Married Saints?

[fides' Jack]

I always hesitate and cringe when I hear somebody saying something like "traditional thinking is harmful".  Especially in a matter like this.  This is what all of life is about - to know, love, and serve God - aka: to be holy.

 

I think we are so far out of touch with what real holiness is that we have a hard time accepting what it really takes to be holy, because we don't want to change ourselves.  Has anyone ever read/studied The Interior Castle?  It is much easier for someone who devotes their life to God to attain true holiness.  I'm sure a lot of this fact has to do with prayer.  A lot of good people pray every day.  But truly holy people pray every minute of every day.  So yes, religious have a head start on being holy.  Secular priests to a lesser extent.  And lay people to a lesser extent still.

 

"In the world, but not of the world" is indeed a real barrier, but most people don't understand where the difference lies, because they're so much "of the world" that they can't see it.

 

Everyone sins - but holiness is not just a lack of sin.

[Maggyie]

Well I think that's the crux of it. The traditional thinking is that married people (or single people with careers etc) can not possibly devote their lives fully to God because they have other stuff going on. The Church recognizes now that this isn't true.

In fact most religious don't spend every minute of every day in prayer, except by making their work their prayer - which is exactly what each and every Christian is called to do!

Unfortunately this understanding of the universal call to holiness has not really filtered down. Consecrated life of whatever type is objectively superior because it is a more perfect image of the future of humanity's relationship with God, not because it has special holiness levels that can only be unlocked that way (to use video game terminology lol). It does have special graces but so does every vocation. The traditional understanding has led to a lot of suffering at the hands of priests especially who did not belong in the priesthood.

[Credo in Deum]

The problem could also be the chaotic lives most married people live or are subjected to.   I think one thing that benefited the saints enormously was the existence of a Rule.  Living by -and being devoted to- a Rule is a very difficult thing.  This is because it constantly gives you the opportunity to daily carry your cross and sacrifice your will.  Yet, this sacrificing of the will is always a good thing, since self-will is the biggest obstacle to humility and growth in holiness.

 

I think it would be a great idea for married couples to sit down with their priest/spiritual director, and try to setup a realistic Rule for their family.  Maybe revisit the Rule during certain milestones, so the family can apply certain changes which correspond to their situation?  Maybe start off slowly with a set time for the family rosary, spiritual reading, etc?

[fides' Jack]

Maggie, I really disagree.  Whatever problems exist with priests who didn't belong in the priesthood should not be pointed toward your idea of traditional understanding as a cause.  That's simply ludicrous and there's no evidence to support that claim.

 

You seem to disagree with yourself - on one hand you ridicule the "traditional thinking" that married people can't devote their lives fully to God (or not as fully as a religious person), and then you continue on to state that religious life is indeed objectively superior to the married life.  I'm glad you can recognize that it is, in fact, superior, even if you can only give 1 of the reasons that make it so.  If anything, the Church acknowledges that the "traditional thinking" on the matter is correct - and this can be demonstrated with Scripture (in several places) or any of a number of Church documents.

 

The Interior Castle was written as a perspective of how we can view the path to holiness.  The Dark Night of the Soul/Ascent of Mt. Carmel was another perspective - about the same path to holiness.  These were written by saints who understood better than we do what holiness is all about, and they should not be trivialized by comparing them to video games.

[Maggyie]

Oh come now. What did Teresa say about solemn saints? ;)

I write from personal experience because I have seen it happen! Not sure how much you got into "discernment world" prior to marriage but it's not unusual for someone with no religious vocation to want it so badly (because they erroneously have absorbed the belief that this is the only way to exceptional holiness) and shipwreck themselves in the process. And maybe take some souls down with them too. On Vocation Station they can confirm this.

It's not a contradiction at all. Think of a big cup and a little cup. Does the big cup hold more water than the little one when both are filled to the brim? Yes. Objectively so. But nevertheless both cups are equally full. So it is with vocations. The understanding common in eras past that the "fullness" or "holiness" of the little cup was "less than" or limited in some way is soundly rejected by the Church. The potential for holiness of a married person or single person is absolutely unlimited just as it is for a consecrated person.

[fides' Jack]

I think there's a misunderstanding here about how to view the term "traditional thinking".  When I hear that I think of the teachings of the Church passed down through the centuries.  But it's never been the teaching of the Church that you can't gain holiness within marriage.  When you use that term, can you define specifically what you mean by it?  You said, "the understanding common in eras past" - why do you think people commonly believed that in the past?  I'm sure the error has been believed in the past, just as it is today.  Was it more common in the past?  Maybe, but I'm not convinced it was ever a predominant way of thinking.

 

That's an interesting analogy.  I'm sure I've heard that before.  And I think it works rather well.  But I don't think it applies the way you're trying to apply it.  I think it would be closer to the truth to say that while both cups can be full, the cup of the person in religious life will fill up much more quickly than the cup of a married person.  The relationship of the state of life would align more closely with the type of pipe used to fill your cup; the religious life (in this context I mean the popular use of the term) has a larger diameter pipe than the married life.

 

The Church has never changed in its perspective of what constitutes holiness.  What is soundly rejected by the Church has always been soundly rejected by the Church.

[Maggyie]

I'm sure the church has never changed her teaching but I'm referencing common attitudes. The reason the Second Vatican Council addressed this is because it was a relatively widespread error amongst the faithful. It was an extremely strong current in Catholic thought since the first centuries and various heresies like Jansenism etc are really just anti-marriage (really anti-sex) poking its head back up again.

In fact from my studies I've grown to think that the belief that marriage somehow limits the opportunity to be extraordinarily holy is the root of a lot of our ills as a church. The sense that holiness is meant for "professional religious people" damages parishes, the moral life of the church and evangelization efforts. It hugely undermines all the sacraments and especially baptism.

The Church really didn't talk much about marriage as a capital V Vocation until the latter part of the 20th century. By then the horse was already out of the barn and we have all the resulting damage we see in the church today.

[PhuturePriest]

I'm sure the church has never changed her teaching but I'm referencing common attitudes. The reason the Second Vatican Council addressed this is because it was a relatively widespread error amongst the faithful. It was an extremely strong current in Catholic thought since the first centuries and various heresies like Jansenism etc are really just anti-marriage (really anti-sex) poking its head back up again.

In fact from my studies I've grown to think that the belief that marriage somehow limits the opportunity to be extraordinarily holy is the root of a lot of our ills as a church. The sense that holiness is meant for "professional religious people" damages parishes, the moral life of the church and evangelization efforts. It hugely undermines all the sacraments and especially baptism.

The Church really didn't talk much about marriage as a capital V Vocation until the latter part of the 20th century. By then the horse was already out of the barn and we have all the resulting damage we see in the church today.

 

As an addition, Saint John Paul II's book Love and Responsibility has a lot about the holiness of the vocation of marriage, I believe.

[Perigrina]

Canonization is merely official recognition of sanctity, but there are many Saints who have not been officially recognized.  That is one reason we have All Saints Day, so that we may celebrate the unnamed Saints. The canonization process favours founders of orders and religious, but the process should not be confused with actual holiness.All people are called to holiness and not limited by their vocation or state of life.  This is not a new idea.  This was the major theme of Introduction to the Devout Life written by St. Francis de Sales around 1600.

 

When God created the world He commanded each tree to bear fruit after its kind;and even so He bids Christians,--the living trees of His Church,--to bring forth fruits of devotion, each one according to his kind and vocation. A different exercise of devotion is required of each--the noble, the artisan, the servant, the prince, the maiden and the wife; and furthermore such practice must be modified according to the strength, the calling, and the duties of each individual. I ask you, my child, would it be fitting that a Bishop should seek to lead the solitary life of a Carthusian? And if the father of a family were as regardless in making provision for the future as a Capucin, if the artisan spent the day in church like a Religious, if the Religious involved himself in all manner of business on his neighbour's behalf as a Bishop is called upon to do, would not such a devotion be ridiculous, ill-regulated, and intolerable? Nevertheless such a mistake is often made, and the world, which cannot or will not discriminate between real devotion and the indiscretion of those who fancy themselves devout, grumbles and finds fault with devotion, which is really nowise concerned in these errors. No indeed, my child, the devotion which is true hinders nothing, but on the contrary it perfects everything; and that which runs counter to the rightful vocation of any one is, you may be sure, a spurious devotion. Aristotle says that the bee smells of elderberries honey from flowers without damaging them, leaving them as whole and fresh as it found them;--but true devotion does better still, for it not only hinders no manner of vocation or duty, but, contrariwise, it adorns and beautifies all. Throw precious stones into honey, and each will grow more brilliant according to its several colour:--and in like manner everybody fulfils his special calling better when subject to the influence of devotion:--family duties are lighter, married love truer, service to our King more faithful, every kind of occupation more acceptable and better performed where that is the guide.

For more see: http://www.catholicity.com/devoutlife/1-03.html

 

More recently, it is the central idea of Opus Dei. "Opus Dei’s mission is to spread the Christian message that every person is called to holiness and that every honest work can be sanctified." 

Edited May 13, 2014 by Perigrina