Cause for Canonisation of Armand-Jean Le Bouthillier de Rance?

[Filii_Dei]

Armand-Jean Le Bouthillier de Rance is known as the founder of the Trappists, also called the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance. He is credited for the reform of La Trappe Abbey, re-orienting the Cistercians toward the work of God in both prayer and labour. He was the commendatory abbot of the Abbey at a time when Cistercians were suffering a crisis in the laxity of observance to the Rule of St Benedict. At a time when the Cistercians were lapsing into laxity like the Benedictines they themselves tried to reform, he intervened to restore the rigour of monastic life back to its former glory. Despite being born into a wealthy and powerful family of nobility, he gave up all his riches and inheritances and entered into monastic life in the abbey of La Trappe. He instituted serious reforms and excised many of the luxuries from the monastic life, upholding the value of hard work and sincere prayer in the spirit of St Benedict, St Robert, St Alberic, St Stephen Harding and St Bernard before him. He also wrote several works which encourage others toward greater holiness and deeper contemplation of God. The reform he initiated spread like wildfire, and today the Trappists outnumber the Cistercians (of the Common Observance, as they are called) in both numbers and monasteries.

However, despite the successful and holy endeavour that Armand Jean embarked upon, he has not been canonised, unlike the founders and reformers of most other famous religious orders and congregations. To the outsider, it appears to be a bit of a glaring oversight, given the mountains of blessings that God has given to the order he helped reform. Perhaps there was a stumbling block that prevented his canonisation, or maybe it was a question that was never asked? I know that he had enemies who had accused him of Jansenism, which he rejected, but similar allegations did not stop many saints from becoming canonised.

Therefore, does anybody know whether a cause for his canonisation was ever initiated, and what might have happened to it?

 

[Mintaka]

To get someone canonized, somebody has to spend a fair amount of time working on the cause. Orders usually have to assign somebody to it. In the far past, occasionally orders would hire somebody not from the order to push things along in Rome; but that meant spending money or making a very rich friend who’d do it for you, so poor orders and secluded orders usually couldn’t do much about it. (The Carmelites managed it, but they had a ton of members; and the members had relatives to do this stuff.)

Given that the Trappist Cistercians all stay in strict seclusion at the monastery, don’t go anywhere, don’t call people on the phone, and do a lot of physical labor the rest of the time, I don’t really see where they’d have time to get their founder canonized. Any member of the order working on the project would essentially have to leave the order’s charism just to get it done, which would imperil his vocation and his relationship with his brothers in the order.

Nowadays, I suppose they could start a website. But even that seems a bit iffy.

And of course, some founders are just guys doing relatively normal stuff that doesn’t call much attention. There are several orders where it was only the second or third generation that got attention, and the founders have only been noticed (or even identified as founders) recently.

 

[sirach2v4]

my thoughts are probably way off the wall.

Canonization seems to be a popularity contest. Is this really the function and purpose of the universal church to spend all this effort on these “causes?”

IF there is any injustice, it is that millions and millions of ordinary saints, like my mom and maybe yours, will never be canonized or even considered for it.

Catholics draw criticism from Protestants because we refer to saints only deceased individuals, whereas scripture refers to living people as saints.

That’s one problem. Another problem is that, like you’re saying, there might be evidence that they had some problem in their life, and they weren’t perfect.

When I think about how much time, effort, and money that goes into this process…I’ll tell you, I don’t like it.

And, don’t get me started about how few lay people get canonized compared to priests and people in consecrated life. The “fix” is in. I’d reform the entire canonization process and leave it at this, that they were good and exemplary people, warts and all.

 

[Filii_Dei]

my thoughts are probably way off the wall.

Canonization seems to be a popularity contest. Is this really the function and purpose of the universal church to spend all this effort on these “causes?”

IF there is any injustice, it is that millions and millions of ordinary saints, like my mom and maybe yours, will never be canonized or even considered for it.

Catholics draw criticism from Protestants because we refer to saints only deceased individuals, whereas scripture refers to living people as saints.

That’s one problem. Another problem is that, like you’re saying, there might be evidence that they had some problem in their life, and they weren’t perfect.

When I think about how much time, effort, and money that goes into this process…I’ll tell you, I don’t like it.

And, don’t get me started about how few lay people get canonized compared to priests and people in consecrated life. The “fix” is in. I’d reform the entire canonization process and leave it at this, that they were good and exemplary people, warts and all.

I started this thread with the sole intention of clarifying an academic question regarding the cause of canonisation of the founder of a popular religious order and the apparent discrepancy in status compared to the founders of many other high-profile religious orders. The monastic life and history of monasticism is a topic I am interested in, and I would like to explore the reasons behind this for the purpose of personal enlightenment.

Therefore, I cannot help but feel disappointed that the second reply I get to this question already goes off on a tangent exploring a personal list of complaints and wishlist on how to reform the Church on issues that are only marginally related to my initial question. In any other situation, I would respond to your questions, but doing so would only worsen the derailment that has already happened. I understand you have some complaints about your perceptions on the process of canonisation, and you pose some valid questions that do merit answers, but I feel that you would be more likely to your answers if you asked them in a thread of their own, rather than hijacking mine. Would that be better? Sorry.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Thanks for your reply! You bring up very good points. My responses are as follows.

To get someone canonized, somebody has to spend a fair amount of time working on the cause. Orders usually have to assign somebody to it. In the far past, occasionally orders would hire somebody not from the order to push things along in Rome; but that meant spending money or making a very rich friend who’d do it for you, so poor orders and secluded orders usually couldn’t do much about it. (The Carmelites managed it, but they had a ton of members; and the members had relatives to do this stuff.)

I agree that the process of canonisation is certainly long and tedious, and even more so before it was reformed by Pope John Paul II in 1983. It would definitely have required a great deal of time and commitment from whoever is in charge.

However, while having connections in Rome might have helped things along, it is noteworthy that most saints have been canonised without such privileges. Given the thousands of causes for canonisation that have been processed, covering people of all social strata, I doubt all of them needed powerful friends or a famous reputation in order to be canonised. Most saints are not affiliated with any religious order, and many certainly did not have a particularly large following before their canonisation to begin with, yet they all when through same strict and rigorous process of investigation. That aside, there are a bevy of poor and secluded orders, but many of them still somehow had their founders canonised, as well as other followers in their family.

Additionally, the Trappist order is certainly not a small one. Covering hundreds of monasteries across the world and thousands of monks and nuns, they certainly would wield quite a bit of influence if it were ever necessary, even though I doubt they would use it or if it would make a difference. However, this is why I do not think the lack of connections or influence is the stumbling block in his cause of canonisation, if any.

Given that the Trappist Cistercians all stay in strict seclusion at the monastery, don’t go anywhere, don’t call people on the phone, and do a lot of physical labor the rest of the time, I don’t really see where they’d have time to get their founder canonized. Any member of the order working on the project would essentially have to leave the order’s charism just to get it done, which would imperil his vocation and his relationship with his brothers in the order.

Many religious orders count a large number of saints from among their ranks. If they really needed the dedicate that much time and effort to maintaining a cause for canonisation, it seems they could do it in harmony with their charism. While the Trappists are rigorously dedicated to work and prayer, it does not necessarily follow that administrative tasks like a cause of canonisation are beyond them. Some Trappist monastics are assigned to assist the Generalate in the administration of the order, while others periodically leave their monastery to engage in pastoral, administrative or scholarly work elsewhere. These monastics seem to be able to harmonise such work with their order’s charism, so assigned a monk to manage such a cause of canonisation could fit right in.

More importantly, the Trappists already have at least one saint (St Rafael Arnaiz Baron). If they have been able to further the cause of a contemporary Spanish oblate, then they could also do the same for the man who was their historical founder in common. You do bring up good points, but I do not believe that the impediment to Armand Jean’s canonisation can be attributed to a lack of resources and manpower.

Nowadays, I suppose they could start a website. But even that seems a bit iffy.

Many Trappist abbeys and monasteries have their own websites and even online stores, so creating a website for the cause of canonisation would not be impossible, especially if it will be run by the central Generalate. However, I should also point out that creating such a website for Armand Jean would be a strange thing to do for somebody who does not have a very big following outside of the order. It would not be very useful unless this is combined with a concerted effort to make him better known to the laity.

 

[Filii_Dei]

And of course, some founders are just guys doing relatively normal stuff that doesn’t call much attention.

I would disagree here. Founding or reforming an order is certainly not “relatively normal stuff”. Most founders spend a great deal of time living a life filled with a passion and joy thoroughly devoted to God even before they considered founding an order. In fact, it is through their outstanding and exemplary life of holiness that they are able to gather a so many followers who wish to learn from their example, and thereby gather the critical mass needed to found an order or reform an existing one. Furthermore, if they have been canonised saints, the investigative process must have concluded they had practiced all the cardinal and theological virtues to a heroic degree, which is by definition beyond the normal.

That aside, if we were to confine ourselves to our primary subject, who is Armand Jean of the Trappists, I doubt giving up a life of privilege and wealth to devote oneself to the rigorous reformation of the monastic life, causing a spiritual revolution that would reach out to inspire so many monastics and laypeople both within and without the order, can be said to not “call much attention”. The fact that his asceticism drew (incorrect) allegations that he was guilty of Jansenism clearly shows that his enemies did pay attention, at the very lease. If that’s not enough, then the legacy he leaves behind is proof enough that he was certainly a cut above the rest. Of course, whether this satisfied the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. In fact, this is precisely the question that I am asking.

There are several orders where it was only the second or third generation that got attention, and the founders have only been noticed (or even identified as founders) recently.

I find that unlikely that Armand Jean was easily forgotten by history. He lived in the 18th century, and historical documentation was relatively thorough and rigorous in that time, and it was a far cry from the first millenium, from which a few orders have originated without a traceable founder.

Furthermore, he was in fact recognised for his work quite early on. He had many influential and wealthy friends who observed his transition from a life of temporal riches to one of great spiritual wealth. King Louis XIV of France was so moved that he conceded to Armand Jean’s request to remove a well-used highway from just outside the abbey in order to preserve the peace and seclusion that the monastery needed. By the mid-19th century, his renown was such that François-René de Chateaubriand, the author of the famous Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity) and Mémoires d’Outre-Tombe (Memoirs from Beyond the Grave), wrote a biographical work in Armand Jean’s honour, entitled Vie de Rancé (Life of Rancé).

However, you may have a point here. Although he was famous in the 18th and 19th centuries, I note his prominence tended to drop off in the late-20th and 21st centuries. It is possible that this has led to the awareness of his contributions being limited to the Trappists and perhaps other Cistercians today, and thereby stymieing a potential cause of canonisation.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Thank you for your reply, Mintaka! You bring up very good points. My responses are as follows.

To get someone canonized, somebody has to spend a fair amount of time working on the cause. Orders usually have to assign somebody to it. In the far past, occasionally orders would hire somebody not from the order to push things along in Rome; but that meant spending money or making a very rich friend who’d do it for you, so poor orders and secluded orders usually couldn’t do much about it. (The Carmelites managed it, but they had a ton of members; and the members had relatives to do this stuff.)

I agree that the process of canonisation is certainly long and tedious, and even more so before it was reformed by Pope John Paul II in 1983. It would definitely have required a great deal of time and commitment from whoever is in charge.

However, while having connections in Rome might have helped things along, it is noteworthy that most saints have been canonised without such privileges. Given the thousands of causes for canonisation that have been processed, covering people of all social strata, I doubt all of them needed powerful friends or a famous reputation in order to be canonised. Most saints are not affiliated with any religious order, and many certainly did not have a particularly large following before their canonisation to begin with, yet they all when through same strict and rigorous process of investigation. That aside, there are a bevy of poor and secluded orders, but many of them still somehow had their founders canonised, as well as other followers in their family.

Additionally, the Trappist order is certainly not a small one. Covering hundreds of monasteries across the world and thousands of monks and nuns, they certainly would wield quite a bit of influence if it were ever necessary, even though I doubt they would use it or if it would make a difference. This is why I do not think the lack of connections or influence is the stumbling block in his cause of canonisation, if any.

Given that the Trappist Cistercians all stay in strict seclusion at the monastery, don’t go anywhere, don’t call people on the phone, and do a lot of physical labor the rest of the time, I don’t really see where they’d have time to get their founder canonized. Any member of the order working on the project would essentially have to leave the order’s charism just to get it done, which would imperil his vocation and his relationship with his brothers in the order.

Many religious orders count a large number of saints from among their ranks. If they really needed the dedicate that much time and effort to maintaining a cause for canonisation, it seems they could do it in harmony with their charism. While the Trappists are rigorously dedicated to work and prayer, it does not necessarily follow that administrative tasks like a cause of canonisation are beyond them. Some Trappist monastics are assigned to assist the Generalate in the administration of the order, while others periodically leave their monastery to engage in pastoral, administrative or scholarly work elsewhere. These monastics seem to be able to harmonise such work with their order’s charism, so assigned a monk to manage such a cause of canonisation could fit right in.

More importantly, the Trappists already have at least one saint (St Rafael Arnaiz Baron). If they have been able to further the cause of a contemporary Spanish oblate, then they could also do the same for the man who was their historical founder in common. You do bring up good points, but I do not believe that the impediment to Armand Jean’s canonisation can be attributed to a lack of resources and manpower.

Nowadays, I suppose they could start a website. But even that seems a bit iffy.

Many Trappist abbeys and monasteries have their own websites and even online stores, so creating a website for the cause of canonisation would not be impossible, especially if it will be run by the central Generalate. However, I should also point out that creating such a website for Armand Jean would be a strange thing to do for somebody who does not have a very big following outside of the order. It would not be very useful unless this is combined with a concerted effort to make him better known to the laity.

 

[Filii_Dei]

And of course, some founders are just guys doing relatively normal stuff that doesn’t call much attention.

I would disagree here. Founding or reforming an order is certainly not “relatively normal stuff”. Most founders spend a great deal of time living a life filled with a passion and joy thoroughly devoted to God even before they considered founding an order. In fact, it is through their outstanding and exemplary life of holiness that they are able to gather a so many followers who wish to learn from their example, and thereby gather the critical mass needed to found an order or reform an existing one. Furthermore, if they have been canonised saints, the investigative process must have concluded they had practiced all the cardinal and theological virtues to a heroic degree, which is by definition beyond the normal.

That aside, if we were to confine ourselves to our primary subject, who is Armand Jean of the Trappists, I doubt giving up a life of privilege and wealth to devote oneself to the rigorous reformation of the monastic life, causing a spiritual revolution that would reach out to inspire so many monastics and laypeople both within and without the order, can be said to not “call much attention”. The fact that his asceticism drew (incorrect) allegations that he was guilty of Jansenism clearly shows that his enemies did pay attention, at the very lease. If that’s not enough, then the legacy he leaves behind is proof enough that he was certainly a cut above the rest. Of course, whether this satisfied the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. In fact, this is precisely the question that I am asking.

There are several orders where it was only the second or third generation that got attention, and the founders have only been noticed (or even identified as founders) recently.

I find that unlikely that Armand Jean was easily forgotten by history. He lived in the 18th century, and historical documentation was relatively thorough and rigorous in that time, and it was a far cry from the first millenium, from which a few orders have originated without a traceable founder.

Furthermore, he was in fact recognised for his work quite early on. He had many influential and wealthy friends who observed his transition from a life of temporal riches to one of great spiritual wealth. King Louis XIV of France was so moved that he conceded to Armand Jean’s request to remove a well-used highway from just outside the abbey in order to preserve the peace and seclusion that the monastery needed. By the mid-19th century, his renown was such that François-René de Chateaubriand, the author of the famous Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity) and Mémoires d’Outre-Tombe (Memoirs from Beyond the Grave), wrote a biographical work in Armand Jean’s honour, entitled Vie de Rancé (Life of Rancé).

However, you may have a point here. Although he was famous in the 18th and 19th centuries, I note his prominence tended to drop off in the late-20th and 21st centuries. It is possible that this has led to the awareness of his contributions being limited to the Trappists and perhaps other Cistercians today, and thereby stymieing a potential cause of canonisation.