Looking over the accomplishments of recent popes, it seems that Leo XIII did the most to support liberalism (e.g. Rerum Novarum, French Revolution) while maintaining the Catholic Church’s conservative philosophies. He brought the church into the 20th Century while adressing the needs of the church to maintain control over Catholics. He may be the most far-seeing pope except for St. Gregory I (the Great) and Blessed John XXIII.
So why is he not considered for sainthood. His predessesor Pio Nono (Blessed Pope Pius IX) is despite how much he hurt the Church (Syllabus Errorum), the Edgardo Mortara case, promoting Papal infallibility (absolute infallibility - not the ex cathedra infallibility that eventuality won out at Vatican I), and losing the Papal States.
I’m not going to defend Papal infallibility or the loss of the Papal States, and the Mortara affair was ill-thought out and managed, to say the least, but there’s nothing wrong with the the Syllabus Errorum.
That said, I think Leo XIII’s legacy is decidedly mixed. While he opened the doors to greater relations with the Orthodox and opposed Marxism, he also compromised with democracy and modernism and left the door open for the chaos and disintegration after Vatican II.
These are errors (Pius IX declared the statements as given to be incorrect)
Error 12: The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. Tell that to Galileo and Copernicus
Error 15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. Bye-Bye to freedom of religion
Error 24: The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. Oh no! The Swiss Guard are invading
Error 42: In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. So if the government outlaws child molestation but the Church allows it . . .
Error 47: The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. At least there would be no contraversy over having students say “under God” in the Pledge
Error 48: Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. This would cure the overpopulation of our public schools
Error 55: The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. I knew there was something wrong with that pesky 1st amendment
Error 77: In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
Error 78: Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. Now every non-Catholic gets to worship God illegally
Do you still claim “there’s nothing wrong with the the Syllabus Errorum”?
Do you still claim “there’s nothing wrong with the the Syllabus Errorum”?
So there should be no secular public schools [like we currently have in the US] and the Catholic Church should run all schools? (47) If there are public schools, Catholics should not use them? (48)
So all non-Catholics should be banned from public worship? (77, 78)
In a country dominated by the Catholic Church (e.g. Italy) this may make a lot of since. But what about a Catholic American claiming that it is an error that the state government runs the schools or that it is an error that Protestants be allowed to worship.
I agree that the Catholic Church as a temporal power has the right to argue that the World should do things the Catholic way just like the U.S. demands that the rest of the world does things the American way, but those Catholics that agree with the precepts of Syllabus Errorum agree that everyone should be Catholic (Unum Sanctum) and that the Catholic Church should be an influence in all state decisions.
To be honest, I think yBeayf would be more than happy with this. They say Leo XIII “compromised with democracy and modernism and left the door open for the chaos and disintegration after Vatican II.”
Sorry for the double post since Captain Amazing wrote this while I was writing the last one.
It doesn’t really matter what I think considering I’m a heretic and going to Hell as per Pope Benedict XVI, but my understanding is that Syllabus Errorum was and is condemned by liberal Catholics as being to broad and reactionary (following on the heels of the Revolutions of 1848). As written, it reminds one of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages under Boniface VIII.
At the very least Syllabus Errorum is contraversial which would seem to count against somebody attaining sainthood especially with all the other strikes against him - which makes it all the more unbelievable to me that Leo XIII is not moving towards sainthood. I understand yBeayf reaction to Leo’s liberalism, but the same Pope that beatified Pius IX also beatified John XXIII, possible the most liberal Pope ever.
So getting this thread back on track, why isn’t Leo XIII being considered for sainthood?
I am not a Catholic and know very little overall about the religion, but I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that someone must have “miracles” attributed to them to be considered for sainthood.
If I am incorrect, please don’t flame me to cinders.
A local bishop investigates the candidate’s life and writings for evidence of heroic virtue. The information uncovered by the bishop is sent to the Vatican.
A panel of theologians and the cardinals of the Congregation for Cause of Saints evaluate the candidate’s life.
If the panel approves, the pope proclaims that the candidate is venerable, which means that the person is a role model of Catholic virtues.
It is this point that IMHO Pope Leo XIII should be at. This is what I meant by being a candidate for sainthood. I don’t know if Leo has produced a miracle yet.
The next step toward sainthood is beatification. Beatification allows a person to be honored by a particular group or region. In order to beatify a candidate, it must be shown that the person is responsible for a posthumous miracle. Martyrs, those who died for their religious cause, can be beatified without evidence of a miracle.
In order for the candidate to be considered a saint, there must be proof of a second posthumous miracle. If there is, the person is canonized.
Well…What does it change? We’re talking about the catholic church view, not about the US ot Italy’s views.
So? It doesn’t make their views erroneous from a religious point of view. Religious views aren’t supposed to be based on what is popular, or on the constitutionnal principles of such or such countries. Of course it happens that churches (and in particular the catholic church) adapt their teachings to the stance curently prevailing to some extent but they don’t have to do so.
You can’t state that the church’s position is erroneous because it conflicts with your own values or the values generally accepted in your country. The church teachings just have to be internally consistent. They can only be erroneous (from a catholic point of view) if they conflict with other catholic teachings. You’re not obligated to like them, but the church isn’t under any obligation to take into account principles that aren’t derived from its theology, either. It’s erroneous if it conflicts with the bible and the church tradition, not with the US constitution.
To get this thread back on track, I never claimed the precepts of the Syllabus Errorum were wrong! To be honest, as a Protestant I don’t really care what it says. I said it hurt the Church (see my first post if you don’t believe me) and I believe historically it alienated liberal Catholics and worsened the Papacy’s relations with most of the World.
My reaction to yBeayf’s statement was to see if they believed in the most conservative parts of the document that would be inconsistant with modern day concepts of democracy. I quoted parts of it since I didn’t know if yBeayf ever read the document to see if they still agreed with it after having read it. Obviously they do and so what - they have their beliefs and I have mine. But the fact remains that many people (Catholics and non-Catholics) point to Syllabus Errorum as evidence that Pius IX, and through him the Catholic Church, had lost touch with modern day realities.
So can we stop the discussion about if Syllabus Errorum is right or wrong? At the very least can we stop erroneously saying that I said it was wrong? It conflicts with secular values and a Catholic that says there is nothing wrong with the Syllabus by necessity believes that the should be no freedom of non-Catholic religious expression and that the Catholic Church should form an integral part of the government and though I may disagree with this view I never said it was wrong. If you think I did, please quote where I explicitly said yBeayf, Pius IX, or Syllabus Errorum was wrong, incorrect, or in error.
You may say that that Pius IX’s defense of conservative doctrine against a changing world is what led to his beatification by Pope John Paul II (that would stand to reason) but Pope John Paul II also beatified John XXIII. So why is Leo XIII who blended conservative doctine with acceptance of modern day ideas left out of veneration?
Because not enough (or not the right kind of) people actually revere and venerate his memory to the degree they do Pio Nono or John XXIII or JP2.
You may have the answer right there. Pius inspires and comforts the traditionalists; John inspires and comforts the progressives. Leo may inspire and comfort practical moderates, but they don’t form organized support campaigns
