Yuku free message boards

Or are you really going to accept the implication that the process of beatification followed was flawed and that under the "new" rules Pius IX wouldn't have passed muster?

It is noteworthy to mention that in the "New Laws for the Causes of Saints" (promulgated in 1983), these rules are prescribed:

10. The postulator must present together with the written petition:

1. in both recent and ancient causes, a biography of any historical import of the Servant of God, should such exist, or otherwise an accurate, chronologically arranged report on the life and deeds of the Servant of God, on his virtues or martyrdom, on his reputation of sanctity and of signs. Nor should anything be omitted which seems to be contrary or less favorable to the cause;

…

3. in recent causes only, a list of persons who can help bring to light the truth about the virtues or the martyrdom of the Servant of God, and about his reputation of sanctity or of signs. Those with contrary opinions must also be included. (Italics supplied.)

As has been stated in the news reports, the Mortara family were not asked to testify during the beatification process. Cardinal Saraiva Martins describes part 4 of Sanctorum Mater's six sections as the part which: "… concentrates on the gathering of documentary proof and the fifth on the gathering of proof from witnesses." Who is to say that this oversight in the case of Pius IX may not have been considered in the formulation of this particular portion of Sanctorum Mater?

Pius IX's beatification is already water under the bridge, and I believe there's a legal rule which holds that a new law cannot be enacted in a "retroactive" manner -- this is why though some persons may not agree with the beatification / canonization of certain individuals, no one is asking that they be "removed" from the altar of sainthood, and I certainly am not going to say that the beatification of Pius IX should be rescinded, whether or not he would have failed to "pass muster" under Sanctorum Mater. Let us therefore watch the progress of his cause for canonization, which will be subject to the provisions of Sanctorum Mater.

There are myriads of saints, old and new, whose lives and virtues are vilified by many. Take St. Gianna Molla. Try talking about her virtues to those in the pro-choice camp, and see what you get. Look at the uproar about the recent sanctification of the martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. Martyrs are, by definition, people who are hated and put to death because of their adherence to the Roman Catholic faith. By your standard, they should not be considered saints.

Rcesq, I think that even the pro-choice people would respect St. Gianna Molla's decision to sacrifice her life for the life of her unborn child. Whatever else the pro-choice advocates believe, I don't seriously think that anyone can cast aspersion on a mother who chose to put the life of her child before her own. You may call me naïve if you wish, but I continue to believe that deep down inside, there is in most human beings the innate esteem for this great truth expressed by our Lord Himself: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends."

The martyrs, if memory serves me correctly, were indeed hated for their faith, but not because they were disparaging of people of other faiths. They were put to death because they refused to disavow Christ, upon pain of death. No one can argue with a decision made with such incredible courage, to say nothing of faith, and I certainly am not. It should be recalled, however, that nothing of the sort was ever asked of Pius IX, not even by those who believed that he should give up the Papal States. In the case of the martyrs, they died defending their faith from persecution by people who did not share their faith. In the case of Pius, he allowed the enforcement of laws that curtailed the rights of people who were not of the Christian faith.

Uncomfortable as it may be, we Catholics are called to be different. We are called to be counter-cultural. We are called to adhere to values that are in distinct opposition to the spirit of the age. It is a challenge because above all people want to be liked. And it's quite unlikeable to insist that you have the Truth and others do not.

You will get no argument from me about what we Catholics are called to do, and it is true that we are called to be counter-cultural. The Church's opposition to the death penalty is just one instance, as is our opposition to abortion, both of which are premised precisely on the fact that the Truth of our Faith tells us that human life is sacred. What I am saying, Rcesq, is that in the determination of whether or not a person is worthy of beatification or canonization, the Church should take care to ensure that in beatifying such a person, it does not hold up as a model of sanctity a person who has committed actions that, in fact, run counter to what the Church teaches, particularly in this day and age.

It is a matter of consistency, and yes, there are times that in upholding consistency, it is necessary to determine whether a candidate, among other considerations particular to the Church, also has the virtues that are universally acknowledged. In using the term "universally acknowledged" I am thinking of the virtues recognized by all mankind under the natural law, which, as St. Thomas Aquinas describes it, is "the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and this law to man at creation." In the case of St. Gianna Molla, for instance, she upheld the truth that every human life is a gift of God, and therefore that the life of the unborn should be protected. In the case of Pius IX, he allowed the death penalty to be imposed and carried out, even though there was every opportunity for him to grant clemency and forgiveness. However else the pro-choice people may not like St. Gianna's choice, no one can fault her for upholding what the Church teaches in a way that entailed such an incalculable sacrifice on her part.

In the case of Pius, however, and the death sentence he allowed to be carried out, there is a very real issue to be addressed, precisely because the Church categorically opposes the death penalty in light of the same truth: that life is a gift from God, and therefore sacred. How is the Church to preach the sanctity of human life and the inherent wrongness of the death penalty, if it beatifies a Pope who allowed the death penalty to be carried out? As Head of the Papal States, he had every opportunity to rescind the laws that provided for it, or to commute to a life sentence any such penalty handed down by the Papal Court. Isn't it ironic how the Church, in almost every continent, pleads with political leaders to disavow capital punishment, but beatified a Pope who had the power to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment, but did not do so, despite the plea of his own Secretary of State?

It is true that the Church upholds truths that are held to be counter-cultural. But where do we go when a person who committed actions that run counter to the very truths we preach is taken one step further towards the altar of sainthood? Indeed, this particular concern expressed against Pius is not based upon his determination to uphold the Catholic faith, but upon his failure to uphold in this particular instance one of its most fundamental principles: the sanctity of human life.

Now, let us address the "Jewish issue". The grievances of the Jewish Community, while according special mention of the Mortara case, also involve Pius' policies towards the Jews who resided in the Papal States. It should be noted that although at the beginning of his pontificate, the Jewish Ghetto was opened, Pius closed the Ghetto once again after his return from exile. It is difficult to forget that he did refer to the Jews themselves thusly: "of these dogs, there are too many of them at present in Rome, and we hear them howling in the streets, and they are disturbing us in all places."; and that he was reportedly shocked that the Grand Duke of Tuscany allowed Jews to study in the University of Tuscany. Moreover, I think any Jew - and frankly, I myself certain was - would be shocked that Pius, in referring to sects that were "attacking" the Church, would use the word "synagogue" in this manner:

"It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength." - The Syllabus of Errors

In this light, it is noteworthy to mention that in his address to the United Nations, Benedict XVI declared:

Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian - a vision that brings out the unity of the person while clearly distinguishing between the dimension of the citizen and that of the believer. The activity of the United Nations in recent years has ensured that public debate gives space to viewpoints inspired by a religious vision in all its dimensions, including ritual, worship, education, dissemination of information and the freedom to profess and choose religion. It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves - their faith - in order to be active citizens.

How is the Church to plead, therefore, for humane treatment and religious tolerance for Christians and Catholics around the world, when it beatified a Pope who curtailed the rights of a non-Christian people, and used the word which, in their language, denotes a place of worship to God, in such a lamentable fashion?

I have no objection whatsoever to the action of the servant girl in baptizing Edgardo Mortara, and that is not the issue here. The issue is that Pius IX took the child away from his family, despite the pleas of the parents - it should be remembered that the child was baptized as an infant, but he was already around 6 years old when he was taken away from his family; old enough, certainly, to know his parents and his other relatives. It is one thing for a grown man like Magdi Allam to make a conscious decision to convert to the Catholic faith, and for the Pope to publicly support such a decision. It is another for a child, who did not even know that he had been baptized, to be taken away from his parents and from the only home he had ever known at the time.

Similarly, I understand Pius' wanting to follow his conscience that the child should be raised as a Christian, in light of the servant girl's baptism, and precisely because I am Catholic, I can well understand why he felt strongly about it - but I cannot help but think that there had to be another way, and a more compassionate one, to go about it. The end does not justify the means, and the Faith, above all else, should be proclaimed with love and compassion, not imposed with force, and that, I believe, is what is at issue here. Regrettably, Pius' actions only served to make the Church appear heartless and insensitive to the very real sorrow of the parents who brought Edgardo Mortara into this world, and this, whether some quarters wish to acknowledge it or not, is a very real obstacle to the acceptance by non-Christians of the Christian faith - who is to say that if Pius had acted with greater compassion and understanding, and sought to come to an agreement with his parents whereby the boy could be instructed in the Christian faith without separating him from his family, other members of Mortara's family might not have converted as well, and the entire Mortara clan would have hailed Pius as a man of true Christian love and kindness, and acclaimed the Catholic faith as a faith of infinite charity and mercy? Surely there will always be a way for a Christian to stand by his beliefs without sacrificing the compassion that is one of its most fundamental aspects. If we are to speak out against intolerance, then we must ourselves guard against intolerance.

I have nothing against Pius' personal piety, and I certainly don't doubt his faith in God. But I trust you will understand that since I am given the choice, my devotion will be given to another candidate for sainthood.

… much generosity of spirit is extended to those of other faiths who attack our Church and our belief systems. (For instance the description of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility as "triumphalist" is really uncalled for and contemptible.) Yet I find far less generosity directed towards those who actually share our faith but who for one reason or another have great difficulty accepting the workings of the Second Vatican Council.

Now, as regards the Catholics who choose to disavow the teachings of the Church as they are embodied in Vatican II, here are my thoughts. What causes me profound distress is precisely the fact that they have already been taken into the family of the Catholic Church, and have already been "introduced", shall we say, to the Gospel of Christ, and yet, despite all the spiritual, intellectual and educational advantages that have been given to them, they choose to defy the authority of the Holy Father, and deny the teachings of the Magisterium that they believe are not in tune with what the Gospel teaches. What am I to make of them, who are not ignorant of the teachings of the Church and yet have chosen, out of their own free will, to turn their backs on the Church and the Holy Father? You know, I could live with the liturgical preferences of groups such as the SSPX, and I certainly will never say that those people who prefer the Latin Rite are not worshiping God in the right way - what I cannot stomach is the anti-Semitic cant of their teachings, and the outright defiance of the Holy Father and the entire Magisterium. And incidentally, despite the olive branch held out by Benedict XVI in the form of the wider celebration of the Latin Mass, the SSPX still declares that it will not reconcile with the Catholic Church:

SSPX reiterates disagreement with Catholic Church

New York, Apr 22, 2008 / 01:23 am (CNA).- Catholic traditionalists who broke with Rome twenty years ago have said they could not rejoin the Church because Pope Benedict XVI still supports the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, Reuters reports.

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has sought the promotion of the Tridentine Latin Mass, which has been rarely used since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965. It is also critical of ecumenism, especially of positive relations with Judaism, and papal apologies for Catholics' past sins.

Some saw Pope Benedict's permission last year for broader use of the Tridentine Latin Mass as a gesture to the SSPX seeking its reunion with the Church. The leadership of the SSPX was excommunicated when in 1988 its head, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, ordained four bishops without the permission of Rome.

"The time for an agreement has not yet come," SSPX head Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote in a letter to the society's members, published in French on Saturday by the SSPX information service DICI.

He said the liberalization of the old Latin Mass was "not accompanied by logically co-related measures in the other areas of the life of the Church."

SSPX reiterates disagreement with Catholic Church

It doesn't look like they're in any mood to listen to Benedict, just as they refused to listen to John Paul, and that they are in no mood to reach out not only to the Jewish people, but to all other non-Catholic faithful -- and presumably, these include the Eastern Churches who are not in communion with the Holy See, to say nothing of our Protestant brethren, yet all of us are Christians who believe in Christ. These are people who say that they are Catholics and that they proclaim the Gospel of Christ. Can you blame me for being upset with them?

The modern Paul VI crucifix as symbol is not one that Orthodox Christians generally relate to well. I have pointed out on this forum before that in the Orthodox tradition the sufferings of Christ are not the focus of their faith. They are an Easter people, who concentrate on the Risen Christ. You may recall the comment by an Orthodox cleric about how pleased he was with the new pallium design because it harks back to a time when East and West were in communion. I do not know for a fact, but it is entirely possible that the Pius IX cross has a similar symbolic effect.

I must state however, that there is at least one element of the Paul VI cross that speaks of our links to the Eastern Church. The bent crossbar of the Paul VI cross is reminiscent of the paterissa carried by the Eastern Christian prelates, which can be seen here:

(Wikipedia)

Thus far, I don't recall any statements from the Eastern Churches that they view the Pius IX cross in the same way that they view Benedict's pallium. As Benodette has commented, it looks more like an Anglican cross than a Catholic cross - mayhap the Paul VI cross, which contains at least one element of the Eastern Church's paterissa, is a more evocative symbol of our links with our Eastern brethren?

Thank you so much Unicorn for your beautiful meditation, It touched my heart.

Letmel, this unworthy heart thanks you, Budwud and Benodette for your very kind words concerning my little "meditation". I shall always love and miss the Paul VI staff. (sigh) It was very much a part of my life since the moment I saw my first televised Papal Mass three decades ago, and I have nothing but the most cherished memories of it, and of the Popes who carried it with honor, dignity, nobility, and yes, indomitable faith.

I must say, however, that all things considered, Budwud's suggestion, which has also been expressed by Benodette, has great merit:

… what I would really like is for Papa to have a new staff that is uniquely his own, along with vestments, in whichever style he prefers, that are made for him with his own papal coat of arms. Papa Benedict has already given us an enormous volume of exquisite teachings that will be read and pondered over for centuries to come. I'd like to think of a future successor of Peter drawing strength and inspiration from Papa's words instructing the faithful and evangelizing the world wearing the vestments and carrying the staff of Benedict XVI.

I heartily agree.

How wonderful that this young man had the opportunity to be thanked by the Pope for his work on the altar.