Are there saints who chose the wrong vocation—i.e., entered into a certain state of life without having any attraction to it?

Saints sometimes exhibited mystical phenomena in the cognoscitive order such as visions, locutions, revelations, discernment of spirits , and hierognosis (ability to distinguish blessed from profane objects); cf. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., *Teología de la Perfección Cristiana* p. 814. Discernment of spirits in the sense of reading souls (as opposed to distinguishing good from evil spirits; cf. *ibid.* p. 826) would seem to include the ability to know what state of life God is calling a particular soul to. What saints gifted with spiritual discernment were able to accurately determine what vocation God is calling someone to?

According to Catholic moral theologians, is it more conducive to the unbaptized's possible salvation to marry (other unbaptized) or remain single?

According to Instruction VIII of St. Alphonsus Liguori's *Dignity and Duties of the Priest*: > In conformity with the words of the Apostle: *No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular business, that he may please Him to Whom he hath engaged himself. (2 Tim. ii. 4.)* The holy Church prohibits, with so much rigor, and under pain of censure, ecclesiastics to engage in traffic. >The priest is consecrated to God; he therefore should attend to no other business than the advancement of God's glory. The Lord does not accept empty victims from which the marrow has been extracted. *I will offer up to Thee,* said David, *holocausts full of marrow. (Ps. lxv. 15.)* The sacrifices, the Masses, Offices, and works that a priest dissipated by the cares of traffic offers to God are, says St. Peter Damian, empty; for he has taken away the marrow, that is, attention and devotion, and presents only the skin or external appearance. I am assuming that the word "traffic" implies operating some kind of a business, but I don't know for sure. Does anyone know what exactly is meant by the word *traffic* here; and what kinds of traffic did the Catholic Church forbid priests from engaging in? Also, where may such declaration(s) be found? Was it declared in a papal encyclical or by a Council, or both?

In the context of vocations, what is a "grace of state"? not to be confused with "state of grace " (having sanctifying grace ) Chad Ripperger, *Introduction to the Science of Mental Health* , Chapter 26: Misdiagnosis of Supernatural Activities: >These inclinations also find themselves in what are called “graces of state.” For example, a priest who has received the sacrament of Holy Orders also receives certain graces which incline him toward the fulfillment of his office as priest, i.e. to offer Mass, hear confessions, etc. When the priest fails to fulfill the obligations of his state, he will often enter into a kind of depression or state of sorrow or unhappiness. This is the result of the lack of fulfillment of the desire of the inclinations of the graces of state. Are "graces of state" different from sacramental graces from Holy Orders for priests or from Matrimony for marrieds? Is "grace of state" a type of sacramental grace? Or can those without these sacraments also receive "graces of state" (e.g., to help one live the single life or lay 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, what are good signs that God is calling you to the vocation of priesthood, in other words, what must one look for to know whether you are called to the priesthood?

**According to Catholicism, How does one know if God is calling him to be a priest?** If one is contemplating being a diocesan priest, what is the normal way one should do things in order to determine his discernment towards this call? Is there a different approach taken for those who are considered late vocations? For example take my own circumstances: Earlier in my life, I ran after the highest level of education and tried very hard to achieve it. But after 20 years of effort, I obtained a certificate. I ran after every secular thing that there is. Nothing seems to attract me. So I am just wondering how does one knows if God is calling him to be a priest and what steps does one normally take to find out in the Catholic Church? What should one do?

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?

All I know about Ignatian spiritual exercises was orally transmitted to me from priests and others, therefore I may misunderstand Ignatian spiritual exercises and in that case please correct me. According to this video and from what I hear from people around me, is that Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation (whether one should be married or live as a monk or become a secular priest) for one's life. In these Ignatian spiritual exercises, one should listen internally for some kind of spiritual movement of the soul that comes from Holy Spirit and based on these feelings discern what path in life to take. These movements from the Holy Spirit are conferring some grace to one's soul, but why believe that one should feel the receiving of grace? One typically does not feel grace, rather, it is perceived through a longer time by considering objectively one's life. From what I understand about these Ignatian spiritual exercises it seems to me that they just add to what solid Thomist Rev. Fr. Richard Butler O.P. calls "An Unnecessary Mystery". **Question:** Whether Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation according to Thomistic understanding of vocation? Some related questions that shed more light on the Thomistic understanding of vocation and which will help in understanding my question: 1. Catholic doctrine on spiritual vocation . 2. History of the doctrine of a religious vocation in the Catholic Church .

In the evangelical circles, finding God's will for one's life is a very common topic, with a "recipe" that looks like this Christianity.com article: [How Do We Know God’s Will for Our Lives?](https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-life/how-do-we-know-god-s-will-for-our-lives.html) . The motivation why one is "compelled" to find it is: by walking in the "zone" that God has set for you: 1) you will have *peace* that God is with you, 2) you will be *successful* because God will provide everything you need for His will to be accomplished, and 3) you live a *Godly pattern* exemplified by Jesus and the apostles who themselves have dedicated their lives to execute God's specific will for them. I realize that for Catholics entering vocations (joining a religious order / priesthood), there is an established practice for discernment. But how about for lay Catholics? What I heard is a general Thomistic guidance of aligning our intellect and will toward true happiness in God by being aware of how our numerous daily choices can potentially sidetrack us toward anything **less than God** such as honor, riches, power, etc. instead of striving toward the true final end of human nature of beatific vision by living with true love toward those within our circle while working together with the Holy Spirit toward eliminating one's vices and increasing one's virtues. While that guidance is in some way more specific than the evangelical advice linked above, there are still many choices that a typical 18 year old Catholic can be bewildered, such as: what major to study at the university, who to marry, career path, etc. Is there a practice similar to discerning vocation but for lay Catholics? A related sub-question: does the answer come in the form of special graces given to lay Catholics toward some particular calling (example: talents for music for those called to be musicians), similar to special graces infused by God for the religious (example: for fulfilling their vows of chastity)?

While an argument can be made that all Christians should quit their "secular" jobs, sell all their possessions, and preach the gospel fulltime, I am thinking that its basis may not biblical. What then could be a biblical basis for not quitting one's job?

What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Thomistic understanding of vocation and how is the action of the Holy Spirit manifest when one is being called to religious state? Related questions: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/70788/history-of-the-doctrine-of-religious-vocation-in-catholic-church https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/70787/catholic-doctrine-on-spiritual-vocation https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/71131/whether-ignatian-spiritual-exercises-are-good-for-the-discernment-of-vocation-ac

In the Catholic Church, a marriage is considered a life-long state that can't be dissolved. However, it sometimes happens that one spouse abandons the other. For example, let's assume Alice is married to Ben. Their marriage is valid, but some years later Ben leaves her. Alice tries to reconcile, but Ben refuses contact with her. According to the Catholic Church, Alice definitely can't get married again. How is she supposed to live her life? Could she join a religious order? Or does she have to be alone until she dies? Also, Catholics widely claim that a child has [a right to a mother and a father](https://ccgaction.org/unconvention_rightsofchild) . Assuming Alice has children, how does the church justify that she now has to raise them alone, rather than finding a new husband? From her perspective, the situation is more similar to the death of a spouse than to a normal separation, since she did not consent to the separation and cannot do anything about it. In this hypothetical, Alice did nothing to "make" Ben leave her and he refuses any attempt to reconcile. I think reasonably similar situations are quite common in practice.

I am reading Aquinas and I am puzzled by his view on religious vocation and common view in the Church today (I will for sake of simplicity call it a modern view) about religious vocation. In *On the perfection of spiritual life* and in his *Summa Theologiae* the Angelic Doctor expresses his view on religious vocation (I will for sake of simplicity call it traditional view of religious vocation). I do not mean to start fights about modernism in the Church and all that but I just use these terms because they seem fitting to me. Let me contrast some differences between Aquinas view of religious vocation and modern view of religious vocation. To make things clear, although I dislike the term "religious vocation" let me try to define it. **Religious vocation** = some kind of invitation or calling from God to life as diocesan priest or to life in some religious order. **Modern.** These are just some statements that seem to be approved and agreed by common opinion in Church today (I do not exclude possibility that I have limited experience of common people and priests and therefore have a wrong picture of what is common opinion today, however, it seems to be that not so small number of people in the Church would agree with these statements). 1. One should take long time to discern his religious vocation. 2. Life in married state and in a state of religious order or in priesthood are equally good ways to sainthood, you just need to discern which one of these God wants you to take. 3. One can know God's will for his particular state of life via prayer and whether he feels peace (or something like that) when he prays or somewhere else. 4. Calling to religious vocation typically involves some kind of event where God is manifest or some deep experience of God. **Traditional.** These are some statements that would (it seems to me) say 700 years before today be approved and agreed in common opinion of the Church. 1. There is no need for long discernment process for religious vocation. 2. Marriage is less perfect way of following our Lord, where poverty and celibacy are more perfect and better way. 3. One can not know God's will directly and with certainty about one's particular state of life. 4. Called to religious vocation are really all who are able to and (without serios and obvious impediments like missing a hand) willing to take it, and typically it does not involve some special feeling or manifestation of God to assure that one ought to take it. These are just some points that seem to very different to me, so my question is, what are some arguments for both views? Did the Church ever, in her magisterial documents, speak about this? What happened historically that the modern view took its place in common opinion of people and priests today?

I'm wondering about the sinfulness of women, particularly mothers, working outside the home. Perhaps 1 Timothy 5:8 could be understood to mean that only the husband is to provide for the family: > Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. > > [1 Timothy 5:8 NIV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:8&version=NIV) What is the biblical basis for a woman, particularly a mother, working outside the home?