1. When it comes do discerning a vocation, some people think that God is this sphinx, and your vocation is some sort of riddle that you need to figure out, with dire consequences if you get it wrong.
Actually, God is your provident Father, so if you offer yourself to him and let him guide you, where you end up will be your vocation.
2. The most common method of discerning a vocation seems to be "the locution method." This is the method where you sit around, possibly praying, but definitely spending too much time alone in your head waiting for a locution from God about your vocation. This is wrong.
Actually, all of the rhetoric around "discernment" and the use of the locution method is the defense mechanism of "spiritualization," where you talk to yourself in spiritual categories to avoid the feelings of fear that come with taking risks and making commitments.
So, you are probably not actually discerning. Rather, you are spiritualizing away your feelings of fear about what might happen to you if you take a risk about making a commitment.
3. So let me tell you what will happen if you take a risk and make a commitment: it will suck. I don't know exactly how your life will turn out as you allow God to lead you to your vocation, all I know for sure is that a significant portion of it will suck.
So, the simplest thing to do is to just say, "Yes, of course, pursuing this vocation will be painful," because there is only one thing certain about making commitments -- making commitments and sticking to them will suck for a significant amount of time.
But you know what sucks even more than all the pain that comes from risking yourself on making a commitment and sticking to it? the listless ennui that comes from not being committed to any cause or people that you care about.
Vocations -- whether they be to the married life, priesthood, or religious life, or even to a "comprehensive" type of a a career -- are rewarding not because they are pain free, but because you were meant to spend your life giving it away to the people and causes you care for.
So, yes, you are afraid because you have rightly perceived the pain involved in any vocation. But running away from that pain means that you loose out on the amazing experience of pursuing the people and things you care about.
I can say this from personal experience. There's lots of stuff about my religious life that has been miserable. But, some of the ways I have gotten to serve others have been the most precious blessings of my life that I don't even know how to begin to thank God for.
What God has given me is way better than fancy things, travel, houses, clothes, way better than power, honor, etc. So it is definitely worth it.
Because God is a provident Father, and he won't screw you over if you give your life to him. You will have to suffer, yes. But he will not screw you over. If you give your life to him, he will lead you to your vocation, and where you end up will be your vocation.
4. So how do you discern? ***You discern by doing!!!*** You don't sit around praying (which, let's be honest, isn't really praying but just ruminating in your head). You take a risk (a calculated one) by taking a step.
Call your diocese vocation director, visit a religious community, go to a seminary live in weekend -- you keep doing things. Because you discern by doing.
AFTER you do, THEN you pray. You take the experience to prayer and think about it. Prayer for your vocation isn't so much about waiting for a locution from God as it is finding a pattern in the data. But you first need data (that comes from doign) before you can find a pattern.
And prayer gives you clarity about the next step that you should risk taking.
5. So the overall process of discerning a vocation is offer--do---pray. You offer your life to God, then you do something, then you let God unpack for you the results of what you do in prayer. This teaches you the next step to take, and you repeat the cycle for one more iteration
And if you keep doing this cycle, you can be confident that you will end up in your vocation. But the most important thing is to keep doing something, and trusting that God will take your steps, and wherever you end up will be your vocation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I just found out that one of our regulars here at the monastery is going in for a deportation hearing this afternoon together with her husband. Super sad.
Is the administration going to deport actual bad people like they said? Or are they just going to keep doing this nonsense?
At least their Ecuadoran, so I don't think that the administration can ship them off to some gulag torture dungeon for the rest of their lives, so that's something.
This particular phrase has an interesting history, but if you look into how it got formulated, what it really means is that you are sorry for all the sins that you have committed, even venial ones.
The traditional principle is actually, "the punishment cannot be remitted, unless the fault is remitted first." The idea is that if you have committed a venial sin for which you are not sorry, the plenary indulgence cannot remit the temporal punishment for that sin.
This shows you the kind of books that this guy reads and how he reads books. If you read a lot of business, or self-help, or personal improvement books for information, then yes, an AI model does render this kind of reading obsolete.
But a part of reading significant texts is that the ideas in them cannot be reduced to information and its application. So, in reading a significant text you learn to enter into a dialogical relationship with the text.
And the insights that result from that dialogue, as well as learning how to have that kind of a dialogical relationship -- AI cannot do this for you.
Sometimes you see a debate about the so-called "two ends" of the sexual act, the unitive and the procreative, and which one takes priority. Let me suggest that this question is poorly put.
An action cannot have two (really distinct) ends, therefore the sexual act does not have two (really distinct) ends. The sexual act has only one end, and when we say that it has a unitive and procreative end, we are not naming two really different ends of the sexual act.
Rather, unitive and procreative differ only in notion; they describe the one end of the sexual act in two different, yet complementary ways. The sexual act is unitive and procreative at the same time, because being procreative is precisely the way that the sexual act is unitive.
Once you strip away the rhetoric, Francis' position in his immigration letter is, "Governments have the right to regulate immigration and enforce immigration laws, but the only morally legitimate enforcement action is to deport serious criminals who are in the country illegally."
He also seems to suggest that human dignity and the universality of the command to love our neighbor imply that the government has equal obligations towards the well-being of non-citizens who are in the country without authorization as it does towards its own citizens.
But the first of these seems open to the critique that it really does vitiate the rule of law and incentivize further illegal immigration -- almost creating an open border. (Especially since elsewhere Francis pretty much says that anyone who wants to immigrate should be welcomed)
Some people claim that conservative Catholics treat Francis differently than JP2/Benedict, allegedly because Francis disagrees with them, while JP2/Benedict agreed with them. I don't think this is true. I think they show the same attitude, but under changed circumstances.
The response of supporters of Francis' recent letter illustrate one reason why. You will notice that there is very little exposition of Francis' arguments (such as they are) or an explanation or defense of Francis' position with arguments.
The defense of Francis' letter seems to be pretty much: "Not only do you have to obey it because the Holy Father said so, but of course it is true and well-argued, because the Holy Father wrote it."