By Francis X. Rocca
Religion News Service
Vatican City — In his 26-year reign, Pope John Paul II canonized a record 482 saints and beatified an additional 1,341 Catholics, more than all his predecessors combined since the late 16th century.
John Paul’s recognition of holiness among previously underrepresented groups of laypeople and non-Europeans aroused enthusiasm in the farthest reaches of increasingly global church Roman Catholic Church. But his prolific rate of canonization also inspired talk of the Vatican as a “saint factory” and suggestions of loosening standards.
Benedict XVI seems intent on beating his predecessor’s record. In the nearly three years since he assumed the throne of St. Peter, Benedict has canonized 14 saints and beatified 563 Catholics.
Yet now the church is making it clear that being recognized as a saint remains as tough as ever.
On Monday (Feb. 18), the Vatican released new guidelines intended to promote “greater caution and more accuracy” in the first phase of the process that leads to canonization.
Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, said that the guidelines were needed because existing rules for initial investigations, which are typically conducted in a potential saint’s home diocese, “had not always been understood and hence put into practice … with the due precision.”
Speaking at a Vatican press conference, the cardinal mentioned unspecified “errors” at the local level.
The guidelines themselves refer to “some elements of the procedure that, in these last twenty years, have been problematic” with regard to investigation of “alleged miracles.”
To qualify for beatification, a candidate must have been a martyr or have a miracle attributed to his or her intercession. A second miracle, which must occur after the beatification, is required for a blessed to be proclaimed a saint.
Saraiva Martins said there had been some “confusion” regarding the verification of miracles, but did not provide an example.
One informed observer of the canonization process speculates that the Vatican may have intended the guidelines not just for bishops and diocesan officials but for all Catholics.
“They may be responding to a public perception that under John Paul an excessive number of people were canonized,” said the Rev. James Martin, author of “My Life With the Saints.” “Maybe this is serving as a reminder to the faithful that these rules are still in effect.”
The need for a reminder may be increased, Martin said, by the special treatment that the Vatican has granted certain high-profile causes in recent years.
Last week, Benedict expedited the start of the investigation in the cause of Sister Lucia de Jesus dos Santos, one of three shepherd children said to have seen the Virgin Mary at Fatima, Portugal, in 1917.
Ordinarily, a cause may not be initiated until five years after a candidate’s death. Benedict waived that requirement for Sister Lucia, who died in 2005. He also waived the waiting period for John Paul less than two month’s after the late pope’s death in 2005; and John Paul did the same for Mother Teresa of Calcutta, 18 months after her death in 1997. She was beatified in 2003.
These exceptions were a response to the “voice of the people of God, the requests of so many of the faithful,” Saraiva Martins said.
Yet even in the most celebrated cause, the cardinal insisted, the investigation process must unfold in all its rigor. He also quashed speculation that Benedict might proclaim his predecessor blessed on April 2, when he celebrates Mass in St. Peter’s Square to mark the third anniversary of John Paul’s death.
Benedict “merely waived the wait for the start of the process,” Saraiva Martins said. “He didn’t waive the process itself.”
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted February 19, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I read this article twice and am still confused.
I guess I will see what else I can find on this.
Pope Benny heads the Vatican. So, it sounds like the article is saying that Benny is putting stricter guidelines in place to restrain himself from canonized so many saints.
Okay, maybe I will put in place some guidelines here at home to control myself from eating so much cake.
Peace!
posted February 19, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Benny is after all, German, and must have rules to guide him. Maybe he thinks there are way to many Saints, and want to make sure he doesn’t add to the list. After all, just how many does the church need to for folks to Pray to for help…or intrevene with their god or whatever they’re supposed to do?
posted February 19, 2008 at 9:18 pm
The article seems to be saying the locals have been screwing up and passing non-miraculous folks on up. If so, you might think that would show up in a lower pass rate at the upper level(s?).
What would it mean, according to the rules, if the first miracle never happened but the second one “did”?
posted February 19, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“Benny is after all, German, and must have rules to guide him.”
What in the world is that supposed to mean?
posted February 19, 2008 at 10:03 pm
He has had a life time of rules. IMO, the German people in general, like things precise. This is just an observation, on my part. Also he is now in a position where he gets to make more rules for the RCC…His whole life has been “guided” by rules.
posted February 19, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“He has had a life time of rules.”
As opposed to who, exactly?
“IMO, the German people in general, like things precise. This is just an observation, on my part.”
Is it an observation, or simply buying into popular stereotyping?
“Also he is now in a position where he gets to make more rules for the RCC…”
The article seems to suggest that he is merely clarifying and enforcing existing rules, not creating new ones. In any case, it’s not like the Catholic Church wasn’t rather full of rules before Pope Benedict came along.
“His whole life has been “guided” by rules.”
Again, as opposed to whom?
posted February 19, 2008 at 10:25 pm
“IMO, the German people in general, like things precise. This is just an observation, on my part.”
“Is it an observation, or simply buying into popular stereotyping? “
sounds like stereotyping to me!
posted February 19, 2008 at 10:29 pm
As opposed to those that didn’t live in Germany during WWII.
He joined the priesthood, which I suspect during his generation had some pretty strict rules, thus again more rules than most of us live by. Having German in my blood line, I’m not putting Germany or Germans down by my observation. All cultures are different. Now he is the “Big Cheese” and can make or change any rules he wants. Personally, I don’t care for him, or what he has done to take the church back to the “bad old days”, but not beig Catholic, it doesn’t affect me.
posted February 19, 2008 at 11:02 pm
“As opposed to those that didn’t live in Germany during WWII.”
Because, say, the British were lawless during WWII?
“He joined the priesthood, which I suspect during his generation had some pretty strict rules, thus again more rules than most of us live by.”
And you believe that German priests lived under more rules than, say, Spanish priests? Again, I don’t see anything uniquely German about following rules.
“Having German in my blood line, I’m not putting Germany or Germans down by my observation. All cultures are different.”
But you see, you really are. You are perpetuating a stereotype of Germans that was practically non-existent prior to WWII and completely non-existent prior to WWI. Your “observation” is really just a hold over of anti-German war propaganda that, like all stereotypes, provides a grossly inaccurate picture of Germans. Prior to WWII, the typical stereotype that Europeans and Americans held of Germans was that they were all Bohemian dreamers, idealists with their heads in the clouds. Such a stereotype was probably no more “precise” an indicator of the German experience than the one you are perpetuating. Nevertheless, you might be surprised to learn that some of the most influential players in America’s 1960s Hippie scene could trace their roots directly back to Germany. Similarly, you might view your German blood line a bit differently if you were to explore the decadence of the Weimar Republic prior to Hitler’s rise to power. For that matter, you might want to explore some of the activities of the Fasching tradition.
To bring this back on topic, it seems to me, again, that the Pope is simply clarifying existing rules. Moreover, his willingness to expedite the process in the case of Pope John Paul II and several others would seem to undermine your portrayal of him as being rule obsessed.
posted February 20, 2008 at 12:08 am
Let me start by saying I have little sympathy for hagiography. That being said, it seems this spokes-bird (Cardinal – get it? Forget it) is saying that only Europeans need apply – and preferably caucasian.
This leads to another issue, only indirectly related to this piece. I reviewed the Timeline of Early Christianity and was npressed by the graphics included with it – EXCEPT ONE. When refering to Paul’s epistles the graphic was in English with chapters and verses. Given all the other graphics, this seems wholly (and holy) out of place and misleading. owever, it does betray a bias toward Anglo Christians, that seems in line with the spokes-bird’s implications. We need to erase from our minds that the Bible was written in English, or worse, American. Good Grief, are we STILL that arrogant?!?!
There was no where along the timeline to leave comments so I thought I would leave it here.
posted February 20, 2008 at 4:05 am
The Catholic Church needs to do away with this tradition of naming people “saints” based on their performance or accomplishments. That is not scriptural. Sainthood comes from ones birth in Christ, not the things they do. In other words, the Christian’s identity comes from birth, not behavior.
The New Testament calls Christians “saints” about 63 times. It is all about what He (Jesus) did and still does for us, not about what we do.
posted February 20, 2008 at 7:52 am
The RCC has every right to canonize as many and whomever they like.
In re-reading the article this morning….I am still confused. JP2 canonized a record number…Benny is on his way to beat that record…yet the article seems to be pointing out that:
“Yet now the church is making it clear that being recognized as a saint remains as tough as ever.
On Monday (Feb. 18), the Vatican released new guidelines intended to promote “greater caution and more accuracy” in the first phase of the process that leads to canonization.”
Okay. So?
Later in the article, it almost sounds as though the Vatican is complaining/stating that part of the reason there have been so many new saints designated is that the local dioceses are not following the procedure. Okay, and then the Vatican is powerless to do anything other than beatify and/or canonize the nominated person?
Some how this is reminicent of the other Vatican released new stories where they are clarifying their clarification of the Popes statement clarifying what he previously clarified.
Are they just trying to get more media attention? Perhaps they should just by more ad space.
Peace!
posted February 20, 2008 at 11:06 am
T’ysson:
I am an American…so what blood lines run through my body are my heritage. My ancestors came from England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Germany. NO problem. All of these countries have certain ways of doing things and thinking and that is good, IMO. Makes life more interesting.
Of course all priests in training had rules..I would have thought you would have assumed that also.
As to perpetuating a steriotype, that is your opinion…that wasn’t and isn’t my intention. It was purely an observation of the man on my part. Thus we disagree.
posted February 20, 2008 at 11:23 am
“I am an American…so what blood lines run through my body are my heritage. My ancestors came from England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Germany. NO problem. All of these countries have certain ways of doing things and thinking and that is good, IMO. Makes life more interesting.”
I’m afraid I don’t see what your point here is or how it relates to our disagreement. I share similar ancestry, but that doesn’t change the fact that the notion of Germans as rule obsessed lovers of precision is a largely unjustified stereotype left over from world war propaganda.
“Of course all priests in training had rules..I would have thought you would have assumed that also.”
Ummm… It was you who implied that German priests somehow lived under more rules than other priests, not me.
“As to perpetuating a steriotype, that is your opinion…that wasn’t and isn’t my intention. It was purely an observation of the man on my part. Thus we disagree.”
Actually, it’s more than simply my opinion. You are, in fact, perpetuating a stereotype, one that is easily refuted by even a cursory look at German philosophical and social history, things you have, apparently, never “observed.” So, yes, we disagree.
posted February 20, 2008 at 11:49 am
I agree with you Pagansister, different nationalities do have built in characteristics, (in the genes), as well as personalities, blame that on how one is brought up and who with. Having been brought up between WWI and WWII in the “mixing pot” of America I’ve observed this too. We perpetuate our own stereotypes by our genetics. It is what makes life interesting and something to argue over apparently.
posted February 20, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“I agree with you Pagansister, different nationalities do have built in characteristics, (in the genes), as well as personalities, blame that on how one is brought up and who with. Having been brought up between WWI and WWII in the “mixing pot” of America I’ve observed this too. We perpetuate our own stereotypes by our genetics. It is what makes life interesting and something to argue over apparently.”
It’s important to be careful here. I don’t disagree with the premise that different peoples perpetuate different characteristics based on culture and, likely, genetics. I simply disagree with Pagansister that Germans are the precision loving rule obsessed people that she would portray them as. I can, and have, offered concrete examples of where that stereotype is hopelessly flawed. All you can Pagansister retort with are your “observations,” that, frankly, don’t seem particularly observant.
posted February 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm
It’s a commonly held stereotype. I have Germans among my ancestors but that stereotype doesn’t bother me; it’s far less hurtful than some that are current. As to how true it is; I have no idea. I am sure the range of rule-obsession among Germans is quite wide, I just don’t know how the mean compares with others and I don’t much care.
It’s likely bad to propagate stereotypes and fighting them is probably good but if you are going to fight them you need to do consistently. So I’ll look forward to warnings when we see stereotypes about blacks, Jews, atheists, the French, etc.
posted February 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Týsson-
As a poster who has not been involved in this till now, it appears to me that you may be taking offense where I am certain that none was intended.
For the record, my experience with Germans is that many/most of them have a higher degree of self-disapline and ridgidness than do many/most Americans. I do not say this with any judgement as to which is more desirable. I only say it as my observation. I spent several years in the hotel business and have had the opportunity to work with countless German hotel/food & beverage professionals from outstanding chefs to outstanding General Managers.
Now, I will allow for the possibility that they simple demonstrated a higher degree of self-disapline and rigidousity than other Germans and that is what made them successful. However, since I had the pleasure to meet many of their spouses and children….and, they displayed the same traits…..I am inclined to think that this is part of the culture and/or in the genes.
Again, this is in no way intended to be derogatory. I am just stating what I too think just is.
As far as “precision loving rule obessed”, for the record, I would much prefer a German made auto over an American made auto for the very reason that I have found them to be much more precision made.
Peace!
posted February 20, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Týsson-
Further, I don’t any person who has become pope in the last couple of hundred years could have done so with out a tremendous degree of self-disapline. Again, I do not see that as derogatory…rather, I see that as a strength.
Prior to the last couple of years it would appear that more than a couple of popes rose to the office through the efforts, power, and money of their families.
Peace!
posted February 20, 2008 at 2:45 pm
T’ysson:
Yes, we disagree. I am not perpetuating anything. Making an observation…mine…and not meant as putting the Germans down by any means. End of discussion on my part.
posted February 20, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“It’s a commonly held stereotype.”
Indeed. That’s rather my point. An interesting question you might ask yourself is why. The answers might surprise you.
posted February 20, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“Further, I don’t any person who has become pope in the last couple of hundred years could have done so with out a tremendous degree of self-disapline. Again, I do not see that as derogatory…rather, I see that as a strength.”
So you would seem to agree that it is a personal trait, not necessarily a cultural trait.
See, here’s my problem. Those who perpetuate the rigid, self-disciplined, fussy, precision, rule-obsessed stereotype of Germans have a very difficult time explaining things like the Fasching or the decadence of the Weimar Republic or the nudist colonies of the German Reform Movements or the crazy antics of the Wandervogel groups or Oktoberfest or Berlin or…
I certainly wouldn’t argue that Germans don’t also love precision. Rather, you have to balance their production of finely tuned, high-performance engines with their love and celebration of the natural world. It could be argued that they are as “obsessed” with the latter as they are with the former, in fact probably more so.
Look at it this way. One popular image most of the world holds of Germans is their love of clocks. Absolutely, they have created mechanical wonders for the precise measurement of time. To focus on their precise timing, however, is to miss the beauty, whimsy and utter extravagance of the time pieces. Which is “more German,” then, the gears and flywheels or the eccentric displays that dance and sing the time?
posted February 20, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“The Catholic Church needs to do away with this tradition of naming people “saints” based on their performance or accomplishments. That is not scriptural. Sainthood comes from ones birth in Christ, not the things they do. In other words, the Christian’s identity comes from birth, not behavior.
The New Testament calls Christians “saints” about 63 times. It is all about what He (Jesus) did and still does for us, not about what we do.”
I believe it was SAINT Paul that said, “faith without works, is dead”. That’s all that needs to be said to refute the above.
posted February 20, 2008 at 10:37 pm
As I’ve said before..How many cotten- picken’ saints does any church need? Holy Cow! Doesn’t seem to be too hard to be a chosen one for the title of “saint” if the popes continue to name them, like the 482 that JP2 added to the list. They do investigations on each one? Like Mother Therese and JP2 who are on the “fast track”? Must have to have a saint for each RCC member to pray to.