**Question:** What did St. Thomas Aquinas do for fun? We know that he was a brilliant mind who wrote many good works . However, even he himself says that games and having fun are good for one's soul (I am not sure these are exact words, but he said something in that style). There is this quote attributed to him > Now this relaxation of the mind from work consists on playful words or deeds. Therefore it becomes a wise and virtuous man to have recourse to such things at times. So, what was he doing to have fun, how did he play? If we do not have information, is there any educated guess? How did Dominicans, in general, have fun in those times?

Is attending a priestly ordination, bishop's consecration, or religious profession an indulgenced act (pious work)?

Banns , prescribed by the Council of Trent session 24 ch. 1, are >Public announcements of an intended marriage. Their purpose is to discover matrimonial impediments if any exist. Unless a dispensation has been secured, three publications are required on three Sundays or holy days in the churches of the marrying parties. Anyone knowing of such impediments is bound in conscience to make the same known to the clergy concerned. Similar announcements are required for those about to receive holy orders. (Etym. Anglo-Saxon *gebann*, a proclamation.) Have there been banns or public announcements for those entering into religious life, to insure there are no impediments (1983 CIC 597 , 642–45 )?

Who said that the smallest spiritual progress of a religious merit s more than that of a thousand laymen? I seem to remember it was by or about St. Teresa of Ávila.

I have a friend who joined a religious order after his first dissolved. But he had to start from scratch starting with postulancy. My question is what does normally happen to someone's final vows after his religious order dissolves? Are these people free to leave the monastic life or do they or should to find another religious order?

Was there ever a saint who, while living, convinced his or her spouse to enter religious life?

I was reading Angelic Doctor about religious vocation (= a invation from God to life as dioceasn priest or in some kind of religous order (like Dominicans, Franciscans...)) and it seems that he did not view the matter as most view today. Among the things Aquinas says (in *On The Perfection of the Spiritual Life* - it is on end of chapter 8) is: > This solution of Augustine is in harmony with what was said above about poverty. For 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 virtues, 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. It would seem that according to Aquinas, one must, under the pain of sin of persumption, and if the one is able to (without any obvious impediments), pursue spiritual life of poverty and celibate. I am not sure that this is what Aquinas really wants to say, however, let me try to formalize possible argument (be it one from Aquinas or not) for a such position. Let me organize the argument in six points (which I will justify in the edit if somone objects to some point in the comments). It goes something like this. 1. If one does not want to attain perfection, he sins mortaly. 2. Thefore if one wants to be saved, he must desire perfection. 3. Easier (more safe) path to perfection is via life of celibate and poverty. 4. Salvation is not easy to attain, therfore one must be at most careful to do anything that he can to attain it (or he commits a sin of persumption). 5. If one can chooses between more safe and less safe way to perfection he must take a more safe path, because if he choose less safe way he would not be at most careful to do anything to attain salvation. 6. Since more safe way is way of celibacy and poverty, and one must choose more safe way under pain of sin of persumption, it follows that one, if he is able to, must choose life of poverty and celibacy or else he sins. If my argument does not work, I think that I may be failing to make some distinction, upon which one could desire the perfection and yet choose the less safe way without any sin. But how can one really desire perfection, if, when the better way is presented, he chooses the less safe way? Obviously if the better way is not presented one is excused. But what would be some examples that excuse somone that is not already married or suffers some serious impediment (like missing a hand,...)? Would that be having a passion and being good in some job (like a teacher or something) and long relationship with boyfreind or girlfreind? I take these two examples, because it seems to me, that youth today are most commonly thinking between those two and life of priest or life in some religous order. Would those two be reasnoble justfication for not following a better way, or are they obliged to leave everything for life as a priest or a life in some religous order? Do they sin if they do not leave everything (is it venial or mortal if it is even a sin)? I am confused because this does not seem as common opinion of the Church, so any help would be great. Thanks.

Approaching this from a Catholic perspective, I'd like to ask believers how they came to know that they were called to join the religious life (as a brother or nun), as opposed to the other vocations (priesthood, marriage, single life etc). Rephrasing the same question, what should a believer look for when discerning whether they are called to the vocation of religious life?

Does Catholicism consider spiritual pleasures greater than carnal/sexual/bodily pleasures?

What does Aquinas mean when he speaks of "state of perfection", or more broadly, what does Catholic Church mean by "state of perfection"? He often uses this phrase in works like *Summa Theologiae* , *On the perfection of spiritual life* etc.

Traditionally, Catholics used language of "state of perfection " (as we can for example read in Aquinas). Why did not Vatican II use this term? What is the history of the term "state of perfection" before, during, and after Vatican II?