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?
I’ve never quite understood the “John Paul the Great” business. He has been dead for 5 or 6 years. Isn’t that a little too short to evaluate a man’s life (or at least his influence on the church)?
-J. Prot.
Several reasons he should not be made a saint:
http://www.truecatholic.us/heresiesjp2.htm
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.
That was Sherry Weddell’s comment about the seeming rapidity of JPII’s cause.
The problem with that analogy was the none of the saints mentioned above had the kind of governing responsibility that JPII had. Yes, he was a pivotal factor in the demise of Communism but he also single-handedly and arbitrarily changed the Catholic position on capital punishment to one that directly contradicts both Scripture and Tradition (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463), indulged (if not appeased outright) Islam (which seeks the destruction of Christianity) and failed to protect the innocent during the clerical sex-abuse crisis (to the point of being deceived by Maciel).
What do all those things have to do with living a holy life? Well, one would think that a holy Catholic would 1)defend revealed doctrine 2)protect the Church and 3)defend the innocent. It’s an open question whether JPII did any of these things regarding the issue I mention.
I think this early beatification is a P.R. move. Why beatify JPII now? Well, it would rally his large and passionate personality cult around the institutional Church. It would quiet *any* criticism of his role in the clerical sex-abuse crisis, and stifle criticism of the Church’s role as a whole in that crisis….at least, I think that’s what the vaticanisti are hoping. I don’t doubt that Benedict had a sincere and profound respect for the man. But I think other factors besides Benedict’s respect are pushing this.
Did John Paul 2 ever get publicly outraged over the pedophile scandal similar to his public appeals to American politicians to stop executions as in Missouri?
-J. Prot.
Yes, he was a pivotal factor in the demise of Communism but he also single-handedly and arbitrarily changed the Catholic position on capital punishment to one that directly contradicts both Scripture and Tradition (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463), indulged (if not appeased outright) Islam (which seeks the destruction of Christianity) and failed to protect the innocent during the clerical sex-abuse crisis (to the point of being deceived by Maciel).
Can’t even begin to address all that’s wrong with that statement, but I’ll begin with the implied notion that John Paul II’s only significant or noteworthy achievement was being a “pivotal factor” in the demise of communism.
The changes to the Catholic teaching on the death penalty were neither “single-handed” nor arbitrary, and they certainly do not “contradict” either Scripture or Tradition (properly understood). But this topic has been dealt with ad nauseum elsewhere, and I have no intention of hijacking this thread further.
And, needless to say, Bernard’s link above can be safely and surely ignored.
Brother Cadafel, did you read the link I provided?
J. D’H.: I read the link you provided, and I am concerned that the interpretation of the Old Testament is a little faulty.
“Nevertheless, the late pope’s view directly contradicts centuries of Catholic teaching. That teaching starts with the Old Testament, which all Christians consider divinely inspired. Genesis 9:5-6 describes God as ordering Noah and his descendants to execute murderers”
What about earlier in Genesis (specifically, 4:13-15), where God Himself says that Cain – who murdered his brother – was not to be killed, or God would avenge him sevenfold?
Sounds to me like vengeance is often confused with justice. If someone is already contained and can no longer do any harm, then isn’t it incumbent upon us to fulfill the Great Commission of evangelizing and baptizing everyone – even the great sinners? Isn’t there more joy in Heaven for one repentant soul than over 99 who never sin?
I’m not saying that Saddam Hussein definitely would have converted, if he was not hanged (..but one never knows!). I *am* thinking, though, that the personal appeal of the Pope to commute the death sentence likely had a profound effect on the 19-year-old Darrell Mease – someone who, in all likelihood, has about 60 years to think about how his life was spared by the intervention of a Catholic. Someone who has 60 years to satisfy his curiosity about these Catholics who believe that ALL human life (not just innocent human life) is sacred – created by God for a purpose – and maybe we shouldn’t be so blase’ about taking it – criminal or government.
Maybe that’s the radical “New Evangelism” that JP2 was talking about – being bold in pronouncing the most fundamental things about the Catholic faith: first and foremost, the sanctity of all human life. If you are radically different from those around you, people take notice.
The early Church was radical, yet modern Catholics and Christians think it is sufficient to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave and rest secure that their rights to religious liberty (even their right to be only occasionally religious/spiritual) is all that is necessary.
How much did people get upset over the possibility of Pepsi/Doritos running a sacrilegious Super Bowl commercial? Now, how much do they get upset with the wholesale slaughter of 1.1 million unborn babies each year? Now, how much do they get upset and vocal about the fact that the people that surround them in the pews could not care less one way or the other about the 52 million Americans who’ve been killed since Roe v Wade 38 years ago this weekend?
I think we’ve got bigger things to worry about, from an evangelization standpoint, than whether or not JP2 was correct in voicing his conviction that the death penalty is almost always unnecessary. There’s inconsistency between the things that rile people the most vs. what they should really be worked up about (and doing something about).
Regardless of the merits of the cause for sainthood, I think it is unseemly and unnecessary to canonize Popes. A decree of canonization merely states that a person is in heaven. It does not send him there, and the failure to issue one does not necessarily indicate that he is not there. One would hope that all deceased Popes, given their assertions of authority, would be in heaven. By canonizing some Popes, and not others, the church is, by implication at least, making a serious statement! Further, we cannot have absolute proof of the issue until Judgment Day, and there is not likely to be a lightning bolt from heaven when and if the decree is issued, so that we will know whether it is right or not. The Eastern Church has a saying, “about that which little is known, little should be said,” and I think that is entirely appropriate in dealing with the question of canonization of a Pope.
As for the death penalty, John Paul II approved of it if the threat to society was great enough. The following is a quote from Evangelium Vitae (1995):
“It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
Thus, it is simply a matter of where you draw the line. With all due respect, and out of respect for the innocent victims of murderers and their families, and not desiring to give total credence to a person who failed to exhibit the same outrage toward pedophile priests, I choose to draw the line differently.
“…who failed to exhibit the same outrage toward pedophile priests…”
Well, I could point out that there never was a problem with “pedophile priests”, but, rather with homesexual predators. And I could point out that this problem is 25-50 years in the past. And I could point out that it is uncertain about how much JPII actually knew about a few diocese in a church of over 1,000,000,000 people. And I could point out that no one not telepathic could actually know how “outraged” another person was.
But that wouldn’t get through to one who wishes his misconceptions were true.
What about earlier in Genesis (specifically, 4:13-15), where God Himself says that Cain – who murdered his brother – was not to be killed, or God would avenge him sevenfold?
Jamie, I suggest you re-read the Genesis passage I cite. That came after the Flood. God’s injunction concerning Cain came before the Flood. In the same passage in which God tells Noah that murderers should be executed, He also allows humans to eat meat for the first time. Why does that matter? Because the Flood washed away the previous world, so God created new rules for this new world. In any event, Christ Himself never opposed nor contradicted the divine demand that murderers must be executed.
Sounds to me like vengeance is often confused with justice. If someone is already contained and can no longer do any harm, then isn’t it incumbent upon us to fulfill the Great Commission of evangelizing and baptizing everyone – even the great sinners? Isn’t there more joy in Heaven for one repentant soul than over 99 who never sin?
No, Jamie, it sounds like the Church has confused vengeance with justice. Vengeance, by its very nature, is extra-judicial; human vengeance leads to vigilantism. God says that vengeance is His because God’s inherent righteousness places Him outside the realms of human justice. However, God has the right (let alone the authority) to dictate that human justice meet His standards. One of those is the idea that the divine image in humanity is so sacred, and that murder is the ulitmate descecration of it, that the only appropriate punishment is death.
Besides, the fact that one sinner repends does not relieve the responsibility of that sinner to pay his legal debt to society, nor for society to relieve him of that debt. Would you allow a thief not to serve his sentence because he sincerely repents? In effect, that’s what you’re saying.
…Someone who has 60 years to satisfy his curiosity about these Catholics who believe that ALL human life (not just innocent human life) is sacred.
Again, the fact that “all human life is sacred” does not mean that God cannot decree under what circumstances that life might be taken. Besides, all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory…and the wages of sin is death, as St. Paul states. So, if it weren’t for Christ’s atoning, redemptive sacrifice on the cross, every single person who ever lived would be condemned by God!
If you are radically different from those around you, people take notice.
If you radically differ from God, then you are an apostate. I don’t mean you personally; I’m using the general “you.”
Now, how much do they get upset and vocal about the fact that the people that surround them in the pews could not care less one way or the other about the 52 million Americans who’ve been killed since Roe v Wade 38 years ago this weekend?
Apparently, neither do the prelates nor the Pope. If I recall correctly, the beatified JPII gave the Eucharist to at least one member of the Italian parliament who supported legalized abortion. Here’s a comment from somebody on the site of U.S. Catholic magazine:
Year after year I’ve listened to the local bishop and priests tell Catholics that abortion is the most important moral issue facing the country and that it must be the primary factor in deciding how to cast our votes in elections. Yet in the 13 years I attended Mass at the local Cathedral, there was not a single special collection devoted to crisis pregnancy centers – not a diaper or jar of baby food was collected. This supposed “priority” also merited no mention in the yearly pleas for contributions to the bishop’s Lenten appeal. Moreover, when our bishop decided to undertake a special fundraising effort, it was not to support crisis pregnancy services, but to build himself a fancy mansion to live in next to the Cathedral. What was that moral priority again?
Before you ask the laity to start caring, starting asing the “successors of the apostles” to do so.
I thought “santo subito” meant “sudden saint”…
mPR, according to Babelfish, http://www.babelfish.altavista.com “santo subito” means “saint quickly.”
I will say this about Pope John Paul II. I remember the day of his election, October 16, 1978, very vividly. I was in law school, and I had come out of class, and back to the car, and turned on the radio. The news was on, and it was announced that white smoke had come out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, indicating the election of Pope. Soon, it was announced that His Eminence Karol, Cardinal Wojtyla, Archbishop of Krakow, had been elected. Who??? You have no idea what my reaction was. I was absolutely thrilled to learn that, for the first time in over 550 years, a non-Italian had been elected Pope, and that I had lived to see the day. Interestingly, my middle name is Paul, so I thought he had excellent taste in choosing names as well! John Paul I was buried on my 21st birthday, October 4, 1978. Pope John Paul II had a Polish father and a Ukrainian mother, just like my maternal grandmother, so there was that connection too. I am a Ukrainian (Byzantine) Catholic, although, due to the relatively scarcity of such parishes, I generally attended Roman Catholic churches at the time. We are in full communion with the Apostolic See at Rome.
I guess it was a relatively innocent time.
450 years, sorry.
“Make him a saint”
I wasn’t aware that anyone -or any institution can “make” anyone a saint. Even God allows for free will -hence the opportunity to choose not to be a saint. The Church, if I understand it correctly merely ackknowledges the saint as such. Though I had one protestant friend tell me that the Church only makes certain people, “super-saints.” Other, (less saintly?) souls the Church misses.
Not to question my friend’s theological wisdom, but JP II could well be a super saint.
What did John Paul do to make the catholic church less liberal? The Assisi event? Going to a Muhammadan temple and telling Muhammadans they are the spiritual brothers of Christians?
-J. Prot.
Don L: On the question whether only “certain people” are made saints: most, if not all, of the persons who are canonized were clerics or religious. Within the last 100 years, has the church ever canonized a lay person who was married and who had children?
+J.M.J+
Saint Gianna Molla comes immediately to mind. She was both married and had children and was canonized very recently.
Rosemarie, thanks for the information. She has an interesting story, which others may wish to investigate.