Canonization is becoming a posthumous gold watch retirement perk for modern popes. When Pope Pius X was canonized in 1954 he was the first pope so canonized since Pope Pius V in 1712. That strikes me as just about right. Most popes have been decent men, present company excepted, but few have demonstrated any of the charisms often associated with sainthood recognized by the Church. This modern trend is clericalism at its worst, cheapens the canonization process and makes the Church look ridiculous. In short, it is how the Church typically does business in this year of grace.
Indeed. John Paul II is the only one whose sainthood is evident, but even in his case it was way too fast. How can we canonize every single Pope if the last 60 years, yet omit Pius XII who stood up so bravely to Hitler and Stalin? Or Benedict XV who stood almost alone on trying to stop the pointless carnage of WW1?
Can we start a “Nobel Prize” sort of thing for popes? My vote goes to Pius X and his Syllabus of errors attacking the modernists. The Nazis we put down, the modernists are still with us and still the perpetual enemy of Christ and his Church. Then there’s Leo XIII taking on the Americanists.
I disagree, albeit my reasoning is chock full o’ cynicism.
At least Luciani has no horrific governance failures or personnel/policy disasters to his discredit.
From my perspective, the best argument can be made for his canonization as opposed to anyone else in the Vatican II era.
Sorry for the self-plug:
http://dprice.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-least-objectionable.html
And sorry number 2–while I love JPII, his governance failures were colossal and are going to haunt the church for generations.
If there’s been a miracle attributed to his intercession, he already got the gold watch from God. But I understand your sentiments. I often mention the church near me that has a stained glass window of Blessed Joan of Arc. Canonizations should take time. I remember reading about St. Aloysius Gonzaga, whose process began something like 200 years after his death. The pope said, why bother? He’s already got half the schools in Europe named after him.
I do like the idea of having saints from across time, place, and position to serve as models for all Catholics. So I’m ok with the occasional rush job on a canonization. But I don’t see the need in this case. And that’s a great point you made about clericalism.
Pope for 33 days… patron saint of temporary workers.
Agree with all the comments above. And Dale: “while I love JPII, his governance failures were colossal and are going to haunt the church for generations.” I couldn’t possibly have said it any better. In fact, one of his biggest governance failures, IMO, directly affects the issue at hand, in that he vastly accelerated the canonization process, most unfortunately including the complete removal of the “devil’s advocate” therefrom. Maybe it’s my lawyer brain taking over here, but I fail to see how a process such as this can be trusted without including, at least, a formalized attempt to poke holes in a Cause before it can be approved. Just look at the sheer number of canonizations that have been shoved through since JP2 made that change. The approval of alleged miracles also has been watered down. It is actually embarrassing to me as a Catholic to watch the series of purely political/ideological canonizations that have been foisted on the Church by the current Vatican regime, using JP2’s truncated rules. And the designation of St. Irenaeus as a Doctor of the Church “for Unity” seems rather strained, as well. Father Z has some ideas on that.
https://wdtprs.com/2021/10/ask-father-st-irenaeus-doctor-of-the-church/
I can’t get too angry about any Church Father being designated a Doctor. But I think the honors have different meanings. I just don’t know enough about Irenaeus’s writings to know if he merits this. It’d be really interesting to take a peek at the list in 200 years, and see whether it had become a rubber stamp. Also to see who of our recent centuries makes it.
Agreed, Pinky. It just seems forced, in Irenaeus’ case, although his writings (none of which I have read) are reportedly excellent. By itself it would be “meh” territory, but combined with the warp-speed canonization process it seems to be of a piece.
I should complain less and go read more. Today is St. Teresa of Avila’s feast day, maybe a chapter or two of the Interior Castle would do me good. 🙂
You’re braver than I am. She and St. John of the Cross, their reputations just intimidate me. But maybe that’s a reason to read them – nothing makes you humble like locking eyes with a Carmelite.
That’s for sure. BTW, I have had no luck with St John of the Cross, either. St. Teresa’s work is difficult enough for me.
If we’re going to talk about fast-tracking canonizations, when I hear about a pro-life Catholic British MP and lifelong public servant with one wife and five kids stabbed to death by a Muslim, I don’t know anything else about the man, but that sounds a lot like an example the Church should put on display.
Amen to that.
Dale and Frank, canonizations are based on personal holiness, not on how well someone did his job. Pope St Celestine V was a massive failure at governing the Church, he was just totally incompetent for the job. That didn’t stop his canonization.
Peter K, I beg you to re-read my previous comments in this thread. I neither stated nor implied that JPII himself should not be a saint. I was critical of his removal from the formal canonization process of the Devil’s Advocate, which along with his other changes opened the floodgates and, in my judgment, which is worth how much you paid for it, endangered the legitimacy of the process. He also, as has been noted here several times by Don and others, made some truly atrocious episcopal appointments. But for many reasons, the highlights of which are set forth wonderfully by our host in one of today’s posts, I fully agree that JPII can and should be regarded as a man of heroic virtue, which you accurately point out is one of the criteria the Church uses for declaring people to be Saints.