Pope Pius XII canonising St Maria Goretti
It is a theologically certain doctrine that the canonisation of a saint is an infallible act of the Church's magisterium. I thought it might be useful to set down here some of the arguments that have been used by theologians. Just to be clear: the question is whether the doctrine:
"That the canonisation of a saint is an infallible act of the Church's magisterium."is itself theologically certain.
In his Quodlibets, St Thomas considered the question. Having affirmed that it was impossible for the Church to err in matters of faith, he went on to say:
“Because the honour which we show to the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in the glory of the saints, it should be devoutly believed that not even in these matters can the judgement of the Church err.”(This is usually quoted in older books as Quodlibet 9.16 At the Corpus Thomisticum, you can find it at [68756] Quodlibet IX, q.8 corpus.)
Then a couple of references from the Jesuit Sacrae Theologiae Summa Vol 1 p.742 (My translations - and I am not able to double-check the references given):
Suarez said of the infallibility of canonisation:
"Although it is not de fide, I judge that it is sufficiently certain and that the contrary is impious and temerarious." (De Fide d.5 s.8 n.8)Benedict XIV noted that some older theologians denied the infallibility of decrees of canonisation but said that this divergence only proved that, on this point as with others, discussion was possible before the Catholic view was definitively fixed in the Schools. Defending this teaching, he said of the opinion which denied the infallibility of canonisation:
“If it is not heretical, it is nevertheless temerarious, bringing scandal to the whole Church ... savouring of heresy ... We say that he is the upholder of an erroneous proposition who dares to assert that the Pontiff in this or that Canonisation has erred, that this or that Saint canonised by him should not be honoured with the cult of dulia.” (De Canonisatione Sanctorum L.1 c.43 n.3)(The cult or veneration of dulia is a traditional way of referring to the veneration due to the saints as opposed to the cult of latria, or simply adoration, which is due to God alone and may not be given to any created thing or person.)
We can understand why canonisation must be infallible if we consider the difference between beatification and canonisation. Beatification is the permission of veneration locally or for particular groups. Such veneration is not commanded but tolerated and permitted.
In the case of canonisation, the Church not only tolerates and permits the veneration of a person but commends and prescribes such veneration to the whole Church. In the Church’s mission of leading the faithful to salvation, it is necessary that the formal and solemn presentation of a person by the supreme Pontiff as one who is to be imitated and venerated perpetually, should be part of the infallible magisterium of the Church.
Theologians further discuss whether the infallibility extends to the judgement that the saint had heroic virtues or simply to the judgement that the saint is in fact in heaven. The latter is more probable since the good of the Church does not require that every aspect of the canonisation process is flawless, only that Christ preserves the Church from requiring universal veneration of someone who is not in heaven.
So although we all want to give the Pope the benefit of our wisdom on how the canonisation process might be improved (and I don't claim that everything in the garden is rosy) we are nevertheless bound to believe that the saints that he does canonise are in heaven and worthy of our veneration.
19 comments:
Father, could you explain about the infallibility of so-called "equipollent" canonizations?
Since canonization takes so long, a given person in question could have undergone great purgative suffering in Purgatory from the time they died until canonization was declared. Ergo...they could have been quite imperfect at death but in Heaven by the date of cnonization. Time does not occur in Heaven but in purgatory and in you know where, there is a type or form of time. Wherever there is pain, there is time.
Ah yes Father, but what of those canonised by acclamation, rather by the binding of Peter, especially those no longer in the Martyrology?
What about Eastern saints?
To say nothing about those dog headed and giant Saints or the thousands of companions of virgin martyrs? Then of course there are those Celtic Saints who have strange likenes to the old gods and heroes.
It is late where I am at... I don´t get the beginning. You assert that it is certain and then say the question is if that is certain?
Liquid water wets is certain.
Is it certain that the phrase is certain???
Me confused.
Just to add a recent indication of the definitive nature of canonization, the CDF's Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profession of Faith gives the canonizations of the saints as examples of truths belonging to the second paragraph of the concluding formula to the Profession of Faith.
The second paragraph of the concluding formula states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals."
The CDF explains that the "truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation... With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations."
The CDF emphasizes that we must give full and irrevocable assent to these teachings. This "assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium".
Worth looking at the formula used to proclaim a canonisation. It is very striking when one is in St Peter's Square to hear it "live" ...
Fr., I'd like to second Fr. Ray's question. I'm also uncomfortable with the the notion that new evidence in serious conflict with claims of sanctity will never be found.
I understand that the Congregation of Causes, responding to a dubium, has clarified that the canonised saints do not suffer purgation after death.
One problem in Catholicism is that the CDF is quoted as though it is final but the CDF is not a source of infallibility as e.g. per Ludwig Ott in his Introduction to The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma just above the final section online ( the Intro only):
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.
How can a non definitive source speak definitively?
Fr Kurt - thanks very much for that reference which I had not come across. Most important in this debate.
bill bannon - the religous assent was distinguished from the respectful silence during the Jansenist controversy. The Jansenists refused to assent to decisions of the Holy See but wanted simply to keep a reverent silence. That is not enough when the souls of the faithful are at stake.
Fr. Tim Finigan,
My question remains unanswered. How can a non definitive organ speak definitively? Obedience seems innoculous right now in our time but obedience to Pope Leo X's Exsurge Domine's condemnation of Luther's art.33 therein under pain of excommunication latae sententiae proved to have been bizarre. Now the entire Church agrees with Luther not Leo X.
Bill -
I didn't claim that the CDF is a source of infallible teaching, I simply added reference to its commentary as it contains a fairly recent and authoritative statement that is relevant to the discussion at hand.
In much the same way, you have cited Ott (not an infallible source) as an authority for the proposition (which I readily accept) that decisions of the Roman Curia are not infallible.
Incidentally, the analysis that the CDF gives is entirely consistent with Ott's treatment of "Catholic Truths" in his introduction. Ott also holds that teachings "which are not formally revealed, but which are closely connected with the teaching of Revelation" - including the canonization of saints - fall under the secondary object of Infallibility (page 299 in my edition).
bill - the dicasteries of the Holy See act in the name of the Holy Father, either in forma specifica or in forma communi. In the former case, (where a document is published with the specific authority of the Holy Father) it is an act of his magisterium and must be given religiosum obsequium.
Such teaching is not of themselves infallible but may be definitive. It may, for example, definitively say that a particular doctrine is part of the universal ordinary magisterium.
(Excommunication is a penal sanction, not a doctrinal definition.)
Fr. Tim,
Unless a Pope declares something as part of the universal ordinary magisterium and does that in an infallible context, it remains less than infallible. John Paul II did exactly that on three issues within Evangelium Vitae: abortion, euthanasia, and killing the innocent...see for example section 62 for the declaration on abortion. He polled the world's Bishops by various means on the three topics...a polling he refers to because it allowed him to avoid ex cathedra and yet achieve the manifest infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium.
I can see that most clergy here are very affected by non infallible levels of authority. But the religiosum obsequium vis a vis the ordinary papal magisterium and its offices... got human beings killed for heresy from 1253 AD onwards (see "Inquisition", newadvent) such that Leo X in 1520 AD thought Luther writing "against the Catholic Faith" in daring to say the Holy Spirit opposed such burning ( I'm aware that some heretics could be guilty of violence but then burning them for violence is distinct as a charge). That is to say that while we might wish that the religiosum obsequium would clean up e.g. the widespread dissent on birth control here and now, nevertheless the religiosum obsequium inter alia, centuries ago...got people killed by
us and now we see that as wrong post Vatican II in its position against non coercion in conscience and religion matters.
In short the "religiosum obsequium" seems like a good right now but historically we can see that it can lead to trouble. I think it leads to trouble right now in the de facto anti death penalty campaign of the last two Popes which will certainly get some inmates killed in America as happened to both Fr. Geoghan and Jeffrey Dahmer who were both murdered by lifers in states that had abolished the death penalty. Yet the conformity to the last two Popes in this area by Bishops seems complete. That strikes me as neither healthy nor creative yet it seems to follow the religiosum obsequium idea which itself is no where affirmed in the extraordinary magisterium that I know of...and only there is crystal clear infallibility on problematic positions.
bill bannon - thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I disagree with your basic statement: "Unless a Pope declares something as part of the universal ordinary magisterium and does that in an infallible context, it remains less than infallible."
The infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium does not depend on there being an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium. If it did, there would not really be any point in affirming the ordinary magisterium.
It is likely in the case of some of the teachings of Blessed John Paul II that he refrained from using the extraordinary papal magisterium precisely in order not to undermine the universal ordinary magisterium. This would be the case in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, for example.
The fact that the Church has in the past acted wrongly over religiosum obsequium does not make that concept wrong in itself. I think that it is of great importance now.
Professor Tom Pink has helpfully pointed out that the Church has never claimed the right to coerce the unbaptised but still does claim that right with regard to the baptised. For example, cases of priest abusing children are required to be referred to the CDF. The ecclesiastical penalty is dismissal from the clerical state - and it is the policy of the Church to co-operate with the civil authorities in the judicial process for such offenders - in older language, we would say that they are handed over to the secular arm.
Fr. Tim,
You are correct. I should not have used the term "less than infallible" wihout explaining that I meant that phrase juridically in terms of canon 749-3 which reads: " §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."
Theoretically every position alleged to be universal ordinary magisterium by some theologians would not in all cases pass muster as really uom in a formal heresy court with a given judge whereas the Immaculate Conception would pass muster immediately under 749-3. The SSPX people obviously recognize a different table of contents to the universal ordinary magisterium than Rome does...but I would guess they would easily affirm the IC, the Assumption, and the three issues brought into the extraordinary magisterium in Evangelium Vitae.
I generally agree, but there are some that say that the new process is so flawed that it prevents infallibility from being exercised when it comes to "new canonisations" The dominicans of Avrille are the most well known proponents of this view.
At the moment I disagree and agree with the view you have presented Father, but if for example someone like Pope John Paul II or Paul VI was canonised I'd have little choice but to accept their view.
Oxford University Newman Society said...
" I understand that the Congregation of Causes, responding to a dubium, has clarified that the canonised saints do not suffer purgation after death."
OUNS, that office is not infallible either and that would mean that Blessed John Paul II who did very little to protect young people from clergy abuse for two decades after having 500 U.S. alleged cases during the ten years previous to his accession...needed no purgation at death despite doing little to protect children under his charge. Improbable.
Does it not seem that this question, "the infallibility of canonisation", would never have arisen were it not that the last two popes have dramatically watered down the criteria and, to paraphrase Fr. Frederick Schell SJ (RIP), been canonising everyone in sight?
Post a Comment