Nosotros no hemos recibido el espíritu del mundo, sino el Espíritu que procede de Dios (1 Cor 2, 12), el Espíritu de su Hijo, que Dios envió a nuestros corazones (Gal 4,6). Y por eso predicamos a Cristo crucificado, escándalo para los judíos y locura para los gentiles, pero para los llamados, tanto judíos como griegos, es Cristo fuerza de Dios y sabiduría de Dios (1 Cor 1,23-24). De modo que si alguien os anuncia un evangelio distinto del que recibisteis, ¡sea anatema! (Gal 1,9).
En los últimos años hemos asistido a una explosión de canonizaciones de Papas, de repente parecería que todos son santos. Sin embargo, las canonizaciones papales han sido rarísimas hasta el periodo postconciliar, veamos algunos datos:
Desde el Siglo XVI hasta el Vaticano II solamente dos Papas han sido canonizados. Y vaya que dos Papas: San Pío V y San Pío X. San Pio V falleció en 1572 y fue canonizado por Clemente XI en 1712: ¡140 años después!, mientras que San Pío X falleció en 1914 y fue canonizado por Pío XII en 1954.
Por no hacer demasiado farragoso este artículo me ceñiré ahora a sólo un periodo, suficiente a modo ilustrativo. Desde el siglo X tenemos una lista importante de Papas beatificados esperando a ser canonizados, el que más (Victor III) lleva la friolera de 931 años esperando, y el que menos (Pío IX) 140 años:
Beato Víctor III (1087): 931 años esperando.
Beato Urbano II (1099): 919 años.
Beato Eugenio III (1153): 865 años
Beato Gregorio X (1276): 742 años
Beato Inocencio V (1276): 742 años
Beato Benedicto XI (1304): 714 años
Beato Urbano V (1370): 648 años.
Beato Inocencio XI (1689): 329 años.
Beato Pío IX (1878): 140 años.
En el periodo descrito desde el siglo X hasta el Vaticano II, se canonizaron tan sólo cinco Papas: San León IX, San Gregorio VII, San Celestino V, San Pío V y San Pío X.
Según estos datos, se evidencia sin duda alguna que las canonizaciones papales han sido algo muy raro. Cinco en mil años, lo cual da una media de un Papa cada 200 años.
Sin embargo, nos encontramos con que parece que de repente todos los Papas desde el Vaticano II son santos, y además lo son proclamados en un cortísimo espacio de tiempo: Ya tenemos a Juan XXIII, Pablo VI y a Juan Pablo II, y se nos anuncia que Juan Pablo I también está al caer, mientras que el propio Francisco ya entre bromas insinúa la prevista canonización de Benedicto XVI y de él mismo.
Si en mil años se han canonizado cinco Papas, y desde 2013 a el actual llevamos ya tres, supone que hemos pasado de una media de un Papa canonizado cada 200 años, a un Papa canonizado cada 2 años. Si lo trasladamos a días la estadística resulta aún más clara. Antes se canonizaba un Papa cada 365.000 días y ahora cada 2.190 días.
Es evidente que, como en tantas cosas desde el Vaticano II, hay un cambio sustancial e importante. A nadie debe escapar este hecho que resulta cuando menos sorprendente. Cualquier católico de a pie que no haya perdido el sentido común debiera cuando menos estar extrañado: ¿De repente todos los Papas son santos tras el Vaticano II? ¿Por qué tan rápido y todos?
Los hechos de los Papas postconciliares
Si ya resulta anormal el cambio de ritmo de canonizaciones papales, más extraño es si analizamos qué ha pasado durante los pontificados de los Papas postconciliares ya canonizados
No voy a entrar a valorar si tal Papa era más piadoso o menos, si rezaba diez rosarios al día o ninguno, si dormía con cilicios o en una cama de plumón. Proponer a un Papa como santo público no es sólo decir que era un gran devoto, es proponer al pueblo cristiano su ejercicio en tanto que Papa como modélico y ejemplar, porque no hay santidad sin el correcto cumplimiento de las obligaciones de estado. La propia Virgen nos advirtió en Fátima que el gran sacrificio que nos pedía a todos en esta época moderna era el perfecto cumplimiento de nuestras obligaciones de estado. Va de suyo que en los Papas su principal obligación de estado es la custodia y transmisión de la Fe católica íntegra e inalterada, así como las tradiciones legadas desde tiempos apostólicos ininterrumpidamente por todos sus sucesores.
Creo que no es necesario ilustrar los méritos sobrados y reconocidos de San Pío V y San Pío X, pero ¿qué méritos atesoran Juan XXIII, Pablo VI y Juan Pablo II?
No es mi intención hacer aquí una exposición sobre los hechos y dichos de cada papa, sobre lo cual ya hay una abundante bibliografía en esta misma web, pero sí hay que subrayar que todos tienen algo en común: el Vaticano II. Veamos solamente alguna pincelada sobre esto.
El Vaticano II
A no ser que queramos estar absolutamente ciegos -y lo hay a raudales-, es absoluta y objetivamente indiscutible que el Vaticano II ha desencadenado en términos puramente estadísticos una crisis en la Iglesia como nunca se ha conocido.
Si lo analizamos numéricamente, con simple estadística, una Iglesia floreciente, con todos los defectos que tuviera -que los había-, ha pasado en unos años a una caída de estadísticas en todos los niveles absolutamente impresionante. Y es algo de tal calibre que no se me ocurre pensar en una empresa que a un jefe se le ocurra innovar, y como resultado las ventas cayeran un 2000%, y encima pueda haber alguien lo suficientemente descerebrado que se le ocurra darle el premio de “mejor jefe del año” e ir orgullosamente diciendo que era un gran “jefazo”.
Juan XXIII
Juan XXIII tiene el dudoso “honor” de haber convocado el Concilio Vaticano II, que ha supuesto la mayor catástrofe en la historia de la Iglesia.
Este “honor” se ve acrecentado por la nefasta línea maestra que marcó en la apertura del Concilio, y que ha supuesto de hecho la guía de actuación, hasta hoy día, de inacción y complicidad de todos los papas postconciliares y obispos. En la misma tuvo la “brillante” idea de pretender que la Iglesia en adelante no debía condenar errores, sino sólo proponer su doctrina de forma amable y sonriente. La consecuencia ya la vemos a 50 años vista: toda la iglesia infectada de herejías y errores.
“Siempre la Iglesia se opuso a estos errores. Frecuentemente los condenó con la mayor severidad. En nuestro tiempo, sin embargo, la Esposa de Cristo prefiere usar la medicina de la misericordia más que la de la severidad. Ella quiere venir al encuentro de las necesidades actuales, mostrando la validez de su doctrina más bien que renovando condenas. No es que falten doctrinas falaces, opiniones y conceptos peligrosos, que precisa prevenir y disipar; pero se hallan tan en evidente contradicción con la recta norma de la honestidad, y han dado frutos tan perniciosos, que ya los hombres, aun por sí solos, están propensos a condenarlos, singularmente aquellas costumbres de vida que desprecian a Dios y a su ley, la excesiva confianza en los progresos de la técnica, el bienestar fundado exclusivamente sobre las comodidades de la vida.”
Juan XXIII no fue sólo el irresponsable convocante del Concilio, sino que de principio marcó ya la línea errónea a seguir y, me atrevo a afirmar, que este discurso ha sido uno de los más devastadores para la Iglesia en los últimos 50 años.
Pablo VI
Si Juan XXIII fue el irresponsable que preparó la tormenta, Pablo VI fue quien la agitó y concluyó. Al igual que con Juan XXIII mucho se podría decir sobre su pontificado, pero me centraré en especial en un aspecto: la reforma litúrgica.
Pablo VI, siguiendo la estela honorífica de Juan XXIII, atesora el “mérito” de haber destruido los ritos de la San Misa Católica para convertirla en una ceremonia protestantizada. El Novus ordo, que “se aleja en conjunto y en detalle de la teología católica de la Santa Misa” (Cardenales Ottaviani y Bacci), ha sido y es el ariete del modernismo para destruir por capilaridad la Fe en la Iglesia; y a cincuenta años vista es innegable que casi lo han conseguido.
El gran daño en la Fe del pueblo se ha producido por la inyección de veneno de esa nefasta catequesis visual que se ha suministrado al pueblo. A base de actuar como protestantes, han terminado siéndolo.
Destruir lo más sagrado y santo que tenemos para disfrazarlo de cena protestante ¿es eso cumplir con las obligaciones de estado de un Papa? ¿es eso causa de santidad?
Juan Pablo II
Si Juan XXIII fue el causante de la tormenta y Pablo VI el que la ejecutó, Juan Pablo II ha sido el Papa bajo cuyo mandato se ha implantado el Vaticano II, y bajo cuyo pontificado las estadísticas de la iglesia a todos los niveles (vocaciones, herejías…) han llegado a su máxima expresión de negatividad. Como dije antes, no voy a entrar en si era más piadoso o menos, pero pienso que es indiscutible que la iglesia tras su pontificado sencillamente se ha quedado como un solar desierto.
La Iglesia es una Monarquía y el Papa es el responsable máximo y absoluto, así que, por acción u omisión -no juzgo las intenciones-, como gobernante de la iglesia fue un absoluto desastre. Pretender lo contrario con los números que dejó es sencillamente engañarse a uno mismo.
Pero demos también una pincelada del pontificado en uno de sus actos culminantes, el encuentro de Asís que, según el propio Juan Pablo II, fue una especie de “catequesis viva del Concilio Vaticano II”.
Pío XI, en su encíclica Mortaliun animos, hablaba sin ambages de que “no pueden, de ninguna manera obtener la aprobación de los católicos, puesto que están fundadas en la falsa opinión de los que piensan que todas las religiones son, con poca diferencia, buenas y laudables, pues, aunque de distinto modo, todas nos demuestran y significan igualmente el ingénito y nativo sentimiento con que somos llevados hacia Dios y reconocemos obedientemente su imperio” y advertía que “cuantos se adhieren a tales opiniones y tentativas, se apartan totalmente de la religión revelada por Dios”.
El encuentro de Asís no es pues un “detalle”, una “anécdota”, como los juanpablolatras suelen repetir para pasar de puntillas por él, sino que es un acto de extrema gravedad, un encuentro “que se aparta totalmente de la religión revelada por Dios”, es decir, un auténtico acto de apostasía y escándalo público.
La Jornada de Asís, luego repetida por Benedicto XVI -dicho sea de paso-, fue, en resumen, según un brillante análisis de sí sí no no :
“1) Una ofensa a Dios
2) Una negación de la necesidad universal de la Redención
3) Una injusticia y una falta de caridad hacia los infieles
4) Un peligro y un escándalo para los católicos
5) Una infidelidad que traiciona la misión de la Iglesia y de San Pedro”
¿Cómo es posible que un Papa a la vez que se aparta por completo de la revelación cumpla con su obligación suprema de estado de custodiar la Fe? Sencillamente imposible de conciliar y es pues ridículo, auténtica ceguera espiritual, el que haya gente que critica a Francisco y habla de que Juan Pablo II era un “santazo”.
Encuentro de Asís. Papa Juan Pablo II. Año 1986
Conclusión
No hay que ser muy ducho para darse cuenta de que asistimos al intento de canonización del Vaticano II y todas sus reformas, y de que, para los novadores, el verdadero hecho de santidad de estos Papas es que, justamente, han sido los máximos responsables de haberlo implementado.
Ignoro si estos Papas estarán en el cielo, o no, pero de lo que sí estoy seguro es que no han sido ningún modelo en el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones de estado, sino, muy al contrario, han sido los máximos responsables de la hecatombe que vivimos desde hace cincuenta años por acción, omisión, complicidad y/o negligencia en el ejercicio de su cargo, y al que a eso lo quieran llamar santidad, ya es en sí mismo otro elemento de la crisis de la Iglesia: proponer modelos que no lo son.
En realidad Veterum Sapientia no es una encíclica sino una constitución apostólica (22 de febrero de 1962), aunque hay que decir que Romano Amerio, en su magnífico libro IOTA UNUM, también se refiere a la Veterum Sapientia como encíclica (Apdo 31 página 52)
Respecto al Sínodo Romano de 1960, efectivamente, es imposible de encontrar. Así dice Romano Amerio: «El Sínodo Romano, que debería haber sido prefiguración y norma del Concilio, se precipitó en pocos años en el Erebo del olvido y es, en verdad, tanquam non fuerit»[Dicho sínodo no fue nombrado por el Concilio ni siquiera una vez]. Y continúa diciendo: «Para dar una idea de tal anulación, señalaré que no he podido encontrar los textos del Sínodo Romano ni en Curias ni en archivos diocesanos, teniendo que conseguirlos en Bibliotecas públicas civiles»
-------
La diferencia entre una carta encíclica y una constitución apostólica se puede encontrar, por ejemplo, pinchando aquí, donde se habla de una clasificación de los Documentos Pontificios. Lo copio a continuación:
Cartas Encíclicas
Del Latín Literae encyclicae, que literalmente significa "cartas circulares". Las encíclicas son cartas públicas y formales del Sumo Pontífice que expresan su enseñanza en materia de gran importancia. Pablo VI definió la encíclica como "un documento, en la forma de carta, enviado por el Papa a los obispos del mundo entero». Las encíclicas se proponen: - Enseñar sobre algún tema doctrinal o moral - Avivar la devoción - Condenar errores - Informar a los fieles sobre peligros para la fe procedentes de corrientes culturales, amenazas del gobierno, etc.
Por definición, las cartas encíclicas formalmente tienen el valor de enseñanza dirigida a la Iglesia Universal. Sin embargo, cuando tratan con cuestiones sociales, económicas o políticas, son dirigidas comúnmente no solo a los católicos, sino a todos los hombres y mujeres de buena voluntad. Esta práctica la inició el Papa Juan XXIII con su encíclica Pacem in terris (1963). En algunos casos, como el de la encíclica Veritatis splendor (1993) de Juan Pablo II, el Papa sólo incluye en su saludo de apertura, a los Obispos, aunque él pretenda la doctrina de la encíclica para la instrucción de todos los fieles. Esto tiene su razón de ser en el hecho de que los Obispos son los Pastores que deben enseñar a los fieles la doctrina.
Debido al peso y la verdad que contienen, todo fiel debe concederle a las encíclicas asentimiento, obediencia y respeto. El Papa Pío XII observó que las encíclicas, aunque no son la forma usual de promulgar pronunciamientos infalibles, sí reflejan el Magisterio Ordinario de la Iglesia y merecen ese respeto de parte de los fieles (Humani generis, 1950)
El título que se le da a la encíclica se deriva de sus primeras palabras en latín. Por ejemplo la encíclica del Papa Pablo VI sobre la inmoralidad de la contracepción, se tituló Humanae vitae, (Vida Humana).
Constitución Apostólica
Estos documentos son la forma más común en la que el Papa ejerce su autoridad "Petrina". A través de éstas, el Papa promulga leyes concernientes a los fieles. Tratan de la mayoría de los asuntos doctrinales, disciplinares y administrativos. La erección de una nueva diócesis, por ejemplo, se hace por medio de una Constitución Apostólica.
Mientras que al principio, dichas constituciones enunciaban normas legales (y continúan siendo principalmente documentos legislativos) tienen ahora frecuentemente un fuerte componente doctrinal. Pertenecen al magisterio ordinario del Papa.
Ejemplos:
- Sacrae disciplinae (1983), del Papa Juan Pablo II, en la promulgación del nuevo Código de Derecho Canónico. - Pastor bonus (1988), del Papa Juan Pablo II sobre el ministerio y organización de la curia romana. - Fidei depositum (1992), del Papa Juan Pablo II, en la promulgación del Catecismo Universal de la Iglesia Católica.
-------
NOTA: Sobre la Veterum Sapientia hay algo escrito en este blog. Éstos son los enlaces:
Es un artículo muy bueno, aunque está en inglés y es algo largo. Espero que lo traduzcan pronto al español. Mientras tanto, puede hacerse uso del traductor de Google: yo lo he hecho y, aunque no suele ser lo habitual, sin embargo, la traducción que he encontrado es bastante buena, dentro de lo que se le puede pedir a un traductor, y se entiende bien lo esencial de lo que el autor pretende comunicar ... [A la mañana siguiente he visto que la traducción se encuentra ya en Adelante la Fe. Pinchar aquí. No obstante, sigo manteniendo el original inglés en esta entrada, por si algún lector prefiere el inglés] ... ¡Y es que el papa Pablo VI, aunque, según ley, sea canonizado, ello no obliga, ni mucho menos, a tenerle devoción, pues su vida no fue ejemplar, en aspectos muy importantes; y fue muy grande el daño que hizo a la Iglesia, bajo las influencias modernistas: habría que leer el artículo para entender por qué dice esto su autor. Siendo eso así, sin embargo, Francisco lo canonizará hoy, 14 de octubre de 2018. Y, además, va a hacerlo de forma acelerada, sin haber realizado la correspondiente investigación que es necesaria para ello ...del mismo modo que canonizó al papa Juan XXIII (para quien sólo fue necesario un «milagro») y a Juan Pablo II (a quien vemos besando el Corán, como si fuese un libro sagrado) el mismo día (27 de abril de 2014) Queda claro que Francisco pretende canonizar el Concilio Vaticano II, canonizando a todos los Papas post-conciliares, como si así hubiera que decir amén a todo cuanto se dice en los documentos de dicho Concilio, cuando algunos de éstos son de muy dudosa ortodoxia, por no decir claramente heterodoxos, en determinados puntos, en particular, aquellos que se refieren al Ecumenismo, el diálogo interreligioso, la libertad religiosa y la colegialidad ... aunque hay más. Afortunadamente, las canonizaciones no son infalibles ... en el sentido de que la Iglesia no obliga a creer en ellas como si se tratase de dogmas de fe. Antes del Concilio Vaticano II, existía la figura del «abogado del diablo» y la santidad se concedía a muy pocos, y las exigencias para que alguien fuese declarado «santo» eran muy grandes. No así ahora, en que se canoniza a cualquiera; y rápidamente ... con lo que la devoción a los santos va de capa caída, ha disminuido enormemente y la figura del santo se ha devaluado. En la época en la que nos ha tocado vivir, tenemos que rezar con una fe más grande que nunca: pedirle al Señor, con fuerza, que nos la conceda; y ayudar a los demás católicos, nuestros hermanos en la fe, a no dejarse engañar por los falsos profetas que aparecen con piel de oveja ... ¡porque dirán muchas verdades, ciertamente ... pero acompañadas de muchas mentiras ... de manera que el pueblo cristiano quede confundido y vaya perdiendo la fe, objetivo que están consiguiendo, pues eso es justo lo que está ocurriendo. La apostasía, a nivel mundial, se está generalizando. Queda claro que necesitamos de una intervención divina, la cual tendrá lugar, con toda seguridad ... aunque no sabemos ni cómo ni cuándo. Pero Dios no puede abandonar a su Iglesia, la cual, pese a todo, sigue siendo «Una, Santa, Católica y Apostólica» según rezamos en el Credo. Mientras tanto, no podemos hacer otra cosa que redoblar nuestra oración y acudir a la Virgen María, Madre de la Iglesia (Iglesia que es el Cuerpo Místico de Cristo: dogma de fe) y, por lo tanto, madre nuestra, debido a nuestra Unión con Jesucristo mediante el Espíritu Santo que recibimos, sin merecimiento alguno por nuestra parte, cuando fuimos bautizados. Recordemos que María fue bienaventurada precisamente porque creyó, en todo momento, aun cuando no comprendiera los designios de Dios: «Dichosa tú, que has creído que se cumplirá las cosas que se te han dicho de parte del Señor» (Lc, 1:45), le dijo su prima Isabel, cuando el niño saltó de gozo en su seno, en cuanto oyó el saludo de María, que venía a visitarla . Y así también a nosotros se nos da la posibilidad de ser bienaventurados, ya desde ahora: «Bienaventurados los que, sin ver, creyeron» (Jn 20, 29), le dijo Jesús a Tomás, debido a su incredulidad; porque, en definitiva, como bien dijo san Juan: «Ésta es la victoria que ha vencido al mundo: nuestra fe» (1 Jn 5, 4)
José Martí
NOTA1: Un buen complemento a este artículo es el escrito por el padre Ángel David Martín Rubio (éste está en español) en Adelante la Fe, titulado «Pablo VI y España: una perspectiva histórica» NOTA 2: Según el cardenal McCarry (dicho en 2013), Francisco cambiará la Iglesia en 5 años (estamos en 2018), como puede verse en el siguiente vídeo, de 6 minutos de duración, el cual he colocado también en otra entrada posterior. Dicho vídeo está en inglés subtitulado:
-------
Many who have studied the life and pontificate of Pope Paul VI are convinced that he was far from exemplary in his conduct as pastor; that he not only did not possess heroic virtue, but lacked certain key virtues; that his promulgation of a titanic liturgical reform was incompatible with his papal office of handing on that which he had received; that he offers us a portrait of failed governance and tradition betrayed. In short, for us, it is impossible to accept that a pope such as this could ever be canonized. Not surprisingly, then, we are vexed about Pope Francis’s “canonization” of Giovanni Battista Montini on Sunday, October 14, 2018 and have grave doubts in conscience about its validity or credibility.
But are we allowed to have such doubts? Surely (people will say), canonization is an infallible exercise of the papal magisterium and therefore binding on all – indeed, the very language used in the ceremony indicates that! – therefore we must accept that Paul VI is a saint in Heaven, honor him and imitate him, and embrace all that he did and taught as pope.
Not so fast. In reality, the situation is more complicated. In this tempestuous time, it is just as well that we know the complexity of it, rather than seeking refuge in naïve simplifications. In this article, I will cover seven topics: (1) The status of canonizations, (2) The purpose of canonizations, (3) The process of canonization, (4) What is objectionable in Paul VI?, (5) What is admirable in Paul VI?, (6) The limits of canonization’s meaning, and (7) Practical consequences.
The status of canonizations
While historically the majority of theologians have defended the view of the infallibility of canonizations – especially neoscholastic theologians who tend to be extreme ultramontanists [1] – the Church herself has, in fact, never taught this as binding doctrine [2]. The exact status of canonizations remains a legitimate subject of theological debate, and it is all the more debatable given the changing expectations, procedures, and motivations for the act of canonization itself (points to which I shall return).
The infallibility of canonizations is not taught by the Church, nor is it necessarily implied by any de fide doctrine of the Faith. Catholics are therefore not required to believe it as a matter of faith and may even, for serious reasons, doubt or question the truthfulness of a certain canonization. This conclusion is rigorously established and defended in John Lamont’s “The Authority of Canonisations” (Rorate Caeli, August 24, 2018), which, in my opinion, in the best treatment of the subject yet published and well worth reading in full, especially by those who are troubled in conscience about this question [3].
The purpose of canonizations
Traditionally, canonization is not merely a recognition that a certain individual is in Heaven; it is the recognition that this man lived a life of such heroic virtue (above all, the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity), had fulfilled in so exemplary a fashion the duties of his state in life (and this would include, for a cleric, the duties of his office), and had so practiced asceticism as befits a soldier of Christ that public veneration (including liturgical) should be offered to him by the universal Church, and his example deserves to be followed as a model to imitate (cf. 1 Cor 11:1) [4]. We can see all of these features shining in the “classic” saints, to whom there is much popular devotion.
In recent pontificates, we have seen a shift take place in why individuals – at least, certain individuals – are canonized. Donald Prudlo observes:
As an historian of sainthood, my greatest hesitation with the current process stems from the canonizations done by John Paul II himself. While his laudable intention was to provide models of holiness drawn from all cultures and states in life, he tended to divorce canonization from its original and fundamental purpose. This was to have an official, public, and formal recognition of an existing cult of the Christian faithful, one that had been confirmed by the divine testimony of miracles. Cult precedes canonization; it was not meant to be the other way around. We are in danger then of using canonization as a tool to promote interests and movements, rather than being a recognition and approval of an extant cultus. [5]
Prudlo is making the obvious point that beatification and canonization are supposed to be responses of the Church to a strong popular devotion shown to a particular individual, whose heavenly intercession God has endorsed, so to speak, by working several demonstrable miracles. It is not supposed to be the Vatican rubber-stamping particular individuals the Vatican happens to want to promote. There is no serious cultus of Paul VI, nor has there ever been, and it is doubtful that papal fiat can create a cultus ex nihilo.
In reality, we see that Pope Francis has carried to its extreme the “politicization” of the process, whereby the individual to be beatified or canonized is instrumentalized for an agenda. As Fr. Hunwicke points out:
There has been, in some quarters, an uneasy suspicion for some time that canonisations have turned into a way of setting a seal upon the ‘policies’ of some popes. If these ‘policies’ are themselves a matter of divisive discussion and debate, then the promotion of the idea that canonisations are infallible becomes itself an additional element in the conflict. Canonisation, you will remind me, does not, theologically, imply approval of everything a Saint has done or said. Not formally, indeed. But the suspicion among some is that, de facto and humanly, such can seem to be its aim. This is confirmed by a prevailing assumption on all sides that the canonisations of the ‘Conciliar Popes’ does bear some sort of meaning or message.
Similarly, Fr. “Pio Pace” writes:
We must dare say it: by canonizing all Vatican II popes, it is Vatican II that is canonized. But, likewise, canonization itself is devalued when it becomes a sort of medal thrown on top of a casket. Maybe a council that was “pastoral” and not dogmatic is deserving of canonizations that are “pastoral” and not dogmatic. [6]
Most keenly, Prof. Roberto de Mattei observes:
For the papolater, the pope is not the vicar of Christ on Earth, who has the duty of handing on the doctrine he has received, but is a successor of Christ who perfects the doctrine of his predecessors, adapting it to the changing of the times. The doctrine of the Gospel is in perpetual evolution, because it coincides with the magisterium of the reigning pontiff. The “living” magisterium substitutes [for] the perennial Magisterium, expressed by pastoral teaching which changes daily, and has its regula fidei (rule of faith) in the subject of the authority and not in the object of the transmitted truth.
A consequence of papolatry is the pretext of canonizing all and each of the popes of the past, so that retroactively, each word of theirs, every act of governing is “infallibilized.” However, this concerns only the popes following Vatican II and not those who preceded that Council.
At this point arises the question: the golden era of the history of the Church is the Middle Ages, and yet the only medieval popes canonized by the Church are Gregory VII and Celestine V. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, there were great popes, but none of these were canonized. For seven hundred years, between the fourteenth and twentieth centuries, only Saint Pius V and Saint Pius X were canonized. Were all the others unworthy popes and sinners? Certainly not. But heroism in the governing of the Church is an exception, not the rule, and if all the popes were saints, then nobody is a saint. Sanctity is such an exception that it loses meaning when it becomes the rule. [7]
This last paragraph is particularly worth emphasizing: it should cause the deepest astonishment and skepticism to note that while the Church had canonized exactly two popes from a 700-year period [8], in recent years, she has “canonized” three popes from a period of scarcely over 50 years – a half-century that magically coincides with the preparation, execution, and aftermath of that most magical of all Councils, Vatican II. Must be that “new Pentecost” effect. If this is not enough to make a cynic of someone, I’m not sure what would be [9].
The process of canonization
In order to expedite the making of saints, John Paul II introduced many significant changes in the canonization process that had been stably in place since the work of Prosper Lambertini (1734-1738), who later became Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758). This process was based, in turn, on norms going back to Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644). It was none other than Paul VI who, in this area as in so many others, initiated a simplification of the procedures in 1969, a process John Paul II completed in 1983.
Studying a comparison of the old process and the new process is illuminating. A comparative chart has been provided at the Unam Sanctam Catholicam site. After noting the obvious fact that the old process is considerably more involved and thorough, Unam Sanctam proffers this evaluation:
The difference between the old and new procedures is not in their length, but in their character.In the pre-1969 procedure, you will note the care with which the integrity of the process itself is safeguarded. The Sacred Congregation must attest to the validity of the methodology used by the diocesan tribunals. The Promotor Fidei must sign off on the canonical form of every act of the Postulator and the Congregation. The validity of the inquiries into the candidate’s miracles [is] scrutinized. There is a very strict attention to form and methodology in the pre-1969 procedure which is simply lacking in the post-1983 system. … Essentially, while the modern canonization procedure maintains the nuts-n’-bolts of the pre-1969 system, the aspect of “checks and balances” that characterized the pre-1969 procedure is weakened. The rigid oversight is missing in the [modern] system. [10]
The role of the promotor fidei, the so-called “devil’s advocate,” was massively reduced. In the old system, this person’s crucial role was:
… to prevent any rash decisions concerning miracles or virtues of the candidates for the honours of the altar. All documents of beatification and canonization processes must be submitted to his examination, and the difficulties and doubts he raises over the virtues and miracles are laid before the congregation and must be satisfactorily answered before any further steps can be taken in the processes. It is his duty to suggest natural explanations for alleged miracles, and even to bring forward human and selfish motives for deeds that have been accounted heroic virtues[.] … His duty requires him to prepare in writing all possible arguments, even at times seemingly slight, against the raising of any one to the honours of the altar. The interest and honour of the Church are concerned in preventing any one from receiving those honours whose death is not juridically proved to have been “precious in the sight of God.” [11]
This paragraph bears repeated reading. Rash decisions concerning miracles or virtues…all documents must be submitted…apparent virtues must be argued against…the Church’s interest and honor must be defended at all costs…
The loosening up of the process, together with the chaos that often seems to reign in the Vatican in its free-wheeling postconciliar years, has meant that nothing comparable to the above stringent “devil’s advocate” role has been seen since 1983 (and, arguably, since 1969, when instability was first introduced into the process).
Among other things, it was taken for granted that all of the documentary archives associated with a proposed blessed or saint should be reviewed carefully for doctrinal, moral, and psychological issues that might be red flags.
Here I must share some disturbing information. A person who works at the Vatican in the Congregation for the Causes of Saints told me personally that orders were received from “on high” that the canonization process for Paul VI should be sped along as quickly as possible – and that, as a result, the Congregation did not examine all of the documents by or about Paul VI housed in the Vatican archives. This glaring lacuna is all the more grave when we recall that Paul VI was accused of being an active homosexual, a charge that was taken seriously enough to be denied [12]. It is also grave because of his involvement in secret negotiations with communists and his endorsement of “Ostpolitik,” under which many injustices were committed [13]. One would think a desire for transparent truth about every aspect of Montini would have led to an exhaustive examination of the relevant documents. However, this was purposefully bypassed. It goes without saying that this lack of due diligence, all by itself, is sufficient to cast into doubt the legitimacy of the canonization.
Arguably the worst change to the process is the number of miracles required. In the old system, two miracles were required for both beatification and canonization – that is, a total of four investigated and certified miracles. The point of this requirement is to give the Church sufficient moral certainty of God’s “approval” of the proposed blessed or saint by the evidence of His exercise of power at the intercession of this individual. Moreover, the miracles traditionally had to be outstanding in their clarity – that is, admitting of no possible natural or scientific explanation.
The new system cuts the number of miracles in half, which, one might say, also cuts the moral certainty in half – and, as many have observed, the miracles put forward often seem to be lightweight, leaving one scratching one’s head: was that really a miracle, or was it just an extremely improbable event? The two miracles for Paul VI (one may read about them here) are, to be frank, underwhelming. I mean, it’s lovely that two babies were “healed” or “protected” in the way described, but that we are dealing with a naturally inexplicable supernatural intervention by the force of Paul VI’s prayers is not patently obvious. Four miracles that were all robust, like the restoration of sight to the blind or the raising of the dead, would carry a great deal more conviction.
With the greatly increasing number of canonizations; the removal of half of the number of miracles required (which are sometimes even waived [14]); the lack of a robust advocatus diaboli role; and, at times, the rushed manner in which documentation is examined or at times passed over (as, apparently, has been the case with Paul VI), it seems to me not only that it has become impossible to claim that today’s canonizations always require our consent, but also that there may be canonizations about which one would have an obligation to withhold assent.
What is objectionable in Paul VI?
Beyond the general consideration of the status of canonizations, the purpose that should animate them, and the procedures by which they are securely or insecurely conducted, we must also consider the particular merits of the case at hand. Why, specifically, do traditional Catholics object to the canonization of Paul VI?
During his pontificate, Montini presented a lack of heroic virtue in shouldering his solemn responsibilities as shepherd of the universal flock. Instead, he displayed a habitual incapacity for effective discipline, as he wavered between extreme indulgence and extreme sharpness (e.g., rarely punishing the most obnoxiously heretical theologians but treating Archbishop Lefebvre as if he were worse than Martin Luther or empowering Annibale Bugnini with continual papal access and support throughout the course of the liturgical reform, then suddenly banishing him to Iran). The contradictory signals he gave – encouraging modernism, then curtailing it; intervening in controversial matters and then withdrawing, back and forth, like Hamlet (a character to whom he compared himself in a private note from 1978), only compounded the confusion and anarchy of the period. What was needed was a pilot with a steady hand in the midst of the storm, not a self-doubting soft modernist suffering an existential crisis.
Particularly glaring problem areas include the liturgical reform, where Paul VI gave ample evidence of operating under rationalist Pistoian principles incompatible with Catholicism and of gross negligence in reviewing materials. (There seem to have been quite a number of things he signed off on without being familiar with their details.) His Ostpolik dealings with communists, including his disobedience to Pius XII, are well known. Although Paul VI reached the right conclusion on birth control, the manner in which he failed to respond to the media barrage connected with the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, failed to discipline dissenters from Humanae Vitae, and even allowed to be marginalized those who upheld the papal teaching all conspired to undermine that teaching’s effectiveness. The irrational harshness of his dealings with traditional Catholics was shameful, as when he turned down the petition of a large group of over 6,000 Spanish priests [15] who wished to continue celebrating the immemorial Roman Rite of St. Gregory and St. Pius V (while later granting this permission to priests in England and Wales – once more showing the stuff out of which Hamlets are made). He abused his papal authority by discarding what should have been revered and by treating as forbidden what could never be forbidden.
The pope has a solemn obligation to uphold and defend the traditions and rites of the Church; he has no moral authority to modify them past recognition. No pope in the 2,000-year history of the Catholic Church ever came close to modifying more traditions and rites, and more extensively, than Paul VI did. This alone should make him forever suspicious in the eyes of any orthodox believer. Either this pope was the great liberator who delivered the Church from centuries, perhaps over a millennium, of bondage to harmful forms of worship – in which case the Holy Spirit had fallen asleep on the job and the Protestants were correct all along that the true Church of Christ had disappeared or gone “underground” – or he was the great destroyer who tore down what Divine Providence had lovingly built up and sold the Church into a slavery to intellectual fashion more humiliating than the physical bondage suffered by the Israelites.
Paul VI did not helplessly watch the Church’s “autodemolition” (his own term for the collapse after the Council); he did not merely preside over the single greatest exodus of Catholic laity, clergy, and religious since the Protestant Revolt. He aided and abetted this internal devastation by his own actions. By pushing ahead at breakneck speed a radical liturgical and institutional “reform” that left nothing untouched, he multiplied a hundredfold the destabilizing forces at work in the 1960s. Anyone who enjoyed the functionality of reason would have been able to see that it was dangerous, not to mention impious, to change so much, so fast. But no: Paul VI was a willing votary of the ideology of modernization, a high priest of progress, who boldly went where none of his predecessors had ever gone before.
Ironically, it is none other than Pope Francis, the willful canonizer of Paul VI, who has demonstrated past all doubt the self-destructive trajectory of postconciliar Catholicism, when its own tendencies are acted on without restraint (rather as Theodore McCarrick acted on his own tendencies without restraint).
Many Catholics are rightfully anxious about Pope Francis. But what he has done in the past five years is arguably small potatoes compared with what Paul VI had the audacity to do: substituting a new liturgy for the ancient Roman Mass and sacramental rites, causing the biggest internal rupture the Catholic Church has ever suffered. This was the equivalent of dropping an atomic bomb on the People of God, which either wiped out their faith or caused cancers by its radiation. It was the very negation of paternity, of the papacy’s fatherly function of conserving and passing on the family heritage. Everything that has happened after Paul VI is no more than an echo of this violation of the sacred temple. Once the most holy thing is profaned, nothing else is safe; nothing else is stable.
At this point, someone may object: “Okay, so what if Paul VI wasn’t very good at being pope? Surely he could still have been a holy man on the inside. He was living in a tempestuous period, when everyone was confused, and he was doing his very best. We should admire his intentions and his great desires, even if we might criticize in retrospect certain decisions and actions. Sanctity isn’t a blanket approval of everything a person says or does.”
The problem with this objection is that it fails to recognize that how a Catholic lives out his primary vocation in life is part and parcel of his sanctity. How a bishop of the Church – and all the more, a pope – exercises his ecclesiastical office is not incidental, but essential to his sanctity (or lack thereof). Imagine it this way: could we canonize a man who, in spite of beating his wife and neglecting his children, was dutiful in attending daily Mass, praying the Rosary, and giving alms to the poor? It would be absurd, because we would rightly say: “A married man with children has to be holy as a husband and father, not in spite of being a husband and father.” It is no less absurd to say: “Such-and-such a pope was negligent, irresponsible, indecisive, rash, and revolutionary in his papal decisions, but his heart was in the right place, and he was always striving for the glory of God and the salvation of men.” A pope is a saint because he “poped” well. He showed heroic faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, etc. in his very activity of governing the Church. this cannot be reasonably maintained for Paul VI.
If we are supposed to venerate Paul VI, then inconsistency, ambiguity, pusillanimity, injustice, reckless change, negligence, indecisiveness, false signaling, despondency, wishful thinking, irritability, scorn, and contempt for tradition are not merely virtues, but virtues one can exercise to such a heroic degree that they are actually sources of sanctifying grace, deserving of general admiration, veneration, and emulation. Sorry, I’m having none of it. Such things have always been, and will always be, vices. Montini was a terrible ruler of the Church, and if the virtuous fulfillment of one’s responsibilities in one’s state in life is constitutive of sanctity, we may conclude that it is impossible to imagine a worse role model for any ruler than Montini.
To read more about the flaws of Paul VI as pope, the following are recommended:
Do traditionally-minded Catholics admire Paul VI for anything? Yes, of course. We would be foolish not to acknowledge the good he did. But that good is not sufficient to cancel out the many and serious problems discussed in the preceding section. Indeed, the history of Montini’s pontificate is as vivid a demonstration as one could wish to have of the difference between the person and the office. In the case of saintly popes, the grace of office seems to take up and enfold the person and transform him into a luminous icon of St. Peter and of Christ. In the case of bad popes or mediocre popes, the grace of office is something that occasionally flares up, that comes out of hiding in emergency situations, but does not transform the incumbent in the same way. The latter is what we see with Paul VI, as an editorial at Rorate Caeli astutely expressed it (with my emphasis):
Pope Paul VI is described by most historians as a kind of tragic figure, trying to control the whirlwind of events surrounding him, but unable to do much. It is probably because of this, because it seemed that Montini often bent to the opinions of the world, because it seemed that he frequently accepted the fabricated notions and texts which committees of false sages delivered to him (with very small modifications), that the moments in which he did not bend shine so clearly with the simple brightness of Peter. The Nota Prævia to Lumen Gentium, the vigorous defense of the traditional Eucharistic doctrines (in Mysterium Fidei) and of the teachings on Indulgences (in Indulgentiarum Doctrina), the Credo of the People of God are pillars which remain standing in a crumbling edifice, signs of supernatural protection. Amidst the moral collapse of the 1960s, and against the commission set up by his predecessor to reexamine the matter, Peter spoke though [Pope] Paul in Humanæ Vitae: “it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it.”
If such good actions and teachings had been habitual, normal, and characteristic of Paul VI, and had been imbued with the panoply of Christian virtues St. Thomas discusses in the Second Part of the Summa, and on top of this, a popular cultus had arisen around a beloved pontiff, culminating in many indisputable miracles, then – and only then – would we have had reason to elevate Paul VI to the altars.
Here is is worthwhile to point out that time will show, as we have already begun to see, that the good for which Paul VI was responsible is not at all the point of his canonization. In fact, all of the things listed above as “good moments” are contrary to the prevailing trends of the Bergoglio party. We are therefore ringside witnesses of the most cynical case of “promoveatur ut amoveatur” ever seen in Church history – that is, promoting someone to another, usually more distant position in order to remove them from their current more influential position. I have argued this point here.
The limits of canonization’s meaning
There is, as usual, a divine irony in all of this. Even if the canonization of Paul VI turns out to have been legitimate – one may have one’s serious doubts, obviously, but one cannot rule out this possibility altogether – it would not, strictly speaking, accomplish what its political proponents intend by it. They intend that by canonizing Paul VI, they effectively canonize his entire Vatican II program and, above all, the liturgical reform. But, as Shawn Tribe of the Liturgical Arts Journal noted:
Anyone who would try to use the canonization of Paul VI to seriously propose that therefore all of the ecclesial and liturgical reforms that took place around his pontificate are therefore canonized and cannot be questioned (let alone reformed/rescinded) is either being intentionally and deceitfully manipulative or is woefully misinformed and uncatechized. Personal sanctity does not equate to infallibility; saints are often found at cross purposes with other saints; not every utterance/policy/decision/opinion of a saint stands the test of time nor the eventual judgement of the Church, nor is it dogmatic – not to mention that the Conciliar and liturgical reforms are not the personal possession of Paul VI but rather of a whole host of people and figures.
The canonization of a Saint does not change the facts of his earthly life. It does not rectify the mistakes he may have made, whether knowingly or unknowingly. It does not change his failures into successes, whether they came about through his fault or that of others. …
[T]he intrinsic merits or demerits of the post-Conciliar reform, and its status as a success or a failure, will not change in any way, shape or form if Pope Paul VI is indeed canonized. No one can honestly say otherwise, and no one has the right to criticize, attack, silence or call for the silencing of other Catholics if they contest that reform. If that reform went beyond the spirit and the letter of what Vatican II asked for in Sacrosanctum Concilium, as its own creators openly bragged that it did; if it was based on bad scholarship and a significant degree of basic incompetence, leading to the many changes now known to be mistakes; if it failed utterly to bring about the flourishing of liturgical piety that the Fathers of Vatican II desired, none of these things will change if Paul VI is canonized. Just as the canonizations of Pius V and X, and the future canonization of XII, did not place their liturgical reforms beyond question or debate, the canonization of Paul VI will not put anything about his reform beyond debate, and no one has any right to say otherwise.
Practical consequences
Given the foregoing, what are the practical consequences for clergy, religious, and laity who doubt the validity of this canonization?
This topic may deserve a separate fuller treatment, but briefly, I would say that anyone with such a doubt or difficulty should not pray to Paul VI, should not invoke him publicly in prayer, should not respond to such invocation, should not offer a Mass in his honor or attend a Mass in his honor, and should not comply with or financially support efforts to promote his artificial “cultus.” On the contrary, it would be advisable to remain silent and, if circumstances permit and prudence dictates, to help other Catholics to see the real problems this canonization raises, as well as other beatifications and canonizations that may have run afoul of Catholic principles.
We are all obliged to pray for the salvation of the Holy Father and for the liberty and exaltation of our Holy Mother the Church on Earth. This intention would implicitly include a petition that the papacy, the Roman Curia, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and the very process of beatification and canonization all be reformed in due season, so that they may better serve the needs of Christ’s faithful and give glory to Almighty God, who is “wondrous in His saints” (Ps 67:36).
NOTES
[1] For example, arguing that all papal disciplinary acts that bear on the entire church must be inerrant and certainly favoring the common good – a position that one might have defended earlier in history, but which, at the present moment, is nothing less than grossly risible.
[2] It is therefore harmful when popularizers write things like this: “Beatification requires one attested miracle and allows the beatified person to be venerated by his local church. Canonization requires two attested miracles and allows veneration of the saint by the universal Church. Canonization is an infallible statement by the Church that the saint is in heaven” (https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-difference-between-saints-and-blesseds). This is to state too much, unless some qualifications are added.
[3] In order not to make my own article unduly long, I will not summarize his argument here, but merely note that it responds fully and amply to the objections usually raised by proponents of the infallibility of canonizations. Inter alia, Lamont refutes the claim that the use of certain Latin terms in the rite of canonization adequately establishes its infallible nature. Additional worthwhile treatments of the subject include this and this.
[4] For example: “A canonization … is a formal papal decree that the candidate was holy and is now in heaven with God; the decree allows public remembrance of the saint at liturgies throughout the church. It also means that churches can be dedicated to the person without special Vatican permission. … ‘In addition to reassuring us that the servant of God lives in heaven in communion with God, miracles are the divine confirmation of the judgment expressed by church authorities about the virtuous life’ lived by the candidate, Pope Benedict said in a speech to members of the Congregation for Saints’ Causes in 2006” (http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2011/holy-confusion-beatification-canonization-are-different.cfm, emphases added).
[6]https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/02/guest-note-paul-vi-pastoral.html. Fr. Hunwicke similarly noted prior to the event: “As if he has not yet created enough divisions within the Church Militant, Pope Francis intends this month to perform the highly divisive act of canonising Blessed Paul VI. Even he, judging from what he said in giving this information to the Clergy of the City, can see that this canonisation business has become a silly giggle: ‘And Benedict and I are on the waiting list,’ he quipped. Delightfully humorous. A very witty joke. Very drole, Sovereign Pontiff. I share the views of many, however, that the joke is a bad one, in as far as this projected canonisation is fundamentally a political action to be linked with the apparent conviction of Pope Francis that he himself is the champion and beneficiary of Bl Paul’s work at Vatican II and afterwards.”
[8] This is surely not for lack of many heroic individuals in that 700-year period – but, as we have said, if there was no popular cultus yielding indisputable miracles, the Church was not going to go rifling through the archives to find whatever candidates for honors she could find and push their causes.
[12] Wikipedia capably summarizes the basic information: “Roger Peyrefitte, who had already written in two of his books that Paul VI had a longtime homosexual relationship, repeated his charges in a magazine interview with a French gay magazine that, when reprinted in Italian, brought the rumors to a wider public and caused an uproar. He said that the pope was a hypocrite who had a longtime sexual relationship with a movie actor. Widespread rumors identified the actor as Paolo Carlini, who had a small part in the Audrey Hepburn film Roman Holiday (1953). In a brief address to a crowd of approximately 20,000 in St. Peters Square on 18 April, Paul VI called the charges ‘horrible and slanderous insinuations’ and appealed for prayers on his behalf. … The charges have resurfaced periodically. In 1994, Franco Bellegrandi, a former Vatican honour chamberlain and correspondent for the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, alleged that Paul VI had been blackmailed and had promoted other gay men to positions of power within the Vatican. In 2006, the newspaper L’Espresso confirmed the blackmail story based on the private papers of police commander General Giorgio Manes. It reported that Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro had been asked to help.” As incredible as such a story may seem, we are more inclined to believe it today because of the indisputable evidence we have of Pope Francis promoting homosexuals to positions of power within the Vatican.
[13] See George Weigel on Ostpolitik. Again, we see that Bergoglio is simply following in Montini’s footsteps by his negotiations and compromises with Communist China.
[14] Or redefined: see this revealing article by John Thavis. Pope Francis waived the requirement of a second miracle for the “canonization” of John XXIII. Thus, incredibly, a pope who does not stand out for notable sanctity and whose cultus was never particularly strong or widespread was elevated to the honors of the altar on the basis of one miracle. We can see in this a fine example of the crass abuse of pontifical power that Francis depends on for his ideological consolidation.
[15] Namely, the “Hermandad Sacerdotal Española de San Antonio Mª Claret y San Juan de Ávila,” which was formed by the “Hermandad Sacerdotal Espanola,” founded in 1969 by Spanish priests to defend Tradition in the face of the changes in the Church, and another similar group, based in Catalonia, called “Asociación de Sacerdotes y Religiosos de San Antonio Maria Claret.” They sent a letter to the Vatican in 1969 petitioning the continued use of the old Roman missal – and Paul VI refused them flatly. Unfortunately, as Spanish and Italian traditionalism was characterized by absolute obedience to Rome, the Novus Ordo was thereafter accepted without cavil, and to this day tradition has difficulty making inroads into either of these cultural spheres.
