which is even more grace in religious life. It is for that reason that we cannot run the risk of unsuitable elements infiltrating a religious community, for these elements not only will not be useful for anything, they will be on the contrary so many obstacles, so many stumbling-blocks; they will constitute so much cockle among the wheat.
It is not exaggeration, but experience, which tells us that in human collectivities, even restricted ones, almost inevitably deficiencies are produced. A religious family need not, for all that, reduce the number of its members; on the contrary, they must be increased; but it must so act that all its members will be chosen souls, elite, soldiers. A difficult thing, a difficult task, but necessary. In fact, when many men gather together, the good qualities, especially the highest ones, do not add up to a sum total; each one keeps his own; on the contrary, the deficiencies, the bad qualities, join one another and fuse. (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Friars Minor Capuchins, July 10, 1938)
To worldly gaze, which does not penetrate beneath the surface, religious life may appear more especially as a refuge from the tempest, a spiritual repose in a peaceful retreat, a desert where weaker souls seek a refuge far from the perils and worries of the world. But the world is blind. For a firm heart, intrepid before earthly trials, like that of your Blessed Mother Foundress, religious life is religion lived before God and man, and if it is a retreat, it is at the same time an arena of abnegation and prayer, of action and labor, from which one comes forth more firm and more eager, ready for greater sacrifices and for greater activity in the service of God and souls, totally under the sway of a charity more intense, bolder, even impassible in the face of death. (Pius XII, Allocution to the pilgrims at the beatification of Magdalene of Canossa, December 9, 1941, in States of Perfection, p. 326)
Superiority of celibacy
Secondly, it seems to follow, if virginity or celibacy is superior to marriage as a way of living and growing in love of God and neighbor, as the Church teaches, and if it is open to all, then the only reason for someone not to embrace virginity or celibacy would be that they are do weak to do so.
Now the Church does clearly teach that virginity or celibacy is superior to marriage as a way of expressing and growing in love of God.
“If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in matrimony, let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Matrimony, Can. 10).32. This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent , and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered (Encyclical Letter Sacra Virginitas, Pius XII, March 25, 1954).
The second way to perfection, by which a man may be more free to devote himself to God, and to cling more perfectly to him, is the observance of perpetual chastity… The way of continence is most necessary for attaining perfection… Abraham had so great spiritual perfection in virtue, that his spirit did not fall short of perfect love for God on account either of temporal possessions or of married life. But if another man who does not have the same spiritual virtue, strives to attain perfection, while retaining riches and entering into marriage, his error in presuming to treat Our Lord’s words as of small account will soon be demonstrated. (St. Thomas Aquinas, On the Perfection of the Spiritual Life, Ch. 9)
Again, the Church teaches that a person is free to decide for marriage or for celibacy.
In choosing a state of life there is no doubt but that it is in the power and discretion of each one to prefer one or the other: either to embrace the counsel of virginity given by Jesus Christ, or to bind himself in the bonds of matrimony. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii. The pope is here quoting Rerum Novarum.)4… no one may prevent those who are canonically suitable from entering religion, since the religious state by its very nature lies open to all the faithful and is to be held in honor by all. “Let no one, who is unwilling, be driven to this kind of consecrated life; but, if one wishes it, let there be no one who will dissuade him, much less prevent him from undertaking it.” (The General Statutes annexed to the Apostolic Constitution Sedes Sapientiae, The Sacred Congregation of Religious, 1957, Art. 32)
Young people, entering into themselves and at the same time entering into conversation with Christ in prayer, desire as it were to read the eternal thought which God the Creator and Father has in their regard. They then become convinced that the task assigned to them by God is left completely to their own freedom. (Pope John Paul II, Dilecti Amici, n. 10)
Response
The fundamental vocation of all is the vocation to love. “Love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being” (Familiaris Consortio, n. 11; also cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1604). The vocation to a particular way of life is a determination of this common vocation to love. “The word ‘vocation’ indicates that there exists for every person a proper direction of his development through commitment of his entire life in the service of certain values… And therefore a vocation always means some principal direction of love that a particular person has” (Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility).
The choice of the concrete way in which to fulfill, live out, and grow in the vocation to love is generally left up to the choice of the individual person (though in some cases God intervenes to call someone in a particularly special way, as he did with Abraham). Nevertheless the way in which one may best live out the vocation to love depends on both external and interior factors. Pope John Paul II says:
Young people, entering into themselves and at the same time entering into conversation with Christ in prayer, desire as it were to read the eternal thought which God the Creator and Father has in their regard. They then become convinced that the task assigned to them by God is left completely to their own freedom, and at the same time is determined by various circumstances of an interior and exterior nature. Examining these circumstances, the young person, boy or girl, constructs his or her plan of life and at the same time recognizes this plan as the vocation to which God is calling him or her. (Dilecti Amici, n. 9)
Generally, however, the primacy belongs to the interior factors, to the capacity, readiness, and commitment to pursue a particular path as an expression of and means to love. The devotion with which one pursues a particular way of life (supposing that it is a good and holy way of life) is more important than its mere objective superiority, or lack thereof. The Pope states:
According to the consistent teaching and practice of the Church, virginity realized as a deliberately chosen life-vocation, based on a vow of chastity, and in combination with the two other vows of poverty and obedience, creates particularly favorable conditions for attaining evangelical perfection. The combination of conditions that results from applying the evangelical counsels in the lives of particular men, and especially in communal life, is called the state of perfection. The “state of perfection,” however, is not the same as perfection itself, which is realized by every man through striving in the manner proper to his vocation to fulfill the commandment to love God and one’s neighbor. It may happen that a a man who is outside the “state of perfection,” is, by observing this greatest commandment, effectively more perfect than someone who chose that state. In the light of the Gospel, every man solves the problem of his vocation in practice above all by adopting a conscious personal attitude towards the supreme demand contained in the commandment of love. This attitude is above all a function of a person, the state (marriage, celibacy, even virginity understood only as the “state” or an element of the state) plays in it a secondary role. (Love and Responsibility)
A person who chooses celibacy without a strong inner commitment to it as a way of love (which realistically can be absent in someone who chooses it simply because it is the “higher state”), which generally goes along with an inner peace, may not in fact really attain the proper goal of celibacy, may be himself troubled by the dividedness of heart that St. Paul ascribes to married persons in general. St. Thomas Aquinas says that “[the evangelical] counsels, considered in themselves, are advantageous for all; but due to some people being poorly disposed, it happens that some of them are not advantageous, because their heart [affectus] is not inclined to them” (ST I-II 108:4). And Pope John Paul II explains:
Paul observes that the man who is bound by the marriage bond “finds himself divided” (1 Cor 7:34) because of his family duties (see 1 Cor 7:34). From this observation, it seems thus to follow that the unmarried person should be characterized by an inner integration, by a unification that would allow him to devote himself completely to the service of the kingdom of God in all its dimensions. This attitude presupposes abstention from marriage, exclusively “for the kingdom of God,” and a life directed uniquely to this goal. Otherwise “division” can secretly enter also the life of an unmarried person, who, being deprived, on the one hand, of married life and, on the other hand, of a clear goal for which he should renounce marriage, could find himself faced with a certain emptiness. (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, July 7, 1982)
Understanding of celibacy
This single-heartedness, this strong commitment to celibacy as a way of love, presupposes on the one hand a particular light and understanding, which is a gift of grace (though it certainly need not be experienced as a inspiration, in contrast to so-called ordinary Christian faith and prudence).
Christ speaks about an understanding (“Not all can understand it, but only those to whom it has been granted,” Mt 19:11); and it is not a question of an “understanding” in the abstract, but an understanding that influences the decision, the personal choice in which the “gift,” that is, the grace, must find an adequate resonance in the human will. (Pope John Paul II, General Audience of March 31, 1982)
Jesus calls attention to the gift of divine light necessary to “understand” the way of voluntary celibacy. Not all can understand it, in the sense that not all are “able” to grasp its meaning, to accept it, to put it into practice. This gift of light and decision is only granted to some. It is a privilege granted them for the sake of a greater love. We should not be surprised then if many, not understanding the value of consecrated celibacy, are not attracted to it, and often are not even able to appreciate it. This means that there is a diversity of ways, charisms, and functions, as Saint Paul recognized, who spontaneously wished to share his ideal of virginal life with all. Indeed he wrote: “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each,” he adds, “has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1 Cor 7:7). (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, November 16, 1994)
Love of celibacy
The firm choice of celibacy presupposes also a certain love of celibacy, deriving from a love of Christ, a desire for a greater freedom for service of others, or similar causes. This does not mean that a person feels no desire for marriage, but that the love of celibacy outweighs it, so to speak, so that the person is capable of devoting themselves wholeheartedly to the love of God and neighbor in celibacy.
Since it is a question of comparison of one desire with another, the sufficiency of a person’s will or desire for celibacy depends both upon that will, and upon the desire for marriage. The fact that a person’s love seeks expression in marriage rather than in celibacy could be attributed to a “lack” of or “less” appreciation of celibacy as a concrete possibility for onself, arising either from neglect, ignorance, or from God’s not giving that “charism”; but it could also be attributed to a “greater” desire for a holy marriage, to raise children for Christ.
The determination of the direction a particular person’s love takes depends partly upon natural factors, which make a person more inclined to one way of life than another. This natural difference in a certain way redounds to charity itself, inasmuch as “charity is firmer when it is founded on nature” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, ch. 4, lec. 2). The determination of love depends also upon divine providence (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 134, and Contra Impugnantes II, ch. 4, ad 1), and simply upon the will of God, of which charity is a participation. We do not possess charity as something totally of our own; it is essentially a share in God’s own love, and God is the one to direct it. From charity springs a connatural judgment of what is in accordance with God’s will, a judgment that is not altogether reducible to human reasoning, though human reasoning may be somehow involved in it. St. Francis de Sales describes this autonomy of charity in his Treatise on the Love of God:
When charity draws some to poverty and withdraws others from it, when she impels some to marriage and others to continence, when she shuts one up in a cloister and makes another leave it, she has no need to give an account to any one: for she has the plenitude of power in the Christian law, as it is written: charity can do all things (Cf. 1 Cor 13:7); she has the fullness of prudence, as it is said: charity does nothing in vain. And if any would contest, and demand of her why she does so, she will boldly answer: The Lord has need of it. All is made for charity, and charity for God. (Treatise on the Love of God, book 8, ch. 6)
This focus on the direction of love as an inner principle does not exclude other motives for marriage: St. Francis also gives the example of one who is required to marry for the sake of the common good: “You are perhaps a prince, by whose posterity the subjects of your crown are to be preserved in peace, and assured against tyranny, sedition, civil wars: the effecting, therefore, of so great a good, obliges you to beget lawful successors in a holy marriage.” (Ibid.) But in most cases, such external considerations are not of themselves sufficient for a choice.
In answer to the original question, then, it should be said that the vocation of marriage is not only for those who are too weak to embrace the vocation of celibacy, but for those who, according to circumstances of natural disposition, providence, and the interior movement of charity, find marriage the fullest way of expressing and growing in this charity.
Reply to objections:
To the first set of objections, that marriage is a concession to weakness, for those who cannot otherwise be chaste, it should be said that the saints are addressing their own situation, and that in fact practically all persons marrying were not doing so from a rightly based conviction that marriage was the best means for living the divine love, but for economic reasons, for convenience, pleasure, or other such worldly motives. For a long time there was a kind of self-reinforcing cycle in this matter. To the degree that little emphasis was put on marriage as a means to holiness, persons tended not to choose marriage in order to become holy–those who were intent on holiness tended to seek to remain single. The result of this was that persons had few examples of marriage as a means to holiness, which led to their not seeing marriage as a means to holiness, which led to persons seeking holiness not getting married, etc. St. Augustine points out: “[There are some marriages in which the spouses are not divided in heart, but completely devoted to God.] But they are very rare: who denies this? And being rare, nearly all the persons who are such, were not joined together in order to be such, but being already joined together became such (On the Good of Marriage, n. 14). That is, where there are few examples of holy marriages, people will not enter marriage seeking or expecting to become holy.
The second set of objections, that celibacy is for those with a strong will, should be granted inasmuch as Christian celibacy, in order to be Christian celibacy, more strictly requires a firm intention of living for God alone than marriage does, which is also a natural way of life. Yet we should note that the strength required is the strength spoken of by St. Paul: “I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me… for when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:9-10); “I can do all things in him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). It is the strength of those who recognize their complete weakness, and rely on God alone.
To the objection based on the superiority of celibacy over marriage, the reply is clear from what was said. The choice of marriage as a vocation normally presupposes a relative inability to choose or live celibacy with a whole-heartedness as a divine calling and way of love, but this formal comparison does not necessarily imply an absolute weakness.
Source:Is Marriage for the Weak
Fr. Philip Powell gives some good practical points, and questions that those discerning a religious vocation should ask themselves. These questions to ask when discerning a vocation may be found, together with comments on the Anti-Christ, and the difference between magic and prayer, at his blog Domine, da mihi hanc aquam!
Source:Questions for those discerning a religious vocation
As promised, this post is on seeing the best in people–judging them charitably, or favorably, rather than indifferently or strictly.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains in an article on favorable judgment, “whether doubtful matters should always be interpreted in the more favorable way”, that when a person’s fault is not manifest, we should always tend more to judge him in a positive light, to interpret his action in the most favorable light, rather than in the way that is most likely to be true.
But how can that be? St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross says, “Do not accept anything as the truth if it lacks love, and do not accept anything as love which lacks truth! One without the other becomes a destructive lie.” If charity seeks the truth, how can a incorrect judgment really be the charitable judgment?
St. Thomas gives a twofold explanation. On the one hand, it pertains directly to charity to think well of another person when possible, and is contrary to charity to think badly of another possible when not necessary. And on the other hand, it is not a serious problem to be mistaken about a truth such as whether or not someone did something bad. It is a serious matter to be mistaken about universal truths about ourselves and the world (e.g., to be mistaken about whether man has a soul, whether he can be responsible for his actions, etc.), but a mistake about some particular thing is only incidentally bad, and thus when the matter is not clear, but is doubtful, then the consideration of charity or love prevails.
Source:Judging Favorably
Easter is not just “Easter Day,” it is the fifty days from Easter Day until the Day of Pentecost. Easter is, so to speak, the “Sunday season”. Every day of the Easter week is liturgically like a Sunday, and is of a similar rank as Easter. The following days are a further extension of Easter: the Sundays following Easter, often wrongly called “First Sunday after Easter,” “Second Sunday after Easter,” or (better) “Second Sunday of Eastertime” etc., are rightly called “Second Sunday of Easter”, “Third Sunday of Easter” etc.
All the 7 weeks of Easter (a week of weeks) preserve an Easter and Sunday character. These fifty days, approximately a seventh of the year, make up a great “Sunday” in the yearly cycle.
The season of Easter has always been a time of joy and celebration. The Council of Nicaea, to favor this spirit of joy and celebration, even forbade fasting and kneeling during the fifty days of Easter.
This keeping of Easter as an extended celebration of the Resurrection has unfortunately been very much lost. I was struck today reading a pastoral letter of Bishop Conlon, of the diocese of Steubenville, inviting the Catholics of the diocese to resume the practice of abstaining from meat on Friday, and stating “The resumption of year-round abstinence in the Diocese of Steubenville will begin after this coming Easter, one week after Good Friday (April 17).” Of course this is certainly a good practice, but in fact, he chose the most inappropriate day possible to begin it. The Code of Canon Law, which in general preserves the law of abstinence on Fridays (though permitting the conferences of bishops to substitute other forms of penance), states that “abstinence from eating meat” is to be observed on Fridays unless they are solemnities. Easter Friday is a solemnity, indeed the greatest solemnity of the year that occurs on Friday. So this would not traditionally have been, nor according to the Code of Canon Law be a day of abstinence. The particular point about the starting date for beginning the practice is a small one, perhaps, but does seem to point to a certain regrettable lack of liturgical understanding.
Source:Easter: The Great Sunday
“…the life and ideals of Buddha are still relevant and ‘continuously inspire us to seek the purpose of our life” said the Chief minister of Gujarat Mr. Narendra Modi while expressing his resolve to build a Buddhist temple in the state. He also announced that with the cooperation of other countries Gujarat intends to host a Global Seminar on Buddhism at M S University in Vadodara.
Read full story in New Kerala
Source:Guj govt to build a Buddhist temple