Maciel’s Mother Was A Saint?
According to this article in the New York Review of Books, Pope John Paul II was cooperating in the efforts to make the founder of the Legion of Christ’s mother a saint.
Three things strike me:
1) For many people, it was about appearances: The Legion looked wholesome and holy. The appearance of holiness is not holiness. Furthermore, neither is the appearance of wholesomeness.
2) For the Vatican, it seems to have been about the money and the power.
3) John Paul II’s involvement in this really needs to be sorted out. These accusations are serious. The idea that he was simply “duped” is not plausible given the facts available to us now –it may be true, but if so, we need more information to see how it is true.
In the meantime, we all need to re-read the great reversals of the beatitudes–and of the Gospels themselves..
I do not understand why *Commonweal* has not yet published an editorial imploring Pope Benedict XVI to halt all efforts to beatify and canonize Pope John Paul II.
The Legionaries of Christ need to be shut down. Period.
Well, it is possible she was a saint, and he was a great sinner. This kind of relationship between saint and sinner (or heretic)* is not too unusual, and I think it is because there can be a fine line which moves one from a saintly destiny to great error. I think we should always be careful with guilt by association, even though I understand the suspicion.
The Legionaries of Christ were established as a personality cult, built on a retrograde ecclesiology and lockstep (and blind) obedience to religious authorities. A number of top Vatican officials obviously believed Marcial to the new St Francis or St Dominic that was needed to begin a revival in the Church. They were mistaken.
The only way to save whatever good that exists within is to shut down the institute, change its name and re-found the entire operation.
If it weren’t such a cash cow and did not continuously cart large sums of money to the Holy See, that is exactly what would happen.
It is a scandal that Marcial was never expelled from the priesthood. So many other men have been kicked for much lesser crimes.
What facts make it no longer plausible that Pope JPII was duped?
John McGreevy linked to this article here a few weeks ago (I was grateful for his warning about “dimestore psychoanalysis of the priesthood”), but I didn’t get to read it until now. I’m amazed that the Maciel scandal overlaps with questions of how money and influence affect the Church’s saint-making machine. It’s like this one man was determined to expose every ugly fault line the institution has.
Here’s what the article says about St. Guízar (Rafael Guízar Valencia), who was beatified in 1995 and canonized (by Benedict) in 2006.
I think the task of interceding to help the Church through this mess should fall to him.
We should not focus on whether John Paul II was “duped.” His failure to insist on an immediate and thorough investigation of the canonical complaint filed against Father Marcial Maciel Degollado by *eight* accusers in 1998 was an abdication of his responsibility as Pope.
Regardless of the esteem in which a President holds one of his cabinet members, if the President receives eight sworn affidavits alleging that the cabinet member has committed serious crimes, the President is failing to live up to the responsibilities of his office if he refuses to direct the Attorney General to conduct a thorough investigation of the accusations. It is no defense of that hypothetical President to say that he was deceived by his esteem for the accused cabinet member.
During the current worsening of the post-Vatican II crisis in the Church’s human dimensions, we must avoid confused and distorted thinking and face the facts, however upsetting they may be.
I wonder if someone in Rome will come forward now with the claim that Marcial Maciel went bad because he (like so many others) “misinterpreted” Vatican II!
Duped?
You can’t rape the willing.
The same NYR article offers another topic for investigation:
“I once attended a major church festivity in a small town at which several of the priests and nuns who arrived to concelebrate Mass were openly, and even defiantly, there with their partners, either homosexual or hetero.”
In medieval saints’ lives, it was conventional to begin with the childhood of the saint. It was not uncommon that a saints’ mother or father also had a saintly reputation. It is hard to say which came first, the saint’s reputation or his parents. Someplace there is an article on this by Michael Goodich. Andre Vauchez also discusses it.
In the case of St. Edmund of Abingdon, his mother gave him both her hair shirt and her chain mail that she wore for penance. She basically receives a mini-saints’ life. Edmund’s own brother testified at the canonization inquests, and I wonder if he was the source for the info, or perhaps Edmund had talked about his mom a lot. Or, maybe it was felt to be necessary to elaborate. Edmund’s brother and two sisters who entered a nunnery were also reported to be saints.
Of course, none of his family was proposed for canonization. But, this would not preclude a local reputation.
JC–you’re not saying that Maciel was a saint are you? I cannot see how his mother would be in this process, which is heavily dependent on money and connections (ask Woodward has shown) were it not for her son. I can certainly see how Maciel and some of his followers would have liked him to be declared a saint–that would have been the logical move for the LC, just as for Opus Dei..
And it seems to me that we came pretty close to that happening–if JP had outlived Maciel, it might very well have happened. And then, once all this came out, what would have become of the reputation of the canonization process?
This isn’t my area of specialty: Does the Church teach that someone it declares a saint is definitely in heaven?
JC on the other hand, there are saints with infamous sons, like St Leonidas of Alexandria. His son was Origen.
Cathleen,
“The decree of Beatification either permits the veneration of the individual or requires such veneration by Catholics only in the local region in which the individual lived. A beatified person is called “Blessed.” The decree of Canonization requires Catholics around the world to honor or venerate the new saint.”
That’s from an article on Anne Catherine Emmerich.
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/commentary_emmerich.htm
We are REQUIRED to honor and venerate people who are canonized saints, even those who probably never existed (Juan Diego, e.g.), and those whose behavior seems repugnant or insane, but who had powerful backers.
I’m sorry. I am NOT saying that Maciel was a saint. I was just coming out of my dissertation land to make not terribly relevant observations. The story of Maciel just reminded me of the conventions that go with saints lives. Perhaps this thing about Maciel’s mother was part of the LC’s groundwork for making Maciel a saint. Or, perhaps it was just some pet thing of Maciel’s. Or, as Henry notes, maybe she was a saint. All we know about it is one sentence. I’d like to know more. I know very little about modern canonization, but I can say that there were always forces advocating canonization. This does not mean that somehow it’s all political. There are those miracles, remember.
Yes, a canonized saint is someone that the church knows to be in heaven. Thus, the miracles are needed to prove that God is working through the saint.
As a devotee of the saints, I’d like to know who Gerelyn thinks is a repugnant canonized saint? St. Jerome was definitely unsavory, but he never underwent a canonization because canonization did not begin until the 12th C. Gerelyn, if the church was wrong about Juan Diego, you will be edified to know that the church demoted some saints whose existence became doubted by historians: Catherine of Alexandria and Margaret of Antioch. Of course, these saints were not canonized either. But, it should give you some hope to go with your negativity.
Lastly, until very recently it was very difficult to get canonized. There were barely any canonizations in the middle ages.
I don’t read/understand the publication, but … is there a book review somewhere in there?
The article would have been stronger if this paragraph had been left out:
“But there is the also the question of the future of the Church and of its priests and nuns as sexual beings. It is not necessarily cheap psychology to speculate that extreme sexual repression of the sort imposed by the Church on its members leads to perversion, an issue that has surfaced importunately for the last millenium. Many religious, it would seem, opt to “obey” rules but not comply with them, as the Spanish formulation has it (“obedezco, pero no cumplo”). I offer this simply as anecdotal evidence, but in my casual, friendly, and often admiring acquaintance with members of the Catholic orders—all from the social activist branch of the church, for whatever it’s worth—a remarkable number have been involved in some sort of couple relationship. “
Yes. Mollie linked to the book review via John McGreevy. But you have to pay for that. The blog is free.
I wasn’t taken as much with the speculation, but with the facts–especially the facts about the beatificaton/canonizaton of his relatives.
I think abolishing the devil’s advocate was a bad idea.
“Gerelyn, if the church was wrong about Juan Diego, you will be edified to know that the church demoted some saints whose existence became doubted by historians: Catherine of Alexandria and Margaret of Antioch. Of course, these saints were not canonized either. But, it should give you some hope to go with your negativity.”
——
Ouch.
Thanks for the reminder that some saints’ cults have been suppressed. Others, who were legendary rather than real, survived the 1969 purge. (Some of those who were “demoted” have become even more popular than before in certain circles.)
(Not interested in mentioning which modern “saints” I consider repugnant, insane, tools of fascist governments, etc. I wouldn’t want my negativity to disedify their followers.)
As I understand it, the canonization process approves the veneration of the saint, but does not require it. The additional step of including the saint in a liturgical calendar can, if the saint is popular enough, result eventually in raising the status of their commemoration to an obligatory memorial, which would mean their memory is required. But people are free to abstain from the cult of any particular saint as they see fit.
The presumption is that canonized saints are in heaven, but the real issue is intercession. Canonization approves of the saint as an intercessor. Yet souls in purgatory can intercede for the living too, so in principle one who is being purified could still intercede.
Prof. Kaveny – here is just released link to John Allen article about the necessity of transparency and open accountability within the church including or most especially in Rome:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/global-case-good-government-church
This seems an apt article given the questions surfaced by Ms. Guillermoprieto and also linked to the current worldwide sexual abuse crisis.
Allen highlights:
“If Catholicism becomes more accountable, collaborative and transparent in the 21st century, it will be because the argument was crafted in terms that speak to the experience of the global church.”
“…..many African bishops, clergy, theologians and lay activists see their top social priority as raising a new generation of ethically sensitive African leaders, inclined to think in terms of the common good rather than enriching themselves, their political allies, and their clan.
All this is creating a “push/pull” dynamic within the African church, because as leaders push their societies to fight corruption, they’re also pulled to adopt the same strategies within the church. Catholic leaders cannot effectively mount an anti-corruption campaign in the broader society if they’re perceived as unaccountable and non-transparent themselves. To put the point in a more positive fashion, a growing number of African bishops and other Catholic leaders want the church to model the governance practices they’re proposing to the broader culture.”
(BTW – in a related manner, one of my previous history professors, Rev. Stafford Poole, CM, has written exhaustively about the facts, history, and process of canonizing Juan Diego. His published conclusions have created such animosity that it is no longer save for him to leave the US and travel in Mexico)
The thing that is damning in all of this is that JP II abolished the office of devil’s advocate.
Rome cannot face unpleasant truth anymore, and that’s the shame of it. No wonder so many leave the Church — they just can’t abide being put in the same box with those liars and thieves. Even the TV comedians are starting to take pot shots at the Vatican. That wouldn’t have happened even 10 years ago. Now “The Church” is the laughing-stock internationally.
One, true, holy Roman Catholic Church? Well, it’s Roman.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a decree of beatification.”
In other words, there’s no choice. After a decree of canonization, we all are bound to honor and venerate the saint.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
A modern example would be Escriva:
“. . . we declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá to be a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NLqS0S-kkZwJ:www.opusdei.us/art.php%3Fp%3D12479+decree+of+canonization&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Gerelyn, the Catholic Encyclopedia dates from 1907. It is not to be relied upon. Even in this article, the author a number of times says this is my opinion. There are contested issues running through the subject. One huge question is whether canonizations are infallible, and there are people arguing on both sides. Don’t take this article as the final word. I am sorry I do not have the books on my shelves to point out a better treatment. Perhaps others do?
With regard to Escriva, or any other saint for that matter, “devoutly honored throughout the church” pertains to institutional legitimacy. It marks as legitimate everywhere the building churches named for that person, holding devotions, praying invoking that person as intercessor and so on. It does not mean that person must be honored by each of her members. It can’t. There are more saints than anybody can honor personally. If someone has conscientious scruples about a particular saint, nobody can force that person to pray to this saint or to dissolve those scruples of conscience.
“In other words, there’s no choice. After a decree of canonization, we all are bound to honor and venerate the saint.”
What does it meant to venerate someone? What concrete action is required? Is failure to venerate,whatever that may mean, sinful? Is merel lack of attention to a saint sinful? What is going on here?
Thanks, Rita! But even in 1907 someone took this position is a supposedly authoritative publication meant to enlighten the faithful?
“In other words, there’s no choice. After a decree of canonization, we all are bound to honor and venerate the saint.”
Venerate Escriva? Not a chance! Is the cafeteria open when it comes to picking and choosing saints to venerate?
Oh dear, perhaps the Lord is laughing out loud as He surveys the landscape. Pio Nino and John 23 beatified together!
Rita, thanks for the reminder of the age of the venerable Catholic Encyclopedia. (I’ve loved it for many decades.)
As to your interpretation of the clear decree pronounced by Pope John Paul II? I have to disagree with it. The soon-to-be St. John Paul II said nothing about devoutly honoring Escriva unless you have conscientious scruples about it.
(JPII spent the night before his elevation to the papacy lying prostrate before Escriva’s tomb.)
Joseph,
“With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner’s advantage. More detailed explanation of dulia and the reasons for which it is shown to persons or things will be found in the articles IMAGES, RELICS, SAINTS. See also ADORATION and WORSHIP.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm
—————
We must venerate and invoke them. The Church’s decision to institute the Feast of All Saints provided us with an excellent way to reach those holy women and men, saints of God, who are long forgotten or out of fashion.
Omnes sanctae et sancti Deae, intercedite pro nobis!
“Venerate Escriva? Not a chance! Is the cafeteria open when it comes to picking and choosing saints to venerate?”
———-
Hi, Carolyn!
Here’s my method: if there’s a “saint” who was obviously legendary (or perhaps apparently unworthy of dulia), I just say a prayer to ALL the people in heaven with that name.
E.g., St. Nicholas may not have existed, or he may have been merely a Christianization of Neptune, or maybe he existed but didn’t toss bags of dowry money through windows, etc., etc., but surely there’s lots of Nicholas energy in heaven from all the Nicks of all the ages, and one or many of them may step up and grant my petition.
Gerelyn –
I think you waste your time trying to make sense of the palpable nonsense that comes out of Rome sometimes. You’re quite capable of critical thinking (you prove that regularly here), so let them have it when they deserve it. Vatican II says that we are sometimes *bound* to talk back. Go get ‘em, girl!
Gerelyn
The word “dulia” means slavery. Hmm?
On canonization I recommend the first chapter of Cathy Mooney’s “Philippine Duchesne: A Woman with the Poor”. She offers a critique of canonization, c. 1990. She is a historian at Jesuit school of theology at BC.
Woodward is a good place to start also.
This whole discussion has become silly. Saints do not have to be perfect, but only to be proven to be in heaven. I don’t know much about Escriva’s politics, but politics is a very unsure thing, and one doesn’t need to get it right to go to heaven.
“Proven to BE in heaven”? Would you care to rephrase?
“If it weren’t such a cash cow and did not continuously cart large sums of money to the Holy See, that is exactly what would happen.”
This raises a question I’ve honestly never considered — is the need for cashflow enough of a felt day to day reality at the Vatican that it could actually seduce a Pope in this way? Does the Pope attend meetings where budgets are presented?
I’ve always assumed JPII’s tolerance/support for Maciel was based on a desire to avoid scandal at all costs, a desire to be loyal to a person loved by fellow conservatives, and the hope that he might fuel some sort of charismatic religious revival. Surely living in the Vatican makes it hard to worry about the Church’s financial future?
I used to think that mariolotry is Catholicism’s biggest (not only, however) Achille’s heal. Now I am hereby expanding it to the whole process of declaring someone a “saint.” The word “farcial” leaps to mind on a regular basis.
OTOH: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/nyregion/25saint.html?scp=1&sq=brooklyn%20saint&st=cse
I’m sure that once enough cash crosses the requisite palms, the process will roll and the “amazing” miracles will be discovered in the nick of time.
Farcial, farcial, farcial.
“The word ‘dulia’ means slavery. Hmm?”
——–
Hi, Joseph!
I remember first hearing about dulia and hyperdulia and latria in parochial school. Those were the days.
Slavery? I don’t see talking to invisible friends as a form of slavery, and I don’t think they regard me as a slave, although I try to repay their favors in my poor earth-bound way. E.g., a little notice in the classified ads of a Catholic periodical or a mention on a message board.
More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of, and when an issue is not important enough to bother God or the BVM with, the saints come through.
They can be funny, too. Once, on the feast of my Confirmation patron, I told her I expected a little joke that day, and there it was in the obituary column — the notice of the death of a woman with St. Catherine’s last name, Benincasa. LOL
“This raises a question I’ve honestly never considered — is the need for cashflow enough of a felt day to day reality at the Vatican that it could actually seduce a Pope in this way?”
————
If you page through a book of saints, you’ll notice a few things: how many more men than women, obviously, and how many of the women were queens.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
How many people who are proposed for canonization are actually canonized in the end? Are there any statistics?
Hermann Contractus is still waiting. He must have done something pretty awful.
“As a devotee of the saints, I’d like to know who Gerelyn thinks is a repugnant canonized saint?
I’ll nominate the murderer, St. Pedro de Arbues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_de_Arbu%C3%A9s
Henry
You said “… there are saints with infamous sons, like St Leonidas of Alexandria. His son was Origen.’
Origen is an important, if controversial, figure in the history of theology and exegesis and he by no means deserves the slur epithet “infamous”.
Joseph
I am a fan of Origen. However, he has been officially put on the record as a “heretic,” with “Origenism” condemned at an ecumenical council.
We should also investigate St. Paul. He sent several collections to the Church in Jerusalem, no doubt to gain favor there.
Patrick, there’s really an interesting question there: What’s an impermissible bribe and what’s not? Take a look at John Noonan’s book Bribes–it’s eight hundred pages long, so don’t put it in your luggage!.
If there is one Vatican office that should be closed down it is the Congregation for Saints.
A bunch of fat old monsignors who have never done a day’s work in a parish — or anyplace else — are the ones who judge who is in heaven and who is not.
Do you realize that?
Let us not forget St. Buddha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat
“A bunch of fat old monsignors who have never done a day’s work in a parish — or anyplace else — are the ones who judge who is in heaven and who is not.”
Who staffs the other Vatican offices? Thin monsignori? Or fat monsignori who have done work?
Oh, never mind. I got it. Fat young monsignori who have never done work.
Cathleen,
I agree that it’s quite difficult to distinguish bribery from acceptable quid pro quo arrangements or legitimate reciprocity. Political scientists Banfield and Wilson long ago pointed out that whenever money is involved some onlookers will become hysterical even though they may find little fault in possibly more valuable and more corrupting exchanges involving prestige, influence or honors. I’m sure Noonan can elaborate though I have enough 800 page volumes on my reading list for now.
I suppose I should say that I hope no one takes seriously my comment about St. Paul. It was meant as a reduction ad absurdum (and, to be candid, at least a mild caveat to your contention that for the Vatican money and power have been unduly influential).
On the topic of saints allow me to recommend one of Newman’s sermons, Faith without Sight. He discusses the credulous mind versus the sagacious mind, not explicitly in connection with saints but more generally in regard to faith. He offers a defense of credulity in matters religious, concluding that “to believe much is more blessed than to believe little.” In passing he also observes that the credulous are often more morally sensitive than the skeptical, a judgment I share.
It’s an interesting argument, reminiscent of Burke’s defense of prejudice and Pascal’s Wager.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume2/sermon2.html
My word processor doesn’t understand Latin and therefore mistakenly changed reductio to reduction.
We need a saint to combat computer gremlins.
I don’t know if Maciel’s mother was a saint, but his wives must have been…
Robert MIckens –
When Pope John XXIII was asked how many people worked in the Vatican he replied, “About half”.
(I wonder if he really said it :-)
If you go to Mama Maurita’s official webpage for the “cause” of her canonization, you will see that Marcial Maciel himself has endorsed her as saint (yes, they actually still use his quotes). http://www.maurita.org/educadora.phtml (there is an endearing photo of the two of them together, too, for our edification)
Meanwhile, if you google search her, there are rumors that she smoke and drank (I would, too, if I had birthed a monster like Maciel), wasn’t afraid to whack her kids, wasn’t even very likable, and that her own daughters were really surprised that she was promoted for sainthood because she was just a “”regular” mom.
No telling where the truth really lies. But I think it is probably safe to say that the truth definitely does not lie in any Maciel version of his mother. That incestuous criminal was nothing but lies and more lies.
Unagidon wins the thread. Thanks to him I have a freshly cleaned monitor and new cup of coffee.
Unagidon, laughing out loud.
Maciel instructed his followers to delay his own cause for canonization to 30 years after his death — perhaps to make sure all his seminarian victims were dead by then.
Thank you, Robert Mickens, for your comments. I see not only the Congregation for Saints, but many other monsignori and higher throughout the curia who have fattened off their self-important self-images as direct successors to the apostles, alter Christuses, and such.
Something unhealthy happens in that hothouse of clerical narcissism, where people expect to be treated with unquestioning deference. Survivors ran smack into it.
As for laity, grown men and women, successful in business and other professions, etc. become weak-kneed with obsequious demeanor when part of the clerical inner circle. The young kid in them is overwhelmed.
Let’s grow up and get over it. These are human beings, just as ambitious as the next guy, and it is not the *Vatican’s* financial future they are concerned about either.
Does sanctity appear anywhere, mixed in with the corruption? No doubt, but it is not obvious. Give Ratzinger credit for not being on the take from Maciel, but still no meaningful accountability ensued. Legionaries today are prominent in Vatican circles, enjoying honors in recent weeks, featured speakers, etc, etc, when they need to be disbanded.
The only comfort comes from Ratzinger himself, when commenting on the role of the Holy Spirit in church governance (thanks to Jim McCrea): “Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
Keep the faith (source of life, invaluable); reform the church (another matter altogether).
Naive credulity is not a virtue. And those who would encourage it are in error. I agree with Robert Mickens: the absurd process of declaring people saints just because they have pull in Rome is a disgrace to the church.
The year of the priest has had its harrowing moments, but surely one needless disaster was the idea of holding up the weird John Vianney as a model cleric. Those fellows in Rome have strange taste.
Vianney:
“Without the Sacrament of Holy Orders, we would not have the Lord. Who put him there in that tabernacle? The priest. Who welcomed your soul at the beginning of your life? The priest. Who feeds your soul and gives it strength for its journey? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, bathing it one last time in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest, always the priest. And if this soul should happen to die [as a result of sin], who will raise it up, who will restore its calm and peace? Again, the priest… AFTER GOD, THE PRIEST IS EVERYTHING … Only in heaven will he fully realize what he is”.[5]
Benedict: These words, welling up from the priestly heart of the holy pastor, might sound excessive. Yet they reveal the high esteem in which he held the sacrament of the priesthood. He seemed overwhelmed by a boundless sense of responsibility:
“Were we to fully realize what a priest is on earth, we would die: not of fright, but of love… Without the priest, the passion and death of our Lord would be of no avail. It is the priest who continues the work of redemption on earth…
What use would be a house filled with gold, were there no one to open its door? The priest holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods … Leave a parish for twenty years without a priest, and they will end by worshiping the beasts there … The priest is not a priest for himself, he is a priest for you”.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090616_anno-sacerdotale_en.html
What to make of these words? No wonder survivors and everyone else thought of priests as next to God, a dangerous assumption.
In Benedict’s closing of the Year for Priests, he refused to own the hierarchy’s culpability for the scandal, casting blame on the devil timing recent media coverage to mar the celebration of clergy.
Let’s do celebrate the dedication of unsung heroes in the priesthood, but good heavens, get a grip.
Just a bibliographical note. The Catholic Encylopedia (1907), is on line because it’s out of copyright. The New Catholic Encylopedia arrived in 1967, is definitely in copyright, and therefore you have to go to your local library to find it.
How much difference is there between them? I don’t know. The 1967 version says that Pio Nono’s Syllabus of Errors is binding on call Catholics. I’m not sure that all Catholics would agree. For example, do we still consider these two items as “errors?” (and if so, what do we do with John XXIII and Vatican II?
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
But then, whoever considered the Catholic Encyclopedia in either its old or new forms to be “authoritative?” (except perhaps the publishers).
Today, June 26, just so happens to be the feast of another shining example of holiness that the gentleman at the Congregation of Saints have deemed profitable to provide the universal Church.
Happy Feast of St Josemaria Escriva!
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6166044-title-not-a-proper-english-phrase-03271810062468907
But, alas, we name never be celebrating the feast of St John Paul the Great.
The best-connected court scribe in the Vatican, Andrea Tornielli, has a piece this morning in Il Giornale titled, in part, “Da Santo Subito a Santo Mai”. According to the translation principles set forth in Liturgium Authenticam, that would be, “from saint immediately, to saint never”.
I don’t understand why anyone would disparage the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917.
It’s old, but so are the Gospels.
Some of it is outdated, but much of it holds up and even seems progressive when compared to some of the new attitudes that have taken hold.
I hope anyone unfamiliar with it or unaccustomed to consulting it will take a look. (It could be that some dislike it because of the conservative bent of those who have made it available online.)
This link is to “Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia”:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/00001a.htm
An impressive description of how it was compiled. “All articles of a doctrinal character were submitted to the censors appointed by ecclesiastical authority.”
Its introduction:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
“The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine.”
“The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published.”
My suggestion: Pick a letter at random and click it. Then, in the highlighted area at the top, click on “full index” for your chosen letter. Read the list of entries. Choose a couple that interest you and see what you think.
The entries on the tribes of Europe and of America are interesting, imho, as are those on religious orders. The entries on individual bishops, like the Kenricks, are good.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm
The veneration of Saints was a cash cow when it became popular following the fourth century. The “real” body of Martin of Tours was claimed by every town. The holy person became a necessity in the fourth century since Christianity at large was now mostly political as empire replaced the Way that had been the practice of the faith. As many here see quite clearly many rogues have been declared saints.
We have to shut down those cash cows and let the real saints emerge.
Nicholas Clifford: I wonder what writings/teachings of today will seem as “peculiar” in 100 years as the Cath Ency entries you quote. I’ve got a few examples in mind. The Encycl is wonderful as a time capsule and reminder of how limited our understanding is. Humility, please.
Robert Mickens: As it happens I have a 3″ x 4″ copy of “The Way” to hand, a little red book given to my unsuspecting 8th grade daughter by Opus Dei lay teachers working among youth in our parish those decades ago.
The couple ran sessions at their home, then invited her for a weekend, believe it was actually a week, at some camp facility or other. Thank God, thank God, we became uneasy about letting her go that long, and canceled out. Church activity, good influence, what’s to worry about?
It’s the secrecy and deception. I never knew she was given the book, autographed by that couple. The text was only discovered last year as I went through her old collection of children’s books to see what might be of interest to her young son. I was furious to think how close we came to being duped.
“The Way” has 999 counsels, or short sayings – the usual exhortations (Worry? Never! That’s to lose your peace). The interesting parts are the commentaries circa 1965 by:
Osservatore Romano – “Monsignor Escriva de Balaguer has written something more than a masterpiece: he has written straight from the heart…
The Tablet, London: “Indeed a new kind of spiritual classic.”
Target the elites at major universities with nearby residences, and numerous foundations and programs with no OD identification in their names (http://www.odan.org/foundations.htm), go after the moneyed (like the Legionaries), hyper orthodox, secretive, keep separate doors for men and women at NY headquarters, schmooze John Allen to build respectability (self-flagellation like going to the gym), two US bishops now OD, get a pope online, a women’s group as back-up, sainthood in the mix, and the sky is the limit.
Oh my, Lord help us. A skilled priest once told me, people basically want to be told what to do, and gave a funny example:
After V-II when parish councils were being formed, a woman called him, asking how many members one should have, 11 or 13? 11 too few or 13 too many? Sensing the situation, he said 11 is the right number. She hung up satisfied. Feeling sheepish, he called her back to apologize for pulling her leg. She had no idea why an apology was needed; she had her answer.
Is that the attraction of groups like OD, the Legion, and their variants? You don’t have to think, a certain neediness, and it is all laid out for you? Not to demean powerful emotional or psychological needs, but what is the draw, and why can’t people see through the manipulation?
This link will work http://www.odan.org/foundations.htm – not the one above with close parens in blue that blocks the website.
“We have to shut down those cash cows and let the real saints emerge.”
——–
Agree. Did everyone see “Brooklyn Diocese Seeks Sainthood for Priest” in the NYT yesterday?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/nyregion/25saint.html?src=me
A picture of him in his WWI uniform:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/06/25/nyregion/SAINT1.html
I agree with Mollie Wilson O’Reilly’s excellent suggestion that “the task of interceding to help the Church through this mess should fall to” Father Maciel’s uncle, St. Rafael Guízar Valencia.
I also believe that we should urge Pope Benedict XVI to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in accordance with the message of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima. It seems possible that the full text of the Third Secret of Fátima contains a warning about the sexual abuse crisis in the Church.
That mass this morning honoring Escriva was somewhat unusual in the fulsomeness of the praise it kept offering him. At least it seemed so to me. Did anyone else have the same reaction?
Carolyn quotes Pope Benedict quoting Vianney: “After God, the Priest is everything”.
Meanwhile in France, thoughts about the severe scarcity of priests, that will soon become critical (their median age approaches 75!)… http://www.temoignagechretien.fr/articles/article.aspx?Clef_ARTICLES=1875&Clef_RUBRIQUES_EDITORIALES=4
L’idée – la nécessité aujourd’hui – de rendre l’eucharistie moins fréquente n’effraie pas Laurent Villemin : « La théologie eucharistique ne doit pas devenir un carcan. Si elle reste indispensable, il ne faut pas tout penser autour d’elle. » Et de penser un rythme proposant des rassemblements hebdomadaires réguliers et des rendez-vous « nombreux et signifiants », avec communion.
Pour le théologien, c’est à partir d’expériences d’assemblée sans prêtre que les choses peuvent avancer car « la question de la présidence va se poser, l’animateur jouant le rôle dévolu au prêtre ».
Translation: “The idea — by necessity, nowadays — of making the Eucharist less frequent does not frighten Laurent Villemin. “The theology of the Eucharist must not become a binding constraint. Not everything has to be organized around it.” And he proposes regular weekly meetings and “numerous and significant” scheduled meetings with communion.
For this theologian, it is from experiencing assemblies without priests that the situation will progress since “the question of the presider will have to be asked, since the lay leader plays a role meant for the priest.”
If the Eucharist is not the organizing principle around Catholic liturgies, what, pray tell, will be the difference between the average Protestant service and a non-eucharistic Catholic service?
I see no reason why local lay leaders cannot be ordained for local use only with the power of consecration.
For this theologian, it is from experiencing assemblies without priests that the situation will progress since “the question of the presider will have to be asked, since the lay leader plays a role meant for the priest.”
The Lord’s Supper has been corrupted by the clergy for centuries. The clergy corrupted the words of Jesus stating that “where two or more are gathered in my name there I am” to I am only there when a priest pronounces the words. There are no words of consecration. Only people who call upon the name of the Lord. Pray for less clergy and more disciples.
To be clear, I quoted the French theologian because I found his remarks very surprising and a bit shocking, not because I subscribe to them!
You got me there with that Pedro Arbues guy. Never heard of him.
I find it interesting how people (mostly Mazzella?) here constantly assert the monocausality of materialism as driving historical change. Any historian worth anything will tell you that multiple causation lies behind most everything, even the development of the devotion to the saints. Materialism is especially ironic among those who supposedly believe in the reality of the spiritual in human life.