Historians Question the Beatification of Blessed Charles

Deutsche Welle ^ | 19.01.2004

[Lessismore]

A man of peace or a blundering buffoon? The Catholic Church thinks Charles was a miracle worker.

The last emperor of the Habsburg dynasty, Charles the First of Austria, is to be beatified by the Pope. News that the deceased monarch will become Blessed Charles has prompted many to question the pontiff’s choice.

Controversy is brewing over reports that the Pope is to beatify Charles I of Austria, the last Habsburg emperor who came to the throne during World War I and ended his days in exile on the island of Madeira in 1922 at the age of 35.

Some, including Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, a leading campaigner among the admirers calling for the monarch’s beatification, consider Charles to have been "a man of peace," a gentle person surrounded and overwhelmed by the backstabbing diplomats, ministers, and generals who conspired to bring about the end of his reign and the end of his empire.

A final failure on the Habsburg throne?

But others consider the Kaiser to have been an incompetent leader who brought about his own demise, consigned his lineage to the annals of history and instigated the fall of the Habsburg Empire.

These same critics believe that Charles was the man responsible for ordering the use of poison gas by his troops during the war; the man whose leadership led to hundreds of thousands of Austrian soldiers being captured during the closing days of the conflict and a man with such an ability to spin great untruths that his claims to Christian grace are considered a mockery.

Sole wartime leader in pursuit of peace?

However, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, Charles I of Austria was a devout man, a worker of miracles, a man whose actions proved that politicians could be good Christians and man deemed to be worthy of being set on the road to becoming a religious icon.

These conflicting views are accepted by the Church which maintains that the decision to beatify is a suitable one. "The figure of the Kaiser is viewed differently," admitted Erich Leitenberger, the church's spokesman in Vienna in an interview with the British daily broadsheet The Guardian. "But he led a very religious life, especially in his latter stages."

Experts confirmation

In December, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints -- the Vatican commission responsible for examining claims to sainthood -- officially declared that Charles was to be credited with a miracle that occurred in 1960, backed up with the requisite evidence of three expert medical opinions needed to pursue the case for beatification.

The alleged miracle was experienced by a nun in a Brazilian convent who prayed for the late emperor's beatification and woke up the next morning able to walk for the first time in years. Since this event has been certified by the Catholic Church, Charles is now well on his way to his imminent beatification, the intermediate stage to canonisation, which will be formally acknowledged in September.

Sainthood just a miracle away

Despite this fast track to piety, his supporters will have to wait a while if they hope to see the soon-to-be Blessed Charles reach sainthood. One more miracle has to be attributed to him before that step can be taken.

The ascension to beatified status is unlikely, however, to alter the views of those historians who have plotted the career of Charles and have recorded less than Christian behaviour in their accounts.

Helmut Rumpler, a history professor who heads the Habsburg commission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences told The Guardian, “He was a dilettante, far too weak for the challenges facing him. Out of his depth, not really a politician. I don't know why he is being beatified.”

Ridiculed by staff and entourage

Coming to the throne on the death of Emperor Franz Josef in 1916 mid-way through “The Great War” and with the Austro-Hungarian Empire in tatters, many within the royal entourage viewed the new Kaiser with contempt. "He can't even write properly," complained his chief of staff while one of his prime ministers quipped: "He is 30 years old, looks 20, and thinks like a 10-year-old."

In 1917, with the war still raging, Charles made a secret plea for peace with France assisted by his French brother-in-law. The proposed agreement would have seen the Austrian emperor deserting his German ally at a critical stage of the conflict.

Denial leads to widespread mockery

When news of the proposal leaked, Charles denied having ever entertained such an idea. The furious French then published letters signed by him, infuriating the Germans and making him a comic figure on both sides.

A year later when the war was over, Charles fled to Switzerland, leaving his empire to collapse without him, and yet he refused to abdicate the throne. After two failed, and embarrassing, attempts at reclaiming the throne in Budapest, Charles was taken by the British and forced into exile on the island of Madeira where he eventually died of pneumonia.

If Charles does eventually make it to sainthood, the Austrian weekly Profil already has a section of the population earmarked for his patronage. The magazine believes that Charles should be nominated as the patron saint of losers.

[Unam Sanctam]

Being an incompetent statesman does not mean that one cannot be a saint, since logically two different criteria apply.

[sinkspur]

These same critics believe that Charles was the man responsible for ordering the use of poison gas by his troops during the war;

Well, if he ordered the use of poison gas, he might be in heaven, but canonizing him is a PR blunder.

But, who knows?

[heyheyhey]

Well, if he ordered the use of poison gas.....

These "historians" have never heard anything about the "Devil's Advocate."

[Unam Sanctam]

These "historians" have never heard anything about the "Devil's Advocate."

I wish they would bring back the Devil's Advocate. What a cool title and a rather necessary function, as I am not sure that the historical-critical method is always as objective as one might wish.

[ultima ratio]

Here we go again. The entire process has been compromised. We had a well-functioning system of checks and balances worked out over centuries of trial and error. It wasn't good enough for the conciliar Church which now uses the process to score p.r. points. What a fraud.

[heyheyhey]

Nonsense.

The process still exists; only the exact name and the office are not used anymore. A Pope established the thing - a Pope could change the thing. Ever heard of "Papal Infallibility"? You may ask any knowledgeable Catholic person or a priest to explain it to you.

[ultima ratio]

The Pope has made a real mess. The office of Devil's Advocate has indeed been eliminated. The so-called "miraculous" recovery recently of a woman who had been praying to Mother Teresa has been firmly debunked by secular physicians who attributed the recovery to appropriate medication exclusively; and the recent canonization of the founder of Opus Dei was actually totally controlled by Opus Dei itself--the Order even used its own physicians to investigate the necessary number of "miracles". Escriva, a friend of the Pope, was canonized in record time and investigators refused to listen to the testimony of associates who knew the man intimately and charged he was very far from saintly. Much has been made of this in the secular press--which is justifiably scornful of such chicanery. Rome's credibilty on all this is zilch.

[BlackVeil]

Your points about recent canonisations are well expressed and (alas!) quite factual.

Another problem is just the way that all this is being rushed. There is nothing like the passing of time to reveal the true nature of events, and people's lives and reputations. The haste of these new canonisations is in itself a risky experiment.

Some historians are just appalled by the shoddy research for certain recent canonisations. There is a lot more information still to come, and it could cause a re-think about some of the individuals.

[RobbyS]

Until the time of Gregory IX, beatification was done locally.
The pope, a friend of St. Francis, canonized Francis without any lengthy process.

[heyheyhey]

Personally, I don't have any objections whatsoever to the beatification and canonization of Mother Teresa regardless of what the "secular" media says.

I had followed closely for years a pre-beatification procedure of one particular saintly monk who died in 1950's, a contemporary of John Paul II. The whole process stalled because of ONE detail in his life. Unless the evidence of his weakness (it's nothing criminal or terribly sinful) is clarified in favorable way, the monk will not be beatified.

[ultima ratio]

The point is that the process itself has been compromised--so much so that someone like Escriva get canonized in record time while others far more worthy are indefinitely stalled.

[ultima ratio]

get=gets

[Unam Sanctam]

It may have been somewhat compromised, but not completely. There is still the two miracle requirement for confessors. And the historical/critical method could work if indeed the historical researchers carefully and objectively weigh the pros and the cons of the individuals' life. And I applaud the effort to find more examples of sanctity from recent years and from a wider geographical dispersion than previously. Finally, I don't see how anyone can object to recognition of those brave souls who have died for the faith in modern times. They certainly deserve the recognition and public veneration.

[ultima ratio]

The two-miracle threshold is a sham. Opus Dei physicians were in charge of "investigating" Escriva's two "miracles." In other words, the fix was in.

[ultima ratio]

But we can't know what's p.r. and what's genuine heroic sanctity anymore under current procedures. That is what is at issue. The process is dishonest.

[RobbyS]

On this pope you sound like Democrats commenting on what George Bush does. At least these saints are real people, unlike mythical persons like St. Christopher.

[ultima ratio]

How so? --Specifics, please. Everything I have said is documentable, including this Pontiff's recent retreat into silence on Gibson's movie--despite the attacks on the Gospels on which it was based and the desperate need in the culture for a film like this after years of anti-Christian attacks in the media. Yet his defenders will insist he is a supporter of tradition. When it is demonstrated he is highly unorthodox--and in fact has placed in high places extremely unorthodox churchmen--the response is like yours--that I must hate the Pope, just as Dean hates Bush. But I am merely being factual and underscoring that the traditional faith and Catholic culture in general has been savagely undermined under the leadership of JPII. Supporters will blame everybody else but him for the long decline and the pandemic scandals, but in the end he alone must be held responsible since he alone has appointed the men who do these things. Having said this, of course we must respectful in our criticism--but this does not mean being willfully blind; nor does it mean we must not cry out when we experience so painfully how the faith is being daily weakened by men this Pontiff appoints and controls.

[heyheyhey]

The process is dishonest.

1J 5:10
Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. Whoever does not believe God has made Him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about His Son.

[RobbyS]

Let's focus on the question of canonization. It is well-known that most Christian saints have been picked by popular acclaim, or because their cause has been pushed by religious orders. As for the number of saints proclaimed, there are more than a billion Catholics in this world. I hope that more than a select handful qualify for public recognizion of sanctity.