Anyone have experience with job interviews?

[Daniel]

Then I'm telling you this is your last thread Daniel cluttering the forum  asking for advise about your life, vocation, work questions, but batting down nearly every person trying to guide you.  The last one. Do you understand?   

Or else we're going to respond accordingly each time, including reporting you to the moderator.

I'm not cluttering the forum. Each separate topic gets its own thread. Pretty sure that's not against the rules.

What is (probably) against the rules is derailing the thread, which always seems to happen to all of my threads. Like this thread for example. I come here asking specific questions, and looking for general advice about job interviews in particular. I get about three to five actual answers, but the thread quickly goes off the rails. Somehow it morphs into a discussion thread about my current job situation, which is perhaps helpful, though that's not at all the reason why I started this thread. But then people start jumping to conclusions, passing moral judgements against me, calling me lazy and prideful, and making all sorts of other false accusations. I attempt to defend myself, but people don't like what I'm saying, so they go all ad hominem. The threads all seem to end in the same way, which is probably why it appears that I'm cluttering up the forum by posting the same thread over and over again (when in reality I'm not).

You are 30 yo, unemployed for almost all of your adult life, who refuses to work, sponging off your parents, constantly asking day after day for YEARS on SD for help here but mainly just arguing with everyone who tried to help making endless excuses.  Including in this thread. 

It's not true. I've had plenty of jobs throughout my adult life (more than I care to remember). And I don't refuse to work. (What I refuse to do is to serve the devil. That's a relevant distinction.) I'm not making endless excuses, what I am doing is repeating myself over and over again because people don't seem to see what I'm saying or are otherwise ignoring the concerns I raise. And even if I'm wrong--even if there's some flaw in my reasoning--, how is that the same thing as "making excuses"? Being mistaken about something, and deliberately lying about something, are two entirely different things. I also haven't been asking "day after day for years" (at least not if you meant that literally). And I wouldn't have to keep asking if I actually got some answers. Instead of addressing the concerns and helping Daniel to see his error (if there even is an error), everyone just blames the victim and treats him like a fool.

Raking leaves, flipping burgers, painting houses is just not "practical" for you.  You are dishonest.

I'm not dishonest, and those jobs really aren't practical.

What I mostly meant was that the estimated numerical figures (the ones from your previous post) were unrealistically high. I'm sure you're aware of this, but the sorts of jobs you suggested are freelance jobs, i.e. "gigs". The pay is dependent upon the number of clients as well as the amount that the client is willing to pay, which will most likely be under minimum wage... so what we're talking about isn't $15 per hour but probably about half that amount. Then there's the question as to where all these clients will be coming from. Even if I wanted to work 60 or 40 hours per week, where would I find all these clients? Even if I were to exhaust CraigsList, I'd come up short. Lastly, I am not a trained (or skilled) handyman. I can paint houses and rake leaves, easy enough. But I don't know the first thing about landscaping, gutters, roofing, cars, etc., and if I tried doing that then I'd probably mess something up and then have to pay the damages.

Which is why I'm going with Graham's suggestion. Skills first, then job. (Unless I find something better in the meantime.) I have no intention of starting a career, but I also wasn't planning on sitting around doing nothing either. Guess getting started on a career won't hurt, though it does seem like a waste.

But you want us to have Masses said for you.  Get real. Instead, you have a Mass said for yourself.

That's none of your business. I posted that in the prayer request forum (and with good reason), but if you have a problem with it then by all means ignore it.

[Daniel]

Literally no seminary or religious house should accept you. 

[. . .]

I'm sorry if that's hurtful, but you have zero reasoning to pursue that vocation or state of life.

For the seminary, I understand. But what has one's reasoning powers got to do with the religious life? You don't need to be a genius to become a monk.

(But, frankly, it's not my reasoning that's the problem. The problem is that I don't understand the epistemological basis for belief in the various Thomistic first principles, which is actually one of the many things that I'm hoping to learn from some knowledgeable priest (hence this other thread). Because things would be so much easier if I ever were to find out that Thomism is actually true. Right now I'm just sort of fumbling around in the dark, neither seeing the Church nor knowing what she does and does not teach. Thomism looks like the enemy, but looks can be deceiving. I want to know.)

But for your information, I didn't say anything about becoming a priest right this moment. I completely agree with you; me becoming a priest at this time would be a disaster. (Hate to say it, but I'd probably go the way of Luther or something.) Nevertheless, my plan is to become a priest (or a religious) in the future. Much can happen in seven years of seminary. At this point I am probably not even prepared to enter the seminary (even if I was free of debt), as I'd like to have all my doubts resolved first. But who knows... maybe my doubts will be resolved in two years.

[Miriam_M]

Daniel,

I hope this is not a derail.

The best advice I can give (yes, I have conducted many hiring interviews; I enjoy doing it and I seem to be successful at it) is to be relaxed.  We never perform our best in any kind of oral presentation when we're overly self-conscious.

I consider myself good at doing it, not because I "ask the right questions" (better than the questions of others, necessarily), but because I seem to know how to make people feel welcome.

No one interviews well when the interviewer makes the person tense, defensive, or confused.  And I have no use for the kind of interviews that I have rarely been subjected to myself, which seem to be exercises in sadism (on the part of the interviewer).  There's absolutely no excuse for that.  Long ago, when I was subjected to that, I should have refused to submit to such indignity and merely, without explanation, stood up, announced that this is apparently not the ideal place for me, and walked out. 

In my experience, more than half of the interviews in which the candidate has trouble expressing himself or answering adequately are related to the interviewer, not the candidate.  I'm talking here about good candidates being excluded for reasons having not to do with the candidate but with the interviewer unable or unwilling to ask appropriate questions, respond positively, and put the candidate at ease so that he will answer in the best way possible.

You have to affirm the candidate.  ("That sounds like interesting, helpful experience you had there.  Can you tell me more about it?")  For heavens' sake, interviewer, smile.  I do not blame the candidate for looking away sometimes; he might be nervous; he might be thinking, trying to recall facts and dates not on his resume, etc. Since I'm the one in the position of power, I should be the one without excuses for eye contact.

In conclusion -- with regard to your own role...

Your job is to do your research ahead of time on any company or institution for which you are being interviewed.  It is also your job to know as much as possible about the position, if that has been published.

Your (appropriate) personal information, training, any credentials, and work experience should be handy, at your side, in case that is asked about or in case they want you to fill out "their" job application at that point, whether or not you've applied elsewhere in a different manner.

Be honest if you don't know an answer, also if you don't have experience doing X.  However, if you do believe you can learn to do X, by all means say so.  "No, I have not yet had that opportunity, but it's one that I look forward to eventually on this job."

If you've done everything you're supposed to do, but the interviewer is a jerk (see above), do not blame yourself later if it doesn't work out.  This is why it is so important for the interviewer to be skilled and personable.  If he or she is not, then many capable people will be passed over, which will be a loss for that company or institution, and even society.  When capable people are working in jobs appropriate for them, society benefits in many ways.  But we can't control that, so it's important to press on.

Skill in being interviewed comes with practice.  Again, though, we are at our best when we are most relaxed and genuine.  When we are "natural," we are likeable.

[Kaesekopf]

Literally no seminary or religious house should accept you. 

[. . .]

I'm sorry if that's hurtful, but you have zero reasoning to pursue that vocation or state of life.

For the seminary, I understand. But what has one's reasoning powers got to do with the religious life? You don't need to be a genius to become a monk.

(But, frankly, it's not my reasoning that's the problem. The problem is that I don't understand the epistemological basis for belief in the various Thomistic first principles, which is actually one of the many things that I'm hoping to learn from some knowledgeable priest (hence this other thread). Because things would be so much easier if I ever were to find out that Thomism is actually true. Right now I'm just sort of fumbling around in the dark, neither seeing the Church nor knowing what she does and does not teach. Thomism looks like the enemy, but looks can be deceiving. I want to know.)

But for your information, I didn't say anything about becoming a priest right this moment. I completely agree with you; me becoming a priest at this time would be a disaster. (Hate to say it, but I'd probably go the way of Luther or something.) Nevertheless, my plan is to become a priest (or a religious) in the future. Much can happen in seven years of seminary. At this point I am probably not even prepared to enter the seminary (even if I was free of debt), as I'd like to have all my doubts resolved first. But who knows... maybe my doubts will be resolved in two years.

You are so very delusional.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Miriam_M]

You don't need to be a genius to become a monk...

(But, frankly, it's not my reasoning that's the problem. The problem is that I don't understand the epistemological basis for belief in the various Thomistic first principles,

First, you just contradicted yourself there.  Second, the latter is not a prerequisite for joining a religious order or the priesthood. A man is taught everything he needs in a quality, traditional seminary.  That includes everything intellectual he needs to know.  Seminary is different from theology school, by the way.  Neither the priesthood nor monastic life is about epistemology.  It's about spirituality and ministry (the latter being either active or reclusive/contemplative). Contemplative life is very hard, by the way. It takes enormous discipline (or willingness to become highly disciplined).

One either has a calling or does not.  There's a process of private and institutional discernment that takes place in order to determine that.  The institutional discernment includes spiritual assessment (Is this a true calling from God, spiritually oriented, and for this particular apostolate/Order?), intellectual assessment (Does the candidate have the minimum mental acuity and motivation to learn what is essential?), and practical assessment (Is the candidate burdened with worldly debt or unmet family obligations, such as being the only child of an ailing parent?).

Nothing in there about pre-existing knowledge, education, training. Nothing in there about a specific intelligence level or verbal ability -- only that, for example, a developmentally disabled person would not qualify, or someone otherwise mentally deficient, which you are not, but that doesn't mean you have a vocation.  That, again, is a process.  That was discussed on another thread.

An honest spiritual director and an honest vocations director can end this conversation in a flash.  An example I can give from my own life is someone who used to be a very close friend and confidante.  She claimed that she thought she had a (very late in life, by the way) vocation, and so she went to speak to the Superior of a religious order far away, that I hadn't even heard about.  The Superior correctly assessed her to be using a "vocation" to religious life to escape her financial and relationship disappointments -- and ongoing problems with both. What she needed, actually, was psychotherapy.  Deep down inside, my friend knew this (as did I), and she admitted to me after that meeting that when the Superior said it, she could not deny it: there was instant recognition.  IOW, a good vocations director or representative of that order -- perhaps any order of men or women -- can save a curious person, male or female, a lot of time.

For example, one of the hugest myths about the priesthood is that it is basically a liturgical "club" concerned with the sublime. This myth forms in the sanctuary and sacristy by idealistic young men who have only that experience with which to judge the priesthood.  But the priesthood is not a Mass-and-vestments Club of Brothers.  Liturgy, especially the Mass itself, is a minor part of a priest's day.  Even if you add to that the Office and Confessions, most of his day has to do with direct ministry:  answering the everyday needs of his flock -- not glamorous stuff or ivory-tower stuff -- but people hurting, dying, ill, lonely, needing counsel, being clumsy about how they express themselves so that he has to do a lot of questioning to figure out what they need from him, needing to be corrected in their errors, etc.

[Daniel]

First, you just contradicted yourself there. 

I fail to see the contradiction. All I did was first agree with Kaesekopf's hypothetical (viz. "If a person is unintelligent, then he should not become a priest"), and then pointed out two things: 1.) that this pertains only to priests (not to monks), and 2.) it doesn't affect me anyway, since the antecedent is false: I'm not unintelligent; my reasoning abilities are fine (I'd even say better than most peoples').

Second, the latter is not a prerequisite for joining a religious order or the priesthood. A man is taught everything he needs in a quality, traditional seminary.  That includes everything intellectual he needs to know.  Seminary is different from theology school, by the way.  Neither the priesthood nor monastic life is about epistemology.  It's about spirituality and ministry (the latter being either active or reclusive/contemplative). Contemplative life is very hard, by the way. It takes enormous discipline (or willingness to become highly disciplined).

Either you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear. I never said that this was a prerequisite, nor did I say that the priestly state or the monastic state are about epistemology.

It was primarily in response to Kaesekopf's reply where he said to me "you have zero reasoning". I gave him the benefit of the doubt, that he actually believed his own assertion (and was not just trying to insult me). I was merely pointing out that he's wrong. Yet I asked myself, "From where is Kaesekopf getting this impression?" And I figured, most probably it's because he thinks my conclusions are wrong. But here's his error: there are two ways to arrive at the wrong conclusion, not just one. And we can rule out the first way (faulty reasoning). If I'm arriving at the wrong conclusions, it has nothing to do with my reasoning but everything to do with the fact that I may be starting with the wrong first principles.

I then sort of went off on a tangent, saying that life would be so much easier if I had a better foundation to stand on. I'm not altogether convinced that Thomism is false, but, if it's not false, I'd like to see it for myself. Hence my desire to know how to know the first principles (i.e. the epistemological basis for believing them). But that was all beside the point.

One either has a calling or does not.  There's a process of private and institutional discernment that takes place in order to determine that.  The institutional discernment includes spiritual assessment (Is this a true calling from God, spiritually oriented, and for this particular apostolate/Order?), intellectual assessment (Does the candidate have the minimum mental acuity and motivation to learn what is essential?), and practical assessment (Is the candidate burdened with worldly debt or unmet family obligations, such as being the only child of an ailing parent?).

Nothing in there about pre-existing knowledge, education, training. Nothing in there about a specific intelligence level or verbal ability -- only that, for example, a developmentally disabled person would not qualify, or someone otherwise mentally deficient, which you are not, but that doesn't mean you have a vocation.  That, again, is a process.  That was discussed on another thread.

An honest spiritual director and an honest vocations director can end this conversation in a flash.  An example I can give from my own life is someone who used to be a very close friend and confidante.  She claimed that she thought she had a (very late in life, by the way) vocation, and so she went to speak to the Superior of a religious order far away, that I hadn't even heard about.  The Superior correctly assessed her to be using a "vocation" to religious life to escape her financial and relationship disappointments -- and ongoing problems with both. What she needed, actually, was psychotherapy.  Deep down inside, my friend knew this (as did I), and she admitted to me after that meeting that when the Superior said it, she could not deny it: there was instant recognition.  IOW, a good vocations director or representative of that order -- perhaps any order of men or women -- can save a curious person, male or female, a lot of time.

For example, one of the hugest myths about the priesthood is that it is basically a liturgical "club" concerned with the sublime. This myth forms in the sanctuary and sacristy by idealistic young men who have only that experience with which to judge the priesthood.  But the priesthood is not a Mass-and-vestments Club of Brothers.  Liturgy, especially the Mass itself, is a minor part of a priest's day.  Even if you add to that the Office and Confessions, most of his day has to do with direct ministry:  answering the everyday needs of his flock -- not glamorous stuff or ivory-tower stuff -- but people hurting, dying, ill, lonely, needing counsel, being clumsy about how they express themselves so that he has to do a lot of questioning to figure out what they need from him, needing to be corrected in their errors, etc.

That's just it though. I do have a vocation. I'm not just making this up or saying it on a whim. (If the bishop should happen to call me, then I'll have a priestly vocation. Otherwise it's a religious vocation. Frankly, I think a religious vocation would be a better fit. But it's not my place to choose.)

Yes, I do need to speak with a vocations director. But I'm currently suffering a sort of spiritual blindness, and won't be speaking to a vocations director until my spiritual state has improved. As of this moment I don't even know which religious community to join, and I need to wait until the blindness is lifted. (Also need to pay off the debt, since I am pretty sure that debt is always an impediment to joining a religious community.)

[mikemac]

Just a couple of months ago our priest told a training brother to quit and get a job to pay off his debt of $20,000.  He told him to go back to Virginia to get the job seeing it would take longer to pay off the US student loan with Canadian funds.  That wasn't his only problem.  During Lent last year he was told to put his "Denzinger: Sources of dogma" book away for Lent.  Some how from Denzinger he got the wrong idea that he was superior to all women (similar to GOG).  At lunch one time I witnessed him being quite rude to a woman.  Afterwards I told him that he owes her an apology.  He didn't think he did because he said superiors don't apologize.  I told him he was not her superior.  She stopped going to our parish because of him.  When we were at the priests house I again told him that he owes her an apology.  Apparently that was all the priest needed.  He had his own issues with him too.  Shortly after that the priest asked him to leave.  I'm not sorry if I influenced the priest in asking him to leave.  Some men just are not cut out to be priests or brothers.  I'm not posting this to get a reply from you Daniel.  Just saying.

[Kaesekopf]

First, you just contradicted yourself there. 

I fail to see the contradiction. All I did was first agree with Kaesekopf's hypothetical (viz. "If a person is unintelligent, then he should not become a priest"), and then pointed out two things: 1.) that this pertains only to priests (not to monks), and 2.) it doesn't affect me anyway, since the antecedent is false: I'm not unintelligent; my reasoning abilities are fine (I'd even say better than most peoples').

Second, the latter is not a prerequisite for joining a religious order or the priesthood. A man is taught everything he needs in a quality, traditional seminary.  That includes everything intellectual he needs to know.  Seminary is different from theology school, by the way.  Neither the priesthood nor monastic life is about epistemology.  It's about spirituality and ministry (the latter being either active or reclusive/contemplative). Contemplative life is very hard, by the way. It takes enormous discipline (or willingness to become highly disciplined).

Either you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear. I never said that this was a prerequisite, nor did I say that the priestly state or the monastic state are about epistemology.

It was primarily in response to Kaesekopf's reply where he said to me "you have zero reasoning". I gave him the benefit of the doubt, that he actually believed his own assertion (and was not just trying to insult me). I was merely pointing out that he's wrong. Yet I asked myself, "From where is Kaesekopf getting this impression?" And I figured, most probably it's because he thinks my conclusions are wrong. But here's his error: there are two ways to arrive at the wrong conclusion, not just one. And we can rule out the first way (faulty reasoning). If I'm arriving at the wrong conclusions, it has nothing to do with my reasoning but everything to do with the fact that I may be starting with the wrong first principles.

I then sort of went off on a tangent, saying that life would be so much easier if I had a better foundation to stand on. I'm not altogether convinced that Thomism is false, but, if it's not false, I'd like to see it for myself. Hence my desire to know how to know the first principles (i.e. the epistemological basis for believing them). But that was all beside the point.

One either has a calling or does not.  There's a process of private and institutional discernment that takes place in order to determine that.  The institutional discernment includes spiritual assessment (Is this a true calling from God, spiritually oriented, and for this particular apostolate/Order?), intellectual assessment (Does the candidate have the minimum mental acuity and motivation to learn what is essential?), and practical assessment (Is the candidate burdened with worldly debt or unmet family obligations, such as being the only child of an ailing parent?).

Nothing in there about pre-existing knowledge, education, training. Nothing in there about a specific intelligence level or verbal ability -- only that, for example, a developmentally disabled person would not qualify, or someone otherwise mentally deficient, which you are not, but that doesn't mean you have a vocation.  That, again, is a process.  That was discussed on another thread.

An honest spiritual director and an honest vocations director can end this conversation in a flash.  An example I can give from my own life is someone who used to be a very close friend and confidante.  She claimed that she thought she had a (very late in life, by the way) vocation, and so she went to speak to the Superior of a religious order far away, that I hadn't even heard about.  The Superior correctly assessed her to be using a "vocation" to religious life to escape her financial and relationship disappointments -- and ongoing problems with both. What she needed, actually, was psychotherapy.  Deep down inside, my friend knew this (as did I), and she admitted to me after that meeting that when the Superior said it, she could not deny it: there was instant recognition.  IOW, a good vocations director or representative of that order -- perhaps any order of men or women -- can save a curious person, male or female, a lot of time.

For example, one of the hugest myths about the priesthood is that it is basically a liturgical "club" concerned with the sublime. This myth forms in the sanctuary and sacristy by idealistic young men who have only that experience with which to judge the priesthood.  But the priesthood is not a Mass-and-vestments Club of Brothers.  Liturgy, especially the Mass itself, is a minor part of a priest's day.  Even if you add to that the Office and Confessions, most of his day has to do with direct ministry:  answering the everyday needs of his flock -- not glamorous stuff or ivory-tower stuff -- but people hurting, dying, ill, lonely, needing counsel, being clumsy about how they express themselves so that he has to do a lot of questioning to figure out what they need from him, needing to be corrected in their errors, etc.

That's just it though. I do have a vocation. I'm not just making this up or saying it on a whim. (If the bishop should happen to call me, then I'll have a priestly vocation. Otherwise it's a religious vocation. Frankly, I think a religious vocation would be a better fit. But it's not my place to choose.)

Yes, I do need to speak with a vocations director. But I'm currently suffering a sort of spiritual blindness, and won't be speaking to a vocations director until my spiritual state has improved. As of this moment I don't even know which religious community to join, and I need to wait until the blindness is lifted. (Also need to pay off the debt, since I am pretty sure that debt is always an impediment to joining a religious community.)

You'd have a lot less time for scruples and writing essays devoid of meaning if you ... yknow
worked a job.

But all jobs are evil, so here you are, suffering. 

You poor thing.

[Miriam_M]

Oh, well.  I tried.  I am not getting through.

[Daniel]

Just a couple of months ago our priest told a training brother to quit and get a job to pay off his debt of $20,000.  He told him to go back to Virginia to get the job seeing it would take longer to pay off the US student loan with Canadian funds.  That wasn't his only problem.  During Lent last year he was told to put his "Denzinger: Sources of dogma" book away for Lent.  Some how from Denzinger he got the wrong idea that he was superior to all women (similar to GOG).  At lunch one time I witnessed him being quite rude to a woman.  Afterwards I told him that he owes her an apology.  He didn't think he did because he said superiors don't apologize.  I told him he was not her superior.  She stopped going to our parish because of him.  When we were at the priests house I again told him that he owes her an apology.  Apparently that was all the priest needed.  He had his own issues with him too.  Shortly after that the priest asked him to leave.  I'm not sorry if I influenced the priest in asking him to leave.  Some men just are not cut out to be priests or brothers.  I'm not posting this to get a reply from you Daniel.  Just saying.

Well just my two cents,

Giving that young man the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't sound to me like he "wasn't cut out" to be a brother. It really sounds quite tragic. The young man had a vocation, but his life was laid waste at the hands of a priest who chose rather to give up on him rather than to help him out of his error. And the irony is that this young man may not have ended up in error had he not been so diligent in reading up on the faith.

[Jacob]

Daniel, how do you know you have a vocation?

[andy]

The young man had a vocation, but his life was laid waste at the hands of a priest who chose rather to give up on him rather than to help him out of his error.

Objectively speaking: arrogance taken to next level.

Daniel, are you drawing some kind of perverted pleasure out of this conversation or you are almost permanently lost in a maze of thoughts?

In either case, the dry truth is that this forum will not help you. You have to reach to super stable and mature male in person and start to trust him at least a tiny bit.

Let's do a deal, I will say five decades of Rosary in your intention and you will do the same in my. Are you in?

[Daniel]

Daniel, how do you know you have a vocation?

Well to give a simple answer, it's because I have the desire. Everybody with this desire is called.

But I've also given it much thought and reflection for the past five years or so, and have attained a sort of negative knowledge pointing to the same conclusion. After what I've experienced, it is pretty clear to me that I am not called to marriage. So there's only two possibilities: the priestly state or the religious state. But I know myself well enough to know that if things don't radically change any time soon then I won't make a good priest or even be allowed to enter the seminary (yet I do not deny the transformative power of God's grace). As for the more controversial vocation to "remain single while living in the world", I think I can rule that out as well. My mind and heart are all too easily distracted from God, and my passions (inflamed by this world) make it even worse. For my salvation (speaking only of myself here), I honestly doubt I can manage to live a holy life while still "in the world".)

(It's not all negative knowledge though. As I said, I desire it. I feel a sort of positive "pull" towards it. I'm sure this feeling's nothing special, but it's nevertheless present. Even just on the level of my own spiritual wellbeing, I think the contemplative state can be a great help and is perhaps even necessary for me. That's about as far as my desire goes at the moment. It used to be more selfless and altruistic--a desire to offer my life and my prayers on behalf of all the unfortunate people who are stuck in the world. But that was back when I had God's friendship (or, at least thought I had it). I am now spiritually dead, and so my desires have turned themselves inward, like those of a drowning man caring only about escaping the abyss.)

Let's do a deal, I will say five decades of Rosary in your intention and you will do the same in my. Are you in?

I'm sorry, but no. The Rosary makes no sense to me (for the same points that Iamchristian raised in his own thread, but I'm far worse off than him: I, at this time, am altogether unable to pray the Rosary without being moved to sins of anger and hatred). But I'll pray a single Hail Mary for you. Please pray for me.
edit - Never mind. Sure, I'll pray five decades for you (but I won't be able to do the meditations... I'm not able to meditate while praying vocal prayers)

[andy]

Let's do a deal, I will say five decades of Rosary in your intention and you will do the same in my. Are you in?

I'm sorry, but no. The Rosary makes no sense to me (for the same points that Iamchristian raised in his own thread, but I'm far worse off than him: I, at this time, am altogether unable to pray the Rosary without being moved to sins of anger and hatred). But I'll pray a single Hail Mary for you. Please pray for me.
edit - Never mind. Sure, I'll pray five decades for you (but I won't be able to do the meditations... I'm not able to meditate while praying vocal prayers)

Awesome. Thank you. I will complete my part tomorrow, it is five decades. By the way, I am just a regular layman, not a professional support nor (obviously) a religious person so what I write comes without a warranty. Hatred and anger are just feelings and as Catholics we should not pay too much attention to feelings.

[Non Nobis]

Daniel, how do you know you have a vocation?

Well to give a simple answer, it's because I have the desire. Everybody with this desire is called.

Your desire may not (even if it is good in itself for many) be the desire God wants you most to have.  God calls you, you don't call yourself.

Consider the parents of St. Therese, themselves canonized  (albeit by the new church, but probably worthily):

St. Louis Martin was the third of five children. He initially wanted to pursue a religious vocation as an Augustinian monk. But when his poor academic skills prevented him from entering the monastery, he came to see that religious life was not his vocation. St. Zelie Martin grew up in a household that was somewhat repressive, but despite this she developed a strong faith life. Like Louis, she tried to pursue a religious vocation. She attempted to enter the Sisters of Charity, but the mother superior rejected her. Louis became a watchmaker, and Zelie took up the craft of lace-making. Both of these trades were services to wealthy people. Louis and Zelie grew in holiness as they worked in the years leading up to their meeting and eventual marriage. One day before they met for the first time, Louis and Zelie passed one another on a bridge. According to some sources, the two of them knew then and there that they were meant to be married. Louis and Zelie married three months after they first met. For the first ten months of their marriage, they lived as brother and sister until a priest advised them to reconsider. The two of them eventually had nine children, though four of their children died very young. Of the five children that lived to adulthood, one was St. Therese of Lisieux.

Read more at: https://www.praymorenovenas.com/saints-louis-and-zelie-martin-novena

If they had done as YOU are doing, they would have pursued their first desires further or lived as brother and sister, scorning the "inferior" advise of the priest. From all we can judge from the results, God was guiding them not only through their initial desires and intense thinking but also through critical priests and daily events with other people and human reactions.