Question on Saints in Religious Orders

[kurt1]

So I’ve been reading up on religious orders and their histories, and I’ve noticed that Jesuits and Franciscans have quite a lot of saints both in old times and modern times, while orders like Cistercians and Carthusians have few if any in modern times. Is this a sign that reform is needed? Or would that be too quick to assume? I’m just surprised that some of the religious orders have so few modern saints when compared to others, even when accounting for differences in size.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s likely more a sign that Franciscans are a huge, huge group and Jesuits are also a large group, and that both these large groups put a lot of resources into pushing sainthood causes over the years. The Jesuits have a huge number of martyrs due to their propensity for sending missionaries into areas where there were few or no Catholics and the persons living there were often hostile to the Faith. Martyrdom will generally get a member of a religious order straight to beatification.

Cistercians and Carthusians are smaller groups, so they would have a smaller pool of candidates from which to choose potential saints, and fewer resources to devote towards pushing sainthood causes. Additionally, some orders are just less interested in promoting saints, perhaps because they want to use their resources elsewhere. I know there is one saint in the US from a religious order (St. Rose Philippine Duchesne) whose sainthood cause was about to be abandoned because her order didn’t have the money or didn’t want to spend the money on getting her all the way across the line to canonization - it’s an expensive process - and Pope JPII stepped in and canonized her anyway. Her order, the Society of the Sacred Heart, had felt it would be better to honor her memory by spending that money on working with the poor.

 

[Anesti33]

One large difference is that Cistercians and Carthusians are monastic. For better or worse, sainthood depends in large part on a popular cult of veneration around the person. If the holy person was a monk or nun, they were only known to the other members of that monastery or convent. Not a good recipe for sainthood.

On the other hand, Franciscans are friars and Jesuits are non-monastics as well. Mixing and mingling with the faithful in public ministries is a good recipe for building up a cult of veneration after their passing. It would be highly likely that plenty of people will support their cause for sainthood, both within and without the orders.

 

[umamibella]

So I’ve been reading up on religious orders and their histories, and I’ve noticed that Jesuits and Franciscans have quite a lot of saints both in old times and modern times, while orders like Cistercians and Carthusians have few if any in modern times. Is this a sign that reform is needed? Or would that be too quick to assume? I’m just surprised that some of the religious orders have so few modern saints when compared to others, even when accounting for differences in size.

Opening the cause for sainthood costs money. In my Public Association of the Faithful one of our founders ( who Cardinal George Pell said was like meeting a living saint the first time they met,) has his cause open. Every writing of his in the copious library he left is being examined, much has to be translated. Finding the correct resources to do this work alone is costly.
I do not think it is a sign that reform is needed, there have been some very holy people in modern times, but opening their causes can be quite problematic. Look at all the countries in conflict with records and memory lost due to war as another example.

On another thread I am exploring requirements for sainthood and have discovered only the Holy Father has the authority to canonize and the example of philomena is raised in respect to feast days of those venerated in popular and local culture now and in old times.

 

[phil19034]

It’s not a sign of anything.

It’s a difference between cloister vs non-cloister & the types of orders and the “popularity” members of religious orders can obtain from them.

Monastic Orders and Canon Regulars spend the vast majority of their time inside the monastery and/or church. Their interaction with people from the outside is limited to the visitors who interact with them. These orders along with any other cloistered group are going to spend most of their time in prayer. Unless they are prolific writers, few people will know them & pray to them after their death.

Members of Mendicant Orders, Cleric Regulars, non-cloistered Religious Congregations, and Societies of Apostolic Life are going to have A LOT more opportunities to be know by fellow Catholics in the area. They might directly work with the poor, teach school/college, have a speaking ministry, work with prisoners, work with the sick, etc. Their ministry makes it easiest for more people to know them & to pray to them after their death.

Most Franciscans (except 2nd Order Franciscans) are non-cloistered Mendicants and/or Religious Congregations. The Jesuits are Cleric Regulars.

The Cistercians & Carthusians are both Monastic, therefore, the average Catholic will not know any of them unless they are prolific authors.

I hope this helps

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Cistercians & Carthusians are both Monastic, therefore, the average Catholic will not know any of them unless they are prolific authors.

The “average Catholic” does not know very many prospective saints from active orders either, unless their order promotes them. The “average Catholic” in USA never heard of St Elizabeth Seton, St Katherine Drexel, St. Rose Philippine Duchesne, or St. Therese Guerin until they were close to canonization. The “average Catholic” in USA had never heard of Fr Solanus Casey until his beatification. At most, these saints were known to small groups of people who lived in their areas or had knowledge of their orders.

In the end, it has to do with how much their order promotes them to the public, especially since most candidates don’t get beatified until most if not all of the people who knew them in real life are dead.

The widely known active religious, such as Mother Teresa or Mother Angelica, is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[phil19034]

The “average Catholic” does not know very many prospective saints from active orders either, unless their order promotes them.

True, but what I meant by “average Catholic” is lay people in the local community. Not across the country.

I’ve met a few people who were kids when St Katherine Drexel was still alive. They grew up in close proximity to her Mother house, so they had met her many times & affectionately still call her Mother Katherine.

She was also often in the local news papers of Philadelphia.

So while others around the country may not have known about her, the locals did.

With monastics, it’s possible that even the neighborhood Catholic won’t know who a monk or nun is unless they visit the monastery regularly.

That’s what I meant.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

it’s an expensive process

Yes, indeed. I’ve heard it compared to the equivalent of running a presidential campaign in terms of cost, or as one quote I read recently put it, “several six figure checks” for a start.

It also takes an enormous amount of time and personnel resources as well, as was mentioned above. Our Archdiocese currently has an open cause that I don’t feel anyone is hearing about simply because of the time/people consumption vs. our available pool of expertise.

 

[christianchannel]

i would say more like go back to practicing good tradition of the church