Is it a matter of scandal that there are virtually no lay married male saints except for kings and martyrs?

[oldcatholicguy]

This topic has come up once or twice before by way of question - I’ve reviewed those posts and wanted to raise it again, because while some interesting information was shared, the actual issue: is this not a bad thing? was barely touched on. I have posted in the Traditional forum area because it seems to me it is a matter of Catholic custom.

The point I want to make is this: virtually no men who have lived the ordinary live of faith praised by the Church as fathers and husbands have been recognised as saints in the past few centuries. If you are in this category, the only things that will get you on the road to sainthood is being martyred, or being a king. Being the father of a saint may count too.

I cannot help but think that this represents some sort of statement about men who are not celibate, and a deep and enduring rejection of the value of married life. I would be happy to be proved wrong, but won’t be convinced by the statements of the Church: it is actions I am drawing attention to here - actions which seem to contradict the teachings about the value of marriage.

And should the answer be: sainthood comes to those with religious orders behind them to do the lobbying needed - of what value is the practice of declaring saints, since it is based on campaigning, and not recognition of merit?

The Church does not use a quota system when determining who is a saint. The idea that one can determine the validity of one the Church’s teachings based on how many people who have followed a particular teaching have been made saints is silly.

 

[Cristiano]

He’s a king.

I think that being a king or just being in a position of power will make it much harder to become a saint. I think that it can be quite difficult to be poor in spirit when you have so much power.

 

[HollyDolly]

And this attitude to sex is?

Not exactly canonized saints, but AFAIK St. Therese of Lisieux’s parents are both beatified. And there’s also the Venerable Pierre Toussaint. BTW what about Thomas More? Although he is Lord Chancellor and thus a public figure.

Yes, St.Thomas More was married, and his daughter Margaret More Roper is well known too. You can look up on Wikipedia the English Maryters. While some were clergy, there were also ordinary men and women who were married and had families who also suffered.
There are plenty of saintly married men and women, only these people when they died didn’t have anyone put their cause before Rome. Also, I think the website,www.newsaints.net has lay single and married people listed, some of them from Italy.

 

[katy]

Juan Diego
Francisco Marto, Blessed, not canonized yet

 

[Waiting]

This topic has come up once or twice before by way of question - I’ve reviewed those posts and wanted to raise it again, because while some interesting information was shared, the actual issue: is this not a bad thing? was barely touched on. I have posted in the Traditional forum area because it seems to me it is a matter of Catholic custom.

The point I want to make is this: virtually no men who have lived the ordinary live of faith praised by the Church as fathers and husbands have been recognised as saints in the past few centuries. If you are in this category, the only things that will get you on the road to sainthood is being martyred, or being a king. Being the father of a saint may count too.

I cannot help but think that this represents some sort of statement about men who are not celibate, and a deep and enduring rejection of the value of married life. I would be happy to be proved wrong, but won’t be convinced by the statements of the Church: it is actions I am drawing attention to here - actions which seem to contradict the teachings about the value of marriage.

And should the answer be: sainthood comes to those with religious orders behind them to do the lobbying needed - of what value is the practice of declaring saints, since it is based on campaigning, and not recognition of merit?

The number of canonized saints is a very short list of the saints who reside in heaven. The canonized ones are those usually of a religious society whose cause for sainthood is carried out through that society. The neighbor who was always there when needed, the parent who sacrificed his own welfare for his/her family, the quiet person who generously donated a lifetime of service and/or financial help to worthy causes are all living happily with God and being rewarded with His love and generosity in heaven. No need to be proclaimed a saint. You can pray to that person and know that your friend or neighbor in heaven is indeed a saint, one who is happy to intercede for you with God.

 

[Ghosty]

I’ll chime in my support for the notion that it has mostly to do with the process of canonization. For someone to become a Saint they must already have a significant following (typically speaking). The canonization process involves the Church recognizing and approving some movement that has already been established.

The life of the typical married holy person will not lead to the kind of following that leads to Sainthood. In fact, I would argue, a typical married holy person shouldn’t be doing things that lead to such a following; they should be taking care of their families and raising them in the Faith, helping out in the community only insofar as it doesn’t jeopardize the priority of their holy family duties. St. Therese’s parents are perfect examples of this, and had their daughters not become shining lights among the Carmelites none of us should ever have known their names. They may have been holier than Augustine and Aquinas, but they never would have had the notoriety to get the canonization process going.

So I don’t think sex is much of an issue at all. The fact is that lay married life, while quite holy, is not geared towards notoriety by design. I’ve no doubt that most of the greatest Saints un Heaven are married men and women we’ve never heard of, and never should have.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I’ll chime in my support for the notion that it has mostly to do with the process of canonization. For someone to become a Saint they must already have a significant following (typically speaking). The canonization process involves the Church recognizing and approving some movement that has already been established.

The life of the typical married holy person will not lead to the kind of following that leads to Sainthood. In fact, I would argue, a typical married holy person shouldn’t be doing things that lead to such a following; they should be taking care of their families and raising them in the Faith, helping out in the community only insofar as it doesn’t jeopardize the priority of their holy family duties. St. Therese’s parents are perfect examples of this, and had their daughters not become shining lights among the Carmelites none of us should ever have known their names. They may have been holier than Augustine and Aquinas, but they never would have had the notoriety to get the canonization process going.

So I don’t think sex is much of an issue at all. The fact is that lay married life, while quite holy, is not geared towards notoriety by design. I’ve no doubt that most of the greatest Saints un Heaven are married men and women we’ve never heard of, and never should have.

Peace and God bless!

This.

 

[Skeptic92]

I’ll chime in my support for the notion that it has mostly to do with the process of canonization. For someone to become a Saint they must already have a significant following (typically speaking). The canonization process involves the Church recognizing and approving some movement that has already been established.

The life of the typical married holy person will not lead to the kind of following that leads to Sainthood. In fact, I would argue, a typical married holy person shouldn’t be doing things that lead to such a following; they should be taking care of their families and raising them in the Faith, helping out in the community only insofar as it doesn’t jeopardize the priority of their holy family duties. St. Therese’s parents are perfect examples of this, and had their daughters not become shining lights among the Carmelites none of us should ever have known their names. They may have been holier than Augustine and Aquinas, but they never would have had the notoriety to get the canonization process going.

So I don’t think sex is much of an issue at all. The fact is that lay married life, while quite holy, is not geared towards notoriety by design. I’ve no doubt that most of the greatest Saints un Heaven are married men and women we’ve never heard of, and never should have.

Peace and God bless!

Explained it much better then I
+1 and an Ave Maria for your intentions

 

[Stephentlig]

Matt Talbot is an Irish Saint from Dublin who was an alcoholic but changed his life around. A simple Saint who would wear chains under his clothes to Mass as an act of Penance.

Good question though. Very few Saints made Saints who are lay people. But as noted already the Church doesnt create Saints, she recognizes them and cannot recognize them all. But for me Matt Talbot is is Ven.Matt but he is a Saint in my eyes. Same with Mother Teresa, she is a saint and Pope John Paul II he is a Saint too.

 

[Rocky24]

-Saint Maria Gorreti
-Blessed Bartolo Longo
-Blessed Chiara Luce Badano
-Blessed Francisco Marto
-Blessed Jacinta Marto
-Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati

 

[DaveBj]

-Saint Maria Gorreti
-Blessed Bartolo Longo
-Blessed Chiara Luce Badano
-Blessed Francisco Marto
-Blessed Jacinta Marto
-Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati

Everyone can name a few, but that only proves Hokomai’s point – in the overall list of canonized Catholic saints, ordinary married men are grossly under-represented.

 

[Hokomai]

As for this being a Scandal, no.

Here is the definition of Scandal from the Catechism of the Catholic Church;
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

I do not see any way that the absence of any group from the revealed Sainthood could lead anyone to do evil.

The potential for scandal (and yes, I was using the word in exactly the CCC sense) arises from the view from outside the Church of the Church’s attitude to sexuality. A Church with the intense interest in sexual morality shown by the Catholic Church, with a clear preference for the idea that celibacy is between than its alternative, which none-the-less claims a sacred status for marriage, fails to find, well, any men in the married state worthy of elevation rot sainthood. This might give rise to a belief that the Church is less than sincere in its words of respect for marriage, something which MIT well lead people away from the Church. I am interested, Friar David, in your words “absence of any group”. This makes it sound like an unintended or merely curious event. It is the result of decision-making and emphasis by those in Leadership positions, and in the highest positions, over centuries. Yes, it could be the cause of scandal.

 

[Cristiano]

The potential for scandal (and yes, I was using the word in exactly the CCC sense) arises from the view from outside the Church of the Church’s attitude to sexuality. A Church with the intense interest in sexual morality shown by the Catholic Church, with a clear preference for the idea that celibacy is between than its alternative, which none-the-less claims a sacred status for marriage, fails to find, well, any men in the married state worthy of elevation rot sainthood. This might give rise to a belief that the Church is less than sincere in its words of respect for marriage, something which MIT well lead people away from the Church. I am interested, Friar David, in your words “absence of any group”. This makes it sound like an unintended or merely curious event. It is the result of decision-making and emphasis by those in Leadership positions, and in the highest positions, over centuries. Yes, it could be the cause of scandal.

You are blaming the immoral secular viewpoints as true sources of scandal and then somehow you blame the Church, which is consistent with her teachings, for the scandal. This is a major logical fallacy. The Church cannot stop people for choosing to stay ignorant or acting stupid.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t think it has anything to do with the Churches’ “attitude toward sex”, except that celibacy is one of many practices that requires sacrifice. **Priests make vows of chastity, poverty & obedience. Sometimes they fall, sometimes they just have to pick themselves up & start over again…but they cannot ever quit struggling against temptation. They cannot have the comfort of a wife after a long & arduous day. They cannot say that, at 65 yrs. of age, I’ll have a nice 401K & will be able to retire in financial
comfort & travel the globe. **They will have no grandchildren…no little league baseball games to attend, no dance recitals, no kids running up & saying, “Did you see that, Grandpa”?

Because of this centuries’ priestly scandals, many of us have forgotten that simple, parish priest who gives his whole life to God…but, there are many out there. So, maybe there are more saints among the clergy than among the laity…or…maybe, it IS because there is no one to bring a lay person’s cause before the Vatican. In that case, it’s certainly not the fault of the Church. Maybe all of us should be more aware of the saints around us. I can think of two people right now, that could be recognized saints…my aunt & my Mother-in-Law…yet I did nothing when they died.

Secular diocesan priests do not vow poverty, chastity or obedience. They are secular men and are not under vows. Secular priests are allowed to own property and many are offered very nice retirement plans. They can invest money all they want and can set up their own IRA accounts if they want.

Priest’s promise obedience to the bishop, and the promise of celibacy is implied in the promise of obedience. A celibate deacon is not under a vow of celibacy. He makes a promise, not a vow.

Priests are not under vows. They are under promises, and those promises do not require a life of poverty.

-Tim-

 

[Skeptic92]

The potential for scandal (and yes, I was using the word in exactly the CCC sense) arises from the view from outside the Church of the Church’s attitude to sexuality. A Church with the intense interest in sexual morality shown by the Catholic Church, with a clear preference for the idea that celibacy is between than its alternative, which none-the-less claims a sacred status for marriage, fails to find, well, any men in the married state worthy of elevation rot sainthood. This might give rise to a belief that the Church is less than sincere in its words of respect for marriage, something which MIT well lead people away from the Church. I am interested, Friar David, in your words “absence of any group”. This makes it sound like an unintended or merely curious event. It is the result of decision-making and emphasis by those in Leadership positions, and in the highest positions, over centuries. Yes, it could be the cause of scandal.

Do you know how to solve the problem? Find lay faithful who were married and have a considerable following amongst the faith and petition the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. However if a married couple has a considerable following to be able to get to Rome there is likely something wrong- being public or well known is not part and parcel with the vocation of Matrimony which makes it difficult for it to ever reach the Vatican.

This is a problem with the beatification process and not one that is likely to be reformed because it would impact the Canonisation process. Unfortunately due to the Canonisation process lay-married Saints are not likely to ever become Common even if they are the majority of the faithful.

 

[Waiting]

The potential for scandal (and yes, I was using the word in exactly the CCC sense) arises from the view from outside the Church of the Church’s attitude to sexuality. A Church with the intense interest in sexual morality shown by the Catholic Church, with a clear preference for the idea that celibacy is between than its alternative, which none-the-less claims a sacred status for marriage, fails to find, well, any men in the married state worthy of elevation rot sainthood. This might give rise to a belief that the Church is less than sincere in its words of respect for marriage, something which MIT well lead people away from the Church. I am interested, Friar David, in your words “absence of any group”. This makes it sound like an unintended or merely curious event. It is the result of decision-making and emphasis by those in Leadership positions, and in the highest positions, over centuries. Yes, it could be the cause of scandal.

Nonsense. There are so few cannonized married males because married people, for the most part, work and raise families in a private manner. They go to Church, raise their children in the faith, and pass on to the next world to live with their God. Publiciized holiness is not theirs, and truthfully, they don’t want it. They prefer to quietly go about their business and then just as quietly leave this earth. No one needs to champion their cause for sainthood. That is between them and their Maker. That accounts for why so few married men are canonized saints. Heaven is surely full of uncanonized married males.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Do you know how to solve the problem? Find lay faithful who were married and have a considerable following amongst the faith and petition the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. However if a married couple has a considerable following to be able to get to Rome there is likely something wrong- being public or well known is not part and parcel with the vocation of Matrimony which makes it difficult for it to ever reach the Vatican.

This is a problem with the beatification process and not one that is likely to be reformed because it would impact the Canonisation process. Unfortunately due to the Canonisation process lay-married Saints are not likely to ever become Common even if they are the majority of the faithful.

I believe you’re right. Sadly, while the most important qualification for canonization is sanctity, the second most important is a paper trail.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Louis and Zélie Martin, Parents of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, have been beatified.

While it is true that there are few (if any) married men or women who are saints I believe it is even fewer married couples.

I do not think this has anything to do with a sex or the celibate state. I think this may be more of a projection of motives on to the Church that one may harbor themself.

.

I think the real question that needs to be addressed here is what qualifies someone as a canonized saint, and what’s required to reach that. Saints are very holy people with a very close relationship to God, who have had miracles attributed to them through their intercessions, etc. Now we have to look at the reality of how compatible each state of life is with that. While we’re all called to be saints, not everyone is going to be a canonized saint, and one shouldn’t get discouraged simply because there aren’t canonized saints from their particular state of life.

BTW: These women who were virgins, didn’t get canonized as saints simply because they were virgins. They consecrated their virginity to Jesus and dedicated their lives to him and performed acts of unceasing prayer, penance, and sacrifice. The same can be said for hermits, abbots, and, minus the virginity part, widows, penitents, etc. I will say it again. These are people who dedicated their entire lives to God. I’m a virgin, go to church a lot, pray a lot, etc, but I do not qualify for sainthood, nor do I expect to become one as living an ordinary life as a Catholic. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to try to become a saint, but living in the world (especially now) makes it very difficult to reach such levels of sanctity.

 

[theyoungmonk]

the majority of cannonised saints are Bishops, founders of religious orders etc. We see the same thing with Parish Priests, St. John Vianney is to my memory the only cannonised priest who was never more than a Parish Priest. It is all because these bishops, theologians etc leave a large mark on the world, they have fame and people gather around them making them shining examples, hence also why kings and the like are more likely to be cannonised. think of Popes there are so many canonisied mostly because of their prominence and also the effect they have on the laity who feel their impact and “know” them in some way. We only cmpaign for the canonisation of those we “know” and who have made an extraordinary impact. they have to show heroic Virtue something that is easier for a religious etc to display as they do not have to care for the needs of family in the same way.

 

[Hokomai]

You are blaming the immoral secular viewpoints as true sources of scandal and then somehow you blame the Church, which is consistent with her teachings, for the scandal. This is a major logical fallacy. The Church cannot stop people for choosing to stay ignorant or acting stupid.

I think you will find that the Church has spent a lot of time and effort in trying to avoid “scandal” where there were perfectly good explanations for what occurred. Scandal is something that other people experience, caused by something you do.