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

[Hokomai]

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.

So why can people onto show heroic virtue in caring for their family?

 

[Hokomai]

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.

So what is the point of canonization? It sounds like an army that decorates only its senior officers.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

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.

Upon becoming a husband and parent I would be far more concerned about becoming a Saint by entering into heaven rather than wonder about whether or not I’ll be canonized on Earth.

 

[Ghosty]

So what is the point of canonization? It sounds like an army that decorates only its senior officers.

Canonization isn’t a decoration or special honor for the person being canonized, but rather a highlighting of a particular model for the benefit of the Faithful on Earth.

While it would be wonderful to have more variety in lifestyles highlighted, the fact is that most lifestyles don’t garner the broad fame needed for a movement towards Canonization.

Peace and God bless!

 

[LilyM]

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.

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

The question is about married laypeople. I know for a fact four of those were unmarried (three died in their teens)

 

[DaveBj]

The question is about married laypeople. I know for a fact four of those were unmarried (three died in their teens)

And more specifically, about married lay men.

 

[LilyM]

Canonization isn’t a decoration or special honor for the person being canonized, but rather a highlighting of a particular model for the benefit of the Faithful on Earth.

While it would be wonderful to have more variety in lifestyles highlighted, the fact is that most lifestyles don’t garner the broad fame needed for a movement towards Canonization.

Peace and God bless!

Besides which most armies DO decorate their officers disproportionately, when one considers how relatively much a regular grunt has to do to get recognition compared to an officer.

 

[Waiting]

So what is the point of canonization? It sounds like an army that decorates only its senior officers.

Formal canonization isn’t really necessary. I know for a fact that some members of my family are in heaven. That means that each there is a saint, living a life of eternal happiness. They didn’t need recognition by any group to attain heaven. But formal canonization does have benefits in some ways. The lives of the saints are examples that inspire and encourage those on earth to persevere towards holiness. Also, many lived lives of exceptional courage and sacrifice, and when they were members of a religious society, that society was dedicated to preserve their deeds in the public view by promoting their cause for sainthood. Canonization is a good thing, just not nessessary for most of us.

 

[benjammin]

Why do you group kings in this post. Many Kings were married and lived very virtuous lives such as Stephen of Hungary, Wenceslaus, Louis (can’t think of what number he was, but the one for whom St Louis is named), and probably many more. Also, there are a few people have missed. I think Isidore the farmer was married. People also forget Thomas More. Yes he was a martyr, but i don’t see why a martyr wouldn’t count either. Also what about Mary’s parents Ann and Joachim? I remember St Cecillia was married and converted members of her family. I’m sure there are others though

 

[Hokomai]

Why do you group kings in this post. Many Kings were married and lived very virtuous lives such as Stephen of Hungary, Wenceslaus, Louis (can’t think of what number he was, but the one for whom St Louis is named), and probably many more. Also, there are a few people have missed. I think Isidore the farmer was married. People also forget Thomas More. Yes he was a martyr, but i don’t see why a martyr wouldn’t count either. Also what about Mary’s parents Ann and Joachim? I remember St Cecillia was married and converted members of her family. I’m sure there are others though

Because I am trying to work out why some get in and some don’t. Kings seem to get canonised. Martyrs get canonised. Heads of religious orders get canonised. If canonisation has any meaning, this seems to sending a message about the relative value of ordinary lives. I am not arguing that these people should not have been made saints. I want to work out why others were not.

 

[Ghosty]

Because I am trying to work out why some get in and some don’t. Kings seem to get canonised. Martyrs get canonised. Heads of religious orders get canonised. If canonisation has any meaning, this seems to sending a message about the relative value of ordinary lives. I am not arguing that these people should not have been made saints. I want to work out why others were not.

Why are biographies written about Presidents but not about our uncle’s who fought in WW2 . It has to do with notoriety, not value.

Peace and God!

 

[LilyM]

Because I am trying to work out why some get in and some don’t. Kings seem to get canonised. Martyrs get canonised. Heads of religious orders get canonised. If canonisation has any meaning, this seems to sending a message about the relative value of ordinary lives. I am not arguing that these people should not have been made saints. I want to work out why others were not.

Nothing to do with relative value, everything to do with how relatively well-publicised their lives and deeds were.

The lives of Kings, good or bad, will always be interesting to historians of their nations. The lives of people who were put to death for their faith (martyrs) will always be interesting to historians of religion. And the lives of the founders of religious orders will always be of interest to people interested in the history of those orders, which at the very very least means members of those orders and those who know the members.

The life of Joe Bloggs of Ordinaryville, no matter how saintly Joe was, will normally only be of interest to his family and friends.

.

 

[Hokomai]

Nothing to do with relative value, everything to do with how relatively well-publicised their lives and deeds were.

The lives of Kings, good or bad, will always be interesting to historians of their nations. The lives of people who were put to death for their faith (martyrs) will always be interesting to historians of religion. And the lives of the founders of religious orders will always be of interest to people interested in the history of those orders, which at the very very least means members of those orders and those who know the members.

The life of Joe Bloggs of Ordinaryville, no matter how saintly Joe was, will normally only be of interest to his family and friends.

.

This would explain a preponderance of sints from such backgrounds, but it does not provide a good explanation to my mind of the virtual absence of people from backgrounds such as husband and father.

 

[Ghosty]

This would explain a preponderance of sints from such backgrounds, but it does not provide a good explanation to my mind of the virtual absence of people from backgrounds such as husband and father.

How are such people supposed to gain the following required for Sainthood? Did you realize that a person must have a sizable following before they are considered for Sainthood?

Canonization is not an elevation from obscurity to veneration, it is the official recognition and approval of already existing veneration and widespread following. Uncle Joe simply doesn’t have that kind of following, even if he literally radiated Holiness.

Peace and God bless!

 

[theyoungmonk]

You have to have a real and major following, and usually have some form of fame in life, unless there are some pretty impressive miracles which gain major attention post-mortem. There also has to be in modern times the money and organisation to support a cause, something which only religious orders and diocese generally have enough of. Even a diocese would likely only campaign for the canonisation of its bishops. For the process to proceed you would also need enough people who were inspired by that person to the degree that they will pray for their glorification and for graces by that person’s intercession. Think of the numbers praying for the canonisation of JPII or Ven. Fulton Sheen, causes and miracles linked to them cannot come from nowhere.

Martyrs being a separate case due to their specific nature and the huge interest that can gain in a nation or in the whole Church.

 

[Hokomai]

You have to have a real and major following, and usually have some form of fame in life, unless there are some pretty impressive miracles which gain major attention post-mortem. There also has to be in modern times the money and organisation to support a cause, something which only religious orders and diocese generally have enough of. Even a diocese would likely only campaign for the canonisation of its bishops. For the process to proceed you would also need enough people who were inspired by that person to the degree that they will pray for their glorification and for graces by that person’s intercession. Think of the numbers praying for the canonisation of JPII or Ven. Fulton Sheen, causes and miracles linked to them cannot come from nowhere.

Martyrs being a separate case due to their specific nature and the huge interest that can gain in a nation or in the whole Church.

OK, so is this process, needing money and organisation, a good thing or a bad thing, given that it leads to the good lives of many being ignored?

 

[WeSeeLight]

Though it isn’t very traditional, I find my own personal conscience abhors the idea of a special “Religious” class. Strong aversions rise in me, because Paul says “pray without ceasing” to the entire Church of Thessalonica, not merely to any particular group. If the idea of a “Religious” class is taken too far, the laity who choose not to become monks, friars, or priests, can be increasingly seen as “not dedicated enough”, or “not fully Christian”; after all, if they refuse to take the true Christian vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, what are they? This is a logic that, I think, has influenced the canonisation selection.

JP II was very diligent in starting the process for people like Bartolo Longo and others, however, for which we should be incredibly grateful. Jesus Christ was a carpenter in the world and left periodically to pray; He did not stay away forever. He also identified with all normal people, without cloister.

A Franciscan Br. friend of mine said that some are called to a higher state of holiness (i.e. the consecrated life). I totally reject this, because Christ is incarnate, dead, and risen for all men unto sanctity and glory for His children.

Ironically the original Franciscan ideal involved all living in community, and some married and some not; each continuing in his humble profession as he lived the Rule. Now it has evolved into a strict Religious-Lay split. The “True” Franciscans are the habit-wearing brothers, and “those lay franciscans” are sort of sidelined - if not officially, at least in mindset.

 

[agnes_therese]

OK, so is this process, needing money and organisation, a good thing or a bad thing, given that it leads to the good lives of many being ignored?

So how do you propose to make known all the “ordinary” people who lead saintly lives? How will you document their lives and their thoughts, and present them to the Church for investigation and verification?

The Church has never claimed that only those formally canonized are saints.

 

[Ghosty]

OK, so is this process, needing money and organization, a good thing or a bad thing, given that it leads to the good lives of many being ignored?

While it would be great to have more “regular folks” as Saints, the fact is that the process reflects the plain reality of notoriety. It’s not that the Church favors the famous, but that the bare fact of the matter is that the notorious are the ones who are noticed. When lay people get noticed and develop a following they get Canonized; the process isn’t stacked against them, it’s just the facts of life.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

And what would be a proper “representation”?

There is no quota system for revealed Saints.