Cause for the beatification of Leo XIII?

[QuantaCura]

Does anyone know if his cause was ever opened or if there is a database somewhere which lists the open causes?

He seems like someone who's cause would have been opened by at least on of the popes since his death. All popes since treat him in very high regard when citing him. His work towards Christian reunion and his crucial role in laying the foundation for Catholic Social doctrine seem to make him a preeminent figure for modern times. I cannot find any thing against his personal holiness--in fact, quite the opposite. Everything I read says he was incredibly virtuous--St. Therese herself writes about how she could sense it.

I find it hard to believe popes like Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII or even the other popes since his reign would not have opened his cause. Anyone know?

 

[Davidnic]

That's a good question. I know Popes are sometimes wary of making other Popes saints but Leo XIII is a sure thing in my mind. When one of the questions is: Did they rise to the challenges of the day? It would be hard to say no there.

I went and looked at the site for the congregation for the causes of saints (link) and they don't have a list of open causes.

The patron saint index has him there, but only for a bio and his role as Pope and his Canonizations. They do have list with links to all of his writings though (link).

 

[QuantaCura]

I know that Pius XII, Paul VI, and even John Paul I have had their causes opened (Pius XII is venerable and the other two are "Servant of God")--and of course John Paul II. Leo XIII's writings in my opinion are right up there with John Paul II in the sheer quantity and quality of it all. To me, the more I read from him and about him, the more he seems right up there with the recently beatified and canonized popes, Innocent XI, Pius IX, Pius X, and John XXIII as well as those with currently open causes.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Hi Quanta-

I've sometimes wondered the same thing. Reading Pius XI and Leo XIII's encyclicals I've always been incredibly impressed by their teaching, and as you have said their personal character.

The only problem with Leo XIII and Pius XI that I've ever been made aware of is that sometimes questions are raised about the effectiveness of their governance and politics. This came as somewhat of a surprise to me, but I've read that in their practical dealings both were actually weak in dealing with liberalism and modernism (God forgive any irreverence to the memory of either). Politically, Leo XIII essentially gave up opposition to the French Revolution and encouraged Catholics to participate in the Third Republic (an 'if you can't beat them, join them' sort of situation). Pius XI censored Action Francaise, which was the strongest anti-liberal Royalist force in France. The Liberals celebrated this as a victory and claimed that they were in line with the Pope and that the Conservatives were out of favor with the Church. Pius XI wanted peace in the Church and he wanted to work within what he saw as the political reality of Europe, but the anti-liberal forces never really recovered. Secularism absolutely triumphed.

St Pius X had rare leadership quality. He could not be intimidated or browbeat by liberals and his reforms were very much successful. He also repeatedly stood up to the French State and would not cede any of the Church's rights to the State.

As far as I know, this is what separates St. Pius X from Leo XIII and Pius XI. It has also given me a new appreciation for John Paul II, one could say. I think John Paul II, Leo XIII, and Pius XI (all of happy memory) are in a similar category when it comes to how they ruled the Church, to greater or lesser degrees. This was an important revelation for me though, as it opened to me some of the personal frailty of the preconciliar popes.

I wish no disrespect to any of the most excellent Supreme Roman Pontiffs. They are men though who do make mistakes. The important thing is that Our Lord still uses such instruments though.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Perhaps we can start a letter writing campaign to Pope Benedict XVI, start a Pope Leo XIII fan club blog, etc.

I agree that I have been very impressed with his writings.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I was about to suggest the same ProC.

 

[QuantaCura]

Hi Quanta-

I've sometimes wondered the same thing. Reading Pius XI and Leo XIII's encyclicals I've always been incredibly impressed by their teaching, and as you have said their personal character.

The only problem with Leo XIII and Pius XI that I've ever been made aware of is that sometimes questions are raised about the effectiveness of their governance and politics. This came as somewhat of a surprise to me, but I've read that in their practical dealings both were actually weak in dealing with liberalism and modernism (God forgive any irreverence to the memory of either). Politically, Leo XIII essentially gave up opposition to the French Revolution and encouraged Catholics to participate in the Third Republic (an 'if you can't beat them, join them' sort of situation). Pius XI censored Action Francaise, which was the strongest anti-liberal Royalist force in France. The Liberals celebrated this as a victory and claimed that they were in line with the Pope and that the Conservatives were out of favor with the Church. Pius XI wanted peace in the Church and he wanted to work within what he saw as the political reality of Europe, but the anti-liberal forces never really recovered. Secularism absolutely triumphed.

St Pius X had rare leadership quality. He could not be intimidated or browbeat by liberals and his reforms were very much successful. He also repeatedly stood up to the French State and would not cede any of the Church's rights to the State.

As far as I know, this is what separates St. Pius X from Leo XIII and Pius XI. It has also given me a new appreciation for John Paul II, one could say. I think John Paul II, Leo XIII, and Pius XI (all of happy memory) are in a similar category when it comes to how they ruled the Church, to greater or lesser degrees. This was an important revelation for me though, as it opened to me some of the personal frailty of the preconciliar popes.

I wish no disrespect to any of the most excellent Supreme Roman Pontiffs. They are men though who do make mistakes. The important thing is that Our Lord still uses such instruments though.

I agree with those points. I think as Christendom withered and died beginning with the Reformation, but moreso in the 19th and 20th centuries, the orientation of the popes began shifting as they attempted to adapt to the rapidly changing society--a society that had rejected the very foundations of Truth (Vatican I was an attempt to reinforce and strengthen these foundations). The culmination of this shift came with the Second Vatican Council and the popes following it have maintained that orientation. The shift of orientation is that popes could no longer act as if they were presiding over Catholic society--it didn't exist anymore. They were now presiding over a land that needed re-evangelizing again. There was no Christendom for the first time since practically Nicea I.

The Church had to take a different approach to the modern world. The fortress mentality--where the basics of the faith are assumed in society and the pope works to condemn error from entering and growing--was no longer effective. Imagine trying to evangelize pagans by handing them a syllabus of their errors. Instead, the popes of recent memory have adapted a missionary approach--stressing the basics and foundations of our religion--like the love and mercy of God. The very foundations of Christian society have to be re-laid. They try and meet people where they are, affirm what is already good, and work from there. This approach was used by St. Paul when dealing with the pagans with the altar to the unknown God and by affirming certain principles in their poetry. A more recent example was Bl. Charles de Faucauld who was very successful in evangelizing Muslims and other arab pagans.

Sadly, the foundations of truth have been so obliterated and replaced with such a warped substitute that modern man and his seductive doctrines may be the least receptive soil to the seed of the Gospel the Church has ever encountered. This is one reason the Church is growing so well in places like Africa, which weren't hit as hard as Europe by those deadly philosophies--they never really reached "modernity".

 

[QuantaCura]

Perhaps we can start a letter writing campaign to Pope Benedict XVI, start a Pope Leo XIII fan club blog, etc.

I agree that I have been very impressed with his writings.

That would be great . How does one go about it?