Section 2: Faithful Perseverance in the Chosen Vocation

1. Once a man has chosen his vocation, he should persevere in it to the best of his ability and comply faithfully with the obligations which it imposes.¹

¹ Cfr. Matt. XXV, 14 sqq. (parable of the talents); Eph. IV, 1 sqq.; Acts XX, 18 sqq.

We do not mean to insinuate that a change of vocation is never permissible or advisable. We merely wish to lay down the general rule that frequent changes of vocation, or any change not dictated by reasonable and sufficient motives, is unjustifiable from the moral viewpoint.² Doubts may and often do arise with regard to the vocation chosen, and if feelings of disgust with its duties and obligations cannot be entirely suppressed, they should be regarded as temptations and vigorously combatted. Even when one has a well-founded fear (dubium prudens) that he may not be able to attain his eternal salvation or perform his allotted share for the welfare of society in the vocation he has selected, he should, if the choice is irrevocable (as in the case of a priest), repel all thoughts of change and make a virtue of necessity,³ nay, try to recognize in that necessity the will of God. Constant brooding over a past or future change of vocation is apt to paralyze a man's moral power and to destroy the joy with which he ought to go about his duties, whereas a firm resolution to do one's best in all circumstances, coupled with unremitting prayer, invariably brings down the grace of God and often enables a man to perform even the seemingly impossible.

² Cfr. 1 Cor. VII, 17 sqq.

³ Cfr. St. Jerome, Epist., 54 (al. 10), n. 6.

A mere change of occupation may, of course, be made for any good and sufficient reason, provided that no positive duty is violated thereby and the individual is satisfied that he is called to some other state of life.

He who, though in lowly station, fills his place with honor, is better off, socially and morally, than he who seeks a higher vocation for which he is not fitted. Talent and energy find a suitable field of activity in every state, and if properly applied, will yield personal satisfaction and social benefit.

In laying down this principle we do not, however, condemn those exceptional natures who break through the barriers of an humble station and aspire to higher tasks for which they feel themselves qualified. Nor do we believe in confining people too rigidly to classes or castes. The caste system, in particular, is more or less immoral. No class as such should be excluded from social honors and privileges. Every man is entitled to the advantages of civilization and culture, and where equal opportunities are open to all, we usually find that ability or intellectual power joined to moral probity succeeds in winning a fruitful sphere of activity. We hear much about an aristocracy of birth in Europe and an aristocracy of wealth in America; but the only true aristocracy is the aristocracy of character and talent.⁴

⁴ F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 683 sq.

The security of those in humble station finds graphic expression in the old Latin saying, "Procul a Jove, procul a fulmine." Everywhere and always fidelity to duty ranks above mere success.⁵ "It is all the same," says Lessing, "how an honest man makes his living, whether he splits wood or pilots the ship of State; what really matters, in his inmost conscience, is not the thought how useful he is, but to what extent he is willing to make himself useful." A man's true worth consists in faithfully endeavoring to fulfil his appointed task, whatever it may be; and in this all may enjoy equality, regardless of the existing differences of vocation and occupation.

⁵ Cfr. Acts XX, 18 sqq.; XXI, 13; Phil. II, 17. —Seneca, Ep., 25, 2: "Malo successum mihi quam fidem deesse." —IDEM, Ep., 14, 16: "Consilium omnium rerum sapiens, non exitum spectat."