However, I doubt whether the Church shall canonize this here woman, especially after analyzing here writings which are riddled with ‘plot holes’, which in this case means that her writings have alot of things which contradict Church teaching; and I’m going to show you what things this ‘visionary’s’ writings include, and the removal of some misconceptions from people’s heads.
With all due respect, you’re very late for the trial. Before a person is beatified, they are declared Venerable. Before the person is declared Venerable, his life is studied exhaustively. His writings are gathered and analyzed by three commissions. The Promotor of the Cause and his team have the duty to gather the information that proves that the person led a heroic life of Christian virtue. He also has to prove that there is nothing in the person’s life and writings that is deliberately in conflict with sound Catholic doctrine and Revelation.
When the Promotor of the Cause has exhausted his case, the Defender of the Faith steps in. This is the official that used to be called the Devil’s Advocate. The new title actually describes his job much better. He and his team must find every possible error and every possible fault that would disqualify the person from being venerated by the Church.
If the Defender of the Faith can find nothing in the person’s writings or life, he surrenders his case to the Promotor of the Cause. The documentation is sent to a third commission of Cardinal theologians who examine everything that has been debated and decided. They act on behalf of the Church, not the candidate. It is their job to make sure that the Defender of the Faith and his team did not miss anything. If they find everything is well, they send the matter to the Holy Father with a recommendation that the person be publicly declared Venerable and that the study of the person’s life and writings be closed.
The Holy Father personally reviews everything and when he is satisfied, he closes the study. He then sends back a Motu Proprio to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints directing them to write the decree that the person is truly Venerable, that he has lived a heroic life of Christian virtue and he has never DELIBERATELY taught anything contrary to the faith.
Once the decree is made public, it is binding on all the faithful. The person’s case cannot be reopened. The person’s writings may not be restudied and the next stage begins . . . the study of any alleged miracles.
Those miracles undergo the same scrupulous examination. When it finally reaches the Holy Father, he has the authority to beatify the person. From there begins the last stage of the process, the study of a second miracle. If there are no miracles, there are two options. The pope can wait, which is the usual or he can bypass and canonize, which has been done three times.
As far as Catherine is concerned, there was nothing in her life and writings that was DELIBERATELY contrary to the Scriptures, Tradition or the Magisterium. Therefore, she went on to become Venerable. A miracle was proven.
This discussion about her writings and the suggestion that they be examined or that they are going to be examined is mistaken. They have been examined and will not be examined again, not for this purpose. They may be examined by theologians and historians for scholarly purposes, but her life and teachings are no longer under scrutiny, nor can they ever be again. A Motu Proprio has been written and signed declaring her to be virtuous and faithful to Catholic Dogma and Tradition.
What you’re proposing is not possible. What you’re reading into her writings is not what the three commissions saw. You’re pitting your opinion against their findings. When you have a miracle, there is no turning back. To say that Catherine believed error and intentionally taught error is like saying that the commissions and the pope allowed it to slip under the radar and you caught it.
As Brother David correctly pointed out, saints are not infallible. St. Thomas Aquinas believed error and taught error. But he did not know that it was error or he would not have taught it. He taught that Mary was cleansed from Original sin while in her mother’s womb and that it was impossible for her to be conceived without sin.
St. Francis of Assisi believed error and taught error. He did not know that it was error. He taught that the pope was always infallible and he wrote it into his rule. He bound his brothers to obey, without ever questioning. Strangely enough, the definition and conditions for infallibility were finally settled at Vatican I. However, when asked, the Holy See said that the Rule could not be touched and that the Franciscan Order is still bound to obey everything that the pope teachers, mistaken or not, without ever questioning or doubting. Because obedience is a virtue, regardless of the pope’s errors and those of St. Francis.
Many saints, in the passion of devotion and piety have said many things that are not so, but the Church has allowed them to proceed with the process, because the Church knows that if the saint or blessed had known, they would not have said what they said. This is the key right here. To be guilty of the things that you claim, there has to be knowledge and choice. You would have to prove that Catherine knew that these were errors and chose to teach them. Then you would have to prove that the whole process was a sham, because they let it slip under the radar and you discovered their duplicity. Good luck on that one.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
, I’m a Marian Catholic who just wishes to please his Heavenly Mother.
