Saintly Marriage

Whenever I read about married Saints I seem to uncover the fact that they did not have “normal” marriages. Since many of my readers are under the impression that celibate marriage is not good, I assume that you must know of married Saints who had “normal” sexual relationships. I have never read the books on married Saints, so I would love your help in finding them.

“Normal” Married Saints

I’ll start the list off with Elizabeth of Hungry. We know that she had children, and that she sought to detach herself interiorly from her husband, but that he would not agree to celibacy so they had a “normal” marital relationship (if you call her staying up all night praying normal) until God conveniently killed him off his death in the crusades. She then embraced celibacy.

Then there is Saint Gianna who had four children in five years and died for the sake of the last.

Thomas More was married twice and I know of no evidence that he was ever celibate in marriage.

Elizabeth of Portugal had children and appears to have had as normal of a marriage as one can have with a jealous licentious husband.

Rita of Cascia is somewhat similar in having two sons with her abusive husband and joyfully embracing celibacy after his death.

Margaret of Scotland is said to have at first refused marriage due to desire to remain a virgin, but eventually consented and bore eight children.

Bridget of Sweden also had eight children, and embraced celibacy only after her husband’s death.

Stephen of Hungry had a son, but I don’t know much else about him other than that he lived in a context where celibacy was not taken seriously by anyone, even priests/bishops.

Something that stands out to me in this list is that it seems that most either suffered a heroic death/martyrdom or else had a less-than-holy spouse who probably was not up for the challenge of chastity, let alone celibacy.

Not so “Normal”

Catherine of Genoa
Francis of Rome
Edward the Confessor
Cecilia
Luigi Beltrame Quattrocchi and Maria Corsini
Henry II
Louis Martin and Marie Guerin (we are all glad renounced their celibacy, but it would be silly to ignore it)
Catherine of Sweden

Elizabeth Ann Seton, Jane Francis de Chantal etc. don’t count because it is highly unlikely that they would have been canonized if their husbands hadn’t died and freed them to embrace, guess what, a celibate life.

What other Saints can you think of who we know were married and never embraced celibacy in marriage?

Posted in Saints | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Celibate Marriage: Validity and Consummation

When thinking about celibate marriages it is essential to differentiate between a valid marriage and a consummated marriage. All real consummated marriages are by definition valid, but not all valid marriages are consummated. In fact, every valid marriage is for a time valid and not consummated.

Of course there are many celibate marriages which are consummated since one only needs to engage in conjugal intercourse once in order to consummate a marriage. In the same way that some priests are celibate but not virgins, so a couple could engage in conjugal relations prior to choosing celibacy. This is the case with many Saint couples, and we know it because they had children prior to renouncing conjugal relations.

But what about those who choose a pure Josephite marriage? What about virgins who marry with the intent of never consummating the marriage? The status of their valid marriages is clear under canon law.

When is a couple really married? When they give consent during the wedding: “The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage.” When vows are exchanged a couple is married. They are not in some state of limbo prior to consumation, they really are married.

What are the fancy Latin names for unconsummated and consummated marriages? “A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.”

Is consummation assumed by the Church? “After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.”

Can we just assume that those crazy enough to not consummate their marriages must not have been validly married in the first place? “Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.”

But what about if a marriage is not consummated and one wishes to marry someone else? “A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.”

But what about the fact that the Pope can dissolve unconsummated marriages, even if he does not do so? The whole point is that dissolution is necessary to free spouses from marriage because the marriage is valid, even though not consummated. If that were not the case then they could simply get a decree of nullity.

But I have never met someone in a celibate marriage. It can’t be real! Thankfully, experiencing something personally or knowing someone who has is not necessary for something to be real.

But this doesn’t make sense. Have you considered that perhaps you should do more reading about Catholic marriage?

Why would anyone do this? Because they were called to.

But what would the point be in marriage without sex or children? Celibate marriage does not necessarily without children. The couple may have children prior to taking vows of celibacy, or they may adopt. And the “point” is the same as it always should be with vows of celibacy: to follow God in the way that one is called. Ask yourself what point there is, besides carnal desire, in any marriage where the couple is either infertile or avoiding children. And you will have something of your answer.

Maybe there was a point in celibate marriage back in the early days of Christianity, or maybe the Middle Ages but it should not be allowed now! Take it up with your local Ordinary.

So, what was your point with all of this? Simply that consummation is not necessary for validity, and that if married couples mutually choose to never engage in conjugal relations they violate nothing in Church law.

What other protestations do you think I should add to my list?

Posted in Sacraments | Tagged , , | 14 Comments

Celibacy and Utilitarianism

The odd thing about conservative Catholics and celibate marriage is that they so quickly dismiss it for reasons that are eerily similar to those that “liberals” and non-Catholics give when criticizing the celibacy of priests and religious. The complaint is that the point of marriage is to have sex and children, so it would be just wrong for a couple to choose to give their lives to Christ in a way that excludes conjugal intercourse.

This complaint is the result of the same utilitarian misunderstanding that causes people to suggest that the important thing is to do good for others, and it there is no point in being good unless it accomplishes something. Conservative Catholics can then support priestly celibacy because they understand it from a skewed utilitarian perspective: married priests couldn’t give themselves over to the Church completely, and the Church requires 100% of their energy. The celibacy of active religious is also appreciated, since it allows them to do great work- after all, can you imagine a married Mother Teresa?

But we completely miss the point of giving oneself entirely to Christ. And so we view cloistered religious life as quaintly lovely–though certainly not a vocation for our daughters or friends! And celibate marriage is completely nonsensical. It does not matter what its status is in Canon law and Tradition! It does not serve an obvious utilitarian purpose, so it cannot be right.

The problem is, of course, that Christianity is not utilitarian.


You must break the alabaster jar of your life.

But it could have been sold and the money given to the poor! That would clearly be so much more virtuous!

And they could have conceived children! That would clearly have been so much more godly! It simply is the way that things are supposed to be!

But Jesus is not the LORD of Utilitarianism. And following Christ just does not work that way.

Many are called but few are chosen. There is no shame in not being chosen, but there is shame in castigating others simply because we do not understand their calling. So please respond to upcoming posts on celibate marriage and certainly let me know if you think that I am wrong about something. But please also take great care in your comments to not insult those who have chosen to embrace Christ differently than you.

Posted in Relationships | Tagged , | 15 Comments

How to Take Clandestine Cathedral Pictures

Ever wondered how to take better pictures inside churches? Wonder no more! I found the answer while browsing Flickr. A non-Catholic photographer is kind enough to share the secrets.

My method for getting tripods into cathedrals and shooting is this:

1) Go in the exit and act like you are lost if someone asks

2) Wear a long matrix-coat and stuff your tripod up inside like a shotgun. Try not to walk with a limp.

3) Stride confidently through the crowds like you are in a hurry on a photo assignment.

4) Work your way into the pews and have a seat. You can even pretend to be Catholic and say a few Latin words as you sit down. I suggest “Pater Noster (My Father) or Quid Pro Quo (Rub Beads and go to Heaven)”

5) Slide out the tripod and assemble along the ground, When other parishioners look at you suspiciously, give them the sign of the cross.

6) Watch for old people in the main aisle, because they have trouble getting around tripods. Jump out, take your long exposures at 100 ISO, then sit back down.

7) If securty comes to get you, blame Stuck In Customs and that will confuse them long enough so you can make a getaway.

8 ) Don’t worry about getting caught. The church is much more leniant than they were during the Inquisition. Most big cathedrals do have crypts, but they are full of dead saints and they have never put a photographer in there.

9) If you see a tourist with a tiny camera taking a picture with the flash on, please tell them to stop. The flash does nothing in that situation. It’s just embarassing for them, really.

10. See #9. It’s your duty to stop tourists from using flashes… next thing you know, they’ll have their flash on when shooting the Eiffel Tower at night.

Do you have any tips for taking good pictures inside of churches?

Posted in Funny Thing Is | Tagged , , | 11 Comments

The Theology of the Body Fostered the Sex Abuse Crisis

Or at least you’d think so if you read Eugene Cullen Kennedy’s “Rigali’s new old time religion: The theology of the body or how to keep catholics feeling guilty.”

At Vatican II the church rediscovered its traditions of understanding rather than over-controlling the human person. The notion that this Rigali endorsed movement will bring back the old days is the scary part for it means a return to the constricted and repressive attitudes toward human sexuality that caused so much suffering for so long for so many good people. That world of confused thinking about human sexuality was also the incubator for the sex abuse crisis from which so many still suffer.

Which is strikes me as odd because one of the things that I noticed most about people who learn the theology of the body via Christopher West is how very new they think it is. Meaning that John Paul II’s theology of the body is so very different from the “old time religion” with its supposed endless list of “don’ts.”

But the part of the article that really got me was  where Kennedy described John Paul II’s view that “Love can, as it were, keep company with desire as long as the latter is subordinated to the former and does not do what healthy human passion does: ‘overwhelm all else.’” Does any adult really want a sexual passion which “overwhelms all else” in their relationship? And if they do, do they really want a religion to teach them that they should pursue an overwhelming sexual passion? Thus saith the LORD, passion, and nothing else shall save you!

If that is the case, then there has got to be a more appropriate religion than Catholicism. If you want overwhelming sexual passion to be your standard of healthy relationships, then you don’t just need a new Catholicism, you need a new religion.

So can we please return to a more sensible discussion of the Church’s teaching on sex and human reality? Because dramatically misconstruing John Paul II’s take on human sexuality is not going to provide any clarity or consensus. It is certainly possible that John Paul II’s particular approach will not resonate in 100 years, and that the current popularized version is quite off-base. But there is no point in talking about either if we are not going to at least understand what is actually going on. And insinuating that John Paul II somehow went against Vatican II isn’t going to help any more than implying that the theology of the body was the cause of the sex abuse crisis!

Posted in Theological Fights | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

Answering Questions and Overzealous Catholicism

One of the difficult things about moving to a new city and meeting new people is that I am faced with unusually challenging questions. Some of the questions are obvious parts of the job hunt and some of them are unfortunately stumbled upon by people simply trying to make conversation.

It is not the questions themselves that are the problem; it is my answers.

Question: Where do you see yourself in five years?

Most true answer: I don’t. I love to think about the future and am actually something of an obsessive planner. But not only do I feel no “control” over the future, I do not have any particular job/activities/anything else that I plan on fulfilling me. I want to live well. I want to love. I want to help others achieve their goals. I want to be so absorbed by my savior that all who interact with me interact with God. And so it does not actually matter whether I am consulting on “important” projects with 70-hour work weeks, answering telephones and filing, cleaning up bodily fluids, or washing dishes. I would love to have meaningful work that allows me to further the Church’s mission on earth, but even that isn’t necessary. What I really want is not at all dependent on what I do. The thing that matters is being fully in God’s presence while living.

Question: So, why did you choose to attend that college?

Most true answer: because I was going through a significant time of transition in my faith and it seemed to me that God wanted me to go to that college. I actually got a bad feeling when visiting the campus, and I was accepted at two of my dream schools, but I was so certain that God wanted me to do what I did not want to. And then the financial aid letter came in the mail and it was as if God was telling me that obedience was not going to be impossible.

Question: What do you do for fun?

Most true answer: I like to visit new churches/shrines/monasteries, to read religious books, to blog about religious questions, to discuss theology with friends, to visit museums (and spend the time in the sacred art sections, or better yet, just make it an icon museum!), to run (it is the best for praying through emotion!).

Honesty of the fullest sort is good, but it sometimes conflicts with the essence of my vocation: living in the world in such a way that others can find God through me at points when they are not yet ready to approach the Church directly. Even Catholics are often put-off by what they see as overly obsessive religion. And yet I do not want to lie, so I try to prepare ahead to have true, vague, and perhaps slightly misleading answers. But sometimes I am not prepared, either because the question is phrased in a new way or I simply was not expecting it at that point. And then I stumble over my words trying to figure out how to honestly seem normal.

Advice welcomed! I would love your stories and suggestions for talking to others about your Catholic life without making it seem obsessive or crazy!

Posted in Communication | Tagged , , | 15 Comments

Fr. Kerper on Mass Prayers, “God” and “Father”

I don’t think that I have ever mentioned how much I love Father Michael Kerper of the Diocese of Manchester (NH). His Q&A column in the diocese’s magazine is always a favorite and this past issue’s answer to “how can the church change the words of the mass?” contained a great explanation of the use of “God” and “Father” in the English liturgy.

In the official Latin edition of the Sacramentary, the book of Mass prayers, almost every opening prayer begins with “Deus,” the Latin word for God. In old Latin-English missals, “Deus” was always translated as “God”. But in the late 1960s, after the Church authorized Mass in other languages, the group charged with creating an official English version of the Mass generally translated “Deus” as “Father.” Was this incorrect?

Those who desire a precise literal translation of Latin to English would insist that the translation is clearly wrong. However, translation is not a mechanical process of replacing one word with its exact equivalent from another language. For one thing, many words have no precise equivalents. Moreover, good translation seeks to render complete ideas, not just words. This translation method is called “dynamic equivalence.”

In the case of “Deus,” we see the tension between translating ideas and words. Those who opted to render “Deus” as “Father” wanted to convey God’s personal and loving nature, which reflects the specifically Christian understanding of God. Is it a correct translation of the Latin? Definitely not. Is it wrong? No. Considering the totality of the prayer and its use in Catholic worship, “Father” is a reasonable way to translate “Deus.”

Now, let’s consider the fluidity of language. About 10 years after “Father” became the accepted translation of “Deus,” the insights of Christian feminism began to influence the liturgy. Some asserted that masculine language about God somehow contributed to the inequality of women. Hence, some people — men and women — called for gender neutral language about God. They proposed replacing the masculine “Father” with the neuter “God.” Some objected to this, claiming that it violated long-established liturgical tradition. However, the Latin always favored “Deus” and rarely used “Father.” In a strange reversal, the “reformers” unwittingly advanced a traditionalist position.

Which, then, should it be? Father or God? If someone wants a literal translation of the Latin or a gender-neutral term, “God” is preferred. If someone wants to express the loving and personal qualities of God, whom Jesus addressed as “Abba/Father,” then “Father” is favored. Neither word cancels out the other.

Father Kerper in Parable Magazine

Do you regularly read resources from dioceses other than your own online? Please share some of the best sources!

Posted in Communication | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Relic of True Cross Returned

It is a happy day for Boston. The relic of the True Cross stolen from the Cathedral of the Holy Cross has been recovered.

I look forward to once again venerating it next time I am in Boston.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Women of Mystery and Hope

Women of Mystery and Hope: “Mystery” is good marketing and “hope” is beautiful.

What is your favorite way to think of religious life for women?

Posted in Communication | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Edith Stein on Praying Alone as the Prayer of the Church

The work of salvation takes place in obscurity and stillness. In the heart’s quiet dialogue with God the living building blocks out of which the kingdom of God grows are prepared, the chosen instruments for the construction forged. The mystical stream that flows through all centuries is no spurious tributary that has strayed from the prayer life of the church it is its deepest life. When this mystical stream breaks through traditional forms, it does so because the Spirit that blows where it will is living in it, this Spirit that has created all traditional forms and must ever create new ones.

Without him there would be no liturgy and no church. Was not the soul of the royal psalmist a harp whose strings resounded under the gentle breath of the Holy Spirit? From the overflowing heart of the Virgin Mary blessed by God streamed the exultant hymn of the “Magnificat.” When the angel’s mysterious word became visible reality, the prophetic “Benedictus” hymn unsealed the lips of the old priest Zechariah, who had been struck dumb. Whatever arose from spirit-filled hearts found expression in words and melodies and continues to be communicated from mouth to mouth. The “Divine Office” is to see that it continues to resound from generation to generation. So the mystical stream forms the many- voiced, continually swelling hymn of praise to the triune God, the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Perfecter.

Therefore, it is not a question of placing the inner prayer free of all traditional forms as “subjective” piety over against the liturgy as the “objective” prayer of the church. All authentic prayer is prayer of the church. Through every sincere prayer something happens in the church, and it is the church itself that is praying therein, for it is the Holy Spirit living in the church that intercedes for every individual soul “with sighs too deep for words.” This is exactly what “authentic” prayer is, for “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” What could the prayer of the church be, if not great lovers giving themselves to God who is love!

Excerpted from The Hidden Life

Posted in Prayer | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment