Are Canonizations Infallible? — An important new book from Arouca Press

I am pleased to announce the publication of a new book: Are Canonizations Infallible? Revisiting a Disputed Question, from Arouca Press. 

It is a 276-page collection of fifteen essays written by twelve authors: Phillip Campbell, Fr Thomas Crean, Roberto de Mattei, William Matthew Diem, Christopher Ferrara, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, Fr John Hunwicke, Peter Kwasniewski, John Lamont, Joseph Shaw, Fr. Jean-François Thomas, and José Antonio Ureta. I served as the volume’s editor. The book includes not only sources in English but also translations from French, Italian, and Portuguese. Several of the chapters are published in it for the first time.

All the arguments you’ve ever seen in favor of the infallibility of canonizations or against it—and some you probably haven’t seen—are found in the pages of this book. Authors line up behind both sides. It is a fair and full presentation, which does not shy away from toppling “certainties” that are sometimes mindlessly repeated. The book also serves as an introduction to the history of canonization (including changes made to the process over time) and to the nature and objects of papal infallibility, with Msgr. Gherardini’s mini-treatise especially impressive in that regard. The authors go into what the papal act of canonization means or entails, the conditions it may have for moral certainty on the part of the faithful, and what it concretely demands of members of the Church.

Follow-up Article - Paul VI: The Infallibility of Canonizations and the Morals of the Faithful

Last August, Rorate posted an original article by Dr. John Lamont on the infallibility of canonizations.

The article generated considerable debate, which prompted Dr. Lamont to write the following piece on canonizations and the morals of the faithful. Scrupulosity has never been a Catholic virtue.

---

The infallibility of canonisations and the morals of the faithful

John Lamont

A number of discussions of the infallibility of canonisations have appeared recently in connection with the canonisation of Paul VI. Some of these, including a discussion of my own,^[1] have argued that the act of canonisation is not necessarily an infallible pronouncement, and therefore that the canonisation of Paul VI does not require Catholics to believe that he is a saint in heaven if they have serious reasons for holding that he was not a saint. This conclusion has been rejected by many Catholics who consider themselves to be conservatives or even traditionalists. The basis for this rejection has not been a conclusive proof of the heroic virtue of Paul VI, but rather the assertion that canonisations are always infallible. This rejection is not theologically well-informed, but it is presented with an air of authority that can take in Catholics who are not familiar with the theological issues involved. It is thus worthwhile to provide in more detail the theological reasons that establish that not all canonisations are infallible, and that Catholics are not required to accept that canonisation is necessarily an infallible act of the magisterium.

We should begin by explaining the scope of the infallible teaching authority of the Church. This authority extends to all divinely revealed truths that form part of the deposit of faith, and also to all those truths whose acceptance is necessary in order that the deposit of faith can be effectively defended or proposed with sufficient authority. The latter category of truths are termed the secondary object of the infallibility of the Church.

Next, we should define the question being addressed. It is beyond question that the  sanctity of some individuals is infallibly taught. It is divinely revealed, for example, that the good thief is a saint in heaven. Other canonisations can undoubtedly be judged to belong to the secondary object of infallibility. The teaching that St. Paul lived a life of heroic virtue after his conversion and is now a saint in heaven is necessary for the credibility of the inspired teaching that the Church has received from him, and hence forms part of the secondary object of infallibility.

De Mattei: True and False Saints in the Church

Roberto de Mattei

Corrispondenza Romana

October 17, 2018

Among the anniversaries of 2018 there is one that has gone unnoticed: the sixty years since the death of Venerable Pius XII, after a 19-year reign, at Castelgandolfo on October 9^th 1958. Yet today his memory still lives on, especially, as Cristina Siccardi notes, as an icon of holiness, worthy of the Vicar of Christ, and for the vastness of his Magisterium, in the context of tragic events, like the Second World War, which erupted six months after his election to the Papacy on March 20^th 1939. The death of Pius XII closed an era, which today is referred contemptuously as “pre-conciliar” or “Constantinian”.  With the election of John XXIII (October 28^th 1958) and the calling of the Second Vatican Council, a new era in the history of the Church opened: that which had its moment of triumph, on October 14^th, with the canonization of Paul VI, after that of Pope Roncalli.  

REMINDER: The Case for Pacelli

Rorate Note: Re-posting this from April 2014. Vatican II, Liberation Theology and the near destruction of the liturgy and the Church were canonized today. While we are now asked to pray to Pope St. Paul VI, we are also asked to ignore the last traditional pontificate of Pius XII, whose case for canonization has been thwarted. Yet, while Paul VI laicized so many priests and religious, and oversaw the destruction of the Roman Rite, Pope Pacelli reigned over a glorious flourishing of the Church in almost all measurable aspects. See below for some staggering statistics:  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Original post:

The canonizations of Pope John XXIII and John Paul II will take place this Sunday, with many flocking to Rome to be a part of the historic event.

Without questioning the two already-mentioned canonizations, the question still remains: Why not Pacelli? 

Let it not be forgotten that his cause for beatification was expressly launched by Paul VI together with that of John XXIII precisely to combat their "almost being turned into symbols or banners of opposite tendencies within Catholicism". (Source) In beatifying and canonizing one but not the other -- does this not imply something about the relative strength of these "opposite tendencies" within the Church? 

Clearly, a very strong case can be made for Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (Pope Pius XII), from a standpoint of sheer numbers alone.

For those who say we are now living in the greatest age of the Church, let us consider the numbers below, just for the dioceses of the United States during the reign of Pius XII. They are remarkable, to say the least -- if the canonization of a Pope also takes into consideration the appraisal of his pontificate (other than his personal holiness and his prophetical wisdom, both of which are irreproachable regarding Pope Pacelli), then these surely deserve observation:

"The authority of canonisations": Do all canonisations need to be accepted as infallible? -- a special guest article

The authority of canonisations

by Dr. John R. T. Lamont

The canonisations of John XXIII and John Paul II, and the announcement of the pending canonisation of Paul VI, have raised some controversy among traditionalists. On the one hand, objections have been raised to the conduct of the process of these canonisations and to the claim that these pontiffs exhibited heroic virtue. On the other hand, there has been a tendency to hold that traditionalists should accept that all canonisations are infallible, because this is thought to be the traditional theological view. This latter tendency seems to have got the upper hand, with the result that Catholics have largely come to the conclusion that once someone is canonised, it is the duty of Catholics to accept their sanctity and to cease questioning their canonisation. This essay is intended to reject this conclusion, and to present an alternative view on the subject of the duty of Catholics with regard to canonisations.

A glorious wave of canonizations: Jacinta & Francisco Marto; Mexican and Brazilian Protomartyrs

Today, Pope Francis presided a Public Ordinary Consistory for the canonization of several blesseds.

Considering the year of the Fatima Centenary, the canonization of Jacinta and Francisco Marto (the Fatima seers, along with Sister Lucia, their cousin) is obviously the greatest news. The canonization will take place in Fatima on May 13.

But the consistory also approved the canonizations, and set the dates for the respective ceremonies, of two very special sets of saints: the Protomartyrs (First Martyrs) of the two nations with the largest nominally Catholic populations, Mexico and Brazil.

Rite of Canonization 2015: partial restoration of Litany of Saints

The Rite of Canonization introduced last year will be used again on Sunday, the 17th of May for the canonization of the Beatae Émilie de Villeneuve (1811-1854), Maria Cristina (Brando) of the Immaculate Conception (1856-1906), Mariam Baouardy of Jesus Crucified (1846-1878) and Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas (1843-1927).

For the record: A new Doctor of the Church

As reported today on the Vatican Bollettino, Pope Francis has decided to elevate Gregory of Narek (c. 950 - c. 1005) perhaps the greatest of Armenian sacred writers, sometimes called "the Armenian Pindar", as Doctor of the Church. A translation of his Book of Lamentations can be found here.

Although not mentioned in the Bollettino, this act also apparently serves as an equipollent canonization of Gregory, who was already venerated as a Saint in both the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholic Church.

It is interesting to note that Gregory lived at a time when the Armenian Church, to which he belonged, was not formally in communion with Rome and Constantinople. However, as those interested in the extremely tangled history of Christianity in the first millennium are well aware, one cannot always speak straightforwardly of "schism" and "heresy" when dealing with the theological and ecclesiastical divisions of Christendom in that era.

(Photo source.)

So... Canonizations... Infallible or not?

Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca, a remarkable prelate and Canon Lawyer and current Adjunct Secretary of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, granted days ago the following interview to La Stampa (posted here for the record of current events):

Bp. Sciacca and Pope Benedict XVI

Is the Pope infallible when he proclaims a new saint?

“According to the prevailing doctrine of the Church, when the Pope canonizes a saint his judgment is infallible. As is known, canonization is the decree with which the Pope solemnly proclaims that the heavenly glory shines upon the Blessed and extends the cult of the new saint to the universal Church in a binding and definitive manner. There is no question then that canonization is an act carried out by the Petrine primate. At the same time, however, it should not be considered infallible according to the infallibility criteria set out in the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution “Pastor aeternus”.”

So, according to you, this means the Pope can make a mistake when he proclaims someone a saint?

“That’s not what I said. I am not denying that the decree issued for a canonization cause is definitive, so it would be rash and indeed unholy to state that the Pope can make a mistake. What I am saying, is that the proclamation of a person’s sainthood is not a truth of faith because it is not a dogmatic definition and is not directly or explicitly linked to a truth of faith or a moral truth contained in the revelation, but is only indirectly linked to this. It is no coincidence that neither the Code of Canon Law of 1917 nor the one currently in force, nor the Catechism of the Catholic Church present the Church’s doctrine regarding canonizations.”

Monsignor, it has to be said though that the majority of those who support the infallibility idea have an important ally on their side: St. Thomas…

“Of course, I am well aware of that. Thomas Aquinas is the most prestigious author supporting this theory. But it should be said that the use of the concept of infallibility and of language relating to it, in a context that is so far from that of the 19th century when the First Vatican Council was held, risks being anachronistic. St. Thomas placed canonization half way between things that pertain to the faith and judgments on certain factors that can be contaminated by false testimonies, concluding that the Church could not make mistakes: in fact, he claimed that: “thinking that judgment is infallible, is holy.” As I said before and I repeat again, the “Pastor aeternus” rigorously defines and restricts the concept of papal infallibility which could previously also encompass and contain or be likened to the concepts of “inerrancy” and “indefectibility” in relation to the Church. Canonization is like a doctrine which cannot be contested but which cannot be defined as a doctrine of faith as all faithful must necessarily believe in it.”

A reminder about today's canonization ceremony

The canonization ceremony of October 21, 2012 saw the introduction of a revised rite that was very similar to the one used prior to Pius XII. Rorate noted this reform on that very same day. This rite will be used today, although the Te Deum will be replaced with a shorter hymn (Iubilate Deo, Cantate Domino).

This reform attracted little attention; the ephemeral restoration of the fanon got far more media space. This does not change the fact that the new rite of canonization may well go down as one of Pope Benedict XVI's more far-reaching reforms, not least because it includes the following petition (the third one), addressed to the Pope just before he proclaims the actual formula of canonization:

Most Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord's promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the saints.

Prior to the third petition, in his response to the second petition, the Pope says:

Let us, then, invoke the Holy Spirit, the Giver of life, that he may enlighten our minds and that Christ the Lord may not permit his Church to err in a matter of such importance. 

(Emphases ours).

These two formulae, or any formula more or less explicitly saying the same things, were present neither in the post-1969 rite of canonization, nor (to our knowledge) in the rites of canonization prior to the main liturgical reforms of the 1960's. Anyone can see the significance of these little formulae to the continuing question of the infallibility of canonizations -- the act of canonization is now explicitly included in the immunity of the Supreme Magisterium from error. 

Some will protest that these words do not amount to an Apostolic Constitution, or a dogmatic tome, or an infallible decree spoken by the mouth of the Holy Father himself. Fair enough; but they are part of the liturgy of canonization, these words "put into context", so to speak, the formula of canonization that the Pope is about to pronounce. One can even say that these remind him of the extent of his authority just before he exercises it. These two formulae therefore cannot be lightly dismissed, and any future critique of the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II will have to take these into account. 

Canonizations: And why not Mastai-Ferretti?

While this blog has editorialized in favor of accepting the canonizations today, one of my colleagues in Rorate has also argued that today's line-up of papal saints-to-be is short of one man - the Ven. Pius XII. Now I would like to point out another Pope whose inclusion in today's rites would have been appropriate as well. 

The theoretical case for the inclusion of Bl. Pius IX -- Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti -- in today's canonizations is probably even stronger than that of Pius XII. Not only is he already beatified, but he was beatified together with John XXIII (who deeply admired him and hoped to celebrate his canonization), by decision of John Paul II, who had previously declared him a Venerable. During the beatification ceremony, John Paul II explicitly praised Pius IX's "fidelity to the immutable deposit of revealed truths" and his work in opening the First Vatican Council, even as he praised John XXIII for opening the Second Vatican Council. It was a true balancing act, notwithstanding the continued adulation in numerous sectors of the Church, before and after this beatification ceremony, of Vatican II as a Super-Council. 

His Holiness Pope Francis exercised the fullness of his power to dispense with the normal procedures in order to proceed with the canonization of John XXIII, and his canonization is widely understood as not just a tribute to his personal holiness but also as an unspoken "canonization" of the Second Vatican Council. In not doing the same for the Pontiff who opened the First Vatican Council and who was beatified alongside the same John XXIII, the message is reinforced (whether unintended or not) that one Council is more equal than all the others; and that Popes of a certain era -- the one after 1958 -- were privileged with holiness and grace, and deserve precedence in recognition, far more than their immediate predecessors of the previous centuries.

Beatification and Canonization of Saints

The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, City of God XXII.10; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).

The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints. As was taught by St. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; Reply to Faustus XX.21), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly so-called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign with God in the heavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words, Catholics honour God in His saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts.

The worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church (Augustine, Reply to Faustus XX.21; cf. City of God XXII.10) erects her altars to God alone, though in honour and memory of the saints and martyrs. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the passages where we are bidden to venerate angels (Exodus 23:20 sqq.; Joshua 5:13 sqq.; Daniel 8:15 sqq.; 10:4 sqq.; Luke 2:9 sqq.; Acts 12:7 sqq.; Revelation 5:11 sqq.; 7:1 sqq.; Matthew 18:10; etc.), whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the friendship of God. And if St. Paul beseeches the brethren (Romans 15:30; 2 Corinthians 1:11; Colossians 4:3; Ephesians 6:18-19) to help him by their prayers for him to God, we must with even greater reason maintain that we can be helped by the prayers of the saints, and ask their intercession with humility. If we may beseech those who still live on earth, why not those who live in heaven?

[Catholic Encyclopedia]

Beatification of John Bosco A. D. 1929: