Consecrated life higher than marriage?

[Nunsuch]

49 minutes ago, Sapientia said:

"If any one shall say, that the marriage state is to be preferred before a state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be joined in matrimony; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Canon X on the Sacrament of Matrimony)

This is official Church teaching, and Vatican II did not change this (nor could it have, since official Church teaching cannot change). In fact, the belief that marriage and celibacy are on equal footing is a heresy known as Jovinianism. Note that Church teaching does *not* say that every celibate person is holier than every married person, or even that each and every individual would be holier as a celibate person than as a married person. For some people, because of their personal circumstances or dispositions (and what specific circumstances or dispositions these may be could be open to discussion), marriage may be a better option. In itself, however, celibacy is better and provides more powerful means for attaining union with God.

This was certainly modified by the Second Vatican Council. While dogma is permanent, a teaching like this is not dogmatic and can certainly be modified. For example, until 1900, "official" vows for women religious could only be taken by those observing enclosure (see Periculoso, 1298, Pope Boniface VIII). This was changed in 1900 with Conditae a Christo, and the changes (issued in the Normae of 1901) were incorporated into canon law in 1917. The same can be said about this edict of the Council of Trent.

[Sister Leticia]

18 minutes ago, GraceUk said:

But on the other hand you might get a saintly married person and a not very saintly priest or nun.

That's right. Being a religious isn't a guarantee of holiness. We enter with our flaws and limitations, as well as what we desire to be like. And we don't necessarily become as saintly as we'd want to be! - but we strive and we stumble and we try again, just as anyone else does, and we give as much of ourselves as we can.  

[BarbTherese]

I think it is also about wanting to give Jesus the very best i.e. religious life.......but unable to do so - square peg in the round hole.  It can be quite deflating and discouraging to think one can only give him second best.......ever in this life.  Worse (and inaccurate) reasoning than that too, like that He does not fully want me, just sort of tolerates me out in the ranks.    I do wonder how many would fully embrace life in the Laity determined to give Jesus the very best of second best - that would make great saints methinks.

"" He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

[Nunsuch]

Has anyone thought about the fact that believing one is in a "higher state" may result in a kind of spiritual arrogance? That, it seems to me, is a potential--but very serious--danger.

[BarbTherese]

I suppose it is possible and, on the other hand, there could be a fear one cannot live up to such a high bar i.e. expectations.  I mean living in the highest vocation, one would think one needed to be higher than the rank and file out in the pews, not just think one is. Spiritual pride dies only ten minutes after we do, someone insightful said.  It is a lifelong battle for all of us.  Nothing can drive out selfishness and open one to love, to mercy, compassion and understanding like married life especially with children too, I don't think anyway.  It is a hidden vocation often from the eyes of the world and The Church even.  It surprises me we don't have far more married saints than those in religious life and/or Holy Orders...........or at least equal to the latter or fast catching up with them.

Watching Holy Thursday Mass of The Last Supper from the Basilica of Mary Immaculate, the camera wandered over the congregation and I wondered what their story might be and how many real saints the camera caught and no one knew, nor living would ever know.

We had a pp scripture scholar in a parish I attended.  He opened his first homily with "What is the first commandment of God priests and religious break daily?"  SILENCE  "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" he said.

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by BarbTherese

[Nunsuch]

53 minutes ago, BarbTherese said:

  It surprises me we don't have far more married saints than those in religious life and/or Holy Orders...........or at least equal to the latter or fast catching up with them
 

If you know anything about the process of canonization, then the answer should be obvious. If not, well--it's expensive and time-consuming. Religious orders and congregations are much more likely to have the resources to pursue it than folks in the pews. A couple of good books to read on the subject are: 

Kenneth Woodward, Making Saints: How The Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes A Saint, Who Doesn'T, And Why

Kathleen Sprows Cummings, A Saint of Our Own: How the Quest for a Holy Hero Helped Catholics Become American 

We all know, of course, that not only those officially canonized are in heaven.... 

Again, I don't buy into the idea that religious life is a "higher state"--at least, not for everyone. We are ALL called to live our lives well in the state we are called to, and God is not a respecter of persons.

[BarbTherese]

42 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

We all know, of course, that not only those officially canonized are in heaven.... 

Again, I don't buy into the idea that religious life is a "higher state"--at least, not for everyone. We are ALL called to live our lives well in the state we are called to, and God is not a respecter of persons.

Thank you for the book recommendations.  I did particularly agree with the above comments.  I do know that the process of canonization is lengthy and complex.  I have never thought about the cost of it all before.  The Good Lord makes saints and takes them through the canonization process.  Although, I do think that there is a strong human element in it all, probably mainly cost.  Everything in The Church today costs it seems to me.  But if The Lord wants canonization, no one can stop it.

The lights on my keyboard suddenly vanished and with my eyes I am finding the process of typing difficult locating the two home keys on this very fancy keyboard my son bought.....too fancy!.....and annoying. ?  On the other hand, the Lord has His reasons.  

[BarbTherese]

Rebooted my computer and, thank The Lord, lights are on - on my keyboard and mouse anyway  

[GraceUk]

I've thought this too about saints. Hardly any from the UK. Maybe we are just not very saintly here. But loads from Italy.  There is Margaret Sinclair whose cause has been going for years. She was a young nun from Edinburgh in Scotland who died of TB. Had a very poverty stricken upbringing in the 1930's I think, 

[BarbTherese]

15 hours ago, GraceUk said:

But loads from Italy

Perhaps the above is so because it is close to Rome and the canonization process i.e. doesn't cost so much for all the travel and accommodation costs involved! ?

Just starting to research cost:

Quote

 

How much does canonization cost?

When a candidate is considered for sainthood, the Catholic Church's process requires research into the candidate's life, legal documentation and consultations with theologians. Expenses can range from $50,000 to $250,000.23 Feb 2014

 

Oh mmme, oh myyy ...............

[gloriana35]

Many of the Italian saints date from the days before Trent, when popular devotion, not an official canonisation process, determined who was raised to the altars - and many are early martyrs. Franciscans have the largest number of beati and heretics. I cannot count how many obscure Franciscan beati there are.

 

As for England - we're too rational.   When John Henry Newman was canonised, lots of us joked that canonisation requires miracles - and we don't ask for them. 

[Nunsuch]

6 minutes ago, gloriana35 said:

As for England - we're too rational.   When John Henry Newman was canonised, lots of us joked that canonisation requires miracles - and we don't ask for them. 

Catholic Worker founder Dorothy Day once said: "I hope no one tries to canonize me--I don't want to be dismissed that easily." Of course, her cause is underway....

I know a number of religious congregations that have made the deliberate decision not to pursue canonization for their founders because of the cost in both money and effort. They would rather advance the charism and the ministry that the founder envisioned for the community.

[Sister Leticia]

When I was a candidate with the Society of the Sacred Heart I read a biography  of our St Philippine Duchesne, by Catherine Mooney. Philippine had just been canonised (in 1988) when the book was written. I recall the long introduction incorporated some extracts from Dr Mooney's doctoral thesis, which was about canonisation processes, and how they are as impacted by/dependent on factors like the race, class, status and gender of the person as by their sanctity.

@Nunsuchmight know more about this? 

Basically, religious orders have long been the ones with the financial and personnel resources, and the benefactors (eg wealthy alumni/ae), to pursue these processes. In terms of numbers of saints and beati - the oldest orders - Carmelites, Benedictines - have a head-start on those of us founded in 1800 or later! Along with the Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits they are also numerous! Gloriana mentioned the number of Franciscan saints and beati - let's not forget that this is helped by there being several orders of friars, all the Poor Clares, and hundreds more female orders, spread around the world.

In addition, many orders would embrace the cause of a layperson who was part of their extended family. Pier Giorgio Frassati, for example, was a 3rd order Dominican (as was St Catherine of Siena), Bl Laura Vicuna was a pupil at a Salesian school, and so on. The cause of an extremely saintly person who wasn't part of a religious order in any way, would have to be advanced by their diocese. If that person lived and died in relative obscurity, unknown beyond their family, work and parish circles, didn't have visions or die as a martyr, then, as you can imagine, any sort of cause is much less likely.

As for the UK...

Pre-Reformation there were various mediaeval saints, usually mystics and monastics. Then, from the 1530s onwards, we began to produce martyrs instead. There were doubtless many Catholics who quietly and devotedly lived for God, secretly kept the Faith and supported others in this, but the ones who came to attention were the ones who were caught, and invariably executed. There were 100s of them, not all canonised or beatified, as per this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

Official Catholic Emancipation in this country only dates from 1829, with bishops and diocese restored in 1850. Even so, Catholics faced decades more of prejudice, so I think the promotion of the martyrs was an important tool in inspiring and encouraging them. And it could only happen when the English Catholic Church felt strong and confident enough to begin the processes. The memory of the martyrs was still a fundamental part of our identity when I was growing up, reinforced by the canonisation of 40 martyrs in 1970. So, when Cardinal Newman was canonised he thus became the first English Catholic saint since the Middle Ages who had died peacefully in his bed!

[Nunsuch]

Everything that @Sister Leticia says is so true. Thanks for all that information. (And, yes, I've read Catherine Mooney's book.)