Rorate Caeli

Congratulations to the great nation of Colombia!

For their first native-born saint, Laura de Jesus Montoya (Laura of St. Catherine of Siena): the blessed nun had a miracle recognized by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, whose decree was confirmed today by the Pope. Colombia was the largest Catholic nation still with no canonized native-born subject.



Also: the Congregation decree recognizing the "heroic virtues" of Pope Paul VI was approved by the Pope, thereby acknowledging him as a "Venerable".

40 comments:

LeonG said...

Padre Luigi Villa (RIP) would certainly agree with the one but definitely not the other.

Steve Calovich said...

Also: the Congregation decree recognizing the "heroic virtues" of Pope Paul VI was approved by the Pope, thereby acknowledging him as a "Venerable".

The Mayan Calendar nailed it.

Mark said...

What exactly was "heroic"? Dismantling the Church brick by brick? The blindness of the Roman Curia is stunning! I wonder what Cardinal Burke makes of this.

Gregg the Obscure said...

Much of the recent discussion about Paul VI seems to ignore the distinction between personal holiness and competence in office. Winston Churchill had great results as a wartime leader, but was not a holy man by anyone's measure. His Holiness Paul VI had many areas of responsiblity where his results were disappointing at best (though given the times things could turned out even worse), but that doesn't mean he wasn't sincerely living a holy life by the grace of God.

Opposition to the Paul VI cause might be emotionally satisfying, but it isn't likely to be persuasive to folks who aren't already inclined to view him with suspicion or disfavor.

Jason C. said...

Read the history of Humanae Vitae, and you'll see what heroic virtue is. Other than that act, however, I am not informed enough about the private life of Pope Montini to pass judgment on this statement by our Holy Church.

Terth said...

Gregg: "Much of the recent discussion about Paul VI seems to ignore the distinction between personal holiness and competence in office."

Exactly. Pope St. Celestine V was a very weak pope overrun by others with agenda. (Sound familiar?) Dante may have put him in hell.

Barona said...

Not being a protestant, I shall leave the decisions as to whom should be declared venerable to the reigning Supreme Pontiff.

peccator said...

Sainthood is not about personal holiness. It is about being recognized as a model of Catholicism deserving of emulation. In my opinion, no conciliar pontiff meets that criteria including, perhaps especially, Paul VI.

Nicholas Trandem said...

So how is the stripping the altar of the tomb of Pius XII in petulant revenge for not getting a red hat from him heroic virtue?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

So one good thing happens and one disastrous thing happens, to paraphrase a good dominican, this pope is a liberal every good thing he does has to be balanced out by a liberal thing.

As for people who seem to think that we naysayers don't understand holiness, go read his works and speeches, pope paul VI literally oozed liberalness and what was, liberal catholic theology.

Dubio said...

Sadly, the lowered standards of post-conciliar canonizations diminish their credibility.

Fred said...

Dear Gregg the Obscure: We all understand the distinction between holiness and competence in office, but no one believes that the push to canonize Paul VI is anything other than a push to canonize the decisions of his administration of the Church.

Wake up and smell the Mystic Monk!

Barbara H said...

Paul VI may have undergone a white martyrdom for all we know. Think how it must have been for him if he wanted the Church to continue on Her path to bring souls to Christ - only to have everyone around him dragging souls to hell with them?

Judge not lest you be judged. Does the Holy Ghost inspire the Church or not?

Konstantin said...

Colombia has great Saints, native-born or not: St. Peter Claver, St. Luis Beltran, St. Ezequiel Moreno y Diaz (great anti-liberal bishop).

A. M. D. G. said...

Brick by brick... the list of post-Vatican II "saint-popes" grows bigger!

Athelstane said...

Well said, Gregg.

Obviously he had real (disastrous) failures as Pope. In many ways, he seems to have lacked the temperament and formation to be Pope (especially in those difficult times). But I am inclined to think he was living a holy life.

I wouldn't make a push to canonize him for the reasons noted above. If miracles start popping up, however...

Jason C. said...

We all understand the distinction between holiness and competence in office, but no one believes that the push to canonize Paul VI is anything other than a push to canonize the decisions of his administration of the Church.

You are free to believe as much, but that's a bit rash. There are any number of saints whose personal teachings or decisions are not 100% in accord with the fullness of our Faith.

Personally, while I don't care for how he ran the Church during his time at the tiller, I will rejoice that another soul is in heaven.

Sainthood is not about personal holiness. It is about being recognized as a model of Catholicism deserving of emulation.

That is an awfully convenient definition of sainthood now that you want to exclude someone from it.

Jean-Francois said...

@JMJ...As for people who seem to think that we naysayers don't understand holiness, go read his works and speeches, pope paul VI literally oozed liberalness and what was, liberal catholic theology.

It may have been liberal, but was it un-Catholic? Was it contrary to the Faith? If not then it doesn't matter a hill of beans. And contrary to Peccator's statement, sainthood is all about personal holiness.

I recently listened to a biography of Paul VI by one of his personal secretaries who described a very holy man who suffered incredibly. All I can say to all the arm-chair Popes out there, be very glad you are not Pope. I know I am.

Poor Yorek said...

Sainthood is not about personal holiness. It is about being recognized as a model of Catholicism deserving of emulation. In my opinion, no conciliar pontiff meets that criteria including, perhaps especially, Paul VI.

First sentence: say again? The saints, canonized or not, see God in the face by vision - if that is not the apotheosis of personal holiness, what in heaven's name is?

Second sentence: If you mean "canonization," then I submit you err: canonization recognizes those whom God has deemed fit to cooperatively manifest His divine power in conjunction with the Saint's intercession. Whilst all canonized saints are worthy of emulation, there are many Catholics worthy of emulation who are not canonized saints.

Third sentence: in this instance, I can only concur with (Dirty) Harry Callahan's statement on opinions.

Gregg the Obscure said...

If "Sainthood is not about personal holiness. It is about being recognized as a model of Catholicism deserving of emulation", what are we to make of, for example, St. Jerome's disdain for St. Ambrose? Which of those two are we to emulate?

While there likely are some folks who are promoting the Pauline cause at leat in part due to ulterior motives, I suggest that it might be overly cynical for a Catholic to insist that there could be no other motive and that is is overly cynical to suggest that such a tactic would succeed.

NIANTIC said...

"Heroic virtues"......Let us see.....New protestant style "mass" rammed down our throats, new modernist theology, new this and new that, a whole new church.
And what were the fruits of these "heroic virtues"? Look around you and what do you see? Unmitigated disaster everywhere which have been documented here and elsewhere.
These works and these goals do they constitute personal holiness?

It seems to be more and more difficult to take Rome serious these days.

Martyjo said...

It would seem that Pope Benedict XVI, or someone behind him, is trying very hard to canonise the Council. First their was the rushed and dubious beatification of Pope John Paul II, now this declaration on Paul VI. Yes, someone is getting quite desperate, if you ask me.

Athelstane said...

And what were the fruits of these "heroic virtues"?

As Jason said: One bright shining moment of heroism in Humanae Vitae. A belated recognition ("the smoke of Satan" and Bugnini's firing) of what had been unleashed. Otherwise, a grim, desolate wasteland.

But I try to remember that one shining moment, when Pope Montini's courage did not fail, and so few stood by him.

Fidus et Audax said...

"The Mayan Calendar nailed it."

Ha! It sure did.

Truth seeker said...

" Gregg the Obscure said...
Much of the recent discussion about Paul VI seems to ignore the distinction between personal holiness and competence in office."

I agree with you, Gregg. Heroic virtue and personal holiness do not mean that every act based on pastoral judgement was a prudent one.

No one doubts the personal holiness and great virtue of Abp. Marcel Lefevbre, certainly not I. But I also feel that the Encone consecrations have had unfortunately effects that he was not expecting.

If Pope Paul VI is indeed rejoicing in the beatific vision in Heaven, God will reveal it. If not, his cause will get bogged down and languish in a minutante's office, along with that of many others over the centuries.

Either we trust the Holy Spirit working through the mere mortals running things in the Holy See--and who will doubt that they are mere mortals--or we don't not.

I, for one, do trust the Holy Spirit.

Merry Christmas.

Gail said...


Gregg the Obscure...yes indeed there 'some folks who are promoting the Pauline cause for a least in part due to to ulterior motives," the Freemasons! I suggest you read the late Fr. Villa's book Pope Paul VI beatified?

B. said...

People are very willing to make excuses for Pope Paul VI, especially that he was being "weak" and "pushed" to do what he did. I laud people for their Catholic sense of not wanting to criticize the pope, but Pope Paul VI was neither weak, nor being pushed. He had an agenda, and he acted in a very powerful manner, perhaps more forceful than any other Pope of the last 500 years to see it pushed through.

Nobody forced him to call back Archbishop Bugnini, who had been banished by Pope John XIII. He wanted him to reinvent the liturgy. When he allowed Communion in the hand, the clear majority of bishops was against it. How is overruling the world's episcopate "weak". When the New Mass was demonstrated to the bishops the large majority opposed it. Yet he overruled them again. When he introduced the New Mass he openly said that the Novus Ordo would be "disturbing", especially to the most pious people, yet he still forcefully rammed it down everyones throat and heavily punished everyone who wanted to keep the old Mass. How is that weakness?

When a large number of bishops became uncomfortable with his sweeping innovations, he went so far as no other pope had dared to do before him: He replaced almost the entire episcopate of the world with people that were willing to follow him. He hid this replacement under the introduction of a never-heard-of "age limit", but additionally forced large numbers of bishops under 75 to retire. Again, how can that be called weakness? BTW, one of the criteria for being named a bishop was being on the "suspect" list of the Holy Office, ironically this is also how our current Pope became Archbishop.

Sorry, I don't buy the story of the "weak" pope. He had an agenda and he was willing to go to great lengths to see it pushed through. And those, who want to canonize him today, including Pope Benedict, have an agenda as well: The Canonization of Vatican II.

The Council of Trent, followed by great blessings for the Church after the struggles that had struck her, has one canonized pope. The Second Vatican Council, followed by a time of complete disaster for the Church and a loss of faith of millions upon millions of people after a time of growth and fortitude, has four popes in the canonization process. It is ridiculous.

Stop living in a dream land and start looking at reality, people!

Malta said...

I'm not going to pass judgement, but I'm pretty sure some Popes are in hell.

J.G. Ratkaj said...

It is blatant ignorance that Rome has abgroted the wise regulations of Urban VIII of blessed memory concerning the proceedings of canonizzation.

GQ Rep said...

I used to condemn Paul VI as the Pope of Vatican II...like many people did. Until I read an article, which came from an interview a French philosopher who knew Paul VI very well and met him shortly before his death gave to a French TV channel years after Paul VI died.

The philosopher and Paul VI met in the gardens of Castel Gandolfo, about one year before Paul VI died. The philosopher asked him (Paul VI) if he was happy with the way Vatican II and the Church turned out and he was stunned when Paul VI replied "No".
Paul VI confided to this man that when he was elected Pope in 1963, he was filled with dread because he knew he was being elected Pope to lead the Catholic Church and the Vatican Council. He said
"I was like a train conductor, put in place to guide the Church along a path I would not have chosen to go..." It was his admission that if there had never been a Vatican II, he certainly would never have called one. It wasn't a path he wanted to follow...but great expectations were on him and he had no choice.
Many people see this as weakness. He could have supressed the Council, which of course would have been the best move, but he was seen as a leading liberal who would continue it, and he had to meet those expectations.
Also with his decisions, being a liberal himself, he unfortunatly sided with the wrong people...the liberals. Especially with regards to the Mass.
He was a weak, indecisive man who bent to the will of the dominant liberals after the Council, except for the great encyclical Humanae Vitae...and one or two others, principally one dealing with priestly celibacy.
He bent to modern currents, and that's not heroic virtue.
But after reading the article from the interview, rather than despising Paul VI as I had, I instead felt sorry for him. He didn't have the strength to stand up for the traditions of the Church, and allowed the currents of the times to sweep it all away, feeling he no other choice.
He was a personally holy man, but I don't think he was a Saint. I don't think he was ever happy being Pope. I think it tortured him. And that doesn't make for good leadership.

poeta said...

"We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent."

- Pope Paul VI


St. Celestine V at least had the prudence, in recognition of his own weakness, to resign the Papacy to escape the corruption around him and return to his former eremitic life for the sake of a pure conscience.

It makes no sense to speak of a person's "personal sanctity" divorced from his state of life, when the fulfillment of the duties of one's state in life is an integral part of achieving sanctity. Would a priest under a vow of celibacy be saintly if he lived as a married man, provided he said his prayers every night?

This whole distinction between "public" and "private" spheres seems like a variation of the Americanist approach to religion, where religion is what you do in private. Can the sanctity of a Pope "in private" erase the neglect of his duties to the Catholic faithful "in public," so as to warrant a public declaration of his heroic virtue?

If so, what has happened to the idea that a prelate has a harder road to Heaven due to his responsibility for the souls under his care?

Hidden One said...

If there are miracles, then we shall know what God thinks of Ven. Pope Paul VI. Until then, I strongly suspect that the relevant curial officials know a great deal more relevant to the sanctity of said pope than any of us here.

Beyond that, I dare any commenter here to assert that he would have done a better job of running the church and would have been holier doing it, too.

No takers? Good.

St. Celestine V, pray for us.

Gregg the Obscure said...

Much of the opprobrium directed at Paul VI is due to his (and the council fathers') acquiescence to the separation of Church and state. As much as I dislike the result, I must admit that I can't ascertain any scenario under which a truly Catholic state could be viable in the world since 1918.

Paul VI and the council fathers lived through horrible totalitarian regimes and one of the worst wars in history. They knew that Marxism was a real threat. To the extent they could, they tried to spare the faithful from the horrible consequences that would have been associated with an effort to restore the Church's politial position to what it had been in the seventeenth century.

A Westphalian arrangement of Europe today would be a patchwork of libertine atheists and moslems. The nominal freedom of religion current in Europe is less hostile to the Church than that would be.

Given the cultural context that still existed in the 1960s, even the conciliar liturgy could be seen as a tactic signalling the Church's retreat from the fight for political power. Now that the image of "throne and altar" has receded into history, the traditional Mass can and will be broadly restored with its proper focus on the Altar and minimal connotation of the temporal throne.

Jean-Francois said...

Beyond that, I dare any commenter here to assert that he would have done a better job of running the church and would have been holier doing it, too.

Amen to that Hidden One. Too many people here write as if they were assured of their own personal sanctity.

Jean-Francois said...

So how is the stripping the altar of the tomb of Pius XII in petulant revenge for not getting a red hat from him heroic virtue?

So Nicholas I assume you found proof of your accusation? After all when you made the inquiry on Orbis Catholicus a few years ago you were asking if it were in fact true or just rumor. One response said it was John Paul II, an anonymous person said it was Paul VI.

So again I assume you found actual proof and not only that he did it but also it was in "petulant revenge for not getting a red hat"

Steve Calovich said...

"As Jason said: One bright shining moment of heroism in Humanae Vitae."

As for classifying Paul VI and John Paul II as though they were of the Right, that is a total error. They are of the Left because of what is closest to their heart, their utopia of a “civilization of love” to be promoted here and now, a utopia where all is limitless freedom, dignity, responsibility and self-expression “for every man and all men.” Such a utopia was bound to enjoin the highest moral demands, matching the grandeur of their idea of Man and no sparing of the horses!

Paul VI, more a demagogue than a Utopian, posed himself the abstract question of whether artificial means of contraception were contrary to the natural moral law. At the end of three years, he was still none the wiser. He consulted masses of people, but all in vain. The yes and the no were so well balanced in his Hamlet-like mind that he remained totally undecided. When at last he was forced to answer, he pronounced that absolute condemnation, that terrible “no” which contradicted his years of uncertainty. The world was waiting for his oracle as people wait for the results of bets placed on Saturday afternoon. Heads or tails? It was heads, and so all the illusions cultivated about the Church, the Council and the Pope were shattered in one go. So much so that the whole of morality and religion were up for questioning.

A proclamation via the media to millions of indifferent modern pagans that the pill was banned would make the entire planet bristle with hatred and contempt. And again, outside that context, such an announcement banning the pill made to lukewarm Catholics, incited by the conciliar Church to an intense, obsessive and totally unrestrained love life, could only provoke them to abandoning the sacraments, to indifference concerning the state of grace and, before long, to forgetting God altogether. The masses cannot be thrown into a state of perpetual lust without impunity. To incite their lust and then to forbid them the indispensable contraceptive or abortive complement is derisory. O foolish clergy! You cannot forbid the one without forbidding the other.

Humanae Vitae was published on 25 July 1968, as though it were a law of such importance that it had to be placed on the highest level of his pastoral concern and had to be applied by each and everyone immediately without any other consideration. In a climate of relaxed morality and religious indifference, such a prohibition could not but appear shocking to all the recycled Christians, and crushing for them to put into practice without further ado.

It would have preferable that the Magisterium modulate the expression, the promulgation and application of this ban. For what is involved is none other than “casuistry”, that marvel of human and supernatural wisdom, thanks to which laws do not crush souls, but enlighten, strengthen and lead them there “with cords of humanity”. But do not ask Utopians and demagogues to condescend to casuistry!

The immense problem confronting humanity today, of a calamitous fall in the birth rate in one part of the world and galloping overpopulation in the other, was something that preoccupied John Paul I. To oblige millions of children to be born out of respect for a natural law strictly applied, to keep them alive by means of a scientific struggle against mortality, only to leave them to die in a famine with no hope other than an appalling life... The Americans, who became the tutors and food suppliers to the Third World are seeing to this problem. Their remedy is sterilization and contraception practiced on a vast scale. It is well to condemn them. Even so, we ought to help them to save peoples from famine or else find practicable moral solutions for them. John Paul I did not think it was all that simple.

http://www.crc-internet.org/1832-part-two-justice-will-be-heard.html

Jean-Francois said...

As for classifying Paul VI and John Paul II as though they were of the Right, that is a total error. They are of the Left.

No, the greater error is that too many people believe that someone from the "left" is incapable of holiness or becoming a saint.

cufflinkcatholic said...

Once again, we are hearing that old chestnut that Pius XII withheld the red hat from the then Mons. Montini and exiled him to Milan. In fact, this is a distortion of the facts. Pius XII told the people of Milan that Mons. Montini was his personal gift to them and it seems likely that he was sent there in order to gain the pastoral experience that the curial prelate lacked, and thus as a preparation to becoming pope. Montini was held in such high regard that he even -it is reliably reported- gained several votes in the 1958 conclave, even though not raised to the Roman Purple. It is simply an error of fact to state that Pius XII was punishing him in some way. The reason that he was not created a cardinal is that there were no more conclaves held during the remaining four years of the pontificate, leaving several sees which traditionally had the red hat without one (e.g. Westminister). Puis XII's dementia had become acute during that period and he was clearly not up to it.

I am no fan of Paul VI, calling him in a recent blog post "liturgically hopeless and historically illiterate". However, he always retained great respect towards Pius XII and repeated unfounded and quite libellous rumours about him is utterly unworthly of any seeker of truth.

cufflinkcatholic said...

Once again, we are hearing that old chestnut that Pius XII withheld the red hat from the then Mons. Montini and exiled him to Milan. In fact, this is a distortion of the facts. Pius XII told the people of Milan that Mons. Montini was his personal gift to them and it seems likely that he was sent there in order to gain the pastoral experience that the curial prelate lacked, and thus as a preparation to becoming pope. Montini was held in such high regard that he even -it is reliably reported- gained several votes in the 1958 conclave, even though not raised to the Roman Purple. It is simply an error of fact to state that Pius XII was punishing him in some way. The reason that he was not created a cardinal is that there were no more conclaves held during the remaining four years of the pontificate, leaving several sees which traditionally had the red hat without one (e.g. Westminister). Puis XII's dementia had become acute during that period and he was clearly not up to it.

I am no fan of Paul VI, calling him in a recent blog post "liturgically hopeless and historically illiterate". However, he always retained great respect towards Pius XII and repeated unfounded and quite libellous rumours about him is utterly unworthly of any seeker of truth

Seminarian OSB said...

I think it is more than appropriate that Paul VI be deemed an individual of heroic virtue. And in keeping with this Year of Faith and the anniversary of Vatican II, it would be fitting that John XXIII be declared a Saint.