Frs. B.Lorber, J.-M. Gleize, On the Canonizations of Pope John Paul II.pdf

C ANONIZATIONS

O F P OPE J OHN P AUL II

In discussing the canonizations of Pope John Paul

II, we are well aware that so doing we touch upon

an extremely delicate matter which, by a natural

desire for peace and concord, we would prefer not

to have to address. If there is one area in which we

could have willingly followed the Pope, it is in the

ﬁ ght against the current neo-protestant tendency to

desacralize divine worship. Nevertheless, we have

been compelled to take note over the years not

only of the astonishing increase in the number of

beatiﬁ cations and canonizations that have taken place,

a point to which we shall return later, but also of the

choice of subjects, which has often resulted in the

pairing of persons who were doctrinally opposed. The

beatiﬁ cations of Pope Pius IX and Pope John XXIII

in 1999 is among the most ﬂ agrant examples of this.

The canonizations within a few months of each other

of Padre Pio and José Escrivá de Balaguer are also of

a nature to trouble a mind that operates according to

the principle of non-contradiction.

In the present essay we make no pretense of

deciding the matter, for we lack the competence to

do so. Undoubtedly, one day the Magisterium will

provide guiding lights different than those provided

by Rome today, and then will issue clariﬁ cations

about certain cases of dubious beatiﬁ cations and

canonizations. 1 May the reader not be scandalized by

this afﬁ rmation implying a relativity in the Church’s

Magisterium. It is not the Magisterium itself which

is relative, but only the understanding of it by those

who exercise it today. For today the understanding

of the concept of tradition admits of such ﬂ exibility

that what is understood in one way today might

be understood in the opposite way tomorrow. This

1 Since only canonizations are considered by the theologians as infallible, our study

bears directly on these. However, given that the same spirit animates both canonizations

and beatiﬁ cations, we shall occasionally use certain examples of beatiﬁ cation.

BY FRS. BERNARD LORBER

& JEAN-MICHEL GLEIZE

On the

having been said, we think it is possible to consider

the infallibility of the current canonizations while

maintaining our adherence to the common doctrine.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, let us

make it clear that we have no intention of trying to

examine particular acts of canonization to see which

would be valid and which would not be. To reiterate,

that is beyond our competence. Our reﬂ ection is

of a different order, it bears upon the spirit and the

intention in which these canonizations are being

made by the authority today. Therefore none should

be angered if our consideration encompasses the

canonizations of persons whose holiness has already

be publicly proven by miracles and extraordinary,

well-known deeds, as is the case for Padre Pio, for

whom the intervention of the Magisterium was

merely to sanction the vox populi . So as to proceed

in an orderly way, we shall begin by deﬁ ning certain

notions, which will lead us to consider the traditional

teaching on canonization. Then we shall examine the

canonizations that have taken place since Vatican II

in order to reach some conclusions which can be the

starting point of further thought and not deﬁ nitive

judgments.

authenticate holiness, but, especially after the 11th

century, the popes required that, for greater certitude,

the inquiry into virtues and miracles be conducted

in the context of a council, and preferably a general

council. It is not clear what the juridical status of

this ofﬁ cial recognition was, whether it constituted

beatiﬁ cation or canonization, but it stands to reason

that it only concerned beatiﬁ cations since a bishop’s

authority does not go beyond the limits of his

diocese. 3 “The cultus did not attain the dignity of a

canonization until, having passed from diocese to

diocese, it extended to the universal Church, with

the assent, either express or tacit, of the Sovereign

Pontiff.” 4 In other words, if the bishop alone can

conduct a beatiﬁ cation, then the discipline observed

implies that the pope alone is endowed with the

necessary authority to conduct a canonization.

Finally, a decree of Pope Alexander III

(1159-81), dated 1170, inserted in the Corpus Juris

Canonici , 5 explicitly set the disciplinary rule: the

faculty of decreeing beatiﬁ cations in their dioceses

was withdrawn from the bishops and reserved to

the Sovereign Pontiff; and therefore, all the more

so, canonization properly so-called remains the

prerogative of the Sovereign Pontiff. The practice, of

course, was not immediately nor in every point in

conformity with this principle, and the bishops often

considered Alexander III’s decretal a dead letter.

The controversy was deﬁ nitively settled by

the decrees of Urban VIII, dated March 13, and

October 2, 1625, ﬁ rst promulgated at Rome and

then published with a special conﬁ rmation in the

bill Coelestis Jerusalem Cives , of July 5, 1634. From

this moment, it is beyond contesting that, in fact

and by right, only the Sovereign Pontiff can declare

beatiﬁ cations and canonizations. We should remark

that in exercising this promulgation, the pope can

have recourse to the assistance of councils convened

to adequately inform the legislator. One such type

of council was regularly convened to conduct

inquiries, and the result of its proceedings was

formal canonization, which can be deﬁ ned as the

sentence that terminates a process regularly initiated

and pursued with all possible rigor in following the

established procedure for establishing the heroism

of the virtues practiced by a servant of God and the

reality of the miracles by which God has manifested

this heroism. This sentence is ordinarily rendered

by the Supreme Pontiff in the course of a special

solemnity.

There has always been, in the course of history,

the spontaneous veneration of popular piety:

when the pope is content to ratify it, it is known

as an “equivalent” canonization. This is deﬁ ned as

T RADITIONAL

History

A glance at history enables us to get a better

grasp of the reality of canonization. At the beginning,

one ﬁ nds the spontaneous practice of a public cultus

rendered to the dead, expressing the people’s belief

in a person’s holiness and setting forth his virtues as

an example. The ﬁ rst cultus was given to the holy

martyrs. The people would gather the relics of these

victims of persecution, and build altars on their tombs

where the priests would celebrate the Mass. The ﬁ rst

examples reach back to the 2nd century, and by the

3rd century the practice was universal. The cultus

had to be authenticated by the bishop: the discipline

distinguished between proven martyrs and those who

were not.

It was only after the 4th century that canonization

was extended to those who, while not having

been called upon to shed their blood, had become

illustrious by their eminent virtues. The discipline

remained unchanged: it was the bishop’s place to

2 Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei Beatiﬁ catione et de Beatorum Canoniza-

tione , Book 1, Ch. 39.

3 Such is the advice given by Benedict XIV, ibidem , Ch. 10:

It is certain that no bishop was ever able to proceed to veritable

canonizations; for the power to prescribe that a member of the faith-

ful be honored as saint in the universal Church by a public cultus

can not and never could revert to one who possesses a jurisdiction

limited to a diocese or a province, but it must belong solely to the

one who has power over the universal Church.

4 Ortolan, “Canonisation,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC),

Vol. 4, col. 1632.

5 Decretals , Book 3, Title 45, Ch. 1.

D OCTRINE 2

a sentence which does not conclude a process of

canonization, but which the Sovereign Pontiff renders

in order to ratify a cultus to a servant of God which

has existed from a distant past. It is necessary that

the heroic virtues and miracles of this servant of God,

while not established by an ofﬁ cial investigation, be

related by a reliable historian and the fame of his

miraculous intercession uninterrupted. This judgment

is considered to have been rendered when the Holy

See imposes as a precept on the universal Church

the celebration of the Mass and the recitation of the

ofﬁ ce in honor of the saint. 6 It is in this category of

canonization that are to be classed most of those

accomplished before 1170, and it is in this category

that ﬁ gure the doubtful cases. 7

the cultus that is rendered to him, it is, through his

person, really the eminent grace, which is an intimate

participation in the divine nature, that we venerate.

Canonization and Beatiﬁ cation

Canonization and beatiﬁ cation are alike in that

their end, the object, and author are the same, and in

law, in both cases there is a judgment which declares

the heroic virtues of the saint or blessed. They differ

in that in beatiﬁ cation a deﬁ nitive judgment is not

made, for it is a reformable act that prepares the

way for the judgment of canonization, whereas the

latter judgment is irreformable. Beatiﬁ cation is not

a precept, but a permission, whereas canonization

is a precept, and hence constitutes an obligation.

Beatiﬁ cation is not a law obliging the universal

Church, but rather is a privilege granted to a part of

the Church (an ecclesiastical province, diocese, city,

religious family), whereas canonization constitutes

a law the observance of which is prescribed for the

entire Church.

What Is “Canonization”?

Deﬁ nition

Canonization is the decree of judgment and the

declaration of that judgment by which the Sovereign

Pontiff, pronouncing a deﬁ nitive judgment, inscribes

a previously beatiﬁ ed servant of God in the catalogue

of the saints. By this act, the pope declares that the

person just placed on the altars truly reigns in eternal

glory, and he orders the Church to render him in

every place the cultus due to the saints. 8 The author

of canonization is the head of the Church. Since

it is a matter that concerns eternal salvation and

the common good of society, only the legitimate

authority has the power to promulgate the law in this

domain. Canonization is tantamount to a threefold

supreme and deﬁ nitive judgment in which the Church

authoritatively afﬁ rms: 1) that the person in question

is in eternal glory and has, during his life, practiced

the supernatural virtues to a heroic degree; 2) that

this practice constitutes for the Church’s faithful a

norm so sure that by conforming themselves to it,

they will be assured of reaching eternal salvation;

3) that every one of the faithful is obliged to give

his assent to judgments 1) and 2) , and to profess his

assent by taking part in the public veneration that the

Church will henceforth render to the saint canonized

in ofﬁ cial recognition of his heroic virtues. The saint

is given as an example because of his virtues. By

Infallibility

1) Beatiﬁ cation is not an infallible act. When

considering the beatiﬁ cations that the bishops

accomplished before 1170, it is beyond doubt that

they are not stamped by infallibility, for in law these

are acts which issue from a subject who can never

be personally infallible. In fact, history shows us that

errors have been made. 9 As regards beatiﬁ cations

made after 1170, which were reserved exclusively

to the Apostolic See, it is likely that these are not

infallible either: these acts are neither deﬁ nitive

nor prescriptive; whereas infallibility can only be

attributed to a deﬁ nitive or prescriptive act. 10 By

deﬁ nition, the privilege concerns a matter that is

not necessary. Canonizations can be of two kinds:

equivalent and formal, in which the latter offer

more guarantees than the former, and consequently

the refusal to give them the assent that is their due

would constitute a greater fault, 11 without, however,

attributing infallibility to beatiﬁ cation. The argument

from universality must also be taken into account:

beatiﬁ cation does not impose the cultus of the blessed

on the universal Church. But the infallible acts of the

Magisterium must extend to the universal Church.

6 For example, the canonization of St. Wenceslas, Duke of Bohemia and Martyr,

(d. 929) whose ofﬁ ce was imposed on the universal Church by Benedict XIII

on March 14, 1729; or that of St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland (d. 1093),

whose ofﬁ ce was imposed by Innocent II on Sept. 15, 1691.

7 The most famous case is that of Charlemagne. The Antipope Pascal III, who

had opposed the legitimate pope, Alexander III, at the urging of the Emperor

Frederick Barbarossa, inscribed Charlemagne in the catalogue of the saints

on December 29, 1165. But no public cultus had until then been rendered

to this prince. This canonization, the work of an antipope, was never either

ofﬁ cially approved or reproved by the Holy See. The authors are divided on

this subject. Benedict XIV thinks that no necessary condition is wanting in

order for there to be, not a formal canonization, but an equivalent beatiﬁ ca-

tion. ( De Servorum Dei , Bk. 1, Ch. 9, §4.)

8 Cf. Bellarmine and Benedict XIV.

9 Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei , Bk. 1, Ch. 42, §6-7.

10 Proof of this minor: The ﬁ nal cause of infallibility is to assure the unity of

the faith; but the unity of the faith, which is the common good of the entire

ecclesial community, must be assured by a deﬁ nitive and prescriptive act.

11 Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei , Bk. 1, Ch.42, §9-10. Let us remember that

“not infallible does not mean worthless.” Certitude admits of degrees, and

the title of blessed calls for our respect.

2) Canonization . As regards the infallibility

of canonization, the almost universal ensemble

of theologians up to Vatican Council I teach that

the pope, when he canonizes a saint, enjoys the

prerogative of papal infallibility. On this point we

note especially St. Thomas, 12 Melchior Cano, 13 and

Benedict XIV. 14 First of all, there is the argument

from right: it is not possible for the pope to err

in canonizing a reprobate, because that would be

tantamount to teaching something contrary to faith

and morals, and the pope would then be teaching

that a person can be saved by imitating the example

of someone who, by his bad actions, has been

damned. There is also an argument from right that

Benedict XIV underscores: no errors have ever been

found in the canonizations to which the popes have

proceeded. 15

3) Value of this infallibility . The common opinion

of theologians and a certain tradition in the Church

consider canonizations to be infallible, but it is not a

solemnly deﬁ ned dogma. A person who denied the

infallibility of canonization could not be considered a

heretic.

4) The case of the martyrology . The inscription

of a person in the martyrology does not signify his

canonization. The martyrology is the list that includes

not only canonized saints, but also servants of God

who were beatiﬁ ed either by the Sovereign Pontiff,

or, before 1170, by the bishops. 16 The titles of sanctus

or beatus do not have the same precise meaning in

the martyrology which would allow distinguishing

between canonized and beatiﬁ ed saints. And these

beatiﬁ cations are not infallible. 17

of divine charity that it is accompanied by infused

and acquired virtues practiced to the height of

heroism. The heroism of virtues is, so to speak, the

thermometer of holiness: where there is a real saint,

there is also heroic virtue, and where the virtues are

practiced to a heroic degree and no virtue is lacking,

there is holiness. Since grace cannot be perceived by

the senses, the judgment of holiness is based on the

heroism of virtue.

Since the infused virtues are interrelated—unlike

faults—a saint’s spiritual organism will comprise the

ensemble of the moral virtues to an eminent degree.

The least fault in the infused moral virtues will be

the sign that in the person concerned there is not a

consummate degree of sanctifying grace.

Nevertheless, the grace of charity inﬁ nitely

exceeds the natural condition common to all men: it

is a gratuitous gift that nature can never demand as

something proper to itself. Concerning the obtaining

of supernatural salvation, St. Thomas remarks that,

the good that is proportionate to the common state of nature

is to be found in the majority; and is wanting in the minority.

The good that exceeds the common state of nature is to be

found by the minority, and is wanting in the majority. 18

The same conclusion can well be made about

holiness and the heroic virtue it implies that St.

Thomas reaches when speaking of supernatural

salvation:

Since their eternal happiness, consisting in the vision of

God, exceeds the common state of nature, and especially

in so far as this is deprived of grace through the corruption

of original sin, those who are saved are in the minority. In

this especially, however, appears the mercy of God, that He

has chosen some for that salvation from which very many

in accordance with the common course and tendency of

nature fall short. 19

There are two reasons why holiness–and hence

canonization, which gives it in example–is something

rare: one is the absolute transcendence of grace in

relation to nature, and the other is the corruption

of original sin. And we can add a third reason. The

holiness that is recognized by canonization takes on

the value of an example. Now, what is given as an

example must attract the attention, and in order to

do that must present something of the singular, of the

extraordinary according to the etymology of the word.

The Object of Canonization

First and foremost, a person’s personal holiness

and heroic virtues make the saint. Miracles are only

secondary, as they bear witness to the supernatural

heroism of the saint’s virtues. The supernatural aspect

of miracles and extraordinary deeds is not evoked

for its own sake, but to attest to the divine origin

of the virtues and to manifest the eminent degree

of sanctifying grace. For it is in this that holiness

consists: it consists in the possession of sanctifying

grace to an extraordinary degree, such a high degree

12 Quodlibet IX, Q. 8, Art. 16. St. Thomas speaks of the ﬁ nal cause of infallibil-

ity: “To teach every truth that concerns the things necessary to salvation.”

Canonizations are a case in which the law concerns matters necessary to

salvation: “The honor that we render to a saint equals a certain profession

of faith when we afﬁ rm the saint’s glory.” The pope who canonizes a saint

indirectly expesses the divine right, and in this capacity, his act will be

infallible.

13 De Locis Theologicis , Bk. 5, Ch. 5, Art. 3, conclusion 3.

14 Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei , Bk. 1, Ch. 43.

15 Ibid. , Bk. 1, Ch. 44. St. Thomas says in the ad 2 of the Quodlibet cited,

“Divine Providence preserves the Church so that in these matters she not

be deceived by the fallible testimony of men.”

16 Benedict XIV, ibid . History of the Martyrology: cf. the Tractatio de Mar-

tyrologio Romano of Baronius at the head of the chapter of Benedict XIV,

chapters 4-9. The ﬁ rst author was Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote in

Greek and was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. After this ﬁ rst list came

numerous addenda.

17 Ibid .

18 Summa Theologica , I, Q. 23, Art. 7, ad 3. St. Thomas gives in support of

what he says the following example: “Thus it is clear that the majority of

men have a sufﬁ cient knowledge for the guidance of life; and those who

have not this knowledge are said to be half-witted or foolish; but they

who attain to a profound knowledge of things intelligible are a very small

minority in respect to the rest.”

19 Ibid. St. Thomas is then a partisan of the thesis of the small number of the

elect. One must clarify that this small number is small relatively: the elect

and the saints are less numerous than the damned and sinners, but for being

less numerous if they are compared to the latter, the elect and the saints can

be very numerous taken absolutely. In the Apocalypse, St. John contemplates

the multitude of the elect and says that this crowd is innumerable. “ Turbam

magnam quam dinumerare nemo poterat ” (7:9). Cf. the commentary on

the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, Ch. XII, lesson 2 (on verse 5).

Contemporary language has, moreover consecrated

this truth by assimilating the two qualiﬁ ers exemplary

and unique . That is why multiplying the number of

saints amounts to lessening their exemplariness: were

saints numerous, then only a small number of them,

and not the majority, should be canonized.

We can conclude that holiness, the basis of every

canonization, is an extraordinary state of supernatural

life, extraordinary in the sense of being well beyond

the common way.

Until Paul VI and John Paul II, canonizations

were solemn acts of the Roman Pontiff that remained

exceptional. Since Vatican II, this has been less

and less the case. John Paul II has carried out more

canonizations than all his predecessors of the 20th

century combined plus all of his predecessors since

the creation of the Congregation for Rites by Sixtus V

in 1588.

John Paul II, himself, explained this increase in

the number of canonizations in a discourse to the

cardinals of the consistory of June 13, 1984:

Sometimes it is said that today there are too many

beatiﬁ cations. But besides reﬂ ecting the reality that, by

the grace of God, is what it is, this also corresponds to the

express desires of the Council. The Gospel is so diffused

in the world and its message has so deeply taken root that

it is precisely the large number of beatiﬁ cations which

reﬂ ects in a vital manner the action of the Holy Spirit and

the vitality that He causes to spring forth in the domain the

most essential for the Church, that of holiness. For it is in

fact the Council that has spotlighted in a special way the

universal call to holiness.

Hence this quantitative change is caused by a

qualitative change. If canonizations are henceforth

more numerous, it is because the holiness to which

canonizations attest possesses a different signiﬁ cation:

“holiness” is no longer something rare, extraordinary,

but something common.

John Paul II has carried out more canonizations than

all the popes of this century. But in this way the dignity

of canonizations is not preserved. If canonizations are

numerous, they cannot be, we do not say valid, but

esteemed, nor be the object of veneration of the universal

Church….If the canonizations increase, their value

diminishes. 20

C ANONIZATIONS

The essence of canonization compels us to

ask two questions: 1) What was the conception of

holiness that existed before Vatican II, and what is it

today; and what model of holiness is being proposed

to the faithful of today.

The Notion of

“Holiness” Since Vatican II

A Quantitative Change

Let us begin with the fact that has been pointed

out by many observers: relatively recently, the

number of beatiﬁ cations and canonizations has

attained unprecedented levels. The following list

gives a precise idea:

A Qualitative Change

Let us try to explain, according to the logic

of Vatican II, why holiness is no longer something

extraordinary. The “new theology” will enable us to

understand.

16th century : 1 canonization ceremony with 1 saint

17th century : 10 canonization ceremonies with 24

saints

18th century : 9 canonizations with 29 saints

19th century : 8 canonizations with 80 saints

● Leo XIII (1878-1903) : 4 canonizations with 18

saints

1) Foundations of the new conception of “holiness . ”

The Second Vatican Council introduced a new

religion linked to a new theology, and according

to this new theology (as explained by the ordinary

pontiﬁ cal teaching of John Paul II) redemption

is conceived of as a simple existential testimony

allowing men to become interiorly aware or conscious

of their own dignity as human persons:

Christ, the Redeemer of the world, is the one who

penetrated in a unique, unrepeatable way into the mystery

of man and entered his “heart.” Rightly therefore does

the Second Vatican Council teach: “…Christ…in the very

revelation of the mystery of the Father and of His love,

fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high

calling.” 21

20th century :

● Pius X (1903-14) : 2 canonizations with 4 saints

● Benedict XV (1914-22) : 2 canonizations with 3

saints

● Pius XI (1922-39) : 17 canonizations with 34 saints

● Pius XII (1939-58) : 21 canonizations with 33

saints

● John XXIII (1958-63) : 7 canonizations with 10

saints

● Paul VI (1963-78) : 20 canonizations with 81 saints

● John Paul II (1978-2002) : Escrivá de Balaguer is the

468th person canonized by the Pope.

20 RomanoAmerio, Stat Veritas , sequel to Iota Unum , gloss 39 on §37 of the Apostolic

Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente , p. 117.

21 Gaudium et Spes , §22.

C ONTEMPORARY

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: