Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery

Fr. Richard Butler, O.P.

Foreward by the Most Reverend Edwin Vincent Byrne, D.D., Archbishop of Santa Fe

Originally published in 1961 bearing the December 5, 1960 Imprimatur of Albert Cardinal Meyer, Archbishop of Chicago.

Reprinted by TAN Books, 2005.

On the eve of the Second Vatican Council, when a variety of leading indicators looked good, at least humanly speaking, for the Catholic Church, Fr. Butler could yet write:

. . . in a scientific age of well-defined terms, perhaps our cloudy understanding of the meaning of religious vocation is a considerable factor contributing to the lack of interest and incentive among our youth. The response to religious vocational appeal is not what it should be. In the decade between 1950 and 1960 the increase of Catholics in the U.S. was 38%; the parallel increase of religious vocations in that period was only 18% (148).

We have even greater cause today to wonder whether the language of our vocational appeals is what it should be. Besides the general decay in faith and morals since the Council, Fr. Butler’s book brings to our attention certain errors in vocational theology, as it were, which were in place well before the Second Vatican Council; the author sees these errors as having arisen during the 19th century.

The error is one of mystery or, rather, of shrouding the vocation to the religious life in a great deal of mystery which, incidentally, it never had before our own time. Fr. Butler explains that

. . . there are also too many within the Church who shy away [from the religious life] for other reasons. Rather than look askance, they exalt religious life to a super-mysterious level which is altogether unnecessary and definitely undesirable. . . . The specific crime is that of relating religious vocation to the realm of Gnosticism, making of it an estoteric private inspiration. . . .

We have to sympathize with the perplexed young man, pondering an eternal future and seeking a safer state, who is vaguely instructed: “My dear friend, in your heart of hearts, ask yourself if God is not calling you.” The anxious reader of such advice is sent out on a scavenger hunt for a divine communication. His search is bound to be futile. He is not sure, and neither am I, exactly what one’s “heart of hearts” is. He does not know where to look, or, for that matter, what to look for. What is this “call”? How do you get it? And how do you know when you have it (6-8)?

This a matter I’ve always wondered about myself. Indeed, can we not attribute the decision to enter religion to the pride of the aspirant: does he really think that God would deign to call him? At what point can I say to myself, based upon reflection and interior lights: it is God’s will that I leave the world, a worldly career, marriage, and so on?

With some of these questions in mind, I made a visit to Our Lady of the Annunciation of Clear Creek Monastery in Hulbert, Oklahoma (it’s actually in the middle of nowhere, though only an hour from Tulsa, so you can fly and they’ll give you a ride). While there, the Father Guestmaster gave me to read from Dom Paul Delatte, O.S.B.’s Commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict. Dom Delatte was the third abbot of Solemes; the Servant of God, Dom Gueranger was the first. In the few pages given to a discussion of vocation to the religious life, specifically the life of the cloistered Benedictine monk, Dom Delatte said some things surprising (to me).

Dom Delatte states that he will use the term “vocation” to refer only to a limited class of states in life and so he says:

. . . there are only three vocations: vocation to the Faith, for heretics and infidels, which is universal and obligatory under pain of damnation; religious vocation, which is, as we hope to show, universal and yet a matter of counsel; vocation to the ecclesiastical state, which is special and is addressed to a select few, chosen by name from among Christian folk and designated by the Church.

His words are good incentive to introduce a distinction which must be strictly observed in this discussion: a vocation to the religious life is one thing and a vocation to the priesthood is something different altogether (for the purposes of our discussion). A religious life is one lived under the guidance of the evangelical counsels, vowed poverty, chastity, and obedience. The priesthood or the episcopate, on the other hand, are the “ecclesiastical states” which Dom Delatte calls “special” and “addressed to a select few.”

The vocation to the religious life is universal (and yet a matter of counsel)? This was news to me. Dom Delatte explains:

The [vocation to the religious life] is the universal invitation addressed by Our Lord to all the faithful: “If anyone wish to come after me” (Matthew 16:24); “If thou wouldst be perfect” (Matthew 19:21). This vocation has been given once and for all, and Our Lord’s words have never been retracted. Neither the State nor the Church has any power here. God has called souls and opened the gates of perfection to them. It is not merely permission or leave, but a positive invitation addressed to the whole Church. Everyone baptized is by that act sufficiently called by God to a life which is the fulfillment of baptism.

Dom Delatte’s words were a breath of fresh air and I imagine that they would be for many people: no more mystical searching, trying to discern whether the religious state was God’s will for one’s life. As it turns out, there was a standing invitation all along!

Dom Delatte’s book was a popular guide, among Benedictines, about their own rule, before the time of the Council. Thereafter, it soon fell from favor, though the monks at Clear Creek continue to rely upon it. It was, after all, written by one from their own family, as they are descended from the monks at Solesmes (via Fontgombault Abbey). A universal vocation to the religious life sounds kind of suspicious; was this guy just a quack?

Fr. Butler’s book, however, makes it abundantly clear that Dom Delatte was sound in his doctrine. Relying throughout on the theology of Thomas, Fr. Butler defends the following thesis:

Religious vocation is a divine invitation, extended to all by Jesus Christ, to the practice of the evangelical counsels in the religious state, to which a capable subject, under the impetus of grace, responds through generous devotion (152).

In order to explain the nature of this invitation, its universality, I will let Fr. Butler speak for himself by quoting extensively (as I’m wont to do, Thomas Droleskey style) from his book.

The Angelic Doctor praises anyone who can induce others to enter religion, unless violence, simony or deceit were involved. He denies any need of long deliberation over the matter, because in itself the religious state is a better way of life. Nor, he says, should one seek advice about what we would call “having a vocation.” . . .

St. Thomas deplores the idea of preventing children, or those just emerging from a life of sin, or recent converts from seeking the advantages of the religious state. To ask them to wait and practice the precepts first, or to look for something exceptional in themselves, is, says St. Thomas, to misunderstand altogether the nature of the counsels. Further, he strongly approves the practice of advising the religious state as a penance, as well as praises making a private vow to enter religion at some time and then holding oneself to it (60-61).

The above words are Fr. Butler’s summary of material which is readily available for all to consult in the Summa Theologica. I’ve hyperlinked the title to the relevant question (II-II 189).

Yet how do those who maintain this notion of an universal invitation to the religious life account for Matthew 19:11 in which passage Our Blessed Lord says: “Not all can accept this teaching, but those to whom it has been given . . . Let him accept it who can.” Our Lord speaks of those who would become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

In his Scriptural commentaries, St. Thomas explains this passage in this way: This counsel is given by God to hose who ask for it and are willing to work for it. Not all take it because not all have the strength to abstain from marriage, not that any have such a strength of themselves, but by a gift of grace. It is not by natural power that this ability to accept this counsel arises; for if one depended on natural power alone, no one could take it. But, says St. Thomas, if this strength is from grace then anyone can; for Christ said: “Ask and it shall be given to you” (Luke 11:9). And so, Thomas concludes, by the grace of God all can take this counsel. . . . Following St. Chrysostom, the Angelic Doctor says simply that not all can take this counsel because not everyone wants to. . . . While “those to whom it is given” refers to the necessary help of grace, a gratuitous gift of God, yet this divine assistance will not be denied to those willing to do their part. The dictum “do your best and God will do the rest” surely applies to the aspirant timidly approaching the demands of the religious life. What is required is a sincere disposition of the will, as well as a clear understanding of what these demands are and how they can be met. And lest anyone should think St. Thomas makes a singularly broad interpretation of this particular passage, we should point out immediately that he is following the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, Doctors and early theologians of the Church. St. Jerome and St. Chyrsostom, whom he cites, propose this interpretation. So does Bede, Euthymius, Theophylactus, Origen and others (65-67).

Fr. Butler continues in this vain (of citing the Fathers) in a later chapter. Note the gems from St. Jerome and St. Augustine!

The position of St. Thomas, proposing and even insisting on an objective general invitation to the practice of the evangelical counsels in the religious state, is confirmed by the unanimous opinion of the Fathers of the Church. St. Ambrose said: “There are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the kingdom of heaven . . . while this is not commanded to all, yet all are invited.” St. Jerome does not hesitate to urge an aspirant, Heliodorus, to overcome all obstacles to his intention to adopt the monastic life, saying: “If your father should prostate himself before you at the door, step over him and go on . . . In this case the only way for you to show affection for your father is to be cruel to him.” When St. Augustine was asked what would happen to the human race if everyone were to practice the counsels, he blandly replied: “The City of God would be filled the sooner, and the e