Brother Andre: The Rocket Richard of Catholic Saints

Brother Andre of Mount Royal. (Frere Andre de Mont-Royal).

A story in yesterday's Globe and Mail on the pending canonization of Brother Andre shows everything that is wrong with religious journalism these days: its hostility to religion, and its fundamental ignorance of the subject.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec/brother-andr-the-rocket-richard-of-miracles/article1757982/

A few illustrative quotes:

“The Vatican confirmed a second miracle attributed to André late last year; two are necessary, one for the beatification, the other for the posthumous canonization ....”

“posthumous canonization”? Apparently both this reporter and his editor believe that beatification takes place during a saint's lifetime. Both beatification and canonization are always posthumous. The term is redundant.

“Benedict’s predecessor, Pope John Paul II, cranked up the Vatican’s saint-making machine ...”

Surely this is deliberately disrespectful. Can you imagine the fatwas, and the cases before the Human Rights Commissions, if something like this were said about Islam?

It is, in any case, factually wrong. The Vatican does not make saints. They only “canonize” them—which is to say, officially recognize that they are saints, accept them into the saintly canon. Saints are made by God's grace and their own thoughts and deeds. This basic error is repeated throughout the article.

“The Vatican has been exploiting miracles forever. It first cranked up the saint conveyor belt in the centuries after the death of Jesus Christ,”

“Exploiting” miracles? Nice work, if you can get it. How does one exploit a miracle? How could it be possible to do so, without getting a hearty rap on the knuckles from a providential lightning bolt? To do what? Sounds bad, whatever it means...

“Cranked up the saint conveyor belt”--again seemingly deliberately offensive language, an ugly image, yet otherwise meaningless. It is unlikely a conveyor belt was any kind of model of any process to anyone in the early centuries AD, having been invented by Henry Ford only last century.

Historically, too, this is again false. The Vatican did not decide early cases of canonization. This was in the hands of the local bishop.

“Back then, virtually any martyr became a saint.”

Religious illiteracy again. There is no “back then,” and no “virtually.” Necessarily, anyone who dies for their faith dies in a state of grace, and is therefore a saint.

“In later centuries, the definition of saint was broadened to include the ultra faithful and pious.”

Again, this has nothing to do with the definition of a saint, but with the grounds for canonization. The writer is attempting to create a false impression of some change in Catholic doctrine. In early years, only martyrs were canonized, because only in the case of martyrs was the matter sufficiently clear—that they died in a state of grace. This never meant that only martyrs were saints.

“The saint glut troubled the 12th Century pope, Alexander III ...”

“Saint glut”--again, ugly and prejudicial language, otherwise meaningless.

How can the writer complain, by the way, of there being too many saints? It is insane enough to begin with, I suppose, to complain of “too many people,” yet many do. But does the writer really think there is a possibility of overpopulation in heaven outstripping the local food supplies? If so, it is a good thing at least that the Vatican is busy down here “exploiting” miracles. That should keep the numbers down, though it might create a corresponding problem in hell...

Alexander III's concern was that some were being venerated as saints who should not have been, based on their life and conduct, not the number of saints.

"Saintly inflation rates exploded to almost 500 canonizations, including Mother Teresa’s."

“saintly inflation rates”? Again, prejudicial language. Not to mention, a mixed metaphor—how do rates explode?

If Mother Teresa has indeed been secretly canonized, surely that should be this story's lede? So far as the rest of us know, she has only been beatified.

You'd think that, in a story on a canonization, there would be some sensitivity to the distinction...

And a link at the bottom of the page:

“Brother André a ‘sure thing' to become Quebec's first saint”

Quebec's first saint? What happened to St. Marie-Marguerite d'Youville? St. Marguerite Bourgeoys? Wouldn't you think a headline like that would be fact-checked?

Is it any wonder the "legacy media" are in trouble? They richly deserve to be.