VOCAZIONE

VOCATION. — From the Latin vocatio = calling. Divine vocation implies, in the efficient sense, the divine will or election of a human creature for a certain task, and, in the formal sense—according to the concept of calling—its manifestation: the latter alone creates in the called the responsibility of response.

I. SACRED VOCATION

Every moment of human life, in its objective concreteness, stands before the gaze and will of God, to whom all things are subject and to whom graces are proportioned for fulfillment. Thus one may speak of a vocation for every instant of man’s life. Yet when speaking of divine vocation, or even simply of vocation, one generally intends the priestly or religious vocation. The celebrated passages of Holy Scripture refer to these alone: “No one takes this honor upon himself, but only the one who is called by God, as Aaron was” (Heb 5:4); “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit” (Jn 15:16); “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted” (Mt 19:11). The reason for this privileged designation of “divine vocation” lies in the special divine content of the priestly and religious state, which is called sacred precisely for this reason; it places this state on a level superior to the entire common supernatural plane of human life. For the religious life, this higher level consists in the realization of the evangelical counsels, which crucify the most intimate and, in themselves, legitimate human tendencies, so as to facilitate perfect union with God (Sum. Theol., 1-2a, 2-3, q. 108, a. 4; ibid., 2a-2a, q. 184). For the priesthood, it consists in the sublime and operative character, powers, and mission—official and hierarchical—of the priest, which require an interior, proportionate surpassing of the common human plane.

The manifestation of the divine will may be either miraculous or ordinary, according as it occurs through an immediate and infallible intervention of God, as with St. Paul, or through providential but fallible secondary causes. The first case is exceedingly rare; here we shall always refer to the second.

II. SIGNS OF SACRED VOCATION

1. Manifestative indications of the divine choice

Before divine Providence, which governs secondary causes for the manifestation of sacred election, stands the elect, not taken in isolation and abstraction, but within the complete and concrete framework of reality, considered not only in his personal elements but also in his environment of origin and sacred destination. Only from the favorable maturation of all these elements will the sure indication of the call flow forth. Divine Providence, namely: a) will render favorable (or cause to be overcome and compensated) the original environment, familial, etc., and then the formative one, not excluding material, economic, etc., aspects; b) will infuse and nourish in the young person the suitable physical, intellectual, and moral qualities; c) will inspire in his will the desire for the religious or priestly life, causing him to weigh and judge the above-mentioned elements with his spiritual director; d) will enlighten the responsible superiors of the religious institute or diocese, making their judgment favorable and inducing them to accept him. It is important to note in what sense, when it concerns priestly vocation, the judgment and acceptance of the bishop have preeminent value. Not inasmuch as it disregards or replaces the other elements, but because the judgment of the hierarchical superior is the only one capable of juridically authenticating the favorable character, conferring upon the elect the right to ordination: “They are said to be called by God who are called by the legitimate ministers of the Church” (Catech. Rom., part 2, ch. 7; Ench. Cler., no. 104); “No one has any right to ordination before the free election of the bishop” (ibid., no. 860). The bishop, however, must also judge another element, extrinsic to the young person yet decisive, namely the number of priests needed in the diocese and the possibility of integrating the new recruit into the hierarchical framework of effective priestly work (whereas the number called to their own sanctification in religious life may theoretically be without limit): “No one from the laity is to be ordained who, in the judgment of his own bishop, is not necessary or useful to the churches of the diocese” (CIC, can. 969 § 1). Or else provision must be made for his employment in another diocese (can. 969 § 2).

2. Signs in the young person

a) Moral suitability: of the three above-mentioned personal suitabilities, this is the most problematic; 1) it must be judged naturally in view of the higher level of sacred vocation. Substantial chastity, for example, being obligatory even for a young layman, constitutes a necessary but not properly distinctive sign. 2) The priestly vocation is not like an intermediate step or compromise with respect to the level of religious vocation, but, while not in itself implying the status perfectionis (except for bishops: cf. 2a-2a, q. 184, a. 6), it corresponds to a maximal exigency of holiness, though with modalities and titles different from those of religious vocation. For religious, the extrinsic but explicit title of holiness is the higher status perfectionis embraced for their own sanctification; for priests, the intrinsic but implicit title is the sublimity of character, powers, and mission. 3) The practical necessities of ministry, which deprive the secular priest of the precious defense of the religious rule, impose upon him a deeper grounding of interior virtues. 4) Suitability must mature progressively; yet since sacred service is the exigent title of special priestly holiness, this holiness must be substantially attained at the moment of sacred ordination (cf. the exhortation Menti nostrae, no. 100): in this lies another difference from religious vocation (cf. Sum. Theol., 2a-2a, q. 189, 1 c.). 5) Although all the virtues are interdependent, the most characteristic sign of religious vocation is obedience (of the religious type), since chastity and poverty in actu are also found in other states; that of priestly vocation is devotion to the Eucharistic Sacrifice, because the power over the real Body of Jesus is the greatest, most demanding, and incommunicable grandeur of the priest (cf. Menti nostrae, no. 101).

b) Will: it is not necessary that the internal motion of the Holy Spirit have an emotional or even mystical character (Ench. Cler., 860), it being sufficient that it invite the “yes of right intention” (cf. Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii [1935]: in Ench. Cler., no. 1387; Menti nostrae, no. 76).

Here is the theory clearly expressed by the following diagram:

to manifestation

environment
of origin
and
formative

young person
physical
intellectual
will
moral

internal forum
judgment
of the
Spiritual Father

a) favorable

b) suitable

c) right

d) acceptance

### III. PARTICULAR QUESTIONS

#### 1. Doubtful Vocation
Excluding miraculous manifestation, God can permit secondary causes to fail. The phrase “If God calls, all difficulties will fall away” confuses God’s absolute and miraculous power with His ordinary and regular power. There may be cases of lack of clarity, and thus of a doubtful vocation. In such cases—especially regarding the priesthood—one must act as if it were lacking. Indeed, given the exceptional difficulty of such a state, the presumption must lean toward prudent refusal of the affirmative. It is not necessary to prove that the vocation does not exist, but rather, with moral certainty, that it does (cf. CIC. can. 973 § 3; *Ad Catholici Sacerdotii*; *Eucheristia Clericorum*, 1388). This would also apply if the doubt arose after the first two major Orders (*Instruction of the S. C. Sacr.*, 27 Dec. 1930; *Eucheristia Clericorum*, 1224-95).

#### 2. Error
There may also be the case of irreparable error. What matters is that it does not culpably depend on the young person. *Post factum*, in the state erroneously but inculpably embraced, he may still expect from divine goodness the proportionate graces and become a called one to that state.

#### 3. Loss of Vocation
Just as anyone, by resisting grace, can reject the general vocation to eternal salvation and be lost, so too the elect—restricting the observation to his responsibilities—can reject the interior invitations of grace to say yes, or, after embracing the priesthood, can reject the graces needed to live it worthily. In both cases, he then becomes one no longer willed by God: this is the lost vocation.

#### 4. Scarcity of Vocations
The divine, though not miraculous, conception of the sacred vocation does not confuse trust in Divine Providence—which cannot fail to provide the necessary priests—with neglect of the necessary initiatives for their recruitment (cf. the encyclical *Officiorum omnium* of Pius XI, 1 Aug. 1922; *Eucheristia Clericorum*, 1152; *Menti nostrae*, n. 74-77).

#### 5. Freedom and Responsibility
Assuming a certain vocation, the question arises whether there is an obligation, under sin, to correspond to II. The arguments for the affirmative (“obligatory”) position are weighty:
a) Ascetical tradition inclines toward this view;
b) Supposing a pure invitation, in rejecting it there would be no direct sin, but there would be indirect sin in the offense given to the divine Inviter;
c) Such rejection would contradict the obligation of charity to love God above all;
d) It would constitute culpable waste of precious graces;
e) It would violate the precept of charity toward oneself by unreasonably renouncing one’s own “better,” concretely proposed by God;
f) By placing the soul outside God’s plan and preordained graces, it could jeopardize eternal salvation;
g) In the case of the priesthood, it would constitute a betrayal of its social mission;
h) It would imply sin, at least accidentally, arising from culpable motives for the refusal;
i) Finally, if obligation were excluded, the greatness and responsibility of the vocation would be undervalued.

Nevertheless, the negative position (“freedom”) seems more convincing for the following reasons:
a) Although it is not absurd that God might impose, under sin, a man to live permanently at a supernatural level above the normal level of his nature, this is not presumable;
b) Given the supreme importance of the sacred vocation, the putative sinfulness of its rejection would have to be grave; this, besides creating enormous scruples of conscience, contradicts the common opinion even of the “obligationists”;
c) The liturgy of Ordination, while showing concern for the suitability and freedom of the ordinands, omits any reference to the possible guilt—grave or light—of one who rejects the divine call. Pius XII, in his closing address to the General Congress of Religious on 8 Dec. 1930, while urging counselors not to obstruct the vocations of the called, omitted any mention of a reciprocal obligation of the called to follow them;
d) In practice, moreover, sin is certainly to be excluded by the authority of the “libertarians,” which renders the obligation at least doubtful and thus juridically and morally nonexistent.

This is further supported by a critique of the above obligatory arguments:
a) Ascetical tradition often speaks of obligation, duty, obedience, commitment, responsibility, etc., in a general sense, without analyzing whether it is under sin or not;
b) The classic distinction of the divine will into grave precepts, light precepts, and desires would be meaningless if desires excluded even indirect sin in their rejection; otherwise, even the omissions of the smallest devotional practices desired by God would be sinful, and ordinary souls would be equated with great saints who made the vow of “perfection,” whose consequence is precisely to render non-obligatory things obligatory;
c) Supreme charity toward God can be realized in three ways: substantially by fleeing every grave sin, perfectly by fleeing even every venial sin, and more perfectly and generously by adhering to divine desires. The rejection of a vocation, if it only conflicts with charity in the third way, does not imply sin (*Summa Theologiae*, II-II, q. 184, a. 3 c.; q. 124, a. 3 ad 1);
d) The rejection of divine graces, as aids from God for fulfilling His will, cannot fail to correspond, in terms of sinfulness or otherwise, to the nature of the respective divine will, and thus excludes sin in the case of a non-preceptive will;
e) The renunciation of the “better” of a vocation, though constituting immense loss in terms of diminished heavenly reward, may not constitute a stain deserving of purgatory or hell when the specific end of the action is not the rejection of that greater good in itself—which would imply its culpable disdain—but the good of an ordinary state;
f) By choosing a good common state, the soul, having exited God’s exceptional plan, may enter the ordinary one and, instead of preordained graces of exception, receive those necessary for ordinary sanctification. In this way, salvation might even be easier, since graces are like weapons of combat (Eph. 6:11-17), which, while giving the capacity for victory, do not ensure ease and do not dispense from the labor of their employment—that is, correspondence. With more precious weapons, proportionate to a higher state and harder struggle, the task may be even more difficult to accomplish, especially in the secular priestly state, which lacks the defensive and sanctifying organization of religious life;
g) The social apostolic function of the priesthood does not eliminate the characteristic of free enlistment, governed by Divine Providence;
h) The problem essentially concerns sin *in se*; that arising *per accidens*, from motives of sloth, etc., may often be present, but not always. Since sloth does not consist in repugnance to a greater and exceptional sacrifice that is not obligatory, the problem does not always involve sloth;
i) From the libertarian position, the concept of vocation and its corresponding responsibility is even exalted, since the absence of obligation is precisely due to the sublimity and exceptionality of the vocation itself, which can only be lived with the freedom of generosity and love.

IV. Pontifical Work for Vocations — Established by His Holiness Pius XII by *motu proprio* with the apostolic letter *Cum nobis* of 4 Nov. 1941, to safeguard, encourage, and assist priestly vocations. It has its seat at the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities of Studies, which, by rescript of 30 Jan. 1942, issued its statutes and regulations. By rescript of the same date, the Sacred Penitentiary granted the Work numerous indulgences.

To achieve the proposed end, the Pontifical Work:
1) first of all promotes the dissemination of accurate and clear ideas about the nature, necessity, and excellence of the priesthood;
2) encourages the offering of Holy Masses, Communions, prayers, works of penance, and charity to obtain from God many and excellent priestly vocations;
3) fosters the development of the Work, established in various dioceses, and takes an interest in its establishment where it does not yet exist.

The entities that can be affiliated with the Pontifical Work are many and are distinguished into:
a) branches: diocesan works for priestly vocations;
b) affiliates: religious houses, generalates and provincialates; institutes, centers of Catholic associations, and similar entities that extend beyond the scope of individual dioceses. To affiliate a diocesan Work with the Pontifical Center, the request must be signed by the Ordinary.

The Work has as its president the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries, and guarantees autonomy and freedom of action to diocesan Works, which are organized and function according to their own regulations.

To better make known and more adequately appreciate the dignity and necessity of the Catholic priesthood, the Work:
1) urges priests to seize all favorable opportunities to address the subject (e.g., Lenten preaching, spiritual exercises, novenas, catechisms for adults);
2) encourages the faithful to study both the documents issued by the Holy See and what the Fathers of the Church and other writers have written about the priesthood; it exhorts them to instill in children and adolescents esteem for the priesthood and to foster in them the desire for Christian perfection.

With a view to obtaining from the Lord excellent vocations to the ecclesiastical state and the necessary aids for their happy fulfillment, the Work recommends the following practices:
1) the Ember Days, established by the Church from the earliest centuries also to assist with prayer and fasting those aspiring to the priesthood;
2) the “Priestly Day,” more recently approved by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (12 Apr. 1937) and enriched with special indulgences by the Apostolic Penitentiary (cf. *Enchiridion clericorum*, p. 861, no. 1534);
3) prayers offered to God in rotation by religious families;
4) the “Day of Suffering,” in which a treasury of sufferings is gathered among the sick. For many years this “day” has been traditionally celebrated on Holy Thursday, and its success is aided by radio broadcasts made in various languages across many countries.

The Work also undertakes various initiatives to engage different categories of people with the issue of vocations: parents, teachers, children, the sick and nurses, students, graduates and professionals, workers, farmers, sailors... An annual “Communion of Children” is requested from those who receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the first time.

It provides for the printing of suitable publications in the principal languages: Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, English, and German. The *Foglio di comunicazioni*, published since 1945, maintains relations between the Pontifical Center and diocesan Works; it promotes meetings and congresses; supports, and sometimes actively participates in, diocesan, regional, and especially national congresses on vocations; and fosters the interest and collaboration of Catholic organizations, both international and national.

The Work is consecrated to Jesus Christ, the High and Eternal Priest; it is placed under the maternal protection of Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and under the patronage of St. Joseph, patron of the universal Church; and it especially venerates the Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul. Its principal feast is Holy Thursday, which marks the anniversary of the institution of the priesthood.

Celestino Testore