As a classic “go-along-to-get-along” kind of guy, I would love to sugar coat my aim in this article, but I am just going to come right out and say it; I think that the way we conceive of and communicate the theological concept of a Vocation is both incorrect and even potentially dangerous for individuals’ spiritual lives. With full knowledge of the potential for controversy and misunderstanding that such a bluntly phrased statement can generate, I feel in the spirit of intellectual honesty that I must state my thesis simply and allow whatever discussion which will arise to come. Something seems off and this is my first attempt at diagnosis. My ruminations may be half (or even quarter) cooked and if so, I will willingly take my medicine. All I ask is that you read this article completely before taking to the combox to decry me as a heretic. I’m getting married in July. I’d rather not be burned at the stake before then.
My simple belief is that in the spirit of “promoting vocations,” backed either by an anxiety about the decrease in vocations to priesthood and religious life or the more altruistic aim of attempting to help a young person find their way in life, is ultimately driven by an inaccurate theological concept. The fruits of such a preaching were recently confirmed when I taught a section on celibacy to high school sophomores. These students unanimously understood one’s personal vocation and calling to be a path in life that God has chosen out for you. If one does not follow this path, they related to me, then you can never really be happy in life.
Such a conception of vocations, paradoxically, actually leads to rigidity and a lack of openness to God in one’s life. It quenches a fruitful openness to the spirit and proves damaging to a trusting relationship with God. It can lead to a never satisfied seeking for the perfect situation that perfectly suits one’s gifts and when coupled with an illuminism that sees all of one’s emotions and interior processes as the “movements of the Spirit” leads to a familiar spiritual sickness that I call “discerningitis.”
In full disclosure, I too hit a bout of discerningitis. This partially accounts for my passion on the subject. Having come into the clearing in terms of my own relationship with God and His will for my life, I have often looked back on that time and tried to diagnose various cognitive dissonances that led to that 2 year struggle. I feel it my intellectual duty to relate those findings. However, in full honesty, I can tell you that my thesis is driven far less by my personal experience and much more by how my personal experience caused me to theologically investigate the history of how the Church has approached vocations. As far as I can tell, the way our generation approaches vocations has little grounding in the lives of the saints, the Bible, or the Church Fathers.
From what I can tell, the way that the Catholic Church in the 21st century approaches vocations is much more akin to Protestantism and may even have its roots there. Not to say that various Protestant theologians haven’t supplied worthwhile contributions to the realm of theology, but where their theology smacks of determinism and predestination-type ideas, the Catholic should tread lightly. Luther and Calvin both spoke of vocations in the sense of something that you have to do and if you don’t do it you’re not fulfilling the will of God in your life. The Catholic understanding of God’s will for your life has always emphasized the primacy of being over doing. This is how Lumen Gentium is able to shout into modernity one of the most significant contributions of Vatican II, the “universal call to holiness.” Whatever your mission, whatever your state in life, whatever your ability, you CAN and even MUST become a saint. It appears to me that this message is underutilized in the Church. That God isn’t as interested in what you end up doing but in how open you are to love of Him and love of neighbor while doing it. Not what you are to do. What you are to become.
Let’s look, then, at what the Church HAS said on vocations.
Turning first to two of my favorite saints of the last couple centuries can help shed some light on the way we are to approach vocations. While both died at 24, Therese of Lisieux and Pier Giorgio Frassati both dealt with what they were to do with life. One realizes from reading Therese’s Story of the Soul and Pier Giorgio’s sister’s biography of his life in Man of the Beatitudes that neither came close to thinking of vocation in the way that it is preached so often from the pulpit these days. Therese wanted to be a nun so she became one. Even when consistently dissuaded from such a path at such a young age, she bullheadedly continued down that path because of the great value of such a life. JP2 would appreciate that move, I think. Pier Giorgio went the opposite direction. He loved the Eucharist so much that he wanted to be a priest. But, he knew that his mom wouldn’t like it so he just didn’t pursue that path. Instead, his aim was to be a coal-miner, a goal he never realized before he died. He didn’t sit and discern and struggle and question. He just saw ways to love God, did them, and was certainly not less fulfilled and happy because of such a way of looking at his personal vocation.
Furthermore, Spiritual writers like Jean Pierre de Caussade, Walter Ciszek, and Therese of Lisieux have all emphasized the fact that God’s will is the present moment. Wherever you are at right now is God’s will for you. Grace is only available in that present moment and too much of a focus on some future plan of God’s for you that will secure your happiness and holiness has no relational significance to it.
John Paul II’s Theology of the Body provides the proper way to look at vocations. I think this can give us a powerful new way to approach our work promoting vocations to the priesthood and religious life. John Paul II in the spirit of one of his philosophical heroes Max Scheler and in classically personalist fashion, conceives of a vocation to “celibacy for the sake of the kingdom” as a value response. In apprehension of the incredible value of a life lived in such union to Christ and in imitation of His own lived relationship with the Father in the consecration of His celibacy to Him, a man or woman may choose to follow such a path as well. In address 76, he refers to the vocation of (emphasis added), “…continence chosen consciously for supernatural reasons.” He goes on to say of making the choice (again) of such a life this, “…in choosing continence for the kingdom of heaven, man “should” let himself be guided exactly by such motivation.”
He derives this dynamic from Christ’s words in Mt 19:11-12. There is found Christ’s words on continence for the sake of the kingdom where he famously remarks with respect to continence, “Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” In address 76, John Paul II frames the “ought” in this regard to those who understand the call of continence as a value that they wish to pick up in their own life. If this is the case, shouldn’t our call for vocations focus less on what one’s subjective personal vocation is as the one path of life that God wants him/her to do (read: Protestant determinism and predestination) and more on preaching the value of continence as a lived relationship with the Father with the Son in the Holy Spirit as a lived sign of the life to come which young people should joyfully take up?
This concept fits neatly with John Paul II’s underappreciated master philosophical opus, the Acting Person. For JP2, the capacity of the human person to act is the crowning achievement of the individual person for it is only possible then. JP2, who reflects profoundly on the nature of His own priestly vocation as a “complex movement of the Holy Spirit” in Gift and Mystery which he delivered on the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination, would have had a difficult philosophical time with any way of looking at vocations that neared a determinism. Not that the man is the master of his own path. He is still called to subject his own intellect and will in obedience toward the good but ultimately, God desires for him to reveal his humanity through action in response to a value.
To summarize, God can use your gifts, talents, and even weaknesses in a variety of ways. Choose a path and bring those to bear wherever you are at. Don’t just try to find the one way that will frame those best or wait for the divine illumination.
Such a method of looking at vocations can benefit priestly formation. The call for men who want to be priests will be to become profound disciples first. Many men in seminary struggle more with the question of whether or not they are supposed to be there than whether they perceive the value of the nearness with Christ that such a vocation can bring as a disciple and friend of Jesus. Striving after such an illuminative clarification of a vocational calling is a less fruitful and peaceful pursuit.
By no means do I wish to call into question every vocational effort and every conception of the will of God as it is presented these days. I simply wish to call to attention the potential need to re-evaluate the theological basis for the way in which we conceive of them. I believe that introducing a greater theological preciseness to the conversation and re-inculcating a more Catholic worldview will benefit the Church-at-large.
34 thoughts on “Vocations: We’ve Got It All Wrong”
That was great. Thanks
Being Pentecostal / evangelical for 40 years and just 6 months Catholic, I’m as yet unversed in how the Church teaches about vocations; but everything you’re saying positively, makes complete and, well, common sense!
I think there’s a lot of wisdom to this! I know I get stuck in this spiral sometimes; and it’s a downward one, in my experience. I wonder if it’s actually a lack of trust in God. At any rate, I’ll share what one priest told me once. If you think you’ve missed your calling, God never closes the door on you. Our God is a Father. And where a door closes, a window opens. It’s an opportunity for us to repent, and grow in faith. I just thank God for His mercy!
As my pastor tells us, pray, pray, pray and discern what the Lord wants for you. If you are not hearing anything, then tell the Lord, this is the direction I am going now. if it is against your will, YOU need to tell me. We should do this in every decision, not just the major vocation one.
This article in a nutshell: Afraid God is calling you to priestly or religious life and you just want to get married? That’s okay! Just do whatever you want and God will bless that too.
Ah, but even though God is a gentleman and respects your choices, He also knows what will make you most happy. We should try to listen to that and test it through prayerful discernment and not be childish and run away from what could be the real path to happiness and contentment.
Don’t be in a rush, try to stay calm, get a spiritual director, talk one on one with older priests, nuns, monks, friars. Talk with married couples who have been married for a long time, too. Get their take on what a vocation is. The meaning of what a vocation is (single – that’s right, God might be calling you to be single! – married, priestly, religious) is not always found in a book.
That’s my two cents, anyway. Praying that God will reveal His plan to everyone who reads this article and that we’ll be open to listen.
Nope. ‘Fraid you missed the point Joe. I’m saying that as a Church we need to be precise in our language and theology. The idea of a 1-plan path to holiness for you appears to me to be theologically unsound. I’m trying to draw attention to how the lives of the saints, recent theological undertakings (like the Theology of the Body), and even Scripture support my thesis. As far as I can tell, THEOLOGICALLY mind you, this idea originated in Luther and was adopted by Calvin as well. This is one of the intentions of my article. I submit this as my theological opinion and am asking people to help sharpen my understanding. I’m almost not concerned with how people subjectively appropriate it, as your question suggests. I want to deal in the objective here.
God certainly is always trying to reveal His will to us. What I’m attempting to say though, is that it will even be more fruitful for our work in vocations to focus on the call to celibacy as a value response for the good of the Church AS A WHOLE, instead of just “my path to finding meaning in life.”
From personal experience with guys and girls, friends and acquaintances, very little fruit is borne by constantly seeking an illumination of what God’s specific will is for them. Seminary formation even, I believe, would benefit greatly on displaying to guys that celibacy is an objectively higher calling and then asking them to respond positively if they wish to that value instead of having them navel gaze. That is what I gather from TOB 76 at least. I recommend you go check out what Bl. JP2 has to say on the matter in those addresses,
Essentially, holiness is a choice lived out in the present moment. How we discuss and discern vocations in this day in age is unfruitful and theologically unsound.
Sorry I missed the point, Tim. I’ve re-read the article a few times and I don’t see much support for your charge that the idea of what a vocation is comes from Protestantism, just an attempt to try and put everything into the Universal Call to Holiness which isn’t really about vocation but daily abandonment to the will of God.
Is it possible that THEOLOGICALLY, the idea of a vocation just isn’t well developed within the Church herself?
I came to this article from a Facebook post from someone who claimed that your article would bring peace to someone discerning. I think someone who reads this article might be more confused and that’s why I initially responded.
It’s interesting, Tim, how you call for a new appreciation of celibacy / singleness in itself, for any walk of life; not just as a necessary condition of priesthood. That would be a strong spiritual message in our contemporary culture.
I really agree with your controversy with the idea of some unique calling we’ve got to discern or else miss out big time. It’s actually a symptom of secular culture which is affecting Western Christians. We need to accept our lives as given to us more humbly. For very few of us will there be some clear, grand theme. And there are different seasons.
Joe~Are your parents John and Teri? If so, we went to St. Ed’s with them!!! Love their faith and your observations. I enjoyed the article and will add these thoughts to my own. I do believe we have to discern. I also believe that “living the discernment” in joy and grace will bless us. Thanks for sharing, Joe and Tim!
Yep, that’s me 🙂 Small world, eh?
One of the wisest lines I’ve read on vocations is Fr Anthony Bannon: “It is more important to prepare for a vocation than to discern it.” If one lives a holy life then God calls you can respond, if you discern but loose the holy life, you won’t be able to respond.
I think this article repeats an error someone else blogged about on here: discerning whether to discern. I think Tim may go a little too far: discerning is often in order and I’ll point out 2 cases.
1. Once one enters the seminary / novitiate the first few years have discernment as a primary goal – just like the first 2-3 years of going out with a girl are discerning if you want to marry her.
2. Some people are honestly uncertain beforehand and then they need to look at the signs. Unfortunately, this process has become extended unnecessarily many a time in recent years.
For the record, I wanted to get married but felt the call half way through 2nd year University, entered the seminary that summer and was just ordained last month.
Preciate your thoughts Father!
I would invite you to research Catholic determinism, predestination, and primary and secondary causality prior to the Protestant Reformation. This idea is more complicated than we give credit. For example, Thomas Aquinas, on first reading, will probably sound like a Calvinist to our modern minds. He isn’t. Not even close. Yet, he taught that everything is determined by divine providence, even our own choices, and yes, our vocations. He even goes so far as to say that divine Providence is the same concept as “fate” when understood properly. He is able to say that, and not have Calvinist tendencies because he believes in secondary agency. Today, we have mostly lost that way of viewing the relationship between God’s will and our own. Today, we are mostly voluntarist. We are teleological beings. God made us to become something. The Church, as you wisely point out, teaches that EVERYONE is fundamentally made to be holy, to be saints. That is the universal call to holiness, that is the Christian Vocation. As Pope Benedict once said, “there are as many ways to God as there are people.” This is not some weird new age everyone is saved teaching. It means that each person’s path to holiness is different, but we know that some of us will share certain concrete aspects, like our sacramental or religious vocation to service (i.e. religious life, orders, or marriage). Some people, God made to reach holiness through service in the priesthood. Others, he made to reach it through marriage. The goal, as you pointed out, is the same… happiness… which consists only in the beatific vision, and thus sainthood. God made each of us with a specific vocation within the Church. Don’t ask him which one it is, ask instead, How did you make me to be holy… then do it.
Jeff, you are correct to point out that Aquinas (among others) believed in predestination, but Calvinism also teaches secondary causes, the difference with Aquinas has to do with the relationship between predestination to final salvation and true belief at any given time.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
“I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.””
and also:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_IX.html
“I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.[1]
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it”
Amen, brother. This very much resonates with my own experience.
God says to each of us: “Give me your heart, that is,
your will.” We, in turn, cannot offer anything more precious than to say:
“Lord, take possession of us; we give our whole will to you; make us
understand what it is that you desire of us, and we will perform it.” Vocations are the callings of our Father, God, to we, His beloved Children – sons in His Son. He calls us to a specific state in life in which we can cooperate with the graces He has chosen to grant us for the salvation of our souls. St. Alphonsus Liguori has this to say:
“Look upon choosing a state of life, in accordance with the will of God, as your greatest concern, since your eternal salvation depends on the choice that you make. Let the grace of knowing your vocation and of faithfully corresponding to it be an intention in your exercises of piety—prayers, Communions, etc.”
His statement here is echoed by this great Doctor of the Church elsewhere in his writings and in the words of so many other saints.
1) St. Vincent de Paul: “It is very difficult, not to say impossible, to save one’s self in a place, or in a state, in which God does not wish one to be.”
2)St. Gregory Nazianzen: “I hold that the choice of a state in life is so important, that it decides for the remainder of our life, whether our conduct will be good or bad.”
For more on this important topic, I’d point you to the excellent presentations made by Brother André Marie
http://catholicism.org/the-big-decision-your-options-gods-plan.html
For this novice Catholic: what do these great teachers mean by a ‘state of life’?
A state of life, as St. Alphonsus and St. Gregory Nazianzen are using it in the quote above, refers essentially to one’s vocation, to the way in which one lives out that universal call to holiness, as later Church minds have termed it. In their day and age at the time of the early Church, there were originally two possible states in life: the religious state or the married state. In modern times (and that doesn’t mean that such ideas are “modernist,” by any means), the Church recognizes more states of life/ vocations, i.e.:
1) marriage (and this means widow(er)-hood when a spouse dies, or the possibility of re-marrying, if that is a feasible option);
2) consecrated religious life, i.e., a brother or sister living the character and charism of a specific religious order (e.g., Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Salesians, etc.);
3) for men, ministerial ordination, including permanent diaconate for single or married men; the secular priesthood, where one is a priest in a diocese serving the bishop and faithful of that diocese for life; or the religious priesthood, where a religious brother is ordained as a priest (and it’s important to understand here that those are two separate vocations–one can have a vocation to the religious life but not be called to the priestly vocation–see #2 above);
and 4) the single life; one can be called to be a lay person who does not marry but who lives out his or her call as a single person who therefore has greater availability to serve God and His Church in his or her secular life.
There are other sub-categories, but those are the principle ones the Church outlines as possible calls for people/vocations. Hope that helps!
I should also clarify two points that were confusing in my original reply below:
1) Technically, it’s not correct to say that there were “religious” vocations (i.e., vocations to be a religious brother or sister, let alone a religious priest) in the earliest history of the Church; the first true religious “rules” were written by St. Basil and St. Augustine in the late 4th century, although the most extensive rule in terms of sheer numbers was that written by St. Benedict decades later. Until then, there were priests and bishops who served certain areas (not yet called dioceses–that would come later, along with a whole way of life for these secular priests to live out their vocation.) True religious orders like the Benedictines, the Augustinians, the Franciscans and the Dominicans developed later in Church history.
2) The permanent diaconate for men is truly a “vocation within a vocation” in that a man called to marriage and married in the Church can later be called by God to become a permanent deacon–it’s a very important ministerial role that has come into being since Vatican II and which the Church insists that no married man take on lightly (if his wife is not 100% supportive and freely so, most bishops will not allow a married man to begin studies towards the permanent diaconate); otherwise, if an unmarried man feels called to become a permanent deacon, he may not later marry after being ordained a deacon.
These practices apply to the Latin (Western) Church, whereas in the Eastern Catholic rites, a married man may become a priest, but an unmarried man who is ordained a priest cannot later marry; bishops in the Eastern Catholic rites cannot be married at all, as far as I understand the current practices. Finally, these rules about marriage and celibacy are not Church doctrines or dogmas, but rather practices, so it is theoretically possible for the Church to change any of them; nevertheless, it’s not likely to do so lightly. Even the rare exceptions permitted by the Church are strictly governed and maintained (e.g., married Anglican priests who with their wives convert to Catholicism may receive a dispensation from the Church to be ordained as Roman Catholic priests, but again, this is rare and involves an entirely new call from God, not just a decision from the people themselves.)
Many thanks, good brother, for these thorough explanations, and for taking the time to instruct me.
You’re welcome, John, and I should add a heart-felt “WELCOME HOME!”
In all honesty, sometimes I am jealous of converts to Catholicism because for you the beauty and majesty of our faith is so fresh and so new, like a magical gift that you can continue to unwrap slowly, over many years. Even as a religious seminarian who prays God will grant me the grace to be ordained as one of His priests in the future, I sometimes find myself taking the gift of our faith for granted, the gift of Christ Jesus–wholly present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Holy Eucharist–at daily Mass and even at times of Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction. May those times be fewer and farther between!
kudos, brother. a truly insightful idea befitting an intelligent and faithful Catholic thinker. pax et bonum!
You can’t exactly blame Protestantism, or at least Luther, for this, sorry. Luther’s distinctive views on vocation are very similar to what you encapsulate as the “Vatican II” views. The famous illustrating anecdote concerns a cobbler who wants to devote himself more to God, and considers becoming a monk or an itinernant preacher. Luther advises him to make a good shoe and sell it at a reasonable price–serving God by serving his neighbors, using his skills and craft. There’s no “if you aren’t a cobbler as was predetermined before time began, you will be miserable.” Just make responsible use of the skills and gifts God gave you, to help your fellow and give glory to God.
Tim, thank you for putting your thesis and these ideas out there–they can certainly add to a vital discussion going on currently in different areas of the Church!
I would add to this the potentially valuable Ignatian spiritual practice called “the discernment of spirits.” Not being a Jesuit myself, nor even strongly tied to Ignatian spirituality, nevertheless I have found that the guidelines that St. Ignatius outlined–which many later Ignatian writers have developed in greater and clearer detail–can be very useful in discerning how one should proceed based on how the Holy Spirit may be gently directing one’s soul in accordance with God’s Will. On the many occasions when I’ve used Ignatius’s principles to discern God’s Will in a particular matter, they’ve always brought me peace save for those instances where I discerned one particular action but did another, usually because of my own wilfullness or selfishness.
For those interested in easy-to-understand and follow guides to Ignatian discernment of spirits, I can strongly recommend any of the books written by Fr. Timothy Gallagher, OMV. He uses almost too many real-life examples of people he knows (names are changed in the books, of course) for my particular taste, but the books are very easy and brief, aimed at lay people willing to try Ignatian discernment on for size.
In the Bahagavad-gita there are four vocations in life. 1. That of a priest or of a
religious. 2. That of a householder or married state. 3. That of a merchant.
4. That of the military whose responsibility is to defend right from wrong.
I agree with you Tim that vocation is not black and white. If it were true that a person who does not follow a religious vocation will be unhappy or unfulfilled the rest of their life, then I do not see how someone with a call would be able to respond to God’s invitation in complete freedom. I think this freedom is key to vocation because religious life must be lived from love – not obligation, fear or guilt.
I just posted a column on Ignitum responding to an article by Br. Justin Hannegan in Crisis Magazine. He too, sees the need for change in the language we use around vocation. The Holy Spirit is at work it seems in starting some conversations!
Is Religious Life Repulsive? – https://ignitumtoday.com/2014/01/18/religious-life-repulsive/
I just read your article Theresa! I think I gushed enough in your comments section but I would just like to state again how I love how you attempt to discuss it in a larger viewpoint. I love the various viewpoints that are being applied to this conversation and think that yours is especially beneficial! I think we’re at a place now where we should re-examine it from a wider perspective. I want us all to analyze the idea of vocations from a theological perspective and less of an immediate or pragmatic one.
Thank you Tim, I definitely agree with you that it would benefit efforts for religious vocations if there were more theological development and conversation around vocations. Many blessings to you!
Tim and Theresa – I read both of your articles today, just after writing a long reflection yesterday for some former seminarian friends on the same topic… I share all of your conclusions, particularly the call for a greater theological development around the idea of vocation! A formulation I return to a number of times is that in the case of vocation, the “form” (chosen state) is in reality secondary to the “content” (life in charity, holiness). You know, the whole Little Way thing.
However, I would caution that it seems one must allow theologically for the possibility of a person rejecting a legitimate personal calling to a particular state in life (wherein God foresees the greatest level of earthly happiness, personal holiness, fruitfulness in grace for the Church, and glory in heaven for that one, and so solicits their consideration). Otherwise, it would seem that we’d have to raze the idea that God can and does invite persons to particular creative expressions of holiness in the first place – to say nothing of what we would have to say about Christ’s first-century call to close discipleship… an invitation he offers to certain ones in particular and not to all in general; some of whom accept, some of whom reject, some of whom abandoned him afterwards.
But to say that declining such a particular invitation is inherently damnable or a bondage to abject earthly misery would be not only to conceive of God as a cruel “game-master” without an infinite desire that all men be saved, but also a devaluation of both man’s call to freely realize himself in active co-creation, and Christ’s eternal initiative to “work all things to the good” in a dance with man’s free response (cf. CCC 307, 1730 – sorry Tim, couldn’t resist!), and therefore… hogwash.
(Insert C.S. Lewis’ “Perelandra” Chapters 5, 11, and 17 for a better conceptual read on the matter than many I’ve seen.)
A point of further departure for the whole theological discussion in my mind would the canonical requirements for marriage. It is a curious thing that one cannot in fact contract a valid marriage if they only feel divinely called to it. It would be a real defect of freedom and thus an impediment, if one approached the sacrament simply “because God told me to.” Profound self-possession and personal assent is what’s required… But curiously, there are no parameters for determining one’s experienced level of “called-ness” prior to.
If a couple approach the altar with understanding and real assent to what they’re promising… they’re really getting married. And they can really be Saints afterward. That’s interesting.
You’re the man Aaron. Great thoughts. Preciate it.
This is a good article on an important topic. If you wish to develop it more, you might look into St Thomas’ teaching on divine providence. He says that everything comes under divine providence, so God’s plan is definitely involved. But God moves free creatures in a way that respects their freedom. It’s a tough topic to deal with. When you read the lives of some of the saints, such as St Therese whom you mention, it seems like God certainly did call them from a young age. That would account for their determination to follow that call. They cooperated with that grace. I don’t think it was all their own idea.
A couple other thoughts:
1. In speaking of continence for the kingdom, JP often repeats the Gospel text that only those can understand it “to whom it has been given.” This seems to suggest that the ability to understand such a vocation in a way that makes one able to take it up is a gift of the Spirit.
2. Any theology of vocation can’t stop with the individual’s discerning process, but has to include the flip side of that: the Church also discerns vocations. That means, practically speaking, that a candidate who firmly believes he or she is called may actually not be. Seminaries and religious orders need to test their candidates and sometimes it can happen that a person who really wants to pursue the life is not actually suited for it, but has difficulty seeing that reality. In other words, it’s not all up to the candidate, but to the wider community of the Church, through which the Holy Spirit speaks.
3. Teachings on Divine Providence also has to be taken into account. St. Thomas says that God is the creator of all good. Our good as creatures is not only that we exist, but that we are ordered to a good end, so Providence is a necessary part of creation.
This means that God does have a plan for the universe. Thomas says “We are bound to profess that divine Providence rules all things, not only in their general natures, but also as individuals” (Summa, I, q. 22, a. 2) But part of God’s plan is that free creatures act with a real causality. So God’s plan doesn’t mean we are puppets. However, God is more in charge of things than we think! God’s plan is the universal cause of all things, but within that plan particular causes still act. Thomas also distinguishes between Providence–the plan–and divine government, the execution of the plan. As for government, “divine Providence works through intermediaries. For God governs the lower through the higher, not from any impotence on his part, but from the abundance of his goodness imparting to creatures the dignity of causing” (q. 22, a. 3)
I hope this may be useful to you as you consider this important topic more.
Tim,
What do you think about what Pope Francis says about vocations and God’s calling?
“God calls you to make definitive choices, and he has a plan for each of you: to discover that plan and to respond to your vocation is to move toward personal fulfilment. God calls each of us to be holy, to live his life, but he has a particular path for each one of us. Some are called to holiness through family life in the sacrament of Marriage. Today, there are those who say that marriage is out of fashion. Is it out of fashion? In a culture of relativism and the ephemeral, many preach the importance of “enjoying” the moment. They say that it is not worth making a life-long commitment, making a definitive decision, “for ever”, because we do not know what tomorrow will bring. I ask you, instead, to be revolutionaries, I ask you to swim against the tide; yes, I am asking you to rebel against this culture that sees everything as temporary and that ultimately believes you are incapable of responsibility, that believes you are incapable of true love. I have confidence in you and I pray for you. Have the courage “to swim against the tide”. And also have the courage to be happy. The Lord calls some to be priests, to give themselves to him more fully, so as to love all people with the heart of the Good Shepherd. Some he calls to the service of others in the religious life: devoting themselves in monasteries to praying for the good of the world, and in various areas of the apostolate, giving of themselves for the sake of all, especially those most in need. I will never forget that day, 21 September – I was 17 years old – when, after stopping in the Church of San José de Flores to go to confession, I first heard God calling me. Do not be afraid of what God asks of you! It is worth saying “yes” to God. In him we find joy!” -Pope Francis
Pingback: Google