Why isn't Pope Leo XIII on the path to canonization yet?

[Tis_Bearself]

A perennial topic, apparently, that I was thinking about again today. Pope Leo XIII seems like a holy guy. If the Pope ahead of him, Pius IX, who frankly seems to have not been such a great example, is actually beatified, then what is holding back the cause for Pope Leo XIII?

A websearch brings up a number of thread on this from Reddit, the Straight Dope, and other sources as well as several old CAF threads. Some interesting perspectives on all the threads, please feel free to read a few.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pop...rome..69i57.4580j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Opinions, thoughts, any explanations on this? Also, why/ how Pope Pius IX got as far as beatification? I must be missing some good in that man.

 

[fin]

Ditto. Pope Leo did a lot of good things, such as several encyclicals on the Rosary, against freemasonry, composing the St. Michael prayer, etc. Seen his picture, and he looks kind and regal.

 

[LoyalViews]

Interesting question. Growing up, my grandparents had a painting of Pope Leo XIII, and they swore by him - he was a saint in their eyes. But Pius IX was the longest reigning pope, and also presided over Vatican I. He also promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and condemned the heresies of modernism and liberalism, secularization, and moral relativism - in fact, his condemnations are so significant that the very document that published such, his “Syllabus of Errors”, is a focus point in even secular moral philosophy or religious ethics courses. He also promulgated the dogma of Papal infallibility and was an avid supporter of Catholic education and universities in particular, to spread the truth of the Church to the unbeliever.

I guess since his influence was so widespread, his cause caught on quicker. But I imagine both are rejoicing in heaven together, or weeping together, over the state of the modern Church.

 

[Mr_Freeze]

I have a theory, but…never mind.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

[Pius IX’s] condemnations are so significant that the very document that published such, his “Syllabus of Errors”, is a focus point in even secular moral philosophy or religious ethics courses.

Can you perhaps expound a bit on what is so great about them?
I am just a simple bear and never saw the joy in “moral philosophy” type courses, Church-focused or not, so I am kind of stupid about the subject.

But I copy below a comment from a poster called “Saint Cad” on the Straight Dope board. As a 21st century American moderate, I had much the same reactions as the poster to the alleged “errors” he lists.

Regarding Error 55, I know Pope Leo who I am promoting here for sainthood said much the same in his Libertas encyclical, so maybe we let that one slide, though it seems like a hold-over from some long past European era.

Regarding 24, I guess I could be okay with the Church using force if it were attacked, like the Nazis storm Vatican City or something.

Regarding 47, on the one hand I am uncomfortable with it being deemed “error” because if some religious group was allowed to be involved with the US Schools, it more likely would have been, at least in the past, the Puritans or the Church of England, not the Catholic Church, and all the kids would have been taught that the Catholics and many other religions were evil. But on the other hand, if the schools in question end up so free of religious influence that you are teaching the kids to reject all religion except the State (such as “Pray to Father Stalin for candy” or “Kim Jong Il is God” routine) then that is also bad.

Error 12 is just ridiculously in denial.

And 15, 77 and 78 are real headshakers. I cannot fathom how one is supposed to peacefully co-exist with people of other faiths in society if we reject statements like these as “errors”. Wasn’t this also the era when the Church taught that non-Catholics went to Hell?

Post by “Saint Cad” copied in the next post due to character limit restrictions:

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Post by “Saint Cad” copied from Straight Dope message board

These are errors (Pius IX declared the statements as given to be incorrect)

Error 12: The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science.
Tell that to Galileo and Copernicus

Error 15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
Bye-Bye to freedom of religion

Error 24: The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.
Oh no! The Swiss Guard are invading

Error 42: In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.
So if the government outlaws child molestation but the Church allows it . . .

Error 47: The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.
At least there would be no contraversy over having students say “under God” in the Pledge

Error 48: Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.
This would cure the overpopulation of our public schools

Error 55: The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.
I knew there was something wrong with that pesky 1st amendment

Error 77: In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
Error 78: Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.
Now every non-Catholic gets to worship God illegally

 

[the_coppersmith]

Lack of miracles attributed to him are the main issue at hand.

Also careful with calling a Blessed “not such a great example”. The Church does not err when she solemnly declares that someone is in Heaven, and we owe them the cult of veneration.

In general, the Holy Spirit plays a huge role in who is beatified, and when. There are countless holy men and women who are Servants of God and Venerable, on the way to beatification and canonization, but unknown to us. We focus on the Pope because we (think) we know a lot about them and because of the spotlight. There are also countless holy men and women who are in heaven but the Church will never initiate a process of canonization because of their hidden lives.

 

[BayCityRickL]

So many faithful Catholics die and are never canonized. That’s what the feast of All Saints Day is for.

Aren’t there many people who we could just honor by preserving their memory, instead of the expensive and (I think) political process of canonization?

A related gripe I have is that the title “servant of God” is reserved for people who reach the first step of canonization (being referred to as Venerable), it is reserved for living bishops, and the Holy Father is the servant of the servants of God. I want “servant of God” on my tombstone.

James 1:1 “James, a servant of God…” we should all aspire to live our lives as servants of God.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Also careful with calling a Blessed “not such a great example”. The Church does not err when she solemnly declares that someone is in Heaven, and we owe them the cult of veneration.

Let’s set aside the fact that until he gets to canonization, the Church has not declared for sure he is in heaven, and let’s assume he is there, along with a million other people and probably Pope Leo XIII.

Plenty of people likely go to heaven whom I do not necessarily like or agree with. Perhaps they spend some time in Purgatory first, perhaps they don’t because God judges them worthy right away. That doesn’t mean I am going to relate to and venerate every saint that is in Heaven. I am not expected to do so nor required to do so. I am sure there are many people in Heaven who said and did a few things on earth that made me go wha??

I doubt that Pope Pius IX was so awful he went to Hell as he obviously did a decent job running the Church for a very long time, but his positions on other religions are very hard to swallow as they seem extremely opposed to how we deal with these issues today. That is why I am trying to find out some context here. Saints also make mistakes or have not so great personal qualities from time to time, as they are human, so Saints are not above criticism or just dislike/ preference, and many people express same.

Getting back to Pope Leo, you do not need a miracle in order to start the canonization process. You can go through the initial stages of being named Servant of God and Venerable without a miracle being attributed to you. It’s only for the stages after that, assuming you are not a martyr, that you need the miracles, and the Vatican has shown a willingness to waive the requirement in some cases, but it appears that a process has not even been started for Pope Leo. So I don’t buy the "no miracles " excuse.

 

[the_coppersmith]

the_coppersmith:

Also careful with calling a Blessed “not such a great example”. The Church does not err when she solemnly declares that someone is in Heaven, and we owe them the cult of veneration.

Let’s set aside the fact that until he gets to canonization, the Church has not declared for sure he is in heaven

Are we down-playing the Blessed, now?

Beatification is an official declaration by the Pope that a Servant of God practiced the Christian virtues to a heroic degree and if the Servant of God did not die a martyr’s death, there must also be one confirmed miracle attributed to his or her intercession. They may receive the veneration of the faithful within certain limits set by the Church. The Church cannot err when allowing the faithful to offer the cult of veneration to someone and it turns out they were damned to hell. That is not how it works. Though I do admit that the infallible proclamation is the canonization.

Also we seem to think that saints (ok, let’s say “people in heaven” so we do not get legalistic) are perfect people. As far as I know, the only perfect people were Our Lord and Our Lady. Everyone else was a sinner who knew how to get up and move forward. That is why the Lord told the righteous, law-abiding pharisees that “prostitutes and tax-collectors were entering heaven ahead of them”. Take St. Margaret of Cortona, or St. Augustine. It is especially the parts of their lives that makes us go "Huh? " which underscore their holiness, as they cooperated with grace in recovering from their sins. “Where sin abound, grace abounds all the more” is the motto of the “people in heaven”. And some of them were, at least objectively, very great sinners indeed.

Of course, we have some “people in heaven” we relate to more than others, but there’s something inherently wrong in not liking someone who was found worthy to behold the Beatific Vision.

Getting back to Pope Leo, you do not need a miracle in order to start the canonization process. You can go through the initial stages of being named Servant of God and Venerable without a miracle being attributed to you. It’s only for the stages after that, assuming you are not a martyr, that you need the miracles, and the Vatican has shown a willingness to waive the requirement in some cases, but it appears that a process has not even been started for Pope Leo. So I don’t buy the "no miracles " excuse.

I was not selling it anyways, it’s mine Jokes aside, as far as I know there’s been no push whatsoever from any side to postulate his cause, and no miracles ever reported from the lay faithful.

Can I ask you why would you consider initiating a process for him? Because you think he was a nice guy? Or because you don’t like some of the current blessed and saints and therefore have an axe to grind?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Can I ask you why would you consider initiating a process for him? Because you think he was a nice guy? Or because you don’t like some of the current blessed and saints and therefore have an axe to grind?

Actually if you look at my posts on this forum, I think my criticism of Pope Pius IX and maybe some past kvetching about St. Augustine on the old forum are about the only times I’ve “complained” about a Saint. I like the vast majority of them. I have a few beefs with Padre Pio, but I decided to work on getting to know him better and now I have a great devotion to him despite our disagreements. Who knows, perhaps I will get to like Pius IX after a while too, or he may be one of those guys like St. Paul who I just don’t quite warm up to.

I do not have a “problem” with any Pope back to Pope John XXIII, if that’s what you’re getting at, and have stated on other threads that I like all the Popes from him on. I can also see why Pope Pius X was so popular and revered. I feel sympathy for both Benedict XV and Pius XII because of the challenges of wartime and because of St. Jacinta Marto’s vision of Benedict XV crying. I am not sure how I feel yet about Pius XI, he seems to have had a temper and had a tiff with Roncalli (but it’s cool that he was a mountain climber).

My interest in Pope Leo XIII is simply that he seems to have been a holy guy who was Pope a long time, did things like meet with St Therese and had the vision of God speaking with the devil and in response wrote the St Michael prayer. Yet relatively little attention is paid to him today, it seems.

I don’t understand why you seem to want to put me in a box or show me as having an agenda, and this is very discouraging when all I am trying to do is learn about the Popes and saints. It seems like one cannot have a discussion these days without being called a heretic or someone trying to paint you as having a motive or being a righty or a lefty. The simple truth is I do not fit in smoothly with any political group or any group within the Church, as I agree with each group on some things but disagree on others.

I welcome comments from anyone else who would like to actually discuss the subject matter at hand, which is Pope Leo XIII and to a lesser extent Pope Pius IX, without weird intimations of ulterior motives.

 

[the_coppersmith]

had the vision of God speaking with the devil and in response wrote the St Michael prayer.

That’s a popular legend, actually. He did write three prayers to St. Michael, two of which are reserved to exorcists, but not because he overheard a conversation about the hundred years or, as another one goes, because he saw a cloud of demons over Rome.

I don’t understand why you seem to want to put me in a box or show me as having an agenda, and this is very discouraging when all I am trying to do is learn about the Popes and saints. It seems like one cannot have a discussion these days without being called a heretic or someone trying to paint you as having a motive or being a righty or a lefty.

I apologize if that’s the way I came across. It’s just that the Leo XIII canonization is a hot topic in some circles that do have an agenda. To come out clear: especially among those who can’t stand the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II.

If I find out more, I’ll come back and share. But as far as I’ve heard, it’s lack of reported miracles and no real interest in canonizing him. I also esteem him a very holy man. As an aside: he was the first Pope to be filmed!

 

[R_H_Benson]

That’s a popular legend, actually. He did write three prayers to St. Michael, two of which are reserved to exorcists, but not because he overheard a conversation about the hundred years or, as another one goes, because he saw a cloud of demons over Rome.

Pope Leo XIII did have a vision. On what authority are you dismissing it as a “popular legend”? It’s widely accepted as historical truth. Father Domenico Pechenino, who witnessed the Pope fall into his vision at the foot of the altar, gave a first hand account of Pope Leo quickly writing down what he heard and saw in his vision and submitting it to the Congregation of Rites for promulgation.

Further, here is an interesting exchange:
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=391074

It’s just that the Leo XIII canonization is a hot topic in some circles that do have an agenda.

As if there is no “agenda” present in the beatifications and canonizations of the post-Vatican II popes? Between Pope St. Pius V (canonized 1712) and Pope St. Pius X (canonized 1954) there is a span of well over 300 years without a canonized pope. Yet, every deceased pope of the Second Vatican Council has been either beatified or canonized, excepting only John Paul I. I’m not arguing against their canonizations. I’m just saying that there is a clear agenda to “canonize” the Council. Meanwhile, the causes of holy men like Leo XIII are put on hold. While it is possible to promote an agenda by canonizing a certain saint, it is also possible to promote an agenda by NOT canonizing others.

 

[the_coppersmith]

Pope Leo XIII did have a vision. It’s widely accepted as historical truth. Father Domenico Pechenino, who witnessed the Pope fall into his vision at the foot of the altar, gave a first hand account…

To whom did Fr. Pechenino give the account? I’ve only heard about this on some blogs and websites. Without a source, it’s at most a pious belief with no Church backing, certainly short of any historicity. Is there a source other than some blog, or is this more hearsay?

As if there is no “agenda” present in the beatifications and canonizations of the post-Vatican II popes? …every deceased pope of the Second Vatican Council has been either beatified or canonized, excepting only John Paul I…there is a clear agenda to “canonize” the Council. Meanwhile, the causes of holy men like Leo XIII are put on hold.

This is exactly the rad-trad argument I was mentioning to another user above But there is no “agenda”, only the work of the Holy Spirit and the gnashing of teeth of people who are hanging to the Church by a thread, building around themselves a wall of schismatic thoughts and statements.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yet, every deceased pope of the Second Vatican Council has been either beatified or canonized, excepting only John Paul I. I’m not arguing against their canonizations. I’m just saying that there is a clear agenda to “canonize” the Council. Meanwhile, the causes of holy men like Leo XIII are put on hold.

Yeah, I was kind of thinking about this, even though I do not disagree with any of the canonizations of the post-Vatican II Popes. It just seemed odd to me that you have this man who was Pope for a long time who from the accounts I have read seems to have been a holy man and revered, yet he has been seemingly forgotten. I also noticed when I first googled on this that a lot of other people seem to have the same questions as myself about him. I wonder also why he was so uninteresting to people given the number of years he was in there (you’d think he would have done something appealing in all that time) and the fact that he is bookended by a beatified Pope and a canonized Pope.

When I read that Pope Francis is considering canonizing Pope Pius XII, well if that’s true, that’s going to stir a real hornet’s nest as it would bring all the people out of the woodwork who think he didn’t stand up against Hitler enough. I’m not one of the people who fault him for that, but I’ve heard it enough times from so many others.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

I’m of an age to remember Pius XII, from direct memory beyond my parents remarks. I can see his cannonization.

Leo XIII I was too young to remember.

Closer to home, I would also love to see Fulton Sheen cannonized. Watching his programs, I always considered him a walking saint.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think the vast majority of American Catholics who have a clue about Fulton Sheen, which includes people much younger than I am - and I am young enough that I never saw his TV show till the Internet was invented and only knew about him because my mother owned some of his books and told me he was wonderful, so these people are young enough to be my own kids - want to see him canonized.

I am baffled as to why there seemed to be some fight between New York and Peoria or wherever it was over his body. Seemed every bit as petty as the awful things Cardinal Spellman did to him when they were both alive. I am however sure that Sheen would forgive Spellman. I have more difficulty with this, which is why I am nowhere near being up for sainthood.