Friday, May 13, 2005
Santo subito?
Our new Pope has decided to waive the normal time limits on beginning the investigation into the life of his predecessor, for the possibility of eventual canonization. Not that anyone asked, but I disapprove.
I have no doubt that waiving the rule is in the Pope's power. This rule was something entirely made by the Church, and may be entirely waived by the Church. While it is in his power to waive the rule, I think doing so demonstrates poor judgment.
The entire justification for the rule is that time serves to separate the wheat from the chaff. It recognizes human error. (Just as people often suffer from undeservedly bad reputations, it is possible for someone to benefit from an undeservedly good reputation.) The rule recognizes that emotions run high when a person who is admired dies. (What is the difference between the throngs chanting "santo subito" during the Pope's funeral and the student riots of '68 about which Pope Benedict's opinion is well known?) In short, the rule says to the faithful: "Think someone was a saint? Come back in 100 years and tell me if you still think so." It's not as if anyone is really harmed by this; it's not as if St. Peter stands at the gates and says, "I'd let you in, but the Roman Curia has not finished its investigation yet."
The rule should be honored (i.e., followed) for its accute perception of human realities, a perception which is the fruit of centuries of accumulated experience. Instead, we have a situation where the clamor for quick action -- the very thing that the rule was designed to deal with -- is sufficient reason to waive the rule. That's irrational.
I have no doubt that waiving the rule is in the Pope's power. This rule was something entirely made by the Church, and may be entirely waived by the Church. While it is in his power to waive the rule, I think doing so demonstrates poor judgment.
The entire justification for the rule is that time serves to separate the wheat from the chaff. It recognizes human error. (Just as people often suffer from undeservedly bad reputations, it is possible for someone to benefit from an undeservedly good reputation.) The rule recognizes that emotions run high when a person who is admired dies. (What is the difference between the throngs chanting "santo subito" during the Pope's funeral and the student riots of '68 about which Pope Benedict's opinion is well known?) In short, the rule says to the faithful: "Think someone was a saint? Come back in 100 years and tell me if you still think so." It's not as if anyone is really harmed by this; it's not as if St. Peter stands at the gates and says, "I'd let you in, but the Roman Curia has not finished its investigation yet."
The rule should be honored (i.e., followed) for its accute perception of human realities, a perception which is the fruit of centuries of accumulated experience. Instead, we have a situation where the clamor for quick action -- the very thing that the rule was designed to deal with -- is sufficient reason to waive the rule. That's irrational.
# posted by Anonymous : 7:17 PM
