Ever since the Second Vatican Council spoke of the “universal call to holiness,” there has been a move to recognize more lay men and women as saints, as models of sanctity for lay Catholics. Several contemporary saints have already been raised to the “glories of the altar,” among them St. Gianna Molla (1922-1962), an Italian mother (pictured here) who carried a child to term rather than consenting to an abortion, and who died in the process. Others on their way include Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati (1901-1925), the charismatic Italian social activist who once said, “Charity is not enough; we need social reform.” In that same vein is the redoubtable Dorothy Day, the American-born co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement, whose cause for canonization has just been advanced. And in 2008, Louis and Zélie Martin, the devoutly Catholic parents of St. Thérèse of Lisieux (and her equally pious sisters) were beatified in 2008, the rare instance of a husband and wife recognized together.
But when it comes to recognizing saints, the church still tends to favor popes, bishops, priests and members of religious orders. Last month, Pope Benedict XVI released the latest list of 27 candidates for sainthood, which consisted of: martyrs in the Spanish Civil War, including a bishop and 13 Daughters of Charity; an Austrian priest killed in Buchenwald; the Mexican foundress of a women’s religious order; an 18th-century Italian diocesan priest and a Dominican priest who founded the Bethany community. While there are plenty of holy Fathers and Mothers on that list, where are the holy mothers and fathers?
Fifty years after Vatican II, in the midst of the church’s continued invitation for lay people to lead holy lives, why are there still relatively few role models for the laity?
Many lay people have told me, over the years, that they long for more saints who lived lives extraordinary holiness in ordinary situations. That is, a layperson other than a saint from the very earliest days of the church (St. Joseph); someone who wasn’t royalty (like St. Elizabeth of Hungary); someone who didn’t end up in a religious order at the end of his or her life (like St. Bridget of Sweden); someone who didn’t initially plan to live as “brother and sister” while married (like Louis and Zélie Martin); someone who didn’t found a religious order or social movement (like Dorothy Day); and someone who didn’t die in terrible circumstances (like St. Gianna Molla).
While Catholics recognize that the canonized saint needs to have lived a life of “heroic sanctity,” many long for more saints they can hope to emulate in their daily lives. Which raises an important question: Who is holier--Mother Teresa or the elderly mother who cares for decades for an adult child who is autistic? Pope John Paul II or the pious educator who serves as a director of religious education in an inner-city parish, while holding down another job to support his family? The answer: they’re both saintly, in their own ways. As Blessed John XXIII said about St. Aloysius Gonzaga, the 16th-century Jesuit, “If Aloysius had been as I am, he would have become holy in a different way.” (And not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s still a pope talking about a member of a religious order.)
“Heroic sanctity” comes in many forms—and it includes both those whose faith inspires them to found a religious order, and those whose faith enables them to care for a sick child for years on end.
Currently there are three reasons that frustrate the desire for more lay saints of any stripe. The first is the persistent belief, still ingrained in many Catholics, that ordination or taking religious vows represents a higher level of holiness than does, say, raising a child. As a young boy in Sunday school class I was once given a picture to color. It featured a priest and sister on one side of the page, and a husband and wife on the other. Under the husband and wife the legend read: “Good.” Under the priest and sister: “Better.” But even the saints disagreed with this. “Holiness is not the luxury of a few,” said Mother Teresa. “It is a simple duty for you and for me.”
The second factor is the more "public" nature of the lives of many of the priests and members of religious orders who are canonized. It’s easier to see the “results” of the religious order founder or foundress; much harder is it to know about the elderly mother’s care for the autistic child: such accomplishments rarely make news. So the church’s requirement that a local “devotion” spring up around the person will naturally be thwarted. This kind of “hidden” lay holiness will be less likely to attract the devout simply because it is less well known.
The third reason is the arduous, time-consuming and expensive canonization procedures, which only religious orders and dioceses can afford (or understand). Certainly it makes sense to have standards--and high ones--for someone to be canonized, and a thorough vetting process is required. But not many children of holy parents are able to navigate the complex process required by the Congregation of the Causes of the Saints (if they even know it). Once the mother of the autistic boy dies, who is there to advance her “cause”? God alone knows of her holiness, yet her example might speak to many more Catholics than even that of a pope.
If the church hopes to offer relevant models of holiness for lay people, it’s time to make the canonization process far more accessible, and far less expensive, for those who knew a holy husband, wife, mother, father, friend or neighbor. Santi subiti!
James Martin, SJ
There is one reason not clearly spelled out in this piece, though it can be intuited from it. I am referring to a simple concept: clericalism. The belief that consecrated lives are, just because of that, holier, will be difficult to change in the climate of our church these days.
This view and perspective for sainthood is encouraging, but it may need unlimited number of prayers before it becomes a normal church process. In the meantime, there are, and there will be, many lay people deserving consideration.
I was going to 'remember them' in a reflection one Friday morning when our then-priest was 'off'. As a lay leader of worship, I thought it was appropriate to include them in the reflection for the morning on the 20th or so memorial of their assassination.
A 'powerful' woman religious at our parish caught wind of it (it wasn't a secret) and left me a scathing phone message on my answering machine the night before communion service.
I suspect some in mother church are not yet ready for us. But when it's time, I hope these four will be commended into that band of 'saints' with the words "Receive them Lord, into your kingdom." Though, likely they already have been.
And is there not a direct correlation between the cessation of such catechesis and the shortage of priests and religious?
Pope John Paul II led the canonization of more laypersons than any other Pope in history, so I guess progress is being made on the "universal call to holiness" front. Still, your second and third reasons above are to the point and difficult to overcome. By its very nature, the religious life tends not only to a higher proportion of holy lives, but to their public recognition. Perhaps one day a humble layperson will be canonized almost as a sort of representative of untold numbers of other unsung layperson saints?
I think a discussion of holiness would be helpful.
Does devoted care of a family member in itself constitute holiness? After all, there are nonbaptized and professed unreligious people who show such concern also. The total gift of self in a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience - whether lived literally with vows or analogously - provides a clear form of a holy life. The formation of the person is another factor to consider: prayer, reading, and retreats. Sacramental life is another factor. Above all, does the person announce the resurrection with words, life, and through their countenance?
Jerome Lejeune is a good candidate:
http://jeromelejeune.org/the-man/beatification.html
Yes, we need examples of holiness, but we also need to be reminded of the holiness of being hidden and ordinary. Nobody. I think of Mary, whom we know absolutely nothing about other than her consent and surrender to God. She then virtually disappeared, and said nothing. Perhaps there is the reason we don't call her "Saint Mary".
There is also the C.S. Lewis story adapted by William Meninger whereby a man is able to tour heaven, a magnificent vision whereby he sees the dancing and rejoicing all the angels and saints, prophets and bishops. And then he sees 4 of the greatest angels carrying on their shoulders a golden chair wherein is seated a woman of great beauty.
Thinking that this must be the mother of God, he barely manages to gasp out the question, "is that, is that?"
The archangel laughs and replies, "No, no, that' Molly Schultz! You wouldn't know her. She lived in your town in shantytown. She was a scrubwoman and she loved much. She is one of the Great Ones here!"
How darned dumb do the Vaticanes think people are, anyway.
Wait, maybe I know the answer to that already.
There 2 fully acknowledged by the church: Servius and Bacchus.
Mark, in this day and age that is ONE outrageous unsupportable claim to make!
Plaster saints chip very quickly and their blemishes show from afar.
Besides, the greater majority of people live out their Catholic lives, not as religious, but as good and holy layfolk going about going about.
That needs to be recognized over and over and over. And we don't need the approval of clerics to know it, either.
But, believe it or not, the canonization process is ultimately a grass roots effort. Although a lot of work happens in tribunals and at the Vatican, none of that can ever really start unless there is a ''fama sanctitatis'' (a reputation of sanctity) for a possible saint among the faithful at large. Pope Benedict actually tightened up that regulation early on in his pontificate.
So if there is not a solid, active devotion to possible lay saints among the ''people in the pew'' then there simply won't be lay saints. The bishops at VatII may have taught the universal call to holiness, but it's one teaching that still needs to be truly internalized in more and more hearts before we see lay saints raised to the altars on a regular basis.
Up until now saints have largely come from Official Churchdom.
Yet holiness extends beyond and sometimes even outside of that circle.
I have a question. Must a person be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church, adhering to all the "rules" to be considered for sainthood? My death row friend was a Catholic, but not "religious" in the sense that he put going to Church at the top of his list. (Perhaps like Molly Schultz?) But he did touch deeply, with humility and love, all of those who knew him.
Perhaps, as laity, we know many "holy" people - plumbers, washwomen - but if they are not "Church people", does that exclude them from offical sainthood?'
It seems to many that many saints of are canonized because they are primarily Church people. Like Dorothy Day. We can only consider her because she made Catholicism the center of her life. Which leads me to ask another question, is the purpose of sainthood to promote the primacy of Church teachings in the quest for holiness?
Dunno. I'm still skeptical about how sainthood and the promoting of "Church" (rather than holiness) are awfully close to each other.
And I don't doubt that the teachings of the Church can lead one to holiness. But there's some mixed motives in the canonization process that confuse me.
How the media interpret a particular saint or boil his or her life down into a two-minute segment (at most) is quite another thing.
In any case, being a saint is ultimately about living one's life as Christ lived among us-a life centered on loving self-sacrifice for others. I think the way in which St. Gianna died embodies that quite beautifully.
Beth (#17), "Official Churchdom" has a legitimate role to play in the canonization process. So do the people in the pew. They both need each other, really. And they also, when they live and serve according to their God-given nature, help each other to live lives of holiness.
Why not make these institutions available to the laity? Perhaps every diocese in the United States could be required over the next 10 years to promote the causes of canonization of 3-10 regular lay persons. The causes might not go far, but the process of asking people in the diocese to name persons they know, and then for the diocese to promote the lives of those persons in the diocese, would hopefully inspire others by providing them with examples of lives of holiness among the types of people they know.
http://www.hawaiicatholicherald.com/Columnists/KathleenChoi/tabid/410/newsid999/3714/Default.aspx
I would be remiss as a recovergin alcoholic (coming up on 10 years sober in August) if I didn't mention Ven. Matt Talbot as a model of lay Catholic sainthood. I credit him with carrying my prayers to God when I simply didn't want to talk to God, when I didn't want to take it one day at a time anymore.
Thank you, Lad, for watching over me.
http://saints.sqpn.com/saintm8j.htm
1-The highest calling is the one that each of us is called to.
2-My mother and father are possibly the greatest saints I know. Lives of generosity, works of mercy, raising peoples' minds and hearts to God, and bringing song and cheer. My mother's funeral, when she died at 93, drew a full church, and you should have heard the singing and seen the ladies of the prayer group standing with candles in white beside her casket. Talk about "fama sanctitatis"!
3-How about making canonizations of couples less rare? Some suggestions; Frank Sheed and Maisie Ward; Jacques and Raissa Maritain; Peter Maurin, along with Dorothy Day (who were not sexually linked).
The very notion of canonized sainthood should have gone out with indulgences (oh, wait - that nonsense has been revived too, hasn't it?). John Paul II's sainthood assembly line was an interesting twist - he seemed to be using it as a way to gain favor with particular consitutiencies - was that good - a step towards recognizing ''local'' saints? Or was it manipulation? He dropped the ''miracles'' requirement to one, and it should be none as that process is also highly problematic, Like others here, I have known, and know now, ''saints'' - ''ordinary'' people living lives of great holiness - even when not religious. Many aren't Catholic, at least one is an agnostic. Fortunately God is not Catholic, God is not made in our image, and God makes the "rules", not us. It's impossible to force God to live in a small, closed box. All can be open to God's grace working in our lives, even if one doubts the existence of God. I do appreciate that Fr. Jim is among the few in Catholic ''officialdom'' who understands that putting on a clerical collar or joining a formal religious order is not necessary for ''sainthood.''
http://www.archindy.org/criterion/local/2007/10-26/gallagher.html
And here's one that I wrote about the hidden holiness of parents, in light of the beatification of Louis and Zelie Martin:
http://www.archindy.org/criterion/local/2008/09-26/gallagher.html
Would you like a good buy on a bridge across the Golden Gate? Give me a call.
Once the church grows up a bit, discussions like these won't happen.
Her writings are moving and profound, and she lived a life of noted charity and sanctity.
I'd encourage everyone to read the Secret Diary of Elisabeth Leseur. I think she is just the kind of person that Fr. Martin is seeking to have recognized here.