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

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

I believe it is an unintended event. As has been pointed out the process for canonization is rigorous and requires support to be done. Those with a following, that is bishops, religious, founders of religious communities, have such a support system behind them.

Lay people do not have such a system.

I do not see how the lack of any Saint can be a cause of someone doing evil. This is not a matter of scandal.

 

[LilyM]

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.

As one of ‘those lay Franciscans’, I can assure you that I have never, either officially or unofficially, felt sidelined in the least, not by the nuns and brothers nor by anybody else. Not in all the 20 years I’ve been involved.

 

[DaveBj]

At the risk of a slight diversion of the thread, I would like to protest (albeit mildly) at the use of the word “notoriety.” Notoriety is a negative. Someone can be known as a notorious sinner, but saying that someone that someone is a notorious saint is a contradiction. The correct term is “famous” or “well-known.”

 

[Hokomai]

At the risk of a slight diversion of the thread, I would like to protest (albeit mildly) at the use of the word “notoriety.” Notoriety is a negative. Someone can be known as a notorious sinner, but saying that someone that someone is a notorious saint is a contradiction. The correct term is “famous” or “well-known.”

As a fellow pedant, please always feel free to intervene in my threads and correct anyone at all, including me!

 

[Hokomai]

I believe it is an unintended event. As has been pointed out the process for canonization is rigorous and requires support to be done. Those with a following, that is bishops, religious, founders of religious communities, have such a support system behind them.

Lay people do not have such a system.

I do not see how the lack of any Saint can be a cause of someone doing evil. This is not a matter of scandal.

Must scandal be intended?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

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.

Want to be sure you understand that everyone in heaven is a Saint. A cannonized Saint is someone that we have proof (through miracles) that they are in heaven.

Once again, that doesn’t mean that Grandpa or any other saintly lay person is not in heaven. It just means that they haven’t been granted the gift of a miracle (actually 2) happening in their name.

In the Bible we read that there are different rewards in heaven. “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done” (Revelation 22:12). The Church also teaches this. “To various degrees” refers to the degree of reward that each receives.

As others have said, (and again as scripture teaches) a married man is divided between his duty to his wife and family and what he can give up for God. It is not right for example, for a father to skip a child’s play or big game because he wants to sit in Adoration instead. That is not the proper role for a married man. So he may indeed have a full prayer life and spend time in Adoration, but he cannot do it at the expense of his family.

1051 Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.

1052 “We believe that the souls of all who die in Christ’s grace . . . are the People of God beyond death. On the day of resurrection, death will be definitively conquered, when these souls will be reunited with their bodies” (Paul VI, CPG § 28).

1053 “We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven, where in eternal blessedness they see God as he is and where they are also, to various degrees, associated with the holy angels in the divine governance exercised by Christ in glory, by interceding for us and helping our weakness by their fraternal concern” (Paul VI, CPG § 29).

1054 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship imperfectly purified, although they are assured of their eternal salvation, undergo a purification after death, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of God.

1055 By virtue of the “communion of saints,” the Church commends the dead to God’s mercy and offers her prayers, especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, on their behalf.

1056 Following the example of Christ, the Church warns the faithful of the “sad and lamentable reality of eternal death” (GCD 69), also called “hell.”

1057 Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” (Mt 19:26).

1059 “The holy Roman Church firmly believes and confesses that on the Day of Judgment all men will appear in their own bodies before Christ’s tribunal to render an account of their own deeds” (Council of Lyons II [1274]S 859; cf. DS 1549).

1060 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. Then the just will reign with Christ for ever, glorified in body and soul, and the material universe itself will be transformed. God will then be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28), in eternal life.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

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.

Does anyone (other than the Vatican) have a complete list of every cannonized Saint and familiarity with their life story? I certainly don’t.

There are books out about lay Saints and married Saints. I just don’t see any kind of scandal in this. Certainly not any kind of repression of married life or non-virginity.

Countless saints have been priests or religious, living out lives of penance and sacrifice for the good of the Church. But many Catholics don’t realize that married couples are called to holiness as well.

Fr. Holböck’s tells the inspiring stories of over 200 married saints and blesseds from the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph to Margaret of Scotland, King Louis of France, Thomas More, and modern examples like Gianna Molla and Louis and Zélie Martin, parents of St. Thérèse of Lisieux. The example of these holy men and women is essential to living a truly Catholic married life. Important Church documents and scripture passages are also included to further guide and enlighten the reader. Many illustrations.

 

[Ghosty]

At the risk of a slight diversion of the thread, I would like to protest (albeit mildly) at the use of the word “notoriety.” Notoriety is a negative. Someone can be known as a notorious sinner, but saying that someone that someone is a notorious saint is a contradiction. The correct term is “famous” or “well-known.”

I’ll issue a counter-protest.

Notorious, while commonly used negatively, does not necessarily imply a negative qualification. It literally means “having notoriety”, and notoriety simply means “well known”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[DaveBj]

I’ll issue a counter-protest.

Notorious, while commonly used negatively, does not necessarily imply a negative qualification. It literally means “having notoriety”, and notoriety simply means “well known”.

Peace and God bless!

From Merriam-Websters: notoriety – the quality or state of being notorious. Notorious – generally known and talked of ; esp: widely and unfavorably known. I stand by my objection.

 

[Hokomai]

Does anyone (other than the Vatican) have a complete list of every cannonized Saint and familiarity with their life story? I certainly don’t.

There are books out about lay Saints and married Saints. I just don’t see any kind of scandal in this. Certainly not any kind of repression of married life or non-virginity.

[tells the inspiring stories of over 200 married saints and blesseds from the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph to Margaret of Scotland, King Louis of France, Thomas More, and modern examples like Gianna Molla and Louis and Zélie Martin, parents of St. Thérèse of Lisieux. The example of these holy men and women is essential to living a truly Catholic married life. Important Church documents and scripture passages are also included to further guide and enlighten the reader. Many illustrations.

Fr. Holböck’s ](http://www.ignatius.com/Products/MSAB-P/married-saints-and-blesseds.aspx)

Hmmm - virgins, kings, martyrs, and the parents of a saint. That’s really the point I was making. If huge resurces are to be devted to the researching and promulgation of sainthood for saintly people, why does the Church not seek out those more ordinary saintly lives, to better serve as examples?

 

[LilyM]

[

Hmmm - virgins, kings, martyrs, and the parents of a saint. That’s really the point I was making. If huge resurces are to be devted to the researching and promulgation of sainthood for saintly people, why does the Church not seek out those more ordinary saintly lives, to better serve as examples?](http://www.ignatius.com/Products/MSAB-P/married-saints-and-blesseds.aspx)

Because it’s not actually the Church’s job to seek out people to canonize, believe it or not.

The fact that some people through the ages have been celebrated enough for their piety that eventually the Church, with a little prodding from the Almighty, has officially recognized them as such is a sideshow of a sideshow. So much so that for hundreds of years the Church hierarchy didn’t get involved in the process of declaring saints at all, it was done purely by popular acclaim. Popular acclaim is the thing that should be, and often is, of least importance to any seriously religious person.

Our churchmen have slightly more important things to do than run around our towns and cities sniffing out candidates for Sainthood - the very idea sounds like some warped version of American Idol. That certainly isn’t what the church is or should be about.

There are about 10,000 canonized Saints. Above all of those, we have the example of Jesus Christ - you know, the one our faith is named after? If that isn’t enough - if He isn’t enough - to provide role models for anyone in any circumstance, then no amount of Saints will be. And if no further Saints of any kind were ever canonized, the ones we have would still be enough and more than enough.

 

[Hokomai]

Our churchmen have slightly more important things to do than run around our towns and cities sniffing out candidates for Sainthood - the very idea sounds like some warped version of American Idol. That certainly isn’t what the church is or should be about.

Is my impression that thousands of hours, and millions of dollars in time and resources are used in the processes of seeking canonisation incorrect? It seems to take many years, many people, formal processes, big infrastructure, the writing of books, and eventually the flying of thousands of people to Rome to celebrate. Clearly there are quite a few church’men’ who have some time available for the activity of ‘sniffing out candidates’.

 

[LilyM]

Is my impression that thousands of hours, and millions of dollars in time and resources are used in the processes of seeking canonisation incorrect? It seems to take many years, many people, formal processes, big infrastructure, the writing of books, and eventually the flying of thousands of people to Rome to celebrate. Clearly there are quite a few church’men’ who have some time available for the activity of ‘sniffing out candidates’.

It is incorrect. Think of a court case. The vast bulk of the time and money is spent, the majority of the information gathered, by private lawyers and the client (think in this case interested parties such as religious orders, which aren’t funded by Rome in any way) rather than by the court. And yes, court cases can take a long time, but it’s not like anyone - lawyers nor court - are working on those cases every day of all that time.

Rome becomes more involved after the information gathering stage, simply reviewing and picking holes in the information once it has been gathered. The role of what used to be called ‘Devil’s Advocate’. Which is a much less onerous process, as any criminal defence lawyer can tell you!

And they certainly didn’t pay for all the Australians who went to st Mary MacKillop’s canonization, although they invited a handful who were particularly involved - most of the crowd fundraised or paid their own way.

And from memory a group of people will often be canonized at once, so it’s not like they even hold entirely separate ceremonies for each saint!

 

[domandcarols]

 

[Qwestions]

Ghosty, please Google “fame,” “notoriety,” and “notorious,” noting the definitions and shades of meaning. Grade schoolers are taught lists of words that are frequently misused; “fame” and “notoriety” (and, by extension, “notorious”) are two of those words. If one is famous, he/she is well-known. However, if that person is well known for behavior or attitudes with negative connotations, he/she is properly described as being notorious, of ill fame, or non-repute.

The Venerable Fulton J. Sheen is famous (well-known in a good way). Some of the religious who are breaking their vows of obedience by pushing for such things as married priests and women priests are notorious (well-known or famous in a negative way) for opposing Rome in their rebellious writing and behavior and for their rude contempt of the faithful who have tried to reason with them–offenses that that could result in excommunication.

Admittedly, in the past few years the words have been increasingly misused by well-known (famous, but not necessarily in either a good or bad way) people in politics, entertainment, and news. However, repeated misusage doesn’t make the misusage any more acceptable.

If you insist upon referring to others as being notorious, when they’re merely famous, but they’re contemporary people and possibly you know something negative about them that we don’t know, your listeners/readers note your shade of meaning but may not question your intent.

However, to purposely continue to use “notorious”, which implies a bad reputation, in regards to the saints (of all people to cast aspersion upon!), suggests a blatant disregard for truthfulness, an affront to the saints to whom you refer and to us who read your comments. We not only note your negatively connotated usage, but wonder; why do you purposely choose those words?

 

[Ghosty]

This isn’t a dictionary thread, guys. I’ve taught Enlish, and I’m well aware of the meaning of words. Notorious means well known, though people often prefer to use it for ill-repute. It does not mean ill-repute, however, and to insist that it does actually does violence to the breadth of the English language; notoriety derives its character from context, not inherent meaning. If I were to mean ill-repute I would use a word that actually means it, like infamous.

Now I suggest we get back to topic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[anp1215]

I found it interesting that no one mentioned this (at least I don’t think so) because it was the first thing that popped into my head:

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I found it interesting that no one mentioned this (at least I don’t think so) because it was the first thing that popped into my head:

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians

Something else on this vein: There is no marriage in heaven. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Matthew 22:30

From the CCC:

Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom

1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."115
1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.116

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119

 

[manualman]

Hokomai,

I confess to not having read all the other responses. I wanted to keep my own thoughts straight first. There are two underlying problems with your question.

1. It almost sounds like you think that only canonized saints are in heaven. Not so. The purpose of canonization is to provide examples of sanctity that are beyond question for the guidance and inspiration of the people at large and to invite people to ask their intercession (prayers for us). The vast majority of saints in heaven aren’t canonized, I dare say. Why not? Because it’s harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. We only canonize those whose holiness is beyond any real doubt. The holy janitor and father of 8 probably just didn’t leave enough evidence to make that external decision - he was too busy living out his vocation. Nevertheless, I recommend you look into some Opus Dei publications on how ordinary life can be sanctifying if approached correctly. Now that I mention it I need to read those myself!
2. Secular society already does a fine job of telling men that they’re terribly important and that their accomplishments have changed the world. Yada, yada… But what most men are really called to is a support role. Doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, electricians, bricklayers and so on… None of these are meant to be our identities, but to be means by which we support our families. It’s hard to precisely identify the heroic attributes of a holy man who places his family before ambition, so they generally do go unrecognized. But that’s part of the point. In the vocation of marriage, a man is called to serve his wife and family, not aggrandize himself. No wonder the most successful of them largely go unrecognized: that’s kind of the point! It’s easy to spot the saints who were called to found religious orders, be heroic priests who sucessfully confronted a societal problems and martyrs who died rather than deny the faith.

 

[DL82]

I wonder if anyone has put Dietrich von Hildebrand’s cause for canonisation forward?

I agree that the canonisation process is designed to give public recognition to those whose holiness is already a matter of public record. More a case of the Church ensuring that flawed leaders and heretics do not get accorded the honour due to saints. If you know your Uncle Paul was a holy man, and want to pray to him, you don’t need the Church’s sanction.

The process looks at all writings and public documents, and would be hard to complete if a married man’s main witness to life, his wife, had already passed on, and his spiritual director likewise. As an aside, I know the cause of Bl Frank Duff, founder of the Legion of Mary, is taking a very long time because all of his writings need to be examined - easy enough if you are a monk who wrote one or two books on the spiritual life, less easy if, like Frank, you are a career civil servant. You have to feel sorry for the poor Cardinal who has to wade through 10,000 pages of internal memos, ‘there will be no parking on O’Connell Street between 16th-21st August…’ no heresy there!

I do not remember their names off hand, but know that in the 1980s Bl John Paul II beatified an Italian married couple who had lived lives in holiness.

There is also the issue that the married vocation is a vocation in the specific, not the general. There is a clear model for the ‘good pastor’ or the 'good Benedictine, but no ‘good husband’ in the abstract, only the best husband for a specific wife. It took me a while to realise this, and I will write about it when time allows.