Beatifying a torturer
Bill Cork on John Allen on Pope Benedict’s upcoming beatification of Fr. Gabino Olaso Zabala. First Allen:
According to written testimony from the victim, Olaso
participated in the 1896 torture of a Filipino priest named Fr. Mariano
Dacanay, who was suspected of sympathy for anti-Spanish
revolutionaries. Dacanay’s own account asserts that Olaso and a handful
of other Augustinians encouraged guards who were administering the
torture, and that at one point Olaso himself kicked Dacanay in the
head, hard enough to leave the suffering priest semi-conscious.Historians generally regard Dacanay’s testimony as credible.
Augustinian Fr. Fernando Rojo, the Rome-based postulator for the cause
of Olaso and the other Augustinian martyrs, told NCR Oct. 10 that he does not see “any reason to doubt the basic historical accuracy of the facts” contained in Dacanay’s account.
Then Cork:
Allen offers the excuse, “To be sure, Olaso’s conduct must be
understood in the context of his times, since the late 1890s were a
violent era in the Philippines.”
But he was a priest, a representative of the Prince of Peace, whose
teachings of non-violence have been spread for 2000 years. That’s the
true historical context.
And what of the historical context for this beatification–the world today?
Then Allen:
Nonetheless, the revelation that someone set for beatification by Pope
Benedict XVI was a willing participant in torture may be disconcerting
- in the first place for Filipinos, who see the 1896 rebellion as a key
moment in the birth of their nation; and more broadly for those
concerned with contemporary moral and legal debates over torture,
especially in the context of the “war on terrorism.” Despite clear
official Catholic teaching against torture, some may wonder if the
church is sending a mixed message by beatifying someone who apparently
administered torture himself.
Me: “Disconcerting”? You don’t say. How about “appalling”? Too strong? After all, torture was all the rage in late-nineteenth-century Philippines. And, let’s not forget, Olaso isn’t the first beatified guy with a “checkered past.” As Allen points out, St. Mark Ji Tianxiang was canonized in 2000 even though he was a known opium addict. And Fr. Jean-Marie Gallot was beatified in 1955 despite the discovery that he had been a Mason. See, not all saints led spotless lives.
on October 13th, 2007 at 11:55 am
How about criminal? Phillipino priests have a record of violence, especially sexual violence towars nuns. Many female religious communities will not have Mass because of this. The Vatican has no idea how to handle the situation either. And now this??
If we were to be honest about it we would admit that the process of canonization is serioulsy flawed, not to mention those who were formerly on the role of saints who were erased because they never existed.
One of the most glaring error that is seen in the daily recitation of the Divine Hours which priests recite daily is the uniquitous phrase that begins the life of every saint’s day: “Born of pious and noble parents.” Every parent of a saint was not noble or pius. So it is an outright lie.
But of course, “that was the rage.”
Let’s see if these beatifications see the light of day.
on October 13th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Bill, I’m surprised. I would have thought you believed in the “universal salvific will.”
on October 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
My dad was a Mason. They seemed pretty harmless in their aprons and white gloves, walking in the East with their grandmothers or whatever and raising money for sick kids.
He quit the lodge after he got married–my mother said he wasn’t going to have any secrets from her–but I don’t think being a Mason is necessarily a blot on someone’s character even though the Church prohibits membership.
on October 13th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Kathy,
If I understand your question to Bill correctly, the Church declares someone a saint not merely or primarily to affirm the person was saved.
**********
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
828 By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors….
**********
I know nothing about Fr. Gabino Olaso Zabala, but if he participated in torture and clearly repented of it, then he may be a plausible candidate for beatification and canonization. After all, many great saints were repentant sinners. But if there is good evidence he participated in torture but no evidence he repudiated it, I don’t see how he can be held up as a model, even if it’s somehow known for a fact that he made it to heaven.
on October 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Is there no evidence he repudiated it? I don’t know that. Is there evidence of heroic sanctity apart from his martyrdom?
It’s a different case, obviously, but there once was a great saint who had been complicit in the stoning death of the protomartyr Stephen. He called himself the worst of sinners–and an apostle.
The point in the Creed that says, “I believe…in the forgiveness of sins” means that God really, really forgives, and can make saints out of whatever sinners happen to be around. Even priests who have committed the most repulsive crimes.
on October 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
One must seriously question the hypocrisy and wheeler dealing of Rome when Oscar Romero, recognized by all as a holy person and advocate of the poor, was murdered elevating the Bread of Life, is not yet even beatified.
on October 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Perception is reality.
It would be interesting to know, of course, if this clerical priest-torturer repented. However, the canon cited by David suggests that a saint is one who lived in faithful obedience to Jesus’ command to love God and neighbor and, thus, modeled the behavior expected of Christians.
No one is perfect, and the devil can be in the details. Nonetheless, this cause seems to stink. A matter of perception here.
Benedict is chafing at the bit to canonize his predecessor who allowed a pervert priest, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, to appear on the papal stage a few times — all this in spite of the serious allegations of his sexual misconduct. And let’s not overlook the canonization a few years ago of the Opus Dei founder. Yet, we’re still waiting for the beatification of Archbishop Romero.
My maternal grandfather was a 32nd-degree Mason, non-Catholic, who made possible my eight years of parochial education and helped out a bit with my Catholic secondary education. He specifically encouraged me to be a “good Catholic.” (I’m thus half-Protestant and half-Catholic, being the product of a “mixed marriage” that took place, as required at the time, in the rectory of a Catholic parish :)
Thomas Merton was left out of the U.S. catechism, if I recall. It’s apparent the Catholic Church leaders have their “favorites,” and then there’s everybody else. I don’t think it’s an “over the top” statement to say that JPII will be canonized in our lifetime.
And the crap continues………
on October 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Beatification and canonization ought to be reserved for those who might be considered good models for others. Olaso does not seem to meet that standard.
By the way, does anyone take John Allen seriously?
on October 13th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Perhaps spent too much time with the Vatican elite?
For sake of objectivity, etc., maybe Vatican reporters need to be rotated on a regular basis?
on October 13th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I will admit to having lowered my opinion of John Allen’s pontifications over the past couple of years. He seems to go out of his way to call a sow’s ear a silk purse when it comes to churchy things.
on October 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
In 2000 while promoting his book on Ratzinger, Allen mentioned something that tipped off his future viewpoints toward Opus Dei. Allen mentioned that his wife had gotten very close to a woman in Opus Dei. OD is known for befriending someone close to an influential person to affect his views. (politicians do this all the time)Subsequently, Allen’s comments began to stretch the truth on Opus Dei as he did everything possible to depict OD in a good light. Allen angrily dismisses this saying his wife is Jewish. People at NCR know this but sometimes loyalty is stronger than truth and they do like the scoops that the Vatican has given NCR. This was and still is not NCR’s finest hour. As he is now hired by major news outlets, Allen’s income has increased astronomically.
In fact you will see Allen’s column listed on conservative sites whereas you will see no listing there of Commonweal nor America.
Not exactly what Joe K had in mind when he criticized Allen’s book on Ratzinger.
on October 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
In his post, Bill Mazzella wrote, “Oscar Romero … was murdered elevating the Bread of Life…”
In fact, he was murdered just after the homily.
on October 14th, 2007 at 5:59 am
This seems very odd. Who is pushing the canonization? A religious order?
on October 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Hello All,
In a past thread a while back I questioned the value of official beatifications and canonizations in our time. My grounds were: (1) I think official beatifications and canonizations, whether or not they served a good purpose in the past, are now unnecessary., in part because (2) I think that official beatifications and canonizations are largely irrelevant to the lives of nearly all Catholics. I suspect (though I have no statistics) that very few Catholics take any notice at all of the progress of cases for beatification. And I don’t see why they should. As Joseph notes, Archbishop Romero is not beatified. I think it is unlikely that Archbishop Romero will be beatified in the foreseeable future. I have the same opinion regarding Dorothy Day. I think it doesn’t matter. Given the channels of communication we have in our time, the lives of people like Dorothy Day and Archbishop Romero are well publicized and I doubt that the numbers of people who revere their memories and learn from their examples would increase if they were, contrary to expectation, beatified. Josemaría Escrivá was canonized in 2002. Again, I think it doesn’t matter. I don’t think that the movement he founded would have fewer members had he not been canonized.
That said, this case makes me wonder if I should rethink my claim (2), at least in certain cases. As I understand the case, if Fr. Olaso is beatified this could offend a great many of the Filipino people. And just what good would beatifying Fr. Olaso do for the people of God?
I’d be happy to be refuted on either or both of my claims. (It would make me feel better about some of the beatifications that have occurred in recent years.) Take care all.
on December 17th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Speaking of Fr. Gabino Olaso Zabala’s involvement with the torture of a Filipino priest was totally unacceptable. We all know for a fact how the Spanish missionaries used to mistreat Filipinos during the colonial period and it continued until they were kicked out of the Philippines. And Father Zabala was among them. Another Spanish controversial figure in the Philippines is also on her way to sainthood. I am referring in particular to Mother Francisca Fuentes of the dominican Sisters of Siena. She was a Spanish born in the philippines in 1647. She was the prioress of the Dominican convent. Native Filipinos were barred from entering the convent because of their race.The community were composed of 15 Spanish women. Her cause was opened in 2003. Discrimination is morally wrong and now the Dominicans are trying to make Francisca a saint: http://www.misyononline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?=499