www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Mgr Stepinac and the genocide agains Orthodox Christians

Dear Dr. John,

What I find a little confusing is the way the criticism shifts here.

Before our Slavic Pope came on the scene, the criticism about Catholic canonizations was that:

a) they took too long and required too many miracles;

b) Most of them came from the three main Latin countries, the cultural heritage of the Popes themselves;

c) they were overly and scandalously expensive;

d) they involved people of centuries ago, who had little relevance to our modern times.

Now a new Pope has addressed these concerns.

The new Slavic Pope insists on including non-Latin peoples in the honours of the Altar.

He insists on having many modern-day saints, including Mother Teresa's cause, stepped up to make the Saints appear almost relevant and contemporary . . .

As in the Ukrainian Martyrs' Cause, as soon as the local Ordinary pronounced positively on the fact of their Martyrdom, the Pope said, "O.K., that's good enough for me, I'll beatify them when I go there for borscht and perogies in June . . ."

In Blessed Cardinal Stepanic's case, leaving more time would solve nothing of the controversy that envelopes this matter.

In fact, it would make it worse, as witnesses and other factual sources of evidence would get old and dry up, leaving the field wide open for even more bias etc.

As for "nationalism," that's a word that is bandied about quite too often.

Every Church is "nationalistic," including, I daresay the Serbian and Greek Churches. The Orthodox tradition even had to coin the heresy of "phyletism" to condemn and guard against excessive ecclesial nationalism.

"National saints" who reflected the values and struggles of their people abound.

So far, those who are against Bl. Stepanic are the Serbs, hardly less nationalistic than the Croats or objective otherwise.

And since when are you Americans such friends of the Serbs?

Riding on the liberal bandwagon isn't being objective either, in case you wanted to assert that too.

Alex

Dear Brian,

Well, thank God for the Irish, I say!!

If I had my way, I'd ensure the Celtic Church would be back on its feet!

But I think we've all had enough of the Croats and Serbs for one day . . .

May God keep them!

Alex

Alex, dear buddy, WHOA!

All I'm suggesting is that we follow the old Byzantine/Orthodox (and pre-Vatican II Latin) customs and allow the veneration of blessed ones in their localities, and, if their 'fame' and 'holiness' expand to include those outside the home base, then let it grow. As with St. Nektarios and others.

I am just concerned that with the proliferation of modern media, print documents, photographs, the internet, etc., those who are adept at PR can get their "cause" on the radar screen of the Universal Church and do the "Causae Provehendo" ['postulator of the cause'] pr magic.

If the Holy Spirit is truly active, then there will be devotees (I can't think of a better word right now) who both espouse and advance the cause of a Blessed One. If it is a PR thing, then eventually it will wither and die. Those whose sanctity is truly exemplary (generally there is NO problem with those who are martyred), then the questions are few - if any. E.G., the martyred bishops of the Ruthenian and Ukrainian (and Armenian, and African and Asian) Churches who were murdered precisely because they were Christians. This is why those African martyrs (Uganda?) who included one or more Episcopalians were rightfully presented to the Universal Church for canonization. It is the unabashed willingness of the individual 'saint to be' to stand up for the Gospel, to show self-sacrificing love for Christ and for His Church and for God's people that raises that person to official holiness. I include Mother Teresa and her sisters in this group. As well as your local Blessed Anne who excelled in prayer and concern for healing for the sick.

Let the Church (i.e., the baptized faithful -- and I'm speaking VERY broadly here!!) make the decisions and not some committee of nuncios, chamberlains, protonotaries, or guardians of the patriarchal wine cellars. It is precisely because the Saints are held up as models for the rest of us sinners, that the baptized faithful should look upon their lives and say: "Wow! This person did wonderful things - I wish I was like that!!! And, Lord willing, I'm gonna' try!!!

And for me THAT is the touchstone for official sainthood.

So, what'cha plan to do about it in the future, O Venerable Alex the Canadian?!?!? (And for heaven's sake, don't start wearing some silly robes and sandals. In Toronto, it'd be a death-sentence in January and February. Yeah, and in March too.)

Blessings!!

Francisco,

Thanks for the insight. However, what have I said that contradicts the definitions below? Iin fact I've said the same thing):

"saint ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snt)
n.

Abbr. St. or S. Christianity. A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth.
A person who has died and gone to heaven."

Where's the disagreement?

ChristTeen287

Well, yes, I also have some difficulties to "accept" the canonization of Family Romanov, because of the brutality of the Czarist regime.

I agree with Dr. John. For example, in spite of the obvious proofs of his existence and his sanctity, Mexican christians had to wait for centuries until St. Juan Diego was properly canonized by the Roman Church recently. I remember that those who held his non-existence had very weak "evidences", and the red clergy behind them (some prelates like the Abbey of Our Lady's Basilica, who had a close relationship with the old government)had no moral authority. But in spite of this, the canonization endured exhaustive procedures before it was approved.

It is also interesting that while some hierarchs prevent proccessions in honour to St. Josaphat in Ukraine for respect of the Orthodox, or public vigils for the martyrs of the Greek Catholic Church in Romania (because it would imply a demand for the restoration of their churches, Arz. Stepinac was beatified and could be canonized.

The case of Arz. Stepinac was not the only one, many prelates of both catholic and Orthodox Churches accepted fascist regimes (the Iron Guard, which had support of both Orthodox and Catholics). It wouldn't be right for me to think that Blessed Stepinac was anti-orthodox and deeply colaborated in the extermination of Serbs without being fully informed. The fact that the Roman Church there, recognized and blessed the poglavkik's regime, at least at the beggining, is certain. However, I am conscious of the fact that the information wasn't as fast and accurate as it is now, and that the racist policies of that government were probably unknown at the beggining. It is also probable that the evidences presented in Blessed Stepinac's trial had been fabricated or exagerated by the communists. There are documents stating that he knew about the "conversion" of entire villages, but there are other were he disagrees with forcible conversions and asked for the preservation of the lives of the Serbs. However, I hope that the Pope and the venerable procedures of the Roman Church analyze if Cardinal Stepinac's interventions to save the lives of some communities, are enought for proclaim him a saint. I recall the example of Cardinal Ignace Kung, from China, who prefered the martyrdom, than to colaborate with a regime which was totally un-christian, and to become part of the "patriotic" Church.

Thank you Dr. John, I tend to agree! I think that the current official rule of waiting 25 years after the death of the individual before beatification is most prudent.

This includes Mother Teresa too! (although I do not doubt her sanctity!). The time factor is a test in order to see if the candidate's popularity endures over time. This is especially necessary for candidates who received much "media hype" during their lives.

Where the "vox populi" comes into important play is measured in the action of the people to continue to keep alive the memory and more importantly the fervor and spirit of the candidate over the years.

To illustrate the point, let's consider Patriarch JOSYF. It's one thing for me to pray for him; I remember his patriarchate, remember his falling asleep, know plenty of people who knew him. Thats a good thing.

But in my opinion, it's even a better thing that now people who never were in a Greek Catholic Church during Patriarch JOSYF's lifetime to ask me to help them obtain portraits of him, prayer cards, etc. (Some of these folks were just babies when he reposed, some not even Catholic in 1984.) The cult of Patriarch JOSYF endurs these 18+ years! To me that is a good sign, and hopefully for the Congregation of Saints as well.

With Best Wishes to all!

Stefan-Ivan

Dear Remie:

Thank you for your thoughful post.
I'd like to clarify one point. You write:

I think that the cause for canonization is more related to Stepinac's life under the communist regime. At the cost of his own safety, liberty and ultimatley life, he refused to abandon, by accepting exile or apostasy, the flock that was entrusted to him. Instead, he endured trial and imprisonment. He perserved in his leadership and continued to serve as an inspiration to the faithful under tough conditions.

Cardinal Stepinac died in 1960, was recognized as a martyr in 1997, and beatified in 1998, 38 years after his death.

Dear Dr. John,

Sorry if I came off a bit off-putting . . .

There are two issues that we appear to be considering simultaneously here: a) canonization principles in general and, b) controversial cases such as that involving Bl. Cardinal Stepanic.

As for canonization, what you recommend is what the Eastern and Western Churches do already.

The West, it is true, has established that beatification can generally occur only after a time lapse of thirty years has taken place following the repose of the candidate. Canonization would require a time lapse of fifty years.

The only exception in recent years (St Francis of Assisi was canonized just a few years after his death) is Mother Teresa - but that is just because her sanctity is well established and not just by the media!

I know of schools and other institutions that have been named for her while she was yet alive - an expression of Vox Populi to be sure - and that kind of veneration of a then still living person is reminiscent of the Early Church of the Apostles!

But time frames, like the number of miracles required etc., are there as a general rule and the Pope, thankfully, can and does overlook them in individual cases. I am very happy that we didn't have to wait 50 years for Padre Pio to be canonized.

His glorification was truly in response to Vox Populi. I've met so many people on a casual basis who have had their lives affected by Padre Pio, including a rather comely female singer who sat next to me during a break at my wife's office Christmas party - her father was cured of throat cancer after he was blessed with a relic of St Pio the day before his operation.

Several years ago, a large group of Catholic laity put out a demand for Pope John XXIII's beatification and then declared him "Blessed" on a particular day. The Lutherans, we should remember, didn't feel constrained by Vatican rules in this regard and placed Pope John in their calendar years ago. They knew what everyone else knows and that was that he is a saint.

When too much time elapses, Causes tend to falter since the Vatican process emphasizes testimony from eye-witnesses when these are to be had.

In St Juan Diego's case, there are STILL people who believe he never existed, Church canonization notwithstanding.

The fact is, Dr. John, that politics enters into canonizations too. It was not in the interest of the conquering Spaniards to glorify someone like St Juan Diego . . .

The work of the Bollandists often involves detecting where politics has left its mark in the calendars.

We know that Catholic countries would compete with one another to see who had more saints. Some Latin countries adopted Old Testament saints wholesale or even concocted them to thicken their martyrologies.

When heresies died out, some die-hards disguised the names of their heretical founders and put them in the Catholic calendar. Arius himself was commemorated in the Catholic calendar under the name "Artotis" on June 6 until the Bollandists discovered this "saint's" true identity.

It is all a tangled web . . .

I would say we are better off canonizing a saint sooner than later. The fact that the life of St Nicholas wasn't produced until several hundred years later allowed for great embellishments . . .

And Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha was beatified not on the basis of specific miracles, although miracles were always reported at her tomb, but on a 300 hundred year Vox Populi tradition, something, in fact, that the Vatican wasn't too happy about . . .

Thomas More was canonized 400 years after his martyrdom, but he was declared a local Saint for the City of Rome 40 years after his execution, far away from the place where he was known etc.

It is often a canonization's committee's best call in such situations. In fact, too much public veneration of a candidate is, in Rome's eyes, a "no-no." When Josaphat's Cause began at Rome, the first thing the Basilian Fathers did was remove all the votives at his tomb etc.

But we are talking about Bl. Stepanic in particular.

The fact is that the Croatian people do honour him highly and that he was much maligned, as saints across the ages do tend to be, by others.

And politics is involved on both sides here as well.

The papal beatification of him was based on the successful result of proceedings, historical research, investigation of miracles and confirmation of a Vox Populi cult.

St Jan Sarkander in the Czech Republic was a similarly controversial candidate, much maligned by Protestants during the times of the Hussite struggles.

He was accused of forcibly converting Protestants etc.

And many Protestants are not happy that Vatican researchers could find no evidence to confirm this.

To say that the Vatican hagiographers aren't objective is also something that has nothing to back it up with.

The Bollandists and the hagiography experts at Rome are truly the best in the world and they are great scholars.

When Protestants complained that the cult of St John Nepomucene in Bohemia was concocted by Jesuits to try and offset the great local cult of the reformer and Priest-martyr, John Hus, the Vatican put its scholars to work on it.

That Catholic scholarship indeed undercovered that there was good historical reasons to suggest that the cult of this obscure priest was deliberately "pumped up" by the Jesuits to try and divert Catholic attention away from John Hus, so popular the latter had become in that region.

In 1963, the Vatican dropped St John Nepomucene from its universal calendar.

I do indeed trust Rome with its stringent and disciplined requirements for sainthood.

That our Pope has reformed some of its outdated aspects and has allowed contemporary models of Christian heroism and sanctity to prevail as our guides and intercessors - more power to that man of God, I say!

Alex

Dear Alex:



Amen!

AmdG