Rules about sainthood

[27lw]

Considering the following:
"2. To begin a cause it is necessary for at least 5 years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate. "

I guess I don’t understand why some causes for sainthood skip the 5-year rule? Isn’t it exactly because of the emotionalism, that people want the 5-year rule skipped?

Any help understanding this, other than “rules were made to be broken”?

Not that I have anything against the ones who are to be sainted, of course.

 

[Marie5890]

Considering the following:
"2. To begin a cause it is necessary for at least 5 years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate. "

I guess I don’t understand why some causes for sainthood skip the 5-year rule? Isn’t it exactly because of the emotionalism, that people want the 5-year rule skipped?

Any help understanding this, other than “rules were made to be broken”?

Not that I have anything against the ones who are to be sainted, of course.

The Pope, being above canon law, can waive the 5 year waiting period, or miracles, etc. His perogative

Examples. JPII waived 5 year wait for Mother Theresa
BXVI waived 5 year wait for JPII
Francis waived second miracle requirement for JohnXXIII and another one (I believe a nun of a Franciscan order?)

 

[27lw]

I guess my question is, why bother to have that rule, if it can be completely ignored?

 

[Marie5890]

I guess my question is, why bother to have that rule, if it can be completely ignored?

For one thing, it does give time to make sure there are not any so-called skeletons in the closet that can come out after death.

JPII knew Mother Teresa personally and BXVI knew JPII personally. So they must have felt pretty comfortable that they were holy people.

The scrutiny that a person’s legacy under goes is INTENSE when a cause is opened.

 

[edwest2]

Popes have not done this every single time. It is the Pope, who after hearing the evidence presented by the Congregation for Saints Causes, who makes the final determination. During the process, everything is scrutinized, including arguments as to why the person in question should not become a saint. It’s very rigorous. The Pope can accelerate the process for cause.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Marie5890]

Popes have not done this every single time. It is the Pope, who after hearing the evidence presented by the Congregation for Saints Causes, who makes the final determination. During the process, everything is scrutinized, including arguments as to why the person in question should not become a saint. It’s very rigorous. The Pope can accelerate the process for cause.

Peace,
Ed

Is my understanding correct the JPII did away with this part of the process? Or am I thinking about something else?

 

[Alindawyl]

Is my understanding correct the JPII did away with this part of the process? Or am I thinking about something else?

He did away with this part of the process in the sense that the Promoter of the Faith no longer builds a formal counter-cause to contrast with the cause. The process now simply seeks to make sure that any controversial questions about a cause, or any questions about alleged miracles, are examined thoroughly.

Negative arguments are still solicited at the appropriate time. Christopher Hitchens was asked in 2002 to speak against the cause for beatification of Mother Teresa when her cause was being examined by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. He had been a public critic of Mother Teresa for a long time, and they wanted to be thorough in their examination of her cause. So instead of summarily rejecting his testimony or not even asking for it in the first place (knowing in advance that it would be negative), it was still given consideration in order to conduct a thorough investigation.

 

[edwest2]

He did away with this part of the process in the sense that the Promoter of the Faith no longer builds a formal counter-cause to contrast with the cause. The process now simply seeks to make sure that any controversial questions about a cause, or any questions about alleged miracles, are examined thoroughly.

Negative arguments are still solicited at the appropriate time. Christopher Hitchens was asked in 2002 to speak against the cause for beatification of Mother Teresa when her cause was being examined by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. He had been a public critic of Mother Teresa for a long time, and they wanted to be thorough in their examination of her cause. So instead of summarily rejecting his testimony or not even asking for it in the first place (knowing in advance that it would be negative), it was still given consideration in order to conduct a thorough investigation.

Very interesting. Can you cite a reference?

Best,
Ed

 

[Alindawyl]

The canonization process was a part of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. After the code was last revised in 1983, only canon 1403 now mentions the process. Basically it just says that special pontifical law governs the causes of canonization.

That special pontifical law is currently spelled out in two places: the apostolic constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister, and the laws written by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The apostolic constitution was promulgated 25 January, 1983 (the same day as the current Code of Canon Law), and the laws from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints were promulgated two weeks later. One of those laws is that the postulator, when gathering his list of persons to testify on behalf of the person whose cause is being examined, must also include those with contrary opinions.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

In the case of John Paul II, at his funeral huge numbers of people were chanting “santo subito”, meaning “[make him a] saint now!” Since canonization was originally a popular thing in the first place, it was right to take this demand seriously. Of course, it was impossible to fulfill immediately since there was no Pope at the time, but when Benedict XVI, who had presided at the funeral, was elected he chose to wave the five-year rule at least in part in deference to this demand of the people.

Certainly it was a debatable move. The waiting period is there to prevent precisely this kind of popular enthusiasm from rushing a canonization process. But I think Pope Benedict knew this very well and thought that in the case of John Paul II, who he had personally known so well, the evidence for holiness was so strong that the Church could afford to act a little archaic and let popular sentiment drive things forward a bit.

 

[PJM]

=27lw;11857117]Considering the following:
"2. To begin a cause it is necessary for at least 5 years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate. "

I guess I don’t understand why some causes for sainthood skip the 5-year rule? Isn’t it exactly because of the emotionalism, that people want the 5-year rule skipped?

Any help understanding this, other than “rules were made to be broken”?

Not that I have anything against the ones who are to be sainted, of course.

RULES ARE CHIURCH ORGINATED GUIDELINES, NOT WRITTEN IN CEMENT. THEY ARE CHANGABLE.

IN THE CASE OF BLESSED JOHN PAUL ll. Pope Benedict was BLESSED to have been able to give his Personal witness and Testimony; which STILL HAD TO BE approved by God through TWO Miracles.

So rules may not be made to be broken; BUT they cetainly CAN be bent when circumstances warrant it

God Bless you,
patrick

 

[Alindawyl]

But I think Pope Benedict knew this very well and thought that in the case of John Paul II, who he had personally known so well, the evidence for holiness was so strong that the Church could afford to act a little archaic and let popular sentiment drive things forward a bit.

This was the same reasoning given by Pope Gregory IX when he greatly accelerated the process to canonize Saint Anthony of Padua less than a year after his death, and Francis of Assisi less than two years after his death. I don’t need to go through the normal process of having the normal investigation generate the normal report because, having known him so well for so long, I already know through direct personal experience far more than what the report would have to say.

 

[Ace86]

There is no way a pope who allowed the Assisi sacrilageous gatherings and kissed the Koran was holy. Mother Teresa was also indifferent. Indifferentism is against the teachings of the Church. We must never be indifferent to those of different Faiths. We must pray and work for their conversion.

These actions of John Paul II are against the First Commandment, which states that there is only One God. As St. Paul says, the gods of the Gentiles are devils. That is not a metaphor. It’s the TRUTH.

 

[Alindawyl]

There is no way a pope who allowed the Assisi sacrilageous gatherings and kissed the Koran was holy. Mother Teresa was also indifferent. Indifferentism is against the teachings of the Church. We must never be indifferent to those of different Faiths. We must pray and work for their conversion.

These actions of John Paul II are against the First Commandment, which states that there is only One God. As St. Paul says, the gods of the Gentiles are devils. That is not a metaphor. It’s the TRUTH.

If the upcoming canonizations are false, then the Catholic Church will be officially teaching falsehood on a matter of faith. Canonizations are an exercise of infallibility, after all. That means you are claiming the Catholic Church must not be the Church established by Jesus Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit, and Pope Francis must not actually be the pope.

If what you say is the truth, then I assume you can identify who you believe is the real pope and what group you believe is the real Church?

 

[HelenRose]

He did away with this part of the process in the sense that the Promoter of the Faith no longer builds a formal counter-cause to contrast with the cause. The process now simply seeks to make sure that any controversial questions about a cause, or any questions about alleged miracles, are examined thoroughly.

Negative arguments are still solicited at the appropriate time. Christopher Hitchens was asked in 2002 to speak against the cause for beatification of Mother Teresa when her cause was being examined by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. He had been a public critic of Mother Teresa for a long time, and they wanted to be thorough in their examination of her cause. So instead of summarily rejecting his testimony or not even asking for it in the first place (knowing in advance that it would be negative), it was still given consideration in order to conduct a thorough investigation.

I also find this interesting. Where can I find the source for this?

 

[Alindawyl]

I just remember it being in the news back when her cause was being considered by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints a few years after her death. Hitchens mentioned it in some interviews or television appearances both before and after giving his testimony.

 

[Weejee]

The reason they made canonization so tough at one time, was that the people used to scream Santo Subito and Voila! They got their saint.

Trouble is, some really spurious “saints” got in. I remember reading one guy so sainted turned out to be a raving drunk. And died unrepentant. Wish I had the source.

I think when you make it too easy, you are taking such chances. It really cheapens saint hood. The miracle requirement is to show that God Himself gives approval to this person by bestowing her with miracles.

And time? Five years is nothing. Poor St. Kateri Tekakwitha had to wait several hundred. I think we need a waiting period of more than five years. Sometimes questionable things people do takes a little longer to come out.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The reason they made canonization so tough at one time, was that the people used to scream Santo Subito and Voila! They got their saint.

Trouble is, some really spurious “saints” got in. I remember reading one guy so sainted turned out to be a raving drunk. And died unrepentant. Wish I had the source.

I think when you make it too easy, you are taking such chances. It really cheapens saint hood. The miracle requirement is to show that God Himself gives approval to this person by bestowing her with miracles.

And time? Five years is nothing. Poor St. Kateri Tekakwitha had to wait several hundred. I think we need a waiting period of more than five years. Sometimes questionable things people do takes a little longer to come out.

The problem is, the longer you make the waiting period the fewer people who knew the candidate personally will be available for interview, and the rustier remaining people’s memories will be.

Maybe a good proposal would be to start the investigation almost immediately (after a reasonable grieving period, of course) but regardless of the investigation’s initial findings do not declare a person Venerable until a longer period of time has passed, maybe ten years.

 

[PJM]

=27lw;11857117]Considering the following:
"2. To begin a cause it is necessary for at least 5 years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate. "

I guess I don’t understand why some causes for sainthood skip the 5-year rule? Isn’t it exactly because of the emotionalism, that people want the 5-year rule skipped?

Any help understanding this, other than “rules were made to be broken”?

Not that I have anything against the ones who are to be sainted, of course.

Popes ALONE can make that call GUIDED by the HS

Here’s a GREAT site:
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0136.html

 

[amsjj]

Does anyone know how many times has a pope decided to advance a cause, say in the past hundred years?

Other than St. John Paul II by Pope Benedict ; Bl. Mother Teresa by St. John Paul II ; and St John XXIII by Pope Francis.

Now I’m curious, for who else has it been done?

thank you!
amsjj
+++
Jesus, God and man,
imprisoned by love in Thy most holy Sacrament,
have mercy upon us.

• Blessed John Henry Newman, December 22, 1851

Tú y yo sabemos por la fe que oculto en las especies sacramentales está Cristo,
ese Cristo con su Cuerpo, con su Sangre, con su Alma, y con su Divinidad,
prisonero de amor.

• San Josemaría Escrivá, 1 junio 1974

God loves to be resisted in His displeasure, and to be restrained by the humble from inflicting punishment… One saint will often save a nation; so true is it that humble souls are the hinges on which God moves the world.

• Abp. W. B. Ullathorne, The Groundwork of the Christian Virtues, 1882.