Why are there so few married saints? And especially, why are there so few who were canonized precisely as married persons? Most married persons who have been canonized have not been canonized precisely as married persons, but as martyrs, or as religious or widows in the case of those who devoted themselves to the religious state or the state of widowhood after their spouse's death (or in some cases, by the mutual agreement of the spouses). And to my knowledge, in the modern formal process of canonization there have been no married couples canonized as such, though two couples have been beatified together, and may in the future be canonized: Luigi Beltrame Quattrocchi and Maria Corsini, and Louis Martin and Marie Celine Guerin (the parents of St. Therese).
The different explanations made for this fact can be grouped into three categories:
(1) There simply aren't many married saints, because of the practical concerns of married life that make it hard to focus entirely on God and his will.
(2) While there are plenty of married persons who are truly saintly, the exemplar of holiness can be seen more evidently in martyrs or religious than in married persons, and therefore it is mostly these who are canonized.
(3) Married saints are not so frequently recognized for what they are.
Sometimes one of this reasons is given as more or less the entire explanation, but I think there is actually some truth in all three of these explanations:
Fewer married saints
(1) St. Paul says, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. … The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. … so he who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better." (1 Corinthians 7:8,32-35,38) The evangelical counsel of chastity (see Mat 19:10-12) is proposed as a means for securing "undivided devotion" to God. The Christian tradition retains this idea, so that it is said "You would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God" (Athenagoras, A plea for the Christians, Chap. 33).
Pope John Paul II mentions the fact that most canonized saints are religious as evidence for the value of the religious state as a means to perfection, thus suggesting that the superiority of the religious state as a means for growing in the love of God is a reason for the greater number of religious canonized:
Religious communities are called to the duty of perfection, clearly expressed by Christ in his conversation with the young man: "If you wish to be perfect" (Mt 19:21). Later, down the centuries, the Church's tradition has given a doctrinal and practical expression to these words. The state of perfection is not only theory. It is life. And it is precisely life that confirms the truth of Christ's words: do not the majority of canonized saints come from religious Orders or Congregations?
These words, from a pope who has himself canonized a number of married persons, and who is always careful to note the call of every person to holiness and to the perfection of charity, are not without their weight.
But is the scarcity of canonized married persons due principally to the fact that marriage isn't as suitable a means as religious life for attaining holiness, or is it also due to the fact that marriage wasn't properly appreciated as a means for attaining holiness? Because the married state was not seen as a particularly helpful state for growing in divine love and holiness, those who intended to devote themselves most earnestly to this spiritual growth tended to refrain from marriage if possible, with the consequence that there were relatively few exemplary holy persons in marriage. St. Augustine points out: "[There are some marriages in which the spouses are not divided in heart, but completely devoted to God.] But they are very rare: who denies this? And being rare, nearly all the persons who are such, were not joined together in order to be such, but being already joined together became such (On the Good of Marriage, n. 14). That is, where there are few examples of holy marriages, people will more rarely enter marriage seeking or expecting to become holy through marriage." In this sense, the paucity of married saints is arguably a self-reinforcing prediction. The more emphasis that was put on the religious state as a means to holiness, the more rarely would persons choose marriage in order to become holy. And with fewer persons choosing marriage as a means to holiness, the fewer persons there were who attained exemplary sainthood in marriage, etc. (See my earlier post, Is Marriage for the Weak?).
Visibility of holiness
(2) In the early Church, only the martyrs were regarded the way we now regard canonized saints (the term "saint" itself was then used for all the faithful). In martyrdom the imitation and love of Christ is most perfectly manifest, inasmuch as Christ himself gave his life for the life of the world, and inasmuch as there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for the beloved. As martyrdom became more infrequent, but people still needed contemporary examples of sanctity to honor and to look to, the notion of venerable sainthood was extended to those who did not lay down their lives in martyrdom, but who, as far as possible, left everything to follow Christ, since this is the next most clear manifestation of the Christian call to deny oneself and to follow him.
In fact, the path to holiness always involves the evangelical counsels in some way; if not literally, as in the consecrated state, and least in spirit. All Christians are called to follow the spirit of the counsels. And naturally, the taking up of the counsels both literally and spiritually, as practiced by the saints who embraced the evangelical counsels literally, is the example or model for following the counsels spiritually. And in this sense, religious are already seen as models for the laity, not in the sense that the laity should desire to imitate the exterior form of the life of consecrated religious, but in the sense that they should imitate the inner content, that which is expressed, or meant to be expressed, by the exterior form of life of consecrated religious.
As regards canonized saints' being models of holiness, there could be advantages and disadvantages to having "normal" persons from every state of life canonized. On the one hand, one might argue that people need models of sainthood in the state of life in which they live, and so the model of life provided by the consecrated religious is not adequate for married persons–they also need models of saintly married persons. In fact the idea of saints being models was less emphasized early in the Church than it is now. From the point of view of being models, there is much to be said for having numerous canonized saints from every Christian state of life.
On the other hand, one might argue that canonizing people who seem entirely "normal", could lead to a misunderstanding of the radical call to perfect holiness addressed to every Christian. There is a certain danger of looking at all that the saints have in common with us, becoming self-complacent, and neglecting the need to purify ourselves more and more.
Recognition of holiness-process of canonization
(3) The holiness of "normal," married persons living in the world was less likely to be recognized, because the formal process of canonization required much time and effort, a detailed investigation into the person's life, and accepted miracles. These conditions were more frequently and better provided in the case of religious than in the case of married persons: (a) religious communities have much more people and time for seeking canonizations of their members than normal lay persons do; (b) for much of the Church's history, religious were better educated, and were more likely to be able to write, and thus to become known through their writings, whereas lay persons were only known through more direct contact; thus more recorded information about their life would be available (especially important in cases when the cause for canonization was taken up only many years after the person's death), and there would be more people interested in and supporting the person's canonization.
Supporting this argument, those lay persons who were well-known, and who had more persons interested in their canonization; either on account of their position, as in the case of royalty (St. Edward the Confessor, St. Louis of France, Bl. Karl of Austria), or on account of mystical experiences or visions (e.g., St. Catherine of Genoa, Bl. Anna Maria Taigi), have been, in comparison with their small numbers, relatively frequently canonized.
Biography of married saints
Some books have been devoted to biographies of married saints. John F. Fink has compiled a biography of twenty-four married saints (the link is to the description at the publisher, Alba House. The book may also be purchased at Amazon). These twenty-four saints do include several who were canonized for other reasons, such as St. Thomas More, canonized as a martyr.
A book by Ferdinand Holbock describes briefly the lives of over 200 married saints and blesseds: Married Saints and Blesseds: Through the Centuries
Tags: holiness
I am a Catholic seminarian and deacon in Vienna, and a teacher at the
On the non sainthood of laity, I would suggest a 4th reason which for me is the most telling: the sexual impulse was seen until very recently as concupiscence not as part of love. John T. Noonan in his book "Contraception" (Harvard Press 1965) examined such issues century by century and if your seminary has a copy, page 496 notes that Casti Connubii 1930 was the first magisterial document that linked love and sex: a concept incipiently found in John Gury and Tomas Sanchez centuries before but seminal only and then in the outer world prior to 1930 and in Catholic circles by Von Hildebrand in lectures from 1925 (see page 495). Prior to that its positive aspect was generation and its negative aspect was that its impulse was not love mixed with concupiscence but simply concupiscence (Augustine even noted that it was excused by the sacrament). Add to that Aquinas' comment that it was the greatest pleasure on earth and ergo… married couples having access to the greatest pleasure on earth was not enough self sacrifice to warrant canonization. Hence marrieds had to be killed or widowed in order to qualify. Aquinas should have actually asked long marrieds if it was the greatest pleasure on earth at all stages of life… but apparently he did not.
This 4th reason is not entirely separate from the three reasons I gave, but would support each of them to a certain degree. I would note that Leo XIII's Arcanum implies the connection you mention, though it is certainly not explicit.
"And to my knowledge, in the modern formal process of canonization there have been no married couples canonized as such"
There is at least one canonized married couple: St. Isidore the Laborer (canonized 1622) and his wife Maria Torribia (canonized in 1697 as Santa Maria de la Cabeza). See, for example, the Codice de Juan Diacono: http://www.archimadrid.es/sanisidro/images/entregas.htm
I was thinking of more recently by “modern”. But also, they weren’t canonized as a married couple, which is what I was referring to. Each of them was canonized separately. He was canonized in 1622, she in 1697 (or beatified). There are a number of other cases of this, where each spouse was canonized separately.
Wasn't the Queen of All Saints herself, the Mother of Jesus married to another saint, Saint Joseph ?
Of course she was. However, she also was, and remained a virgin. And she was not honored as the holiest of all the saints by reason of her married life with Saint Joseph, but as the Mother of God. As I pointed out at the beginning of the post, most married persons who have been canonized have not been canonized precisely as married persons, but as martyrs, or as religious or widows. This applies to the utmost extent to Mary, hailed as "bride and maiden ever pure" in, e.g., the Byzantine Akathist. In the development of honor to the Blessed Virgin Mary, her virginity was generally more of a reason for her being honored than her marriage was, and her motherhood of God far more than her virginity.
Joseph,
Great answer.
In Christo.
OK. Mary did not stay a virgin. She had 4 sons at least besides Jesus. And sisters too. Mark 6:3. Don't believe everyone. Look it up yourself. Blessings to you.
Honestly, what do you think the probability is that I hadn't already read Mark 6:3, as well as know the original Greek? A little more realism would be appreciated.
That object was actually first answered at least 1700 years ago. If you can do a bit of research, you will find that the term used in your translation of Mark 6:3 is used in the Greek translation of the Scriptures known and used by the Apostles to describe more distant relatives than brothers, such as Abram and Lot (Gen 13:8).
James and Joses in Mark 6:3 are not the sons of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, but the sons of Mary, the sister (or sister-in-law) of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and her husband Alpeus, or Clopas, making them cousins of Jesus. See Mark 15:40,47, 16:1, Mat 10:3, Mat 27:56, John 19:25. On your account, one would have to say that Mark repeatedly refers to Jesus's Mother as "Mary the mother of James and Joses" without any reference to her being his mother.
But why is it that there are almost NO married saints who did not live lives of married continence? The Quattrochis, the Martins, etc. all gave up sexual relations almost immediately after child-bearing. And if you read the Lives of the Saints, those who were married usually at some point decided to give up relations, or were in a sexless marriage in the first place. Some even had children, but their writings and private revelations show a severe distaste for marital relations (Bridget of Sweden, Gregory of Nyssa).
This makes me uncomfortable, but it seems like that's just how it is. I just get the impression that holiness implies that couples must be continent – certainly the Fathers thought couples should aim for "knocking it off" at some point – and yet there's almost no spiritual director alive who would actually ADVISE that nowadays. So can couples who have normal, healthy, and joyful relations be holy? If so (I think they can be holy), why does the tradition of the Church not reflect, and seems to actually deny it?
"The Quattrochis, the Martins, etc. all gave up sexual relations almost immediately after child-bearing." I have not heard that before. Is this true?
I have not heard anything about The Martins giving up sexual marital intercourse after child-bearing, and rather doubt that they did. Zelie Martin died just three years after the birth of her last child. There may be a confusion of time here. At the beginning of their marriage, they did not have sexual intercourse (which likely had something to do with the fact that each of them had had a desire to be a monk/nun, but were not able to, in each case possibly or partially due to poor health), but after 10 months were told by a confessor/spiritual director that they should have children.
The Quattrochis are said to have given up sexual intercourse after 20 years of marriage for the last 25 years. I wasn't able to entirely verify this, which is one reason I didn't mention it in the post. It may also be connected to the fact that Maria had complications during her fourth pregnancy (Placenta previa according to one biography), was given a 5% chance of survival if she continued with the pregnancy, and was recommended to have an abortion (the doctors apparently also considered the chances of the baby surviving very low, but I haven't seen an estimate). She refused, gave birth to a healthy baby, and survived. It may be that the couple gave up sexual relations at that time for the sake of Maria's life and the good of the family (which would also be sometimes recommended by spiritual directors now in similar cases–if a potential pregnancy were to surely involve almost certain death for the mother, it would almost always be better, if possible, to abstain from intercourse rather than to seek to avoid pregnancy by NFP), and only later made a decision to do so for the rest of their marriage for a more immediately spiritual motive.
I'll say more about the general tendency later.
I never knew that about the Quattrochis … thanks. I'd like to see you address this more, though, because it does seem to be a common factor among married saints. And like I said, just about any orthodox priest one talks to on the matter would say to follow 1 Corinthians and do not go in this direction, as it would be presumptuous and possibly spiritually dangerous.
I just wonder why so many medieval married saints and others almost always seemed to give up or detest relations. Saints like Gregory of Nyssa or Bridget of Sweden cannot be said to have a good attitude about sex itself (Bridget prayed at her husband's graveside to forget him completely,lest she remember the 'carnal pleasure'). And far be it from me to knock them – they are in Heaven and I am not, and they both achieved a perfection of virtue that puts me to utter shame.
I just wonder how that jives with the Church's actual teaching and theology of sex and marriage.
Merry Christmas, by the way!
In order to avoid a very long and difficult to follow comment thread, as well as on account of the fact that for a long time I haven't had opportunity to post on this blog, I have written a post that makes a beginning of addressing some of these questions, though it is far from completing answering them.
Yes, which is why books like "Married Saints" don't help very much AT ALL, because they all . There are almost no examples of Saints with normal married lives except for St. Gianna Molla, who died in childbirth. There were even several saints who *hated* sex, it seems, like St. Bridget of Sweden and her visions, which are very disturbing in that area.
I do not doubt the Church's judgment that these people were Saints and are now in Heaven – but I really want to see Mr. Bolin's take on this. Can married people who live a normal conjugal life be holy enough to be Saints, and why does it seem that the record of the Saints implies that sex is an impediment to holiness, even among the married?
18th april 2011:
betrothed fiance:andrew j.b.hastie
engaged fiancee:jodie a.c. foster
proposal documentation:saints to be married
church:baptist anabaptist separatist protestant
Though you merely give basic data without commenting on it, if I understand it correctly, you are saying that those to be married are already saints. This is using the term "saint" in a different meaning than in the post, unless you are implying that you have already attained the goal of perfect conformity to Christ, though St. Paul had not: "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Philippians 3:12).
It is a striking irony, isn't it: We have a sacrament for marriage, whereas religious life is entered by vows (which can be dispensed), yet by far most canonized saints are religious, not married laity. If religious life is a more sure means to holiness, why does it not deserve a sacrament? Just sayin.
I would stack up the rigors of marriage to the rigors of celibate religious life any day. I have known religious and clergy who were previously married (spouses died, etc.), and they all testified to me that married life was harder than celibate life. Not that either is easy (is there any easy path in life?), but the demands for self-sacrifice are unending in marriage. As for Aquinas and his comment about sex being the highest pleasure on earth, well, after ten years of having sex with the same person, couples universally testify that sex becomes a challenge of love, not an easy source of pleasure!
I would say the fact of canonized saints being mostly religious must be due to the ability to collect evidence for the procedure. Religious and priests live pretty public lives, with numerous witnesses to how they live their lives. Married couples raising children, up until this day and age anyway, led lives that the historical records have a hard time tracking.
Anyway, we shouldn't overstate the importance of it all. We should be focused on leading lives of love, not feeling like second-class members of the Church because of who is or isn't canonized.
I agree with you that marriage is a challenge, but because of that it is perfect context to become a Saint.
I also agree that it is a long procedure to prove someone was a Saint, religous and priests are part of an organization that does the paperwork to Canonize the Saint.
Us married couples would have to rely on our children to do the procedure to be canonized, with four teens I feel this is very hard, because even though us parents in many cases have rightness of intent when we correct and form our children, they do not seem to think so.
But there is good news for married couples, the process of beatification of several couples has started and when they are Saints of our Universal Church, they will lead the way for others.
As you say let's not do the metrics on who has been canonized. Lets struggle to have God centered lives. Remember the best canonization is being with HIM eternally.
Thanks, Maria
I have been wondering about this too. I know the marriage state is holy but I cant get over the whole sex thing. I just have a difficult time seeing it as good. It only seems good to me if it is for the sake of procreating children. If the couple has sex for any other reason it seems bad to me. Trying to comprehend how it can be holy besides for the sake of children?
True love to me is to be brothers and sisters to all your fellow christians. That the only difference between friendship and the marriage state is begetting children. This is the only way I can think of it in a holy way.
Mirriam, you can read any Catholic teaching on the matter for the past 150 years or more, including papal encyclicals.
Marriage is a sacrament and is holy even for those who cannot conceive.
You seem to assume that sex is de facto bad and must be "excused" by procreation. This is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches. Period.
And actually your "for any other reason seems bad to me" is contrary to scripture.
*sigh* Reading things like this make me so thankful that I was raised Protestant.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the Church teaches that marriage and sex are bad. I'm saying that negativity towards marriage and sex is very much a part of Catholic culture, just as negativity towards alcohol and parties is a part of Protestant culture.