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. 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
[New Advent Catholic Website]
http://www.knight.org/advent
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])
If you would like to contribute to this worthwhile
project, please contact Kevin Knight 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.
-------------------------------------------------------
