The canonisation of Mother Teresa of Calcutta on Sunday will be  the culmination of a process – sometimes called “the saint-making machine” – that is long, complex, expensive, opaque and often contentious.

The Catholic Church posthumously confers sainthood on people  considered so holy during their lives that they are now believed to be with God and can intercede with him to perform miracles. Such is the status of the nun acclaimed for her work in the slums of the Indian city now known as Kolkata.

But the path to sainthood is often more bureaucratic than beatific.

Mother Teresa died in 1997 and the late Pope John Paul, who met her often, bent Vatican rules to grant a dispensation allowing the procedure to establish her case for sainthood to be launched two years after her death instead of the usual five.

He had even considered making her a saint immediately but cardinals convinced him that it would set a dangerous precedent for the future, even though in the early Church people were acclaimed saints upon their death.

The current process, known as a “cause”, begins at the local level when a diocese believes that someone in their community lived a saintly life. When it is formally open, he or she get the title “Servant of God.”

The postulator, in this case Canadian priest Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, sends voluminous documentation to the Vatican, where its Congregation for the Causes of Saints assigns it to a “relator”. The relator oversees it, and together with theologians, recommends if it is worthy enough to continue.

If it does, the candidate gets the title “venerable”. The next step is beatification. This requires a miracle, which is usually the inexplicable curing of a sick person.

The first miracle attributed to Mother Teresa, and which allowed the Church to beatify her, concerned an Indian woman, Monica Bersa, whose stomach tumour is said to have disappeared after she and others prayed to the nun in 1998, a year after Mother Teresa died.

A medical commission working with the Vatican reviews each case to decide if there is any known medical explanation for the healing.

MIRACLE OR MEDICINE?

Critics, such as the late atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, who made a documentary called “Hell’s Angel” on Mother Teresa, say the system is flawed. One of the doctors who treated Bersa at the time, Ranjan Mustafi, told Indian media the healing was a result of treatment.

After beatification, which for Mother Teresa was in 2003, a second miracle is required in order for the cause to move on to sainthood.

This involved Brazilian Marcilio Andrino, who the Church says unexpectedly recovered from a severe brain infection in 2008 after his family prayed to Mother Teresa.

The saint-making process has not been immune to corruption and mismanagement, with accusations that the system allowed for favouritism for causes with rich backers.

The conservative Opus Dei group was accused of using its considerable financial clout to push for the canonization of its founder, Father Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, who was declared a saint in 2002.

In 2015, a commission looking into Vatican finances found that the Vatican’s saint-making office had little or no documentation of funds used by postulators. According to a Vatican source, the Vatican bank in 2014 froze about a million euros in suspect funds held by postulators.

Kolodiejchuk said the cost of Mother Teresa’s sainthood cause – gathering documentation, interviewing witness, paying lawyers – came to less than $100,000 – very low compared to the cost of some canonisations in the past.

He said it was covered mostly by a single anonymous donation, that costs were contained because member of the Missionaries of Charity worked for free and that no contributions destined for the poor were diverted

Last year, Pope Francis made key changes to the financial side of saint-making with a decree ordering new controls on its costs and demanding more vigilance and transparency at each stage.

It stipulates that contributions from the faithful and groups must go into an account  managed by an administrator who must “scrupulously respect the intentions” of contributors, keep detailed documentation, and present budgets to a superior.

This article was reproduced from Reuters and the views here do not represent the views of Faith Matters

Over the summer, Pope Francis apologised for the “Many grave sins were committed against the native people of America in the name of God.”

“I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for the offense of the church herself, but also for crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America,” the pope said.

But his decision to canonise Father Junípero Serra, on his first visit to the United States next week, has angered many groups.

An online petition against the canonisation has gained over 10,000 signatures. Many of the counter voices are descendants of those colonised. For Ron Andrade, executive director of the Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission, and of the Luiseño tribe, said Serra “decimated 90% of the Indian population”.

Serra (1713-1784), was an ordained Franciscan priest and professor of theology by the age of 24. By 1749, Serra accompanied other Franciscans dedicated to missionary work in Mexico. He also preached, heard confessions, and assisted at Mexico City’s College of San Fernando.

In 1767, Spain founded the first mission in California. Estimates put the Native American population at about 310,000; yet in under a century, that figure declined at a rapid rate, alongside cultural shifts.

Spain’s colonial policies fused political, social, economic and religious motives. One historian argued that “Missionization required a brutal lifestyle akin in several respects to the forced movement of black people from Africa to the American South”.

Others argued that the missions were not simple religious functions – but rather served to eradicate native cultures in a short amount of time.

To ensure survival, many tribes used partial integration with each other and Spanish culture. Others fled inland or lost their culture. Within a month of their arrival, the Spanish crushed a rebellion with guns, and it took a further two years for San Diego to witness its first baptism. Colonial authorities took a zero tolerance approach to resistance – either violent or non-violent. Upon entry to the boundaries of the mission, native Americans could not leave. Spain would send armed parties to capture runaways, and punish the recaptured.

In a legal sense, all baptised Native Americans were subject to the authority of the Franciscans. Disobedience brought public flogging, shackling or imprisonment. Religious conversion often took place at gunpoint.

Life expectancy in the Californian missions could last only for a decade. As one Friar noted, the Indians “live well free but as soon as we reduce them to a Christian and community life… they fatten, sicken, and die”.

During the Second World War, Physiologist Sherburne F. Cook studied the human cost of Spanish settlement: “From the available data we find from 1779 to 1833 there were 29,100 births and 62,600 deaths”. This indicated an ‘extremely rapid population decline‘.

Others found that: “After the missions were built, beginning in 1769, the Indians were forbidden to leave the mission boundaries. It is estimated that California’s Indian population was about 310,000 at the beginning of Spanish rule. At the close of the 19th century, their population shrunk to approximately 100,000, largely due to the inhumane conditions under which the Indians were forced to live while serving as slaves”.

The inhumane and cramped living arrangements helped turn flu and measels into epidemics. Spanish soldiers introduced syphilis to a population already weakened due to a change of diet. Though Cook avoided singling out Serra for criticism, as founder of the mission system, he bore responsibility.

Professor Deborah Miranda, at Washington and Lee University, and an Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Indian, does not consider Serra ‘evil’.  For Miranda, his complicity outweighs any positives, and for that, that is undeserving of reward.

Professor Steven Hackel of the University of California, Riverside, and the author of Junípero Serra: California’s Founding Father took a more nuanced approach. Hackel argued that Serra used corporal punishment in the context of the period – noting that Serra remained paternalistic.

“Serra was not a monster,” said Robert M. Senkewicz, a professor of history at Santa Clara University.

Serra wore his contradictions like the scars of his mortifications – from whipping himself until he bled, and using a candle to scar his chest. He believed in total authority over the Native American tribes but also defended them in disputes with the Spanish military and government officials.

Others voice their opposition with monthly protests outside the Cathedral of Los Angeles.

The canonisation Mass, which will be in Spanish, at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington on September 23.

The post Why is Junípero Serra’s canonisation so controversial? appeared first on Religious Reader.