The Vocation of the Cross: On Vocations and States of Life for Suffering People at the Foot of the Cross

The Vocation of the Cross: On Vocations and States of Life for Suffering People at the Foot of the Cross

By Vanessa Marie Chastain Rivas

To follow Christ is to follow the call of the Cross, the vocation of the Cross. It is to be like Mary, standing at the Foot of the Cross, with a heart joined with the Heart of Christ in suffering.

There might be some who would say that a person suffering from the Cross, whether as a young person or in connection to age, should not enter a particular vocation, a particular state of life, or a particular way of following Christ – whether that might be the priesthood, the religious life, the eremitic life (the life of a hermit), or marriage. This way of thinking, however, would not be according to the way of Christ but, rather, the way of the world. The way of Christ is ultimately according to the Will of God – not the will of people. The Way of the Cross is the Way of union with God. Therefore, is it logical to think that a person following the Way of the Cross cannot live the vocation of the Cross – the Way of following Christ according to the Cross, with all that that might involve, including true vocations and true states of life to be followed, such as the priesthood or the religious life?

People might believe that it is impractical or even impossible for a person suffering the Cross to attempt to live in a particular vocation, a particular state of life, or a particular way of following Christ. People might reject the idea that a community (a religious community, for example) might have to suffer the inconvenience or the burden of a person suffering from the Cross. However, the way of Christ generally would not conform to the thinking of people. While Christ, of course, expects His followers to live according to truth, truth does not support the idea that a person suffering from the Cross should be prevented from following the will of God – be it in the religious life, the priesthood, or marriage. Inherently, the Cross does not prevent a person from following a particular vocation, a particular state of life, or a particular way of following Christ should God will for a person to live in this way. Did Christ follow the Will of God according to the Way of the Cross? Then His followers should be willing to follow Christ even to the point of following the Way of the Cross. That means that there might be people who are expected by God to follow Christ while suffering the Cross.

Should such people be denied the vocations and states of life intended for them? Some might attempt to deny these people suffering the Cross the vocations and states of life intended for them using the pretext that people suffering the Cross cannot handle such vocations or states of life due to the Crosses that they are suffering. However the Way of Christ is the Way of the Cross. Therefore people suffering the Cross should be encouraged to follow the Way of Christ – the way intended by Christ for them that they must follow to be saved – understanding that the Crosses that they suffer are involved in following the Way of Christ. As such it is wrong to deny people suffering the Cross the vocations and states of life intended for them – whatever these vocations and states of life might be. There is no conflict between following the Way of the Cross and following the Way of Christ.

To help people to understand the need to allow people suffering the Cross to follow Christ as He desires, whether that might involve the religious life, marriage, or the priesthood, I would like to explain the spiritual and personal implications of a vocation to the Cross for a person suffering the Cross.

For a word about my background, I do not have a theology degree. This particular issue seems to have come up as I have gone about my life, so it seems that I am choosing to do something about it – for other people who might suffer in this way and for myself. It seems that I have suffered personally from lack of willingness to allow people suffering from the Cross to live vocations, states of life, and ways of following Christ intended for them. I have suffered from the Cross though I am younger, in the early thirties. I have suffered, for example, from high-functioning autism and a history involving mental health (anxiety, depression, and OCD – generally, no hallucinations, no delusions, and no schizophrenia). I used to be suicidal but no longer. I have studied Carmelite writings and Carmelite spirituality for around a decade, since 2014, and I was enrolled in the Brown Scapular in 2014, around ten years ago, when I was 22. I am writing here in the Carmelite tradition, the tradition of St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.

Therefore, though I have suffered the Cross to the point of being turned away by a Carmel where I seem to have a true vocation, I believe, even so, that I have a religious vocation to Carmel, even though, to some, that might seem impossible. I am using my background in studying Carmelite spirituality and Carmelite writing here, in this writing, to make the point that the Way of the Cross does not conflict with the Way of Christ – that, in fact, the Way of the Cross goes along with the Way of Christ. Therefore, people suffering from the Cross should be allowed to follow the Way of Christ – however God expects them to follow this Way – whether the path is the priesthood, the religious life, or marriage, whatever the path might be. The Cross should never prevent anybody from following the Way of Christ. It is evil to seek to prevent anybody from following the Way of Christ or the Way of the Cross for any reason – even the presence of the Cross.

Therefore if people try to turn away a person with a true vocation from the priesthood, the religious life, or any vocation due to the presence of the Cross in that person’s life, the Catholic Church should not be supportive of this act of turning a person suffering from the Cross away for this reason. The same is true for any state of life and any way of following Christ. If it is God’s will for a person to follow a particular way of following Christ, nobody should be allowed by the Catholic Church to prevent that person from following that particular way of following Christ – be it the religious life, the priesthood, marriage, etc. – even if the Cross is present. The Catholic Church is the Church of the Cross. Therefore, the Church of the Cross cannot reject true vocations and true states of life where the Cross is present in response to the presence of the Cross. That would be contrary to the identity and the mission of the Catholic Church as the Church of the Cross, following Christ in the Way of the Cross.

It seems that what I have said should, to some extent, seem obvious, but people might be convinced to disobey the Will of God in response to all kinds of false pretexts – including the presence of the Cross. Therefore I am trying to make it very clear to people that they cannot disobey the will of God concerning a person for any reason – even the presence of the Cross. That means that, for example, if a person who has suffered from the Cross approaches a religious community for acceptance into the religious life, that person who has suffered cannot be refused by that religious community for any reason whatsoever if there is a true vocation – not even the presence of the Cross. Again, it seems that that should be obvious, but people might reject suffering people with true vocations anyway – thinking, for example, that these suffering people could not possibly have a vocation due to the presence of the Cross.

Suffering the Cross is not to be viewed as a hindrance by anybody to following Christ. It seems that there might be a tendency among people who might claim to be Catholic to consider the Cross a hindrance and a burden. A hindrance and a burden where? The spiritual life, the interior life, the contemplative life, the religious life, the priesthood, the consecrated life, marriage – so many contexts. Is that an appropriate attitude for a Catholic? Of course this attitude is not appropriate for a Catholic. Did Christ consider the Cross a hindrance and a burden? Does Christ, rather, consider the Cross a Triumph of His Sacred Heart, a Triumph of the Love of God, a Triumph of the Love of Christ?

It seems that there might be a tendency to promote rejecting suffering people from the priesthood, the religious life, the consecrated life, and even from marriage. It seems to me that this practice, wherever it might occur, is a form of rejecting the Cross. Rejecting the Cross is antithetical to true Catholicism, true following of Christ, where the Cross must be accepted in all ways that God requires.

At times God might require a community or a particular individual to accept the Cross of another person. It is the responsibility of the true Catholic, the true follower of Christ, to accept the Cross in such cases. Rejecting the Cross, in such cases, would be a rejection of Christ Himself.

Thus, if a person suffering the Cross with a true vocation approaches a religious community for acceptance, the religious community cannot reject this suffering person – as this religious community would be obligated to accept this true vocation and the Cross that accompanies it. The same is true for the priesthood and seminaries. The same is true for marriage when a particular marriage is God’s will. God’s will must be followed. Following God’s will is not optional. If God’s will necessitates acceptance of the Cross, even acceptance of the Cross of another person, God’s will must be followed faithfully.

In certain cases, following the will of God might necessitate accepting a person into a religious community who has suffered disability, a health situation, and even a mental health situation – accepting the Cross of another person who has suffered. That might seem challenging for a community. Some people might not want to do that. However, God’s will is not about what people might want. Accepting such a person into a community must be done when God’s will requires it.

Following Christ is living the vocation of the Cross. The vocation of the Cross is a vocation to the Cross – a willingness to follow Christ even to the Cross where He Himself has gone even with His Divinity, answering His Call to the Cross with the Fiat of Mary, her acceptance at the Annunciation. The Way of Christ, therefore, the Way of the Cross, is the Way of Mary’s Fiat.

A true vocation, a true state of life, a true way of following Christ, therefore, must be patterned according to the vocation of the Cross. The vocation of the Cross is the way to union with Christ, the way to union with God, in general. Acceptance of the Cross is a way to union with Christ, union with God. Therefore the community that accepts the Cross – in whatever way the Cross comes – would be following the vocation of the Cross to union with Christ, to union with God, and to live in this way is the intent of religious life, the intent of the contemplative life.

Therefore, rather than refusing people who have suffered from the Cross, a religious community that is truly living the vocation of religious life, the vocation of the Cross, should joyfully accept people who have suffered from the Cross when there is a true vocation. The refusal of some religious communities to consider suffering people for the religious life or the priesthood would actually be contrary to the religious vocation where there is a true vocation – contrary to the vocation of the Cross that all Catholics, in a way, should live to truly be following Christ. The same is true for the priesthood, marriage, all vocations, all states of life, and all ways of following Christ. A community (or an individual) must always be willing to accept a required Cross (whether it is a personal suffering or the suffering of another person). Otherwise, the community (or the individual) would not be following Christ, as following Christ necessitates the acceptance of required Crosses. Acceptance of the Cross is living the vocation of the Cross.

There is the consideration, as well, of the suffering that people enduring the Cross might live if they are turned away from true vocations, true states of life, and true ways of following Christ that have been intended for them by God. People should want to prevent such unnecessary suffering caused by the evil of a rejected vocation, a rejected state of life, the rejection of God’s will for a person, the rejection of a way of life intended by God for a person. People should not commit the evil that causes such suffering – the rejection of God’s Will.

Suffering people might already endure the Cross of suffering in the world – living poverty, rejection and abandonment by others, etc. People cannot be indifferent to suffering people in the Crosses of suffering that they might endure. There might be a tendency to treat discernment in the area of vocations, states of life, ways of following Christ, and even various manifestations of God’s will (such as jobs) as impersonal, using that as an excuse not to care about the personal implications of a particular decision or a particular course of action. However all of these things would be personal – involving personal implications for a human life. A person’s survival might be affected. A person might endure suffering as a result of the rejection of the Will of God. Even a person’s salvation, particularly the means of salvation, would be involved. If a person is deprived of a true vocation, a true state of life, or a true way of following Christ that God intends, what would be the implications on the salvation of that person? Of course people can be saved even when suffering afflicts them and sin occurs around them, but a vocation, a state of life, or a particular way of following God would help the person in attaining salvation. For the people who sin in rejecting the Will of God involving a particular person, there might be consequences for committing the crime and the injustice of depriving a person of the means for salvation. To reject a suffering person in the area of a true vocation, a true state of life, or a true need to follow the Will of God in a particular way is to commit a crime against the salvation of that suffering person.

Do people care about the other person? Do people care about the suffering person? People might need to do an examination of conscience and really consider how they treat others. If people reject the Cross in another person, a suffering person, that is not following Christ. Rather, that is a rejection of life and the following of the way of death – the following of the way of evil. How many suffering people might be abandoned in the rejection of the Cross? The abandoning of the suffering is the abandoning of life, the abandoning of Christ, Who is Life, on the Cross. It is a choice of death rather than life. For a person to be truly pro-life, the Cross must not be rejected in any way. The rejection of the Cross is the rejection of life and Christ, Who is Life. To reject a suffering person is to reject Christ Himself.

For the Church to have vocations and states of life, there should be an openness to considering vocations and states of life, ways of following Christ, even among people who have suffered the Cross. Refusing to accept people who have suffered the Cross would not be helpful for enabling vocations and states of life, various ways of following Christ, to thrive in the Catholic Church. If the Church truly wants vocations and states of life to thrive, the suffering must not be rejected from vocations and states of life, any way of following Christ, where there are true vocations and true states of life, any true ways of following Christ.

It seems that I particularly speak this way because, around this time, younger people might suffer – even mentally – as a result of the brokenness of marriage and the family, as well as the brokenness of a world that has rejected God, a world that has rejected Christ. To respond to what is going on, the Catholic Church should perhaps be open to considering for the religious life, the priesthood, and marriage younger people who have suffered, even mentally, around the evil of the world – who might perhaps go through conversions after living away from God. These younger people might approach religious communities and seminaries having lived lives of brokenness and suffering, even mental suffering and disability, and it would be the responsibility of the religious communities and the seminaries to accept these younger people if there are true vocations, true states of life, and true ways of following Christ that must be followed.

It seems that the Catholic Church needs to consider that these suffering people might be, to some extent, the people that Christ has to choose from in giving the gift of vocations, states of life, and particular ways of following Christ. Christ chooses real people for such paths – for vocations, for states of life, for various ways of following Him. Real people might suffer. Real people might repent after broken, sinful lives. Real people might even have struggled in the areas of suicide and mental health at some point, but there is hope even for these suffering people. The sufferings and the brokenness might be so widespread around this time that Christ might need to choose some people who have suffered in these ways – including mental health suffering, disabilities, and even being suicidal – to have the vocations, the states of life, the marriages, and the servants and workers that He wants and requires.

A religious community is voluntary insofar as the Will of God is followed voluntarily – with free will. The presence of the members of a religious community is voluntary to the extent that God’s Will for the individuals in the community to be present is followed voluntarily according to the free will of each person. However, the voluntary nature of a religious community does not mean that a religious community can reject the Will of God in any way – and, particularly, in the case of accepting a particular member into a religious community. The decision to accept a particular member into a religious community must be made according to the Will of God. The religious community is not allowed by God to reject the Will of God in making this decision, in making this discernment. God does not permit the religious community to reject a person with a true vocation, a true state of life to be lived. God does not permit the religious community to reject the Will of God. It is not optional to accept people with true vocations and true states of life to be lived into a religious community. A religious community that refuses a person with a true vocation or a true state of life to be lived would not be following the vocation to the religious life. Rejecting such a person from the religious community would be a rejection of the religious vocation itself. Rejection such a person would be a rejection of Mary’s Fiat – her “yes” in acceptance of the Will of God – the spirit of acceptance of the Will of God patterned on the Annunciation. Therefore, no religious should ever engage in such behavior, such wicked rejection of the Will of God. There is no union with God, the intent of religious life, to be attained in rejecting the Will of God. Union with God is attained by following the Will of God. Rejecting the Will of God is contrary to union with God.

The same principles apply for seminaries, individuals, and communities. In every situation, following the Will of God is necessary for following Christ and living in a way that results in salvation and union with God. A sincere Catholic must always, under every situation, accept the Will of God. It is never allowed by God for a Catholic to reject the Will of God for any reason.

For example, if God wills for a woman to take a private vow of chastity or virginity in the world, she should not be prevented from doing that in a case where there has been suffering, where there has been poverty or lack of stable income, or where a woman is not working, to some extent. In the case of a woman for whom it is God’s Will to be a consecrated virgin living in the world, that woman should not be prevented from living that life for any reason, including reasons like these ones. I specifically speak of this case because there is a requirement for consecrated virgins living in the world (going through a formal process) to have stable income from work. I do not think that there should be requirements like that for consecrated virgins living in the world or for women doing private vows of virginity or perfect chastity (the chastity that religious live). Such requirements would exclude women who do not work due to disability, health, and mental health situations, for example, or women who live in poverty that might include no income, instability of income, or little income.

Would Jesus exclude poor, disabled, or suffering women from following Him? Did He exclude St. Gemma Galgani, Blessed Alexandrina da Costa, St. Margaret of Castello, St. Bernadette, St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, St. Julie Billiart, Venerable Sr. Lucia of Fatima, or Servant of God Mary Virginia Merrick from following Him, suffering from disability or health situations as they were? It is wrong to seek to prevent such women or any woman, where it is God’s will, from taking private vows of perfect chastity or virginity or from being consecrated virgins living in the world, as it is wrong to prevent such women from being religious when it is God’s will for them to live that life. I say this as a woman who has suffered from disability and the area of mental health; who has lived, to some extent, without income; who has taken a private vow of perpetual and perfect chastity; and who is trying to be a religious, though I might be discouraged from following that path. Some might say that a woman like me should not take a vow like a private vow of perpetual and perfect chastity. I say that I have committed to such a vow and that the Church should take this vow that I have taken and my vocation seriously, as well as the vocations, states of life, and ways of following Christ that God might require of other people. The Church should be grateful that any women whatsoever are willing to be committed to lives of perfect chastity or virginity – though they might suffer from disability, mental health afflictions, or living without income as I have suffered.

Furthermore it is necessary to accept vocations, states of life, and ways of following Christ whenever there is accordance with God’s Will in situations involving age and in any situation that might arise. The same principles would apply. God’s Will must be accepted in all circumstances. A religious community, a seminary, a community, or an individual cannot reject the Will of God for any reason.

Living the vocation of the Cross is singing in the Holocaust, singing in the Reign of Terror. It is a song of the Bride of the Lamb following the Bridegroom, the Lamb of Holocaust, Christ Himself, to the Cross with joy, singing. That is the way of the vocation of the Cross – the way, in other words, of following Christ – even to the Cross. I am thinking of the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne, following the Bridegroom to the Cross, singing joyfully at the guillotine in the French Revolution. That is following the vocation of the Cross. That is the glorious way of the Cross that every Catholic, everybody who truly follows Christ, should follow to be truly following Christ.

I think of St. Bernadette, weak in health, who became a religious under impossible circumstances. Religious communities might refuse to accept a Bernadette, and Bernadette, like me, was turned away by the Carmelites. Her song was truly a song of Bernadette, a song at the Foot of the Cross, a song of a bride, a bride of the Lamb, following the Bridegoom, the Lamb of Holocaust, according to the vocation of the Cross, even to the Cross. The song of Bernadette is the song of the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne – a song of the vocation of the Cross – a song of the Triumph of the Cross. The song of Bernadette is the “Crux Fidelis” by Venantius Fortunatus, a Gregorian chant of the Cross, sung on Good Friday during the Adoration of the Cross (the Veneration of the Cross) – a song of the Cross in Triumph. I choose a song of the Cross in Triumph, a song of the vocation of the Cross, a song of the Adoration of the Cross. I choose to sing in the dark night, the dark night of St. John of the Cross, the dark night of the Two Hearts in the Passion and Death of Christ. Do you?

St. Bernadette is my Confirmation Saint, and I have entrusted my impossible vocation of the Cross to her intercession – and the cause of people, in general, with impossible vocations of the Cross, people with vocations and states of life to be lived who have suffered the Cross. Since she seems to have lived an impossible vocation of the Cross, it seems that she would be a fitting intercessor – alongside St. Rita, a Saint of impossible vocations – for the cause of such people of the Cross, who might seek vocations and states of life in situations of suffering and vulnerability, in situations lacking support.

I choose the vocation of the Cross, and I encourage all who hear whatever words that come from God through me to choose the vocation of the Cross – as that is the Way to follow Christ. The vocation of the Cross is the Way of prayer, the Way of union, a contemplative Way, the Way of Carmel, the Way of Christ, and the Way of the Catholic Church, the True Church and Bride of Christ. Let the Bride of the Lamb follow the Bridegroom, the Lamb of Holocaust, with the vocation of the Cross, singing, singing at the Foot of the Cross. That will be the song of His Triumph – this Triumph of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the Triumph of the Cross.

Reference:

William Bush, To Quell the Terror, ICS Publications (Washington D.C.): 2013 edition, first published 1999.

I am acknowledging here anybody whose help, prayers, or ideas – anything along these lines – might have contributed to the making of this work of writing. Thank you!

In honor of the Two Hearts, the Holy Family, and Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. In love for my Venezuelan mother, Rosemary Chastain (born on July 3rd, 1956, the day of the submission of this work of writing in 2024), who passed away on October 24, 2007. In the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Coromoto, the Immaculate Conception at the Foot of the Cross. (Submitted July 3rd, 2024; additions on July 8th, 2024.)