Vocaception in the Church today.

January 24-February 14, 1999 was "Vocations Month" in the neighbouring diocese of Prince Albert, SK. The main focus was vocations to the priesthood (more specifically, the lack thereof), and this merited consideration in two homilies that I heard during weekend visits to the diocese.

I noted with approval that the theme for this year was "Vocations: A Family Affair." Here at last, was an entire ecclesial body publicly acknowledging that vocations to the priesthood don't come from thin air. For years, many people and congregations have been petitioning heaven for "vocations," as if in hopes that the Lord would one day relent and let fall a multitude of young men in Roman collars, like so much manna in the desert. I don't mean to say that the 'family' theme has never been touched on: it has been, by many individuals. I particularly remember one excellent homily by the then-Bishop Adam Exner, wherein he chided parents for praying for vocations in the abstract--that is, send us priests, but don't take my boy.

Similarly, the Prince Albert diocese's theme (at least in the two sermons I caught) challenged parents to exercise generosity in encouraging their sons to consider and answer God's call to priestly service. An excellent message--but what was lacking? The answer struck me as I took my toddler to the bathroom and passed the parish bulletin board. Prominently displayed was the official Vocations Committee poster. Printed at the top were the theme words "Vocations: A Family Affair." The beautiful accompanying photograph featured a married couple going for a walk in a meadow with their children. All 2.0 of them.

Call me hypersensitive and overly-critical, but as the mother of five (one miscarried, four living) children, I am quick to notice such things. It then occurred to me that neither of the homilies I heard (one of which was written by a married layman) took the 'parental generosity" theme and extended it to include fecundity in marriage. No one made the suggestion that Catholic parents ought to be open to raising numerous children. Humanae vitae and adherence thereto were never touched on.

Nor was it implied by the poster. Perhaps, if the mother had been visibly pregnant, there would have been a suggestion that Catholic parents should always be open to new life. But no. It remained for the majority of onlookers to wonder, "Which of those 2.0 children will the parents relinquish? The boy? The girl? Both? (Heaven forbid)." And they could easily walk away from the poster and the sermon praying, "Lord, call forth vocations (but not from either of my kids)."

Physical contraception leads to spiritual sterility of one form or another. I will not here list the many things that can go awry in a couple's spiritual and family life when they sever the unitive from the procreative dimension of conjugal love. But I think it has been borne out that Humanae vitae has become a watershed among the faithful. Couples who are obedient to Humanae vitae are usually obedient to all other Church teachings; couples who dissent from Humane vitae rarely see their disagreement with the magisterium end there.

I have often known contracepting or sterilized couples consumed by materialism, travel, sports, and other trivial pursuits in an attempt to find self-fulfilment and provide a certain "quality of life" for themselves and their two children. Couples with five, eight, ten children don't even try to keep up with the Joneses (in fact, their kids are probably wearing the Joneses' cast-offs). Large families must, of necessity, learn the meaning of "generosity", how to receive and give graciously. This means surrendering one's time, resources, and even the lives of one's children, to the will of God. I don't mean to imply that parents of large families see any of their children as expendable ("Oh here, Lord, I've got six sons--you can have Joe--he's not very bright.")

Rather, Humanae vitae couples have a clear understanding that their children are blessings and gifts, of whom they are not the owners, but only the guardians. God is always acknowledged as the Lord and author of life. There is often a different attitude at work in the "contraceptive mentality." It suggests that the couple is in control: pregnancies are "planned", "mistakes" must be avoided. Some couples feel that they have a "right" to a baby (using illicit technologies, if necessary). And not just any baby; it must be the right sex and in perfect health--otherwise abortion may be considered.

Dare I suggest that Humanae vitae families tend to have a more deeply-rooted and traditional faith? They are often more respectful of priests and the priesthood. Conversely, as one dissent begets another, many contracepting couples I know are waiting for "things to change," when the Church will, they think, be flooded with priestly vocations from among the women and married men out there who are now yearning for ordination. Or worse, they feel that "the community" confers Eucharistic status on the bread--so do we really need priests anyway? The result: Canadian Catholics have been practising "vocaception" on a grand scale, some by their disobedience, others by their (our) silence.

Until we (the Church) start preaching Humanae vitae from the rooftops, we cannot expect the manna to fall. It's as painfully simple as that. I sincerely and gratefully commend my neighbouring diocese's vocations committee for being on the right track. My only advice is this: don't stop short. Tell the whole truth, without apology or fear--the faithful may be more receptive to such a bold message than you think.

Mariette Ulrich is a homemaker and mother of four daughters. She lives with her husband, Dan, in Scott, SK. They admit they have not to date encouraged priestly vocations in their family.