Ecclesial Vocations and the Characterization, "Objectively Superior"

[[Hi Sister O'Neal, I have never heard this explanation of ecclesial vocations before. For that matter I have never heard any explanation of ecclesial vocations before!! I didn't even know it was a thing!! One of the things about Vita Consecrata is that it speaks of the objective superiority of vocations to the consecrated state and I was just never comfortable with that idea. You claim that ecclesial vocations don't mean something higher or more Catholic, but then what do you do with the "objectively superior" piece of things??!! I hear you saying that ecclesial vocations belong to the Church first of all and serve the Church uniquely, which is why they are called ecclesial. Do you see the c 603 hermit vocation in that light? I think that might make more sense of this vocation than I have heard before. (Sorry, no offense meant, I am a new reader!!) Anytime you can get back to me is fine! Thanks.]] 

Thanks very much for writing/questioning on this topic! I wrote several months ago about the term "objectively superior" here On the Objective Superiority of Some Vocations so you might look at that. What I tried to make clear there is that 1) to refer to a vocation in this way (not to a person with this vocation!!) refers to it having everything necessary to lead to holiness (and I will add now that that is both for the individual and for the Church itself), and 2) the use of this term does not allow the piling up of other comparisons like inferior, lower, less, etc. A vocation that is objectively superior has everything necessary for those called to it to achieve what they are called to if they live it well, in this case holiness of self and Church. But those called to it are NOT superior (or more Catholic, more loving in regard to the Church, etc). This is emphatically NOT the case! Still, such vocations are paradigmatic of what is needed to achieve real holiness; they serve as examples of this particularly through their profession of the evangelical counsels and ministry to others (both of which put communion with Jesus right smack in the middle of their lives!).

Yes, I do see the c 603 hermit vocation in this light. The values of the canon, the non-negotiable elements that comprise it (silence of solitude, persevering prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, evangelical counsels, and even a consciously worked out program of life) are all things that are necessary for any Christian seeking union with God in Christ. And I think there is no doubt that the Church itself needs to be a source and model of all of these things in our world!! When I wrote about ecclesial vocations a couple of days ago I likened these to leaven in dough, but the way they work is by inspiring others, allowing them to contact and/or imagine a life of genuine hope and holiness, reminding us all of the universal call to holiness, the universal vocation to be Church in and for the world and Kingdom of God! 

One of the reasons I regularly speak about ecclesial vocations in terms of commissioning and commitments, rights and obligations, is to indicate that these are responsible vocations. Yes, they are uniquely graced, but they are graced so that they can serve the Church and others in similarly unique ways. Graces are not given because God loves a person more than God loves others; they are given so that one may serve others (and in the case of ecclesial vocations, the Church itself) in ways others are not similarly called to serve. We all have different gifts and callings. We each have different missions as well. Speaking about our own gifts and calling should not disparage anyone else! Ordinarily, in the Catholic Church, we recognize the many members, gifts, vocations, given and empowered by the Holy Spirit and we rejoice in them and in the creativity of the Spirit that makes them possible!!

I am regularly awed by what God has done for and with me and my life. I could never have imagined any of it, and often cannot imagine it now. Still, recognizing all of that and writing about it, or otherwise responding to the gift of vocation (which includes God having brought me into the Church when I was 17), is an act of both humility and gratitude --- and it is a joy to me. To hide all of this under a bushel basket would be a betrayal of God's gift to me and to the Church that promised me so much! To use it to denigrate others and other vocations would be a similar betrayal. Hence, I am clear that there are a number of ways to live eremitical life, all esteemed by God and (at least potentially) by the Church. Some of these are specifically ecclesial vocations, some are not, but they are all valuable in their own way. It is my sincerest hope that whether consecrated or not, every member of these vocations discover why God has called them to this specific form of eremitical life and experience the same awe that I regularly experience. 

Like you, I have also struggled with and mainly resisted the language of "objective superiority" present in Vita Consecrata and older documents as well. It seemed elitist and thus, profoundly unchristian. At the same time, I believe I now better know what is NOT being said with that term and I appreciate how such vocations both belong to the essence of the Church and serve her by helping her be the truly humble servant Church Jesus commissioned his disciples to be. Ecclesial vocations 1)  remind priests that they are called to be persons of prayer and penance so they may to minister as servants in all things, and 2) they remind the laity (of which I remain a part) that they are called to union with God in Christ so that they may be Church in all of the unexpected and even the unacceptable places and situations that some believe are necessarily godless and from which the Church too should be excluded. To be called in this way, is to be called to a vocation with a valuable, even unique mission. It is essential to the existence of the Church and belongs to her before it is entrusted to me. I can and do try to honor that humbly as do others I know who have been called to such vocations.                                                   

On Objective Superiority of Vocations: Why Would God Call us to an "Objectively lower" State of Life??

Hi Sr. Laurel - I am really struggling to understand something. Let’s say there are two people who are both attracted to religious life and have the capacity to live it out, with nothing preventing them from doing it. They are attracted to each other, but also to religious life. And yet, God reveals to them that He wills them to marry each other instead. What are some reasons why that might happen? I am having trouble understanding/accepting why God would will someone to an objectively lower state of life. Wouldn’t they have been better off in religious life? Is it possible for marriage to be holier than religious/consecrated life somehow? And if so, how?]]

These are great questions. The key lies in thinking about the reasons some theologians and the church have used the term "objective superiority" about certain states. While folks sometimes still throw around the idea that some vocations are higher or lower than others I think it is important that we let go of such notions. They are too easily misunderstood as "more or less worthy" and things like that. If there is one thing Vatican II tried to get across and make sure the church expressed in the whole of her life it is the idea that every person is called to holiness and we cannot suggest that some vocations lead to holiness while others do not.

That said, what theologians have recognized is that some states of life seem to put the call to holiness at the forefront and they build into themselves or have built into them all the things that objectively contribute to such a call. Scripture, the Sacraments, a focus on prayer and loving others as God loves, some degree of separation from the values and institutions that seem to militate against sanctity (or a life with, in, and for God), all of these are built into the very fabric of some vocations. They define such vocations. These calls are pursued with a special focus on holiness and implicating God into the whole of this world. Other calls seem to do all of this less directly or even in a less focused way. Spirituality seems to be compartmentalized and other concerns seem to predominate. The distinction between these two types of vocations seem to me to be what theologians have referred to as objectively superior vs those that are not.

Think of it this way one child is born into a family of wealth and privilege while one is not. Both children are well-loved but the first child is also well-fed, clothed, housed, educated, catechized, and given many privileges the second child simply has insufficient or even no access to. We might well say that the first child has been called into an objectively superior state of life because everything necessary to grow into a healthy, creative, loving, and productive human being is built into their home life. When theologians speak of one vocation being objectively superior to another this is what they are speaking of. One vocation has all the things along with the vision and focus necessary to lead one to genuine holiness while others do not (or at least seem not to).

Note well, that objective superiority does not necessarily imply the subjective superiority of those called to such vocations, nor even that such a vocation is the best context for everyone called to achieve real sanctity. The second child in our example may well thrive in ways the first does not precisely because she will respond to the need to strive for resources or be more attentive to the inklings of grace in a given situation than the first child. While the second child may never be wealthy in all the ways the first child is, she may well grow into a better more loving human being.

This may provide a way of approaching your question about marriage vs religious life. Yes, it is absolutely possible for marriage to be a better means to holiness than consecrated life would allow for. Remember that marriage is a Sacrament and is meant to reveal the way human beings love one another and bring one another to union with God. Consecrated life is not a Sacrament and has never been raised to that dignity. Granted, the married couple must build into their lives all of those things religious life tends to take for granted (so to speak) and that is really difficult when struggling to raise a family, educate them, give them all they need to become whole and holy human beings. There is nothing easy in that and the degree of self-sacrifice and generosity involved is truly heroic --- but it is certainly possible. Families may be poor, but they cannot make vows of poverty because they must raise children and give them all the resources they need to grow and mature. Which is harder to achieve? Which requires the help of the Holy Spirit more to maintain a healthy focus? Each is difficult in its own way and where once I might have said marriage, I now say I really don't think we can say. The term öbjectively superior" does not allow this kind of comparison or competition. It simply calls for gratitude!

Still, in either case, the question facing the persons you described will need to be where do I feel most deeply and truly called? Which of these vocations will allow me to be most fully myself, to love most fully and effectively? I doubt anyone ever determines their true vocation by measuring it in terms of objective superiority, for instance. We measure vocations in terms of the humanity they make possible for ourselves and others and this necessarily means too, the ways and degrees to which they reveal God in our world. (Remember that reveal does not only mean to make known, but also to make real.) When we respond to a vocational call we implicitly do so in a way that is optimal in these terms --- it is the best choice for us as responsible and responsive human beings who are called to wholeness and holiness, just as it is the best choice for those whom we will touch because of this vocation --- and therefore, it is the best choice for glorifying God with our lives. Unless the vocation we discern allows and even empowers this in Christ, it really doesn't matter whether in some other sense it is considered objectively superior or not.

The use of the term higher is more problematic (though it is a logical correlate of calling some vocations higher, the church never uses the term lower of vocations). In general, I think it is a term we ought to drop because it is too misleading to be used fruitfully. It pushes us to compare the incomparable, and measure God's love for or valuing of us vs God's love for and valuing of others. It makes it hard to avoid doing these things and that is disastrous for genuine spiritual life. Still, if people choose to use it, it should probably be used in the sense of objectively superior as we have described it in the example above. My preference is to object to it, to point out that every vocation is a call to holiness and every vocation should be given the infinite esteem it merits as a divine call. ALL vocations are calls to a share in God's own life and union with God. They are each and all shares in the building of God's Kingdom. Every vocation lived well glorifies God and makes God (and so too, eternity) real in space and time. Terms like higher and lower simply make no sense in light of these facts.