My blogging confrere Pat Archbold currently has a post in which he looks at the question of how quickly saints get minted and, though he doesn’t name him, whether John Paul II’s cause for sainthood should proceed quite so fast a clip.
The question of how saints are canonized, how the process should work, and how long it should take is something that has long interested me, so I thought I’d chime in and offer a few thoughts as well.
First, I appreciate Pat’s desire to see canonization processes be slow, leisurely things in which there is lots of time for reflection.
On the other hand, I also appreciate the desire on the part of people in general, when we’ve clearly witnessed the life of an extraordinary figure like John Paul II or Mother Teresa, to have them declared a saint immediately.
I understand the cries, “Santo! Subito!” from St. Peter’s Square. (By the way, what is it with commentators translating this chant with more than two words? At the time I saw one commentator — who seemed positively enchanted with his translation the way he kept repeating it — render this “Make him a saint, and do it now.” Dude, points for elegance, but that sucks all the energy out of it. Chanted slogans need to be short and pithy. Just translate it directly: “Saint! Now!” See how much more powerful that is?)
Originally saints got on the calendar because of popular acclaim. The popes didn’t take over the process until a thousand years into Christian history, so there’s certainly some room for flexibility here.
Yet there is also wisdom in waiting and doing a thorough investigation. There have been any number of people dressed in sheep’s clothing right up to the end of their lives — even very publicly known people — who were later revealed to have been ravening wolves inwardly. Imagine the damage that would be done if, upon the death of the person, the wave of public sentiment for this apparently sheep-like individual resulted in an instant canonization, only to have his wolf nature revealed later.
One might say argue that papal saint canonizations are infallible and so it would still be guaranteed that the individual is in heaven. True, it is commonly thought that saint canonizations are infallible (though there is some question on this matter; the late Cardinal Dulles, for example, expressed doubts about this point). But if saint canonizations are infallible and the person got canonized then this would mean that the person finished their life in a state of grace — perhaps due to a deathbed repentance — but it would do nothing to fix the massive damage done by the Church just having declared a proven wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing to be a saint.
“St. Child-Molester!” the headlines would blare.
Can you even imagine the world of hurt this would bring?
And even if the prospective saint is innocent, the mere fact that charges exist against the person signals the need to deal with them in some way. This applies to Blessed Pius XII, whose memory has been grossly tarnished by unjust slanders regarding his actions during World War II: Was he “indifferent” to the plight of Jewish people? Why didn’t he do more? Was he even approving of Hitler’s plans?
Personally, I look forward with great anticipation to the day Pius XII is canonized, but the charges against him in the public mind need to be dealt with prior to canonization so that people can understand the heroic example he actually did provide.
And there’s part of the key: Canonizations aren’t meant just to settle the question of whether someone is in heaven. They are also meant to hold up to us an example to follow. If a person did not set a good example then they should not become a canonized saint, even if they are in heaven. Or, if their example has been widely misunderstood, then the Holy See needs to set the record straight prior to canonization so that the act of canonization will not cause avoidable scandal.
In the case of a pope being canonized, we face something of a dilemma. Because popes are such high profile figures, they are precisely the kind of people who are likely to generate a strong desire for immediate canonization. They are among the folks most likely to have people chanting, “Santo! Subito!” in St. Peter’s Square.
On the other hand, precisely because they are such high-profile figures, to canonize them prematurely entails the greatest risks. It’s not like scandalizing a local area by promoting to the altars a local person who set a bad example. It would scandalize the entire world for a pope to be canonized and then have problems emerge. If there are charges that need to be dealt with, either well-founded ones or entirely bogus ones, they need to be dealt with up front.
It thus seems to me that the middle path chosen by Pope Benedict regarding John Paul II’s cause — to waive the five-year waiting period in difference to popular acclaim but to otherwise allow the process to proceed methodically — was a reasonable way of handling the situation.
Ultimately, the matter is in God’s hands, of course. This is particularly true with regard to how quickly God wants to grant verifiable miracles in conjunction with John Paul II’s intercession.
However, those on earth need to do their part in working through the process methodically.
It’s that whole God-and-man-cooperating theme.
So those are my thoughts.
What are yours?
Comments
Post a Comment
I think I remember reading that the office of the advocatus diaboli, the person whose job it is to look for reasons not to canonize the person, has been abolished recently. Is this true?
But who is Saint Now?
Very fair and balanced, as usual, Jimmy. But one correction. Pius XII was recently declared Venerable. He is not yet Blessed.
Saint Now is brother to Saint Sudden, the patron saint of the impetuous, cousin of Saint Restless, confessor to Saint Child Molester that Jimmy spoke of.
Well done, Jimmy, excellent article. Those not happy with the John Paul’s “speedy” Cause ignore the fact that his process did not differ from any other Cause with the simple exception of the time period being waived, in everything else the Cause was investigated by the book. As Fr Z points out, the people working on JPII’s Cause just got their act together and worked hard. Interestingly, I have heard from reliable sources (people involved in working on Causes), when the CCS sees a Cause coming with what seems to be a strong miracle, or a whole host of miracles, they are inclined to look at that Cause because they see that in these miracles God is speaking and telling them that it is time for this servant to be acknowledged - that, after all, is the purpose of asking God for a miracle, as a sign. With a whole host of miracles, it seems it is time for John Paul II.
St. Francis and St. Clare were both canonized within two years of their death and St. Anthony of Padua only one year after he died.
I think the internet, social media, smart phones, and 24/7 news cycle has now turned the canonization process into another avenue for the culture wars. Because we now want people canonized who somehow embody and therefore “help” our particular causes and we publicly and freely express suspicion of and even distain for the canonization of someone who is popularly understood to belong to the “other side”. (Think Blessed John the XXIII and Ven. Pope Pius XII or visit a traditionalist blog and read what they are saying about the beatification of John Paul II.)
Our enhanced communication options has extended the de facto understanding of scandal - scandal no longer just referring to grave moral or theological failings, but now includes “I am scandalized that X, whose spirituality, ecclesiology, or politics offend me, is being beatified or canonized.”
Can we even begin to envision the debates at another ecumenical Council in the age of the internet? With anonymous people smuggling out photos and documents from their cell phones, tweeting instant and continuous blow by blow accounts of debates, and various bloggers and their followers and Facebook groups and all the 24/7 media, holding forth on the topic de minute.
Not to mention the bishops being pressured by text, e-mail, Skype, etc. to stop or support a certain proposal.
The trauma of the Vatican II was immensely heightened because 20th century communications enabled Bishops to do something that had never been possible before in our history: implement Conciliar decisions on a global level in a matter of months or a year or two.
The documents of the Council of Trent weren’t published in some major Catholic countries for two generations after the Council ended. Much less implemented. The changes were so gradual in some parts of Europe that many lay Catholics didn’t even know that changes had been made.
At the next Council, decrees will blanket the world in minutes, and be analyzed and debated within hours, Just like the canonizations and beatification of well known figures.
The canonization process has to ask the questions that those who demand a quick canonization would hate.
Pachyderminator—Actually, it’s not really true to claim the Devil’s Advocate was abolished. Rather, the title was changed to Defender of the Faith. No one is even declared venerable unless the Defender of the Faith is satisfied that the person being promoted for eventual beatification/canonization had lived a heroic Christian life. Nor is the Defender of the Faith one person; it’s an entire committee consisting of 3 levels—theologians, cardinals, and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. All 3 levels must agree.
Dave,
According to , the name “Devil’s Advocate” was the popular term for the office of “Promoter of the Faith” instituted by Pope Sixtus V, and that office was indeed abolished by none other than Pope John Paul II. He was trying to streamline the canonization process, which is one reason he canonized so many saints (esp. laity).
IMHO it is noteworthy that Benedict XVI has not canonized at nearly the rate that JPII did, even if he has not restored the office.
Personally, I think JPII is a saint, and will one day be declared a Doctor of the Church. I don’t much object to streamlining the process in his case, but I do think that some of the enthusiasm has been excessive, and unwilling to acknowledge that, as a pastor JPII made some mistakes, which his successor has been forced to clean up. This was especially evident in the rush to anoint him as “John Paul the Great”. Awarding titles like that should be left to history, not to contemporaries.
Sorry: I meant, “According to the Catholic Encyclopedia and Wikipedia”.
I am really confused here and surprised I cannot get a definitive answer on whether or not canonization is an infallible act of our Holy Father. Jimmy, if it is called in to question whether or not this is an infallible act that is one thing. However, you need to talk to some of your fellow apologists at Catholic Answers and some of the first information I found on Google was from your apostolate stating unequivocally that this is an infallible act.
If it is an infallible act, this conversation is obviously moot.
Procedure is part of how God works through His Church, just like “vox populi” is part of how we hear “vox Dei”. So feeling the need to have this discussion and then having it—that’s entirely proper, just like popes creating and abolishing offices and committees is entirely proper.
Different procedures will be proper at different times. Embrace the messiness!
http://www.truecatholic.us/heresiesjp2.htm
They may have sped up the process in the hope that it could be done before this article came out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse
Shame on them.
Jimmy, I look forward to you and your fellow “apologists” explaining the Vatican-ordered cover up of the Irish priest abuse incidents!
All I have to say to those who grumble about the alacrity with which John Paul has been beatified is—so you’d argue with the Lord who performed the miracle through his intercession? Seems a good enough sign to me. I am not going to complain.
Just to toss this out there: St. Thomas Beckett was canonized 3 years after his death.
Yes, Sherry, but that’s because Francis and Clare actually are saints.
Yep, Paul those martyrs get sainthood real quick, don’t they?
Excuse me Paul, I meant to direct my remark to Elisa.
I must disagree with you! He was a very long ruling pope, just for one thing! I followed his pontificate with great interest. Where was his “wolf” in all those years??? He was not only Pope John Paul II, he
was Pope John Paul The Great!!! He was called that even before he died.
Does anyone here remember his long suffering conteance during the later part of his life? His physical suffering then. Being shot, then his developing parkinson’s. The terrible emotional suffering he endured all his life. Living his youth in Nazi occupied Poland. I don’t think there are any people who find the smell of buring human bodies pleasant. Then it was communist Poland! What a pleasure must he had being a devout Catholic and a priest living under athiest communists!!! When he developed parkinson’s he could no longer hide his physical suffering from the public. Only the sight of seeing the crusified Christ caused me more pain than seeing him suffer the way he did. In some way it made me feel as if I was suffering with him. I pitied him.
As for the so called traditionalists, canon law 751 states that to be Catholic one must be in union with The Supreme Roman Pontiff. So their input counts for zip in this matter.
As for the sex abuse scandal in Ireland, we have had it here too in the USA. I have seen my own poor paster dragged off accused of terrible things of which he was innocent! I noticed that it was only the conservative priests who were accused of such things.
Finally I was sitting in my livng room after he died and I suddenly saw him. Except he was young, beautiful and filled with such incredible joy. He just smiled at me. He said nothing. He knew he had no need to do anything except smile for me to understand he was in heaven!
We need the office of “Promoter of the Faith” restored. I do not think personally JPII should be canonised. He did some good things and was brave at times. However as a Pope that is a different issue. Who can forgive him the abuse of Assisi where Budhists put statues on Catholic altars? Praying with pagans. His acceptance of liturgical abuses that he tolerated in Papal Liturgy. His failure in dealing with sexual abuse on and on.
He was a popularist who had a personality cult and his groupies called him “the great’ Pukwhoe. His writings were woffle that lacked precision and were his own musings forced on the Church. Give it 100 years and look at it again. He had a very strong streak of self confidence which those who judge by that mistake for blamelessness..
Elisa, while I do NOT approve of King Henry II’s method, research will reveal that one of the principal reasons for the dispute between King Henry II and St. Thomas Becket (the Archbishop of Canterbury) was whether clergy were (or should be) subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts of England. It seems that the problem of how to deal with criminals in the clergy has been going on a long time.
Elisa:“Just to toss this out there: St. Thomas Beckett was canonized 3 years after his death.”
St. Thomas Beckett was a martyr. Thus, not a relevant example.
Oh, Chris(Jan 19,20011; 8:54 AM) you seem to have missed the quote about canon law 751. You traditionalists should read what has been posted.
This is a Catholic website for Catholics.
Check Kathleen, Jan 18,2011, 9:59 PM for your edification.
Often I have wondered about saints that I read about that lived hundreds
of years ago…and still have Blessed or Venerable in front of their
names…where surely the “process” has become bogged down for them in
the myriad of years that have passed…long forgotten holy men and women.
I think in this day of instant communication and advanced technology..where millions of witnesses to these holy lives have seen their exemplary lives we should not object to what is obvious to most.
What is the point of “dragging” the process out for years? Do you think
it trivializes the idea of sanctity? Do you think we can have too many
saints to lead us by their examples? When you think about it…these
holy men and women are already saints!! The Church is just verifying the
truth of this…and the rest of us are lifted up as well by the recognition of what we already knew when they were with us on earth!
ThirstforTruth, well spoken!!!
In Christ, Kathleen
I have one note about the blog: although I certainly have no objection to Pope Pius XII’s being beatified, he has not been beatified yet. Perhaps you were thinking of Bl. Pope Pius IX?
I believe canonization is basically worthless. A good example of this would be Juan Diego, Pope John Paul II canonization the guy and according to Father Stafford Poole and many others, THERE IS NO RECORD OF THE GUY EVER EXISTING. It looks like all Sainthood is, is title given to who or what ever the public demands.Any thoughts?
TG, there is record—try reading this: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/guadalupe/article_14.html
God bless,
efroze
Efroze, thanks for the web page but the information is worthless. El Nican Mopohua if I remember correctly was written in 1649, that is about 100 years after the supposed event.You might try reading Stafford Poole’s book. The canonization of Juan Diego is the scandal of the century and the church should be ashamed of it’s self. I wonder if Jimmy Akin would like to comment on this?I wish he would.
Decisions, decisions, decisions…should I go to the Divine Mercy prayer service, should I stay home and watch the Beautification (should I tape it)?
Remember, he’s still got ONE miracle to do before he can become a saint. That can be many hundreds of years from now…though I doubt it.
If El Nican Mopohua is worthless because it was written 100 years after the event, how valuable is Stafford Poole’s book? :)
Hey Watchman.Nican Mopohua is a story, Poole’s books are a collection of documents from the 1500s on.Bishop Zumarraga never wrote one sentence about the event. Maybe that is because it never happened.
I like Cardinal Dulles do not believe that canonization CAN be infallible—where is a late historic personage like “Saint John Paul II” to be found in the Deposit of Faith?—since the doctrine of the communion of saints is not specific about who they are, except in a few examples from Sacred Tradition, such as the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist. Nevertheless, the holiness of the saints on the calendar certainly require our pious assent. If the Holy Father wants to put JPII on the calendar, he certainly has the authority to do so, and he has our pious assent, but if a later Pope chooses to remove him from the calendar, for whatever reason, than he will also have our pious assent. And should some future Pope even condemn him (as Pope Leo condemned Pope Honorius, saying he “allowed the immaculate faith to be stained” and that he fail to teach “in accord with apostolic tradition”), then that Pope too would have our pious assent. I think the modern rush to canonization is rash, especially since the process today is less rigorous, especially since the hierarchy has been so long covering up wickedness within its ranks with pretensions of holiness—the sad case of the Legion of Christ comes immediately to mind—but it is not our prerogative to canonize, nor is it our prudence to judge when the time for canonization is ripe. So let those celebrate who wish to celebrate this canonization, as once we celebrated Christopher and Philomena. We need not rain on their parade, because in the end, its everyone’s parade and we all will be judged by God.
When anyone is canonized a saint Holy Church is just stating that there is enough evidence for such a title. Holy Curch is just making known
here on earth that something has already occured in heaven.
Kathleen,
I admire your blind love for JPII. However, I can’t help but read your first post and recall similar rants I heard about Fr. Maciel in his hey-day. In fact, everything about the ‘cult of personality’ surrounding JPII smacks of the obsession Legionaries and RC members had for that horrible man. I’m not sure that I would be able count the number of times I heard people voice their desire that he be canonized. I even heard someone say that he was ‘definitely in heave’ AFTER the scandal was brought to light. Just goes to show you that you can be wrong about ANYONE, and it never hurts to be cautious. And believe me, with JPII’s papacy, there is reason to be cautious.
I would also like to add: You said JPII appeared in your living room? I don’t find this surprising, as he visits me every friday for tea. Sometimes we sit in my pleather chairs and have a cigarette. He is particularly fond of discussing the weather. My doctor says I’m schizophrenic. I guess we’re in the same boat eh? Life is hard for us visionaries.
Doggone it Luke, I haven’t had a visit yet. Is there something wrong with me?
You must not love him enough. Sorry. But I can’t help you. Remember, according to Kathleen and cannon 751, the traditionalist view counts for ‘zip’. Maybe you’re not attending enough of those adorable puppet masses?
You could try that.
Also: throwing rocks at trads.
I knew it! I am on the wrong side of the fence once again. Never was for girl altar servers and holding hands during the Our Father (to name but two un-needed practices). Guess I won’t have any luck with a visit from
JPII. Oh well.
Luke, I am not throwing rocks at tradionalists. I am merely stating facts.
If you don’t like facts go elsewhere. You say Pope John Paul II visits you every friday for tea. If this were really true you would have no
problem believing him a saint. The next time he “visits you” why don’t you ask him to heal you of your blindness? I don’t think schizophrenia
is your problem. It’s just your “cute” way of insulting me.
Well GEE Kathleen you MUST be a visionary! Did JPII pay you a visit again to tell you that? Next time you see him, tell him he has my lighter. And would you like to tell me what facts you stated that offered ANYTHING useful for this discussion? Your use of cannon 751 was completely pointless (not to mention misconstrued). Now, I could sit here all day and pick apart your statements, but besides your little heart-to-heart staring contest with JPII, what assures you that he is in heaven or should be canonized?
Also: I appreciate you calling me cute. Believe it or not, I get that A LOT.
There are questions: JPII presided over a Church that lost millions of adherents over his pontificate due to the changes Vatican II imposed on the Church - he presided over a massive pedophile scandal, he allowed pagan dieties to be worshiped on the Catholic Altar at Assissi as a Dominican priest ran outside screaming “sacriledge, sacriledge”, he took part in non-catholic worship with Jews and Pagans which had been a mortal sin against the faith since the time of Christ, he took part in a pagan animist ritual that worshiped the devil, as a snake slithered out around his feet, he allowed lewed and half naked and shameful acts to be preformed before him, and these are but a few of what can be considered to be questions about JPII’s beautification. I will say, and all can take me to the bank on this no matter what may appear at the moment - that Vatican II and all the conciliar changes and events will be condemned in the near future, possibly by the next pope.
John Paul the Second should be immediately sainted. It was told before he was born that he would come to earth. This alone means he should be sainted.. Jesus asked Paul who is that you say that I am. Simon answered you are the son of God. Simon was then named Peter. So it was with Saint John Paul the second. Read Saint Francis for a clue as to who Saint John Paul is. Ask yourself why the holly father calls him great Pope John Paul Second. Does the Pope know something that we do not know? Yes, he sure does. He is waiting for people to say who John Paul the Second is.
Pope John Paul II had to have known about the
Maciel / Legionnaires of Christ scandal, abundantly
documented by journalist / author Jason Berry. Yet
he and his right hand man Cardinal Josef Ratzinger
did nothing about Maciel, since he donated millions
of dollars to the Vatican. The pope and the cardinal
micromanaged the lives of thousands of bishops, priests
and women religious—how could they not have known
about Maciel, the predator priest who raped seminarians
and impregnated at least three women. John Paul II
never was a saint and never should be declared a saint.
The Pope is a man not the all seeing God!
Can you spell anathema?
????? ??????! ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ??.
useful post
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.