PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITAS LATERANENSIS FACOLTAS IURIS CANONICI JASON A. GRAY THE EVOLUTION OF THE PROMOTER OF THE FAITH IN CAUSES OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION: A STUDY OF THE LAW OF 1917 AND 1983 Thesis ad Doctoratum in Iure canonico adsequendum ROMA 2015 PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ LATERANENSE PIAZZA S. GIOVANNI IN LATERANO, 4 Candidato: GRAY JASON AARON Facoltà di Diritto Canonico Matricola 720159 Titolo: The Evolution of the Promoter of the Faith in Causes of Beatification and Canonization: a Study of the Law of 1917 and 1983 Tesi discussa in data: 15 giugno 2015 IMPRIMI POTEST TESI DOTTORALE ESAMINATA ED APPROVATA A NORMA DEGLI STATUTI DELLA PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ LATERANENSE Prof. MATTEO NACCI, docente di Storia del Diritto e delle Istituzioni Prof. MANUEL JESUS ARROBA CONDE, docente di Diritto Processuale Canonico Prof. ROBERT SARNO, docente esterno Si autorizza la stampa Enrico dal Covolo, S.D.B. Rettore Roma, 22 settembre 2015 Con approvazione ecclesiastica “O, while you live, tell truth and shame the devil!” (Hotspur in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Act III, Scene I) “You want to know something funny? I discovered the law again. You actually made me think about it. I managed to go through three years of law school without doing that.” (Mitch McDeere in The Firm) “You want answers?” “I want the truth!” (Col. Nathan R. Jessup and Lt. Daniel Kaffee in A Few Good Men) “The devil's in the detail.” (Old German maxim) “If the rules don't work, you change them.” (Alan Dershowitz in Reversal of Fortune) Copyright © 2015 by Jason A. Gray All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the author except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal. www.jgray.org INTRODUCTION The office of the promoter of the faith is the subject of widespread curiosity, though not because of his canonical importance in causes of canonization, but because he is also commonly known by the moniker, the devil’s advocate. As the name suggests, he serves a contrarian role, presenting reasons against a cause of canonization. The participation of a figure that is responsible for raising objections to a cause provides a safeguard, insuring that the decision to canonize a member of the people of God is not made too lightly. If the martyrdom or virtues and intercessory power of a candidate for canonization have been proven, in spite of every argument to the contrary, the faithful can be secure in the conviction that the saint is truly worthy. The 1917 Code of Canon Law contained canons that governed causes of canonization and carefully articulated the rights and the obligations of the promoter of the faith. The 1917 code synthesized in canonical language the law and traditions that had developed around this important figure in the preceding centuries. When the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, the legislation governing causes of canonization was also revised. This legislation modified the rights and obligations of the promoter of the faith within the Congregation of the Causes of Saints, and also replaced the promoter of the faith in local inquiries with the promoter of justice. These changes were influenced by experiences in causes of canonization, historical factors, and the reforms called for in the Second Vatican Council. This thesis will consider the evolution of the promoter of the faith, considering his role in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and in the 1983 legislation. By comparing and contrasting his duties in these two bodies of law, the figure of the promoter of the faith can be better understood, especially with respect to his responsibility to present objections to a cause of canonization. 2 The Evolution of the Promoter of the Faith In order to recognize the context of the 1917 code and the 1983 legislation, it is necessary to consider the historical developments that preceded these two bodies of law. Therefore this theme will be treated in four chapters by considering the following: (1) the history of the promoter of the faith before 1917; (2) the promoter in the 1917 Code of Canon Law; (3) the history of the promoter after 1917; and (4) the promoter in the 1983 legislation. Within the wider field of causes of canonization, it will be necessary to focus this study by concentrating principally on the promoter of the faith. While some connections must be made to other figures, such as the promotor fiscalis or the defender of the bond, these will be limited to what is necessary to understand the promoter of the faith. The first chapter will consider the history of the promoter before 1917. The promoter of the faith has not always been a required participant in causes of canonization. In fact, the creation of the promoter of the faith has been a relatively recent historical development arising only in the 17th century. The promoter of the faith evolved from the promoter fiscalis, though this figure only came into existence in the 13th century. Nevertheless, the Church has manifested concern from the first centuries that those who are honored as saints be worthy of imitation because of their martyrdom or their holiness of life, and sure intercessors for the faithful who call upon their prayerful assistance. This notion that the worthiness of a candidate must be tested and proven is related to the role that the promoter of the faith would eventually serve in posing objections to a cause. Even before any thought had been given to the office of the promoter of the faith, the Church developed procedures for the treatment of candidates for canonization that gradually became more detailed. By the 13th century, a pivotal development had occurred. Not only did the Roman Pontiff reserve the power to canonize to himself, but the Church also developed a more detailed system for the investigation of candidates for canonization by applying the contradictorium, a dialectical system that depended on the participation of two opposing parties who argued their positions before an impartial judge. This canonical innovation would eventually lead to the appointment of a promoter of the faith who was to take part in the Introduction 3 contradictorium by standing in opposition to a cause of canonization after the Sacred Congregation of Rites was created in the 16th century. Because of the importance of this legal tool, the presence of the contradictorium will be examined in both the 1917 and 1983 legislation, with attention to its contribution in the treatment of causes of canonization. The second chapter will consider the promoter of the faith in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. As the figure responsible for opposing a cause of canonization, the promoter of the faith participated in a process that resembled a canonical trial. While the process was not a true criminal trial, seeking the punishment of an offender, the promoter of the faith was responsible for objecting to the cause as an adversarial figure in the dialectical process. The promoter accomplished his task by insuring that all legal formalities were carefully observed and that all useful proofs were gathered during the instruction of the cause. The canonical norms served the purpose of thoroughly examining the candidate such that nothing was overlooked regarding the cause. The promoter also accomplished his task by presenting observations in which he expressed his objections. Following the pattern of a trial, the other party who promoted the cause offered his responses to the arguments of the promoter. The 1917 code will be considered not only with respect to the specific and detailed procedures that were prescribed, but also with respect to the precise juridic approach that was applied to causes of canonization. The third chapter will continue the historical study of the promoter of the faith after 1917. With the reforms of Pius XI and the introduction of the historical section in the Sacred Congregation of Rites, greater probative value began to be attributed to documentary evidence in ancient causes. The application of the modern scientific method and historical criticism began to transform the previous, strictly juridic approach. By the time of the Second Vatican Council, there was widespread support for the decision of John XXIII to revise the Code of Canon Law, which also led to a revision of the canons for causes of canonization. Following the Council, Paul VI divided the Sacred Congregation of Rites and created the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, introducing reforms that sought to streamline the treatment of causes. In the years before the promulgation of the new code, there was 4 The Evolution of the Promoter of the Faith general dissatisfaction with the cumbersome procedures required in the previous law and an appetite for a new approach that entrusted greater responsibility for the instruction of causes to the local bishops. Within the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, there was a desire to redefine the responsibilities of the various officials, to simplify the procedures, and to make greater use of a historical-critical approach. As a result of these historical forces, the office of the promoter of the faith was significantly reconfigured in the new legislation of 1983. This period of history was noteworthy because of the tensions that emerged between the juridic and the scientific approach, as well as the debates regarding the probative value that should be attributed to oral testimony and to documentary evidence. With the promulgation of the new law, the use of the contradictorium, which was heavily associated with the juridic approach, was substantially weakened. The fourth chapter will take up the study of the promoter in the current legislation.