Politics and Canonization
Like many people with Catholic backgrounds, Oakland University history Professor Ronald Finucane learned early on that saints are canonized only after living extraordinary lives marked by holiness, benevolence and miraculous works.
With help from a $24,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, however, the accomplished historian expects to publish research showing that political considerations have been at least equally influential in the canonization process.
"What I'm suggesting is that the idea of holiness is immaterial in some cases," Finucane said.
"Through this work, I expect you'll be able to see a clearer connection between saints and the politics of their times."
A graduate of Stanford University who conducted doctoral dissertation research at Oxford University, Finucane has done extensive research on belief systems of the 14th through 16th centuries. He has published five books and authored numerous scholarly articles and essays.
Throughout much of this work, the 13-year Oakland University professor has nurtured a growing interest in ties between significant historical events and papal decisions to canonize certain saintly individuals.
Finucane cited the example of St. Hyacinth, a 13th century Polish priest whose canonization was not made official until the end of the 16th century.
Following the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was interested in minimizing the influence of divergent preachers in Poland. Canonization of St. Hyacinth helped convince ruling powers to stamp out Protestant missions.
At the same time, the church's favorably received decision bolstered support among the Polish ruling class to join battles against Turks invading Western Europe.
Finucane explained that some 300 years after his death, St. Hyacinth's canonization rose from scores of candidates who had been neglected during a dearth of canonizations in the previous six decades.
"In his own order alone, there were undoubtedly others who were at least as holy," Finucane said.
...Arguing that politics is undoubtedly part of any practical answer, Finucane added: "I think even the most devoted Catholics wouldn't find this approach offensive. Some of the things I write about might surprise Catholics, but I don't think it will offend them." [Source]
I have no doubt that politics plays its hand in the reason why some causes for sainthood are advanced at certain times. I would quibble with his statement that "holiness is immaterial in some cases." Politics at times have caused the canonization time to lengthen and not to be shortened. This was true in the case of St. Thomas More. When he cause started to move forward Catholics in England requested for the Vatican to not go ahead with it at that time. During that period of times there was still heavy persecution of Catholics in England and they felt that canonizing Thomas More could only worsen the situation. He was eventually raised to the altar in 1935.
The fact that the process of canonization might lapse three hundred years or more and then go forward might not be just because of political implications. The Holy Spirit in some cases brings this about because a certain saints life and message is needed at the time.
Known as 
Nice science. "I've got a theory, (ideological maxim) that the Catholic Church is all about politics and oppression, that they made up the idea of this thing called 'virtue' to keep the stupid peasants in line and hook them for more tax money. So I am going to start collecting data that debunks the whole idea of holiness and heroic virtue... because if I didn't I would have to consider the possibility that I am a biased anti-Catholic pookerhead and my entire universal outlook is that of a biased anti-Catholic pookerhead..."
Whatever happened to that weird old notion of the 'scientific method' that examines phenomena and comes up with the theory to be tested. I think I learned it in the sixth grade...
St. Hyacinth is an interesting example of the thesis. He was a missionary who preached in Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Prussia, Lithuania, and on into Russia as far as the Black Sea. His Acta are absolutely jam-packed with miracles of all kinds, almost to the point of overkill. Hardly a case in which the idea of holiness is immaterial.
Now, Finucane's statement that "there were undoubtedly others who were at least as holy" within the Dominican Order could stand some unpacking. First, does he have anyone particular in mind, or is he just blowing smoke? Then there's the fact that the Church doesn't use a holiness scale to measure candidates for canonization. Also, the Dominicans as an Order have never been overly consumed with seeing that their holy ones get canonized (at least not since St. Dominic, whose canonization wasn't sought until St. Francis was canonized and the Friars Minor started pulling rank).
All that said, of course political considerations have been influential in the canonization process. Saints aren't canonized for their own good, but for the good of the Church.
What about the well-known fact that the Vatican takes its own sweet time doing just about anything? Academics like to moan about that little fact when they think that the Vatican should "modernize", so why don't they remember it now when presented with these data? (Rhetorical question! :))
Actually it's an important observation. One of the reasons the Vatican used to take its sweet time about canonizing people was to let the politics of a particular case die down. Politics is a fast-moving stream and holiness is supposed to be eternal. So they wait to allow the stream to wash away all the stuff that is extraneous to the main issue.
Or at least they used to. Now we are fast-tracking, cutting down the requirements, dustbinning the checks and balances like the Devil's advocate, and if, say, Mother Theresa's theology leans to the somewhat easy-going, that sort of thing is just hushed up and attributed to Traditionalist crankiness.
Too bad about that old Catholic Church hey?
You know, I find it inspirational that people are all for Church hierarchical authority and judgement. Rome speaks and it's over....
Well, except when Rome speaks. In which case the Pope is being reckless and overcautious and authoritarian and loose.
Amusing as it is to play armchair curia, I think it's not all that hard to trust the hierarchy on the matter of saint-recognition. Regulations can and should be changed as the Pope deems necessary; that's why we have a Pope! He's the one with the Holy Spirit looking over his shoulder, after all.
And it's not like there aren't a zillion-zillion saints running around the world whose true huge level of holiness is known to God alone. You could speed the process up to the blink of an eye or make it slower than continental drift, and we still wouldn't be paying the saints half as much honor as simply being in Heaven.
So let's relax a bit here, okay?