|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Aug 9, 2009 16:56:55 GMT
I would like to see the office of the Advocatus Diaboli restored and the rules of the Lourdes medical commission adopted in examining alleged miracles by prospective saints.
I am waiting for reactions.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 11, 2009 10:21:08 GMT
I believe the old canonical process was superior to the historical investigation now, but maybe the best way is to integrate the new into the old with the restoration of the office of promoter of the faith (aka devil's advocate).
Having a Lourdes style medical bureau where at least half the medical specialists are unbelievers would be useful too.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 11, 2009 17:24:37 GMT
The problem with the old process was that it was taken over by a group of canon lawyers who argued endlessly on technicalities and made it difficult for cases which did not have strong organisational and financial resources to get through. The move away from the adversarial process was meant to simplify matters but it has the following problems: (1) A trial (the old model) is supposed to have a definitive result; a historical seminar is supposed to be open-ended, its conclusions are subject to revision anytime in the light of new evidence. Canonisation is once and for all - indeed, it is supposed to be infallible since the requirement for a miracle worked through the candidate's intercession implies that Heaven itself has vouched for him/her. It is therefore better suited to the first sort of process than the second. (2) The loss of the advocatus diaboli tends to balance the process in favour of the candidate, since there is no longer someone who has the task of gathering adverse material in the way the promoters gather favourable material. Among other effects, this can give scandal if opponents of the cause feel (and complain publicly) that their evidence has been passed over unfairly. I think St. Josemaria Escriva deserved canonisation but I think the fact that there seems to have been no formal procedure to hear adverse witnesses (some of whom publicly protested at this) gave scandal unnecessarily. I once read a book by a lawyer about presenting a case, in which he argued that if there is any material adverse to your client, you should bring it up yourself as otherwise you will give the impression that you are hiding something. That is a wise rule and I try to follow it in my historical work. By the way, does anyone think it would be a good idea to return to the rule that causes should not be formally introduced until 50 years after a candidate's death? I would be inclined to say not, because the world is so more fast-moving these days and it can be a help to have intercessors who are near-contemporary, but there might be something to be said on the other side. All these things, of course, are matters of discipline not doctrine. The Church could, if it wished, go back to sainthood by acclamation or the approval of local cults of sainthood. These would IMHO be unwise, but it's a matter of prudence and there is no overwhelming theological argument against it.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 12, 2009 13:31:14 GMT
I agree with this analysis and the Escriva case brought up the problems with the new method. If the case against Escriva was formally made, the opponents would be on much shakier ground.
In general the process of beatification and canonisation seemed to become an assembly line affair in the last pontificate. I don't believe that this was the case, but that is how it appeared to be.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 7, 2010 11:28:03 GMT
|
|