Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
October 17, 2018
Among the
anniversaries of 2018 there is one that has gone unnoticed: the sixty years
since the death of Venerable Pius XII, after a 19-year reign, at Castelgandolfo
on October 9th 1958. Yet today his memory still lives on, especially,
as Cristina Siccardi notes, as an icon of holiness, worthy of the Vicar of
Christ, and for the vastness of his Magisterium, in the context of tragic
events, like the Second World War, which erupted six months after his
election to the Papacy on March 20th 1939. The death of Pius XII
closed an era, which today is referred contemptuously as “pre-conciliar” or “Constantinian”.
With the election of John XXIII (October
28th 1958) and the calling of the Second Vatican Council, a new era
in the history of the Church opened: that which had its moment of triumph, on
October 14th, with the canonization of Paul VI, after that of Pope Roncalli.
Blessed
Pius IX is still awaiting canonization
and Pius XII has still not been beatified, but all the Council and Post-Council
Popes have been canonized, with the exception of John Paul I. It seems that what
they want to canonize, through its main actors, is an age, which however, is perhaps
the darkest the Church has ever experienced in Her history.
Immorality
spreads through the entire body of the Church, starting from the highest
levels. Pope Francis has refused to
admit the reality of the tragic scenario brought to light by Archbishop Carlo
Maria Viganò. Doctrinal confusion is total, to the point that Cardinal Willem
Jacobus Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht, has publically stated that: “the bishops
and especially the Successor of Peter are falling short in faithfully and in
unity, maintaining and transmitting the Deposit of the Faith.” *
This
drama has its roots in the Second Vatican Council and the Post–Council, and those
primarily responsible were the Popes who have governed the Church over the last
sixty years. Their canonization proclaims heroic virtues in the governing of the
Church. The Council and Post-Council have denied doctrine for the sake of ‘the
pastoral’ and for the sake of this ‘pastoralism’ they have refused to define
truth and condemn error. The only truth
which is proclaimed solemnly today is the impeccability of the conciliar Popes - and them alone. The intent seems to be that
of suggesting as infallible their political and pastoral choices rather than
the canonizing of men.
But what credit must we give to
these canonizations? Even if most
theologians retain that canonizations are infallible acts of the Church, we
are not dealing with a dogma of faith.
The last great exponent of the “Roman Theological School”, Monsignor
Brunero Gherardini (1925-2017), voiced all his doubts about the infallibility of
canonizations in the publication Divinitas.
For the Roman theologian the decree of canonization is not infallible as the
conditions of infallibility are lacking, starting with the fact that the
canonization does not have as direct or explicit object, a truth of the faith
or morals contained in Revelation, but only a fact indirectly linked to dogma,
without strictly being a “dogmatic fact”. Indeed, neither the Codes of Canon Law of 1917
and 1983, nor the old or new Catechisms of the Catholic Church, make clear the
doctrine of the Church on canonizations.
Another valid contemporary theologian,
Father Jan-Michel Gleize, of the Fraternity of Pius X, admits the infallibility
of canonizations, but not those after the Second Vatican Council, for the
following reasons: the reforms after the Council entailed certain insufficiencies
in the procedure and introduced a new collegial intention, two consequences
which are incompatible with the certainty of the beatifications and the infallibility
of the canonizations. Thirdly, the judgment that is expressed in the process allows
for an ambiguous conception at least, and thus doubt about the sanctity and heroic
virtue. Infallibility is based on a rigorous
complex of investigations and verifications. There is no doubt that after the
reform of the procedure wanted by John Paul II in 1983, this process in the
verification of the truth has become more fragile and there has been a change
in the concept of sanctity itself.
Other important
contributions have recently been published along the same line. Peter
Kwasniewski notes on Onepeterfive**
that the worst change in the canonical process is in the number of miracles required:
“In the old system, two miracles
were required for both beatification
and canonization – that is, a total of four investigated
and certified miracles. The point of this requirement is to give the Church
sufficient moral certainty of God’s “approval” of the proposed blessed or saint
by the evidence of His exercise of power at the intercession of this
individual. Moreover, the miracles traditionally had to be outstanding in their clarity – that is, admitting
of no possible natural or scientific explanation. The new system cuts the
number of miracles in half, which, one might say, also cuts the moral certainty
in half – and, as many have observed, the miracles put forward often seem to be
lightweight, leaving one scratching one’s head: was that really a miracle, or was it just an extremely
improbable event?”
Christopher
Ferrara, for his part, in an accurate article in The Remnant*** , after
stressing the decisive role that the testimony of miracles plays in the
canonizations, noted none of the miracles attributed to Paul VI and Monsignor
Romero satisfy the traditional criteria for the verification of the divine in a miracle: “Those criteria are
(1) acure that is (2) instantaneous, (3) complete, (4) lasting,
and (5) scientifically inexplicable, meaning not the result of treatment or
natural processes of healing but rather an event originating outside the
natural order.”
John Lamont, who dedicated a wide
and convincing study on the theme of the authority of canonizations on Rorate Caeli ****, concludes his
investigations with these words: “We need not
hold that the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II were infallible,
because the conditions needed for such infallibility were not present. Their canonizations
are not connected to any doctrine of the faith, they were not the result of a
devotion that is central to the life of the Church, and they were not the
product of careful and rigorous examination. But we need not exclude all canonizations
whatsoever from the charism of infallibility; we can still argue that those canonizations
that followed the rigorous procedure of former centuries benefited from this
charism.”
Thus, canonization
not being a dogma of faith, there is no positive obligation for Catholics to
lend assent to it. The exercise of
reason demonstrates plainly that the Conciliar papacies have been of no advantage
to the Church. Faith transcends reason and elevates it, but doesn’t contradict
it, since God, Truth in essence, is not contradictory. Hence we may in [good]
conscience maintain our reservations about these canonizations.
The most
devastating act of Paul VI’s pontificate was the destruction of the Old Roman Rite. Historians know that the Novus Ordo Missae was not Monsignor’s
Bugnini’s, but that prepared, wanted and carried into effect by Pope Montini,
causing, as Peter Kwasniewski writes, an explosive internal rupture: “This was
the equivalent of dropping an atomic bomb on the People of God, which either
wiped out their faith or caused cancers by its radiation”.
The most
commendable act of Pius XII’s pontificate was the beatification (1951) and subsequently
the canonization of St. Pope Pius X (1954), after a long and rigorous canonical
process and four inconfutable miracles.
It is thanks to Pius XII that the name of Pius X shines in the firmament
of the Church and represents a sure guide in the midst of the confusion of our
times.
*http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/il-papa-non-puo-ammettere-lintercomunione
Translation. Contributor Francesca Romana
