Beatification and Canonization
HISTORY
According to some writers the origin of beatification and
canonization in the Catholic Church is to be traced back to the
ancient pagan apotheosis. (See APOTHEOSIS.) In his classic work on
the subject (De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum
Canonizatione) Benedict XIV examines and at the very outset
refutes this view. He shows so well the substantial differences
between them that no right-thinking person need henceforth
confound the two institutions or derive one from the other. It is
a matter of history who were elevated to the honour of apotheosis,
on what grounds, and by whose authority; no less clear is the
meaning that was attached to it. Often the decree was due to the
statement of a single person (possibly bribed or enticed by
promises, and with a view to fix the fraud more securely in the
minds of an already superstitious people) that while the body of
the new god was being burned, an eagle, in the case of the
emperors, or a peacock (Juno's sacred bird), in the case of their
consorts, was seen to carry heavenward the spirit of the departed
(Livy, Hist. Rome, I, xvi; Herodian, Hist. Rome, IV, ii, iii).
Apotheosis was awarded to most members of the imperial family, of
which family it was the exclusive privilege. No regard was had to
virtues or remarkable achievements. Recourse was frequently had to
this form of deification to escape popular hatred by distracting
attention from the cruelty of imperial rulers. It is said that
Romulus was deified by the senators who slew him; Poppaea owed her
apotheosis to her imperial paramour, Nero, after he had kicked her
to death; Geta had the honour from his brother Caracalla, who had
got rid of him through jealousy. Canonization in the Catholic
Church is quite another thing. The Catholic Church canonizes or
beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise
of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common
repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief
difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization,
the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and
servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His
special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius
Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII,
x; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat.
martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).
The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought
in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and
intercession of the saints. As was taught by St. Augustine
(Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; contra Faustum, lib. XX,
xxi), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly so-
called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts
which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign
with God in the heavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and
faithful servants. In other words, Catholics honour God in His
saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts. The
worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God
alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble
reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia
(hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her
greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church (Aug.,
Contra Faustum, XX, xxi, 21; cf. De Civit. Dei, XXII, x) erects
her altars to God alone, though in honour and memory of the saints
and martyrs. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the
passages where we are bidden to venerate angels (Ex., xxiii, 20
sqq.; Jos., v, 13 sqq.; Dan., viii, 15 sqq.; x, 4 sqq.; Luke, ii,
9 sqq.; Acts, xii, 7 sqq.; Apoc., v, 11 sqq.; vii, 1 sqq.' Matt.,
xviii, 10; etc.), whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the
friendship of God. And if St. Paul beseeches the brethren (Rom.,
xv, 30; II Cor., i, 11; Col., iv, 3; Ephes., vi, 18, 19) to help
him by their prayers for him to God, we must with even greater
reason maintain that we can be helped by the prayers of the
saints, and ask their intercession with humility. If we may
beseech those who still live on earth, why not those who live in
heaven? It is objected that the invocation of saints is opposed to
the unique mediatorship of Christ Jesus. There is indeed "one
mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus". But He is our
mediator in His quality of our common Redeemer; He is not our sole
intercessor nor advocate, nor our sole mediator by way of
supplication. In the eleventh session of the Council of Chalcedon
(451 we find the Fathers exclaiming, "Flavianus lives after death!
May the Martyr pray for us!" If we accept this doctrine of the
worship of the saints, of which there are innumerable evidences in
the writings of the Fathers and the liturgies of the Eastern and
Western Churches, we shall not wonder t the loving care with which
the Church committed to writing the sufferings of the early
martyrs, sent these accounts from one gathering of the faithful to
another, and promoted the veneration of the martyrs. Let one
instance suffice. In the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna
(Eus., Hist. Eccl., IV, xxiii) we find mention of the religious
celebration of the day on which St. Polycarp suffered martyrdom
(23 February, 155); and the words of the passage exactly express
the main purpose which the Church has in the celebration of such
anniversaries: "We have at last gathered his bones, which are
dearer to us than priceless gems and purer than gold, and laid
them to rest where it was befitting they should lie. And if it be
possible for us to assemble again, may God grant us to celebrate
the birthday of his martyrdom with gladness, thus to recall the
memory of those who fought in the glorious combat, and to teach
and strengthen by his example, those who shall come after us."
This anniversary celebration and veneration of the martyrs was a
service of thanksgiving and congratulation, a token and an
evidence of the joy of those who engaged in it (Muratori, de
Paradiso, x), and its general diffusion explains why Tertullian,
though asserting with the Chiliasts that the departed just would
obtain eternal glory only after the general resurrection of the
body, admitted an exception for the martyrs (de Resurrectione
Carnis, xliii).
It must be obvious, however, that while private moral certainty of
their sanctity and possession of heavenly glory may suffice for
private veneration of the saints, it cannot suffice for public and
common acts of that kind. No member of a social body may,
independently of its authority, perform an act proper to that
body. It follows naturally that for the public veneration of the
saints the ecclesiastical authority of the pastors and rulers of
the Church was constantly required. The Church had at heart,
indeed, the honour of the martyrs, but she did not therefore grant
liturgical honours indiscriminately to all those who had died for
the Faith. St. Optatus of Mileve, writing at the end of the fourth
century, tells us (De Schism, Donat., I, xvi, in P. L., XI, 916-
917) of a certain noble lady, Lucilla, who was reprehended by
Caecilianus, Archdeacon of Carthage, for having kissed before Holy
Communion the bones of one who was either not a martyr or whose
right to the title was unproved. The decision as to the martyr
having died for his faith in Christ, and the consequent permission
of worship, lay originally with the bishop of the place in which
he had borne his testimony. The bishop inquired into the motive of
his death and, finding he had died a martyr, sent his name with an
account of his martyrdom to other churches, especially neighboring
ones, so that, in event of approval by their respective bishops,
the cultus of the martyr might extend to their churches also, and
that the faithful, as we read of St. Ignatius in the "Acts" of his
martyrdom (Ruinart, Acta Sincera Martyrum, 19) "might hold
communion with the generous martyr of Christ (generoso Christi
martyri communicarent). Martyrs whose cause, so to speak, had been
discussed, and the fame of whose martyrdom had been confirmed,
were known as proved (vindicati) martyrs. As far as the word is
concerned it may probably not antedate the fourth century, when it
was introduced in the Church at Carthage; but the fact is
certainly older. In the earlier ages, therefore, this worship of
the saints was entirely local and passed from one church to
another with the permission of their bishops. This is clear from
the fact that in none of the ancient Christian cemeteries are
there found paintings of martyrs other than those who had suffered
in that neighborhood. It explains, also, almost the universal
veneration very quickly paid to some martyrs, e.g., St. Lawrence,
St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Sixtus of Rome [Duchesne,
Origines du culte chr�tien (Paris, 1903), 284].
The worship of confessors--of those, that is, who died peacefully
after a life of heroic virtue--is not as ancient as that of the
martyrs. The word itself takes on a different meaning after the
early Christian periods. In the beginning it was given to those
who confessed Christ when examined in the presence of enemies of
the Faith (Baronius, in his notes to Ro. Mart., 1 January, D), or,
as Benedict XIV explains (op, cit., II, c. ii, n. 6), to those who
died peacefully after having confessed the Faith before tyrants or
other enemies of the Christian religion, and undergone tortures or
suffered other punishments of whatever nature. Later on,
confessors were those who had lived a holy life and closed it by a
holy death in Christian peace. It is in this sense that we now
treat of the worship paid to confessors.
It was in the fourth century, as is commonly held, that confessors
were first given public ecclesiastical honour, though occasionally
praised in ardent terms by earlier Fathers, and although an
abundant rewards (multiplex corona) is declared by St. Cyprian to
be theirs (De Zelo et Livore, col. 509; cf. Innoc. III, De Myst.
Miss., III, x; Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, v, no 3 sqq; Bellarmine,
De Miss�, II, xx, no 5). Still Bellarmine thinks it uncertain when
confessors began to be objects of cultus, and asserts that it was
not before 800, when the feasts of Sts. Martin and Remigius are
found in the catalogue of feasts drawn up by the Council of Mainz.
This opinion of Innocent III and Benedict XIV is confirmed by the
implicit approval of St. Gregory the Great (Dial., I, xiv, and
III, xv) and by well attested facts; in the East, for example,
Hilarion (Sozomen, III, xiv, and VIII, xix), Ephrem (Greg. Nyss.,
Orat. in laud. S. Ephrem), and other confessors were publicly
honoured in the fourth century; and, in the West, St. Martin of
Tours, as is gathered plainly from the oldest Breviaries and the
Mozarabic Missal (Bona, Rer. Lit., II, xii, no. 3), and St. Hilary
of Poitiers, as can be shown from the very ancient Mass-book known
as "Missale Francorum", were objects of a like cultus in the same
century (Martigny, Dictionnaire des antiquit�s chr�tiennes, s. v.
Confesseurs). The reason of this veneration lies, doubtless, in
the resemblance of the confessors' self-denying and heroically
virtuous lives to the sufferings of the martyrs; such lives could
truly be called prolonged martyrdoms. Naturally, therefore, such
honour was first paid to ascetics (Duchesne, op. cit., 284) and
only afterwards to those who resembled in their lives the very
penitential and extraordinary existence of the ascetics. So true
is this that the confessors themselves are frequently called
martyrs. St. Gregory Nazianzen calls St. Basil a martyr (Orat. de
laud., P. L., XXXVI, 602); St. Chrysostom applies the same title
to Eustachius of Antioch (Opp. II, 606); St. Paulinus of Nola
writes of St. Felix of Nola that he won heavenly honours, sine
sanguine martyr ("a bloodless martyr"-Poem., XIV, Carm. III, v,
4); St. Gregory the Great styles Zeno of Verona a martyr (Dial.
III. xix), and Metronius gives to St. Roterius (Acta SS., II, May
11, 306) the same title. Later on, the names of confessors were
inserted in the diptychs, and due reverence was paid them. Their
tombs were honoured (Martigny, loc. cit.) with the same title
(martyria) as those of the martyrs. It remained true, however, at
all times that it was unlawful to venerate confessors without
permission of the ecclesiastical authority as it had been so to
venerate martyrs (Bened. XIV, loc. cit., vi).
We have seen that for several centuries the bishops, in some
places only the primates and patriarchs (August., Brevic. Collat.
cum Donatistis, III, xiii, no 25 in P. L., XLIII, 628), could
grant to martyrs and confessors public ecclesiastical honour; such
honour, however, was always decreed only for the local territory
over which the grantors held jurisdiction. Still, it was only the
Bishop of Rome's acceptance of the cultus that made it universal,
since he alone could permit or command in the Universal Church
[Gonzalez Tellez, Comm. Perpet. in singulos textus libr. Decr.
(III, xlv), in cap. i, De reliquiis et vener. Sanct.]. Abuses,
however, crept into this form of discipline, due as well to
indiscretions of popular fervour as to the carelessness of some
bishops in inquiring into the lives of those whom they permitted
to be honoured as saints. Towards the close of the eleventh
century the popes found it necessary to restrict episcopal
authority on this point, and decreed that the virtues and miracles
of persons proposed for public veneration should be examined in
councils, more particularly in general councils. Urban II,
Calixtus II, and Eugenius III followed this line of action. It
happened, even after these decrees, that "some, following the ways
of the pagans and deceived by the fraud of the evil one, venerated
as a saint a man who had been killed while intoxicated". Alexander
III (1159-81) took occasion to prohibit his veneration in these
words : "For the future you will not presume to pay him reverence,
as, even though miracles were worked through him, it would not
allow you to revere him as a saint unless with the authority of
the Roman Church" (c. i, tit. cit., X. III, xlv). Theologians do
not agree as to the full import of this decretal. Either a new law
was made (Bellarmine, De Eccles. Triumph., I, viii), in which case
the pope then for the first time reserved the right of
beatification, or a pre-existing law was confirmed. As the
decretal did not put an end to all controversy, and some bishops
did not obey it in as far as it regarded beatification (which
right they had certainly possessed hitherto), Urban VII published,
in 1634, a Bull which put an end to all discussion by reserving to
the Holy See exclusively not only its immemorial right of
canonization, but also that of beatification.
NATURE OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION
Before dealing with the actual procedure in causes of
beatification and canonization, it is proper to define these terms
precisely and briefly in view of the preceding considerations.
Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public
ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration,
however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or
local. 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 the ancient discipline of the Church,
probably even as late as Alexander III, bishops could in their
several dioceses allow public veneration to be paid to saints, and
such episcopal decrees were not merely permissive, but, in my
opinion, preceptive. Such decrees, however, could not prescribe
universal honour; the effect of an episcopal act of this kind, was
equivalent to our modern beatification. In such cases there was,
properly speaking, no canonization, unless with the consent of the
pope extending the cultus in question, implicitly or explicitly,
and imposing it by way of precept upon the Church at large. In the
more recent discipline beautification is a permission to venerate,
granted by the Roman Pontiffs with restriction to certain places
and to certain liturgical exercises. Thus it is unlawful to pay to
the person known as Blessed (i. e. the Beatus, Beatified), public
reverence outside of the place for which the permission is
granted, or to recite an office in his honour, or to celebrate
Mass with prayers referring to him, unless special indult be had;
similarly, other methods of honour have been interdicted.
Canonization is a precept of the Roman Pontiff commanding public
veneration to be paid an individual by the Universal Church. To
sum up, beatification, in the present discipline, differs from
canonization in this: that the former implies (1) a locally
restricted, not a universal, permission to venerate, which is (2)
a mere permission, and no precept; while canonization implies a
universal precept. In exceptional cases one or other element of
this distinction may be lacking; thus, Alexander III not only
allowed but ordered the public cultus of Bl. William of Malavalle
in the Diocese of Grosseto, and his action was confirmed by
Innocent III; Leo X acted similarly with regard to Bl. Hosanna for
the city and district of Mantua; Clement IX with regard to Bl.
Rose of Lima, when he selected her as principal patron of Lima and
of Peru; and Clement X, by making her patron of all America, the
Philippines, and the Indies. Clement X also chose Bl. Stanislaus
Kostka as patron of Poland, Lithuania, and the allied provinces.
Again, in respect to universality, Sixtus IV permitted the cultus
of Bl. John Boni for the Universal Church. In all these instances
there was only beatification. The cultus of Bl. Rose of Lima, it
is true, was general and obligatory for America, but, lacking
complete preceptive universality, was not strictly speaking
canonization (Benedict XIV, op. sit., I, xxxix).
Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and
obligatory. But in imposing this obligation the pope may, and
does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of
canonization, i. e. formal canonization and equivalent
canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is
prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due
judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases.
Equivalent canonization occurs when the pope, omitting the
judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant of God to
be venerated in the Universal Church; this happens when such a
saint has been from a remote period the object of veneration, when
his heroic virtues (or martyrdom) and miracles are related by
reliable historians, and the fame of his miraculous intercession
is uninterrupted. Many examples of such canonization are to be
found in Benedict XIV; e. g. Saints Romuald, Norbert, Bruno, Peter
Nolasco, Raymond Nonnatus, John of Matha, Felix of Valois, Queen
Margaret of Scotland, King Stephen of Hungary, Wenceslaus Duke of
Bohemia, and Gregory VII. Such instances afford a good proof of
the caution with which the Roman Church proceeds in these
equivalent canonizations. St. Romuald was not canonized until 439
years after his death, and the honour came to him sooner than to
any of the others mentioned. We may add that this equivalent
canonization consists usually in the ordering of an Office and
Mass by the pope in honour of the saint, and that mere enrolment
in the Roman Martyrology does not by any means imply this honour
(Bened. XIV, l, c., xliii, no 14).
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND CANONIZATION
Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most
theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St.
Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Ba�ez, Vasquez, and,
among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgr�ber,
Barbosa, Reiffenst�l, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13),
Albitius (De Inconstanti� in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in
Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.),
Joannes a S. Thom� (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester
(Summa, s. v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II,
dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas
says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a
profession of faith, i. e., a belief in the glory of the Saints
[qu� sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in
this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to
error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the
authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility,
have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal
infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this
interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same
Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy
doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally
agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of
canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a
papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith
(Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to
refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both
impious and rash, as Suarez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many
more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to
be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport
has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as
having thus far not been defined by the Church.
What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does
he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he
has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never
seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else
is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The
formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than
this: "In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is
a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and
order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on
the . . . day of . . . his feast." (Ad honorem . . . beatum N.
Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo
adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesi� universali illius memoriam
quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . pi� devotione recoli debere.)
There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the
other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of
heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic
virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded
up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a
saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all
the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the
canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such
occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which
they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).
This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in
canonization must not be extended to beatification, not
withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary
known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III,
22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de
reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap.
lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De
indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de
Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists
and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees
of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always
a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is
not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted
by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or
religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however,
have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus,
Theol., IV, disp. 7, p.4, no 98; Turrian= us on II-II, V, disp.
17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).
PRESENT PROCEDURE IN CAUSES OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION
We must first distinguish causes of martyrs from those of
confessors or virgins, since the method followed is not entirely
identical in both cases.
(a) The beatification of Confessors
In order to secure beatification (the most important and difficult
step in the process of canonization) the regular procedure is as
follows:
(1) Choosing of a vice-postulator by the postulator-general of the
cause, to promote all the judicial inquiries necessary in places
outside of Rome. Such inquiries are instituted by the local
episcopal authority.
(2) The preparation of the inquiries (processus) all of which are
carried on by the ordinary episcopal authority. They are of three
kinds:
* Informative inquiries regard the reputation for sanctity and
miracles of the servants of God, not only in general, but also in
particular instances; there may be several such inquiries if the
witnesses to be examined belong to different dioceses.
* Processes de non cultu are instituted to prove that the decrees
of Urban VIII regarding the prohibition of public worship of
servants of God before their beatification have been obeyed; they
are generally conducted by the bishop of the place where the
relics of the servant of God are preserved.
* Other inquiries are known as Processiculi diligentiarum and have
for their object the writings attributed to the person whose
beatification is in question; they vary in number according to the
dioceses where such writings are found, or are thought likely to
be found, and may not be judicially executed before an
"Instruction" is obtained from the promotor of the Faith by the
postulator-general and by him sent to the bishop in question.
(3) The results of all these inquiries are sent to Rome, to the
Congregation of Rites, in charge of a messenger (portitor) chosen
by the judges, or by some other secure way, in case a rescript of
the congregation dispenses from the obligation of sending a
messenger.
(4) They are opened, translated if necessary into Italian, a
public copy is made, and a cardinal is deputed by the pope as
relator or ponens of the cause, for all which steps rescripts of
the congregation, confirmed by the pope, must be obtained.
(5) The writings of the servant of God are next revised by
theologians appointed by the cardinal relator himself, authorized
to so act by a special rescript. Meantime, the advocate and the
procurator of the cause, chosen by the postulator-general, have
prepared all the documents that concern the introduction of the
cause (positio super introductione causae). These consist of (a) a
summary of the informative processes, (b) an information, (c)
answers to the observations or difficulties of the promotor of the
Faith sent by him to the Postulator.
(6) This collection of documents (positio) is printed and
distributed to the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites forty
days before the date assigned for their discussion.
(7) If nothing contrary to faith and morals is found in the
writings of the servant of God, a decree is published, authorizing
further action (quod in caus� procedi possit ad ulteriora), i. e.,
the discussion of the matter (dubium) of appointment or non-
appointment of a commission for the introduction of the cause.
(8) At the time fixed by the Congregation of Rites an ordinary
meeting (congregatio) is held in which this appointment is debated
by the cardinals of the aforesaid congregation and its officials,
but without the vote or participation of the consultors, though
this privilege is always granted them by prescript.
(9) If in this meeting the cardinals favour the appointment of the
aforesaid commission, a decree to that effect is promulgated, and
the pope signs it, but, according to custom, with his baptismal
name, not with that of his pontificate. Thenceforward the servant
of God is judicially given the title of Venerable.
(10) A petition is then presented asking remissorial letters for
the bishops in partibus (outside of Rome), authorizing them to set
on foot by Apostolic authority, the inquiry (processus) with
regard to the fame of sanctity and miracles in general. This
permission is granted by rescript, and such remissorial letters
are prepared and sent to the bishops by the postulator-general. In
case the eye-witnesses be of advanced age, other remissorial
letters are usually granted for the purpose of opening a process
known as "inchoative" concerning the particular virtues of
miracles of the person in question. This is done in order that the
proofs may not be lost (ne pereant probationes), and such
inchoative process precedes that upon the miracles and virtues in
general.
(11) While the Apostolic process concerning the reputation of
sanctity is under way outside of Rome, documents are being
prepared by the procurator of the cause for the discussion de non
cultu, or absence of cultus, and at the appointed time an ordinary
meeting (congregatio) is held in which the matter is investigated;
if it be found that the decree of Urban VIII has been complied
with, another decree provides that further steps may be taken.
(12) When the inquiry concerning the reputation of sanctity (super
fam�) has arrived in Rome, it is opened (as already described in
speaking of the ordinary processes, and with the same formalities
in regard to rescripts), then translated into Italian, summarized,
and declared valid. The documents super fam�; in general are
prepared by the advocate, and at the proper time, in an ordinary
meeting of the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites, the
question is discussed: whether there is evidence of a general
repute for sanctity and miracles of this servant of God. If the
answer is favourable, a decree embodying this result is published.
(13) New remissorial letters are then sent to the bishops in
partibus for Apostolical processes with regard to the reputation
for sanctity and miracles in particular. These processes must be
finished within eighteen months and when they are received in Rome
are opened, as above described, and by virtue of an equal number
of rescripts, by the cardinal prefect, translated into Italian,
and their summary authenticated by the Chancellor of the
Congregation of Rites.
(14) The advocate of the cause next prepares the documents
(positio) which have reference to the discussion of the validity
of all the preceding processes, informative and Apostolic.
(15) This discussion is held in the meeting called congregatio
rotalis from the fact that it is only judges of the Rota who vote.
If the difficulties of the promotor of the Faith are
satisfactorily answered, the decree establishing the validity of
the inquiries or processes is published.
(16) Meanwhile all necessary preparation is made for the
discussion of the question (dubium): Is there evidence that the
venerable servant of God practiced virtues both theological and
cardinal, and in an heroic degree? (An constet de virtutibus Ven.
servi Dei, tam theologicis quam cardinalibus, in heroico gradu?)
In the causes of confessors this step is of primary importance.
The point is discussed in three meetings or congregations called
respectively, ante-preparatory, preparatory, and general. The
first of these meetings is held in the palace of the cardinal
relator (reporter) of the cause, and in it only consultors of the
Congregation of Sacred Rites, and with their chairman, or prefect,
presiding, the third is also held in the Vatican, and at it the
pope presides, and both cardinals and consultors vote. For each of
these congregations the advocate of the cause prepares and prints
official reports (positiones), called respectively report, new
report, final report, concerning the virtues, etc.,-- positio,
positio nova, positio novissima, super virtutibus. In each case,
before proceeding to the subsequent meeting, a majority of the
consultors must decide that the difficulties of the promotor of
the Faith have been satisfactorily solved.
(17) When the Congregation of Rites in the above described general
meeting has decided favourably, the pope is asked is asked to sign
the solemn decree which asserts that there exists evidence of the
heroic virtues of the servant of God. This decree is not published
until after the pope, having commended the matter to God in
prayer, gives a final consent and confirms by his supreme sentence
the decision of the congregation.
(18) The miracles now remain to be proved, of which two of the
first class are required in case the practice of virtues in the
heroic degree has been proved, in both ordinary and Apostolic
inquiries or processes by eyewitnesses--three, if the eyewitnesses
were found only in the ordinary processes; four, if the virtues
were proven only by hearsay (de auditu) witnesses. If the miracles
have been sufficiently proven in the Apostolic processes (super
virtutibus) already declared valid, steps are taken at once to
prepare the documents with regard to miracles (super miraculis).
If in the Apostolic processes only general mention has been made
of the miracles, new Apostolic processes must be opened, and
conducted after the manner already described for proving the
practice of virtues in an heroic degree.
(19) The discussion of the particular miracles proceeds in exactly
the same way and in the same order as that of the virtues. If the
decisions be favourable, the general meeting of the congregation
is followed by a decree, confirmed by the pope, in which it is
announced that there is proof of miracles. It must be noted here
that in the positio for the ante-preparatory congregation there
are required, and are printed, opinions of two physicians, one of
whom has been chosen by the postulator, the other by the
Congregation of Rites. Of the three reports (positiones) above
mentioned, and which are now also required, the first is prepared
in the usual way; the second consists of an exposition of the
heroic virtues of the servant of God. an information, and a reply
to later observations of the promotor of the Faith; the last
consists only of an answer to his final observations.
(20) When the miracles have been proved, another meeting of the
Congregation of Rites is held in which it is debated once, and
only once, whether or not, given the approbation of the virtues
and miracles, it is safe to proceed with the solemnities of
beatification. If a majority of the consultors be favourable, a
decree to this effect is issued by the pope, and at the time
appointed by him the solemn beatification of the servant of God
takes place in the Vatican Basilica, on which occasion a
pontifical Brief is issued permitting the public cultus and
veneration of the beatified person now known as Blessed (Beatus).
(b) The Beatification of Martyrs
(1) The causes of martyrs are conducted in the same way as those
of confessors as far as the informative processes and those de non
cultu and ad introductionem causae are concerned. But when once
the commission of introduction has been appointed they advance
much more rapidly.
(2) No remissorial letters are granted for Apostolic processes
concerning the general reputation for martyrdom and miracles; the
letters sent call for an immediate investigation into the fact of
martyrdom, its motive, and the particular miracles alleged. There
is no longer a discussion of the general reputation for martyrdom
or miracles.
(3) The miracles are not discussed, as formerly, in separate
meetings, but in the same meetings that deal with the fact and the
motive of the martyrdom.
(4) The miracles (signa) required are not those of the first
class; those of the second class suffice, nor is their number
determined. On some occasions the decision as to miracles has been
entirely dispensed with.
(5) The discussion as to martyrdoms and miracles, formerly held in
three meetings or congregations, viz. the ante-preparatory,
preparatory, and general, is now usually conducted, through a
dispensation to be had in each instance from the sovereign
pontiff, in a single congregation known as particularis, or
special. It consists of six or seven cardinals of the Congregation
of Rites and four or five prelates especially deputed by the pope.
There is but one positio prepared in the usual way; if there be an
affirmative majority a decree is issued concerning the proof of
martyrdom, the cause of martyrdom, and miracles. (Constare de
Martyrio, caus� Martyrii et signis.)
(6) The final stage is a discussion of the security (super tuto)
with which advance to beatification may be made, as in the case of
confessors; the solemn beatification then follows. This procedure
is followed in all cases of formal beatification in causes of both
confessors and martyrs proposed in the ordinary way (per viam non
cultus). Those proposed as coming under the definition of cases
excepted (casus excepti) by Urban VIII are treated in another way.
In such cases it must be proved that an immemorial public
veneration (at least for 100 years before the promulgation, in
1640, of the decrees of Urban VIII) has been paid the servant of
God, whether confessor or martyr. Such cause is proposed under the
title of "confirmation of veneration" (de confirmatione cultus);
it is dealt with in an ordinary meeting of the Congregation of
Rites. When the difficulties of the promotor of the Faith have
been satisfied, a pontifical decree confirming the cultus is
promulgated. Beatification of this kind is called equivalent or
virtual.
(c) The Canonization of Confessors or Martyrs
The canonization of confessors or martyrs may be taken up as soon
as two miracles are reported to have been worked at their
intercession, after the pontifical permission of public veneration
as described above. At this stage it is only required that the two
miracles worked after the permission awarding a public cultus be
discussed in three meetings of the congregation. The discussion
proceeds in the ordinary way; if the miracles be confirmed another
meeting (super tuto) is held. The pope then issues a Bull of
Canonization in which he not only permits, but commands, the
public cultus, or veneration, of the saint.
It is with the utmost possible brevity that I have described the
elements of a process of beatification or canonization. It may be
easily conjectured that considerable time must elapse before any
cause of beatification or canonization can be conducted, from the
first steps of the information, inquiry, or process, to the
issuing of the decree super tuto. According to the constitution of
this Congregation, more than one important discussion (dubia
majora) cannot be proposed at the same time. It must be remembered
* that the same cardinals and consultors must vote in all
discussions;
* that there is but one promotor of the Faith and one sub-
promotor, who alone have charge of all observations to be made
with regard to the dubia;
* that these cardinals and consultors have to treat questions of
ritual as well as processes of canonization and beatification.
To execute all this business there is but one weekly meeting
(congressus), a kind of minor congregation in which only the
cardinal prefect and the major officials vote; in it less
important and practical questions are settled regarding rites as
well as causes, and answers are given, and rescripts which the
pope afterwards verbally approves. The other meetings of the
congregation (ordinary, rotal, and "upon virtues and miracles")
may be as few as sixteen in the course of the year. Some other
cause must therefore be found for the slow progress of causes of
beatification or canonization than a lack of good will or activity
on the part of the Congregation of Rites.
EXPENSES
It will not be out of place to give succinctly the ordinary actual
expenses of canonization and beatification. Of these expenses some
are necessary others merely discretionary, e. g. the expenses
incurred in obtaining the different rescripts) others, though
necessary, are not specified. Such are the expenses of the
solemnity in the Vatican Basilica, and for paintings representing
the newly beatified which are afterwards presented to the pope,
the cardinals, officials, and consultors of the Congregation of
Rites. The limits of this class of expenses depend on the
postulator of the cause. If he chooses to spend a moderate sum the
entire cause from the first process to the solemn beatification
will not cost him less than $20,000. The expenses of the process
from beatification to canonization will easily exceed $30,000. In
illustration of this we subjoin the final account of the expenses
of the public solemnities in the Vatican Basilica for the
canonization by Leo XIII, of Saints Anthony Maria Zaccaria and
Peter Fourier, as published by the Most Rev. Diomede Panici,
titular Archbishop of Laodicea, then Secretary of the Congregation
of Rites.
To decoration of the Basilica, lights, architectural designs,
labour, and superintendence . . .Lire 152,840.58
Procession, Pontifical Mass, preparation of altars in Basilica. .
8,114.58
Cost of gifts presented to Holy Father . . . 1,438.87
Hangings, Sacred Vestments, etc, . . . 12,990.60
Recompense for services and money loaned . . . 3,525.07
To the Vatican Chapter as perquisites for decorations and candles
. . 18,000.00
Propine and Competenza . . . 16,936.00
Incidental and unforeseen expenses . . . 4,468,40
Total. . . Lire 221,849.10 --or (taking the lira equivalent to
$.193 in 1913 United States money) $42,816.87. (See also BLESSED.)
CAMILLUS BECCARI
Transcribed by Janet Grayson
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc., P.O. Box 281096, Denver, Colorado, USA, 80228.
(
[email protected]) Taken from the New Advent Web Page
(www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------
