It would not surprise me in the slightest if someday the Church canonized all of the popes of the twentieth century. During the first few centuries of Christianity, God blessed the Church with saintly pontiffs to lead us through the Age of Martyrs (the first non-saint pontiff was Liberius in the fourth century), and it seems fitting that he would grant the Church another slew of saintly popes for the Second Age of Martyrs through which we now appear to be passing.
Already, we have St. Pius X and Bd. John XXIII. Causes have been opened for Pius XII, Paul VI, and John Paul the Great. And, as if in a nod that canonization does not depend on what you do but rather on the person you become by grace, there is even an active cause open for Pope John Paul I, the September Pope of 1978, who is now being reported to be on the fast-track to beatification:
"Pope John Paul I, who died in 1978 after a reign of only 34 days, could be the next addition to the growing list of possible papal saints.
"The beatification process for the Italian pontiff has moved swiftly ahead since its 2003 launch, the official in charge of the cause said in an interview marking the 27th anniversary of the pope’s death.
"’We have testimony of an apparent miracle which we are evaluating and which we are thinking of presenting to the Vatican,’ Monsignor Giorgio Lise told a Catholic website."
Interestingly, I have only been able to find discussion of John Paul I’s possible beatification on stridently radical traditionalist sites, where there is the usual teeth-gnashing over "Vatican modernists … obviously trying to canonize the whole New Religion by putting each and every one of their leaders on the road to ‘sainthood’" (source) and bewailing of a supposed desire by the Church to "canonise these popes to prove the holiness and rightness of Vatican II" (source).
Why the news of JPI’s road to beatification has only appeared to come to the attention of those who sneer at the possibility, I don’t know, but I decided to rectify the situation by posting notice of it here.
St. Celestine V was by most accounts an incompetent pope, but a holy man. So Mr. Akin makes a good point in distinguishing between personal holiness and job performance. However, since there’s a tendency for people to conflate the two, and put the actions of saints on an elevated plain above criticism, it may not be prudent to canonize everyone who’s in heaven.
For example, the quality of Pope Paul VI’s pontifical reign is a seperate question from his personal holiness. But many advocates of his beatification cause may be so because they enjoy the “New Springtime” that’s been upon us since the ’60s. If he were canonized, I’m sure many people would see the cultural revolution in the Church which Paul VI facilitated as above criticism. So as not to stifle healthy talk of reforming the reform, this could be a reason for postponing beautification.
Further, if canonization is technically only saying that the canonized person is in heaven, there is room for debate on which people in heaven we should canonize, since canonization in its popular effect far exceeds the technical infallible declaration.
Breier, JimmyAkin.org is a group blog. This post is mine, not Jimmy’s.
Michelle:
This is the third time I’ve seen someone refer to one of your posts as Jimmy’s. (once was by me 🙂
Not all traditionalist groups are opposed to the cause of JPI, as you can see from the French phalangist publication at http://www.crc-internet.org/ (Michelle, it might be a good idea to remove this post after you have checked the link!)
There is NO WAY Paul VI is worthy of canonization. No way. The Novus Ordo he created is a major mark against his pontificate, and we are still suffering the effects of his disastrous changes to this day.
And what was so special about his “personal holiness”? Obviously, someone who was personally holy would not have made the changes he made to the Mass — most of which served to do away w/any sense of the sacred.
The reason the Church canonizes someone, as opposed to beatifying them, or in some other way pointing out their great goodness, is because canonized saints are supposed to provide us moderns with ROLE MODELS. How many role models of popes (or founders of religous orders, or mid-level ecclasiastical administrators) do we ordinary Catholics need, anyway? HOw about a few role models of moms and dad living heoric lives in ordinary circumstances? Or aren’t there any? And I know a few lay saint were (a) martyrs [More], (b) virtually martyrs [Molla], or (c) nuns in later life [Seton]. Is the only way to become a saint as layman to have a household of kids who become the priests and nuns we SHOULD have been if we weren’t so self-centered? The numbers seem to suggest that
I’ve read John Paul I’s letters that he wrote for a newspaper while still a bishop. They’re collected in a book called “Illustrissimi”. He was asked to write a letter to a historical figure, or even a character from fiction, and in these letters he shows a very profound understanding of Christianity applied to the nitty-gritty of real life. For instance, in his letter to Pinocchio (yes, Pinocchio) he talks about having “crushes” and how the young must avoid the broad, permissible morality that is so prevalent, and instead have a pure Love, one that glorifies God.
I’m still working my way through the book. Some of the things he talks about I don’t understand, not really knowing much about Italian politics or history. But I think it’s marvelous.
I recall reading somewhere that he was derided for his letters not long after he was elected Pope. Erudite expositions of theology are all well and good, and we need it, but it must be balanced by someone who can make those precepts “real” to the faithful. And Albino Luciani (John Paul I) did that very well.
Every once in a while I wake up from spiritual stupor and sloth and realize that when I leave this life I will have lived an important portion of it (ie my youth) under the aegis of one of only three Popes to be called Great.
Santo subito!
The problem with John Paul I is that due to having such a short reign, he is more of a blank slate for wackos to fill with their agendas. I’ve seen both progressives and schismatic traditionalists claim him as their own, a tool for their wish fulfilment. If only he lived longer, he would have enacted every one of their agendas, they claim. Which is ironic because had he lived longer he certainly would have disappointed both groups, just like his successors John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
You know, Inquisitor, you might want to make a little distinction here between perception of the sacred, understanding of the sacred, and being able to make the sacred obvious to others.
For example, I know many people who appreciate music in more depth and have more musical knowledge than I do. However, I am a good singer and they can’t play an instrument or stay on key to save their lives. Does that mean that they are only pretending to musical knowledge, or that their knowledge is useless? No. They can tell me stuff about what I do that I didn’t even know I do. They can tell me songs I might sing well, or groups I might enjoy. They can and do teach me a lot. So it just means their gifts and my gifts are not the same, even though they are all related to music.
God told St. Catherine of Siena that the reason we all have different gifts, and that no person has all the gifts, is that He wanted to force us to need each other.
A man may well be personally holy and have perfectly good intentions, yet still fail to put his thoughts across. Also, it is entirely possible that the religious practice or aesthetic which is helpful to one person is not helpful to all or even most people. Finally, it is quite possible that things which seem bad are actually working for the good. (“You duped me, Lord, and I let myself be duped.”)
It may even be possible that things went wrong after Vatican II because faithful Catholics were too busy bitching among themselves and not busy enough doing something about it, or were too busy sitting on their butts to be putting out their own reading of the Council papers. Sure, there wasn’t any Internet (as far as most folks were concerned). But there was such a thing as networking. There were newsletters. There were small presses and APAs and all sorts of things.
So before people starting commenting on the splinter of lack of liturgical deftness in the old pope’s eye, perhaps we should look to the GIANT LOGS in our own eyes, eh?
Anybody who had the guts and prophetic power to write Humanae Vitae is a man I respect — a man who followed Christ instead of human favor — a man who wasn’t afraid to be martyred by the press and people who hated him. He’s a man whose name will live in Church history, and not in infamy, either. He’s a man whose saintly prayers I would appreciate.
Traditio in Radice Recieves High Praise…
Our friend and fellow Evil Traditionalist, Inquisitor Generalis, pointed out to us that our blog recieved coverage on Jimmy Akin.org where we were described as “stridently radical traditionalist[s]” in a post by Michelle Arnold. We must be doing some…
Of the first 50 popes, all but a couple are recognized as saints; of the last 50 however only two (Pius V & Pius X)have been canonized and three (Innocent XI, Pius IX, JOhn XXIII)beatified. How many other Popes of the last millenium are the subject of causes for their beatification or canonization? Is there a list somewhere?