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.

[heyheyhey]

Great point!

[Unam Sanctam]

When it is demonstrated he is highly unorthodox

You have demonstrated nothing of the kind. I'm sorry, but unorthodox means teaching heresy, nothing more, nothing less. The Pope has not done so. It is unjust and inaccurate to throw the word around like that without any substantiation.

[ultima ratio]

Being heretical would involve a break with Catholic dogma whereas being unorthodox implies espousing doctrines which are unconventional and untraditional, but not necessarily heretical. Big difference.

[ultima ratio]

Your citation is irrelevant to the issue I raise. If a process is rigged, pretending to be above board when it's not, it's dishonest. No pious citation from Scripture changes this. Truth is truth.

[ultima ratio]

No, let's not. You claimed when I write about this Pope I sound like the Democrats when they oppose Bush. I assume you mean they attacked Bush unfairly--and that I do the same with the Pontiff. So I ask again--how do I do this? How have I been unfair in my criticism?

[Unam Sanctam]

You are using the term orthodox, which from the Greek roots, means "correct teaching", in a casual way, not in a precise and accurate way. Your meaning is unorthodox in the sense of "that isn't the way we've always done things". It is misleading to use the term in this sense to refer to the Pope, when it could be misinterpreted to mean that you are calling the Pope unorthodox in a precise sense of the term. The precise meaning of unorthodox relates to doctrine, and it means heretical.

[ultima ratio]

I have always insisted this Pope is unorthodox but not heretical, though he may at times have fallen into a material heresy unwitingly. "Orthodoxy" does, indeed, mean "correct teaching." But as you say, I am using the term in a less strictly theological, sense--to mean "unconventional." But even as you use the term, to be "unorthodox" does not mean to be "heretical". "Heresy" always involves a break with dogma, "heterodoxy" does not.

[Unam Sanctam]

Given that you don't mean to accuse the Pope of incorrect teaching, I think it highly improper, inaccurate, misleading, disrespectful and unnecessary to use the term in reference to the Pope. Heterodox means "different teaching", and thus would mean the teaching of heresy.

[RobbyS]

The unfairness in this particular is that there is no truly traditional way of choosing saints. or rather discovering them. The martyrs are the easiest, but as you know it was a longwhile before confessors made the cut, and through the centuries many suspect ones were included in the cult. But maybe the ignorant peasants who observed and marveled at some obscure but holy life and made pilgrimage to their graves were truest witnesses and canonists after all.

[heyheyhey]

The text is perfectly relevant. You either believe in the Church as institution founded by Our Lord on the foundation of the Apostles or you don’t. We call it "cafeteria" religiosity when one picks and chooses different things to their own liking.

According to the Catholic faith, Pope John Paul II has exactly the same ecclesiastical authority as Popes St. Pius X, St. Peter the Apostle, and all other Popes in history. Criticizing the Pope is the same as criticizing Christ - Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me - Lk 10:16.

If you ever decide to become a Catholic they will enroll you in RCIA classes and explain it to you.

[Antoninus]

Well, the source of this article is German, and considering the events at the end of WWI, my guess is the Germans are still bitter about the whole thing. The idea that the leader of their incompetant ally could be made a saint must grate on some nerves--particularly as the Germans themselves are typically cast as the most evil nation on the planet while Austrians are generally given a pass.

[RobbyS]

Don't forget that the German Empire was a Protestant nation, dominated by Prussians who never let the Austrians forget that they were now top-dogs. Prussian arrogance was at the root of the gamble they were about to make, which was to go to war with the United States.

[ultima ratio]

It is always proper for subordinates to criticize superiors if they stray from the truth--and this would include the Pope. The greatest Doctors of the Church have recognized this right. The Pope is not an absolute monarch. Nor is he a kind of angelic being. He is man subject to error, a steward of the faith only, not its creator. He may, indeed, be criticized--and it's high time we did so with this particular pontiff whose popularity as a celebrity has masked much of his radical agenda.

[ultima ratio]

I think it is highly proper to call this Pope unorthodox. Praying with animists to the Great Thumb is highly unorthodox. It is not formally heretical, perhaps, but it is not in conformity with traditional Catholic thinking either. It is indeed unorthodox for a pontiff to behave this way--and shocking--no matter how the Vatican bureaucracy tries to spin such actions afterwards. The problem this Pope poses is that no Catholic in his heart wants to even think about the evidence: that the man at the very top frequently does act--and teach--in ways that do not conform to traditional Catholic doctrine of long standing. His position on capital punishment, for instance, is highly unorthodox and breaks with long-held Catholic doctrine. Justice Scalia has weighed in on this not too long ago. The Pope's position can't be reconciled with past teachings of past popes or even with Scripture. It is, in a word, unorthodox.

[Unam Sanctam]

The Pope is not unorthodox or heretical. You don't have a leg to stand on. You are just maliciously twisting words and using them incorrectly in a malicious way to slander a good person and to cause dissension in the Church for no good reason. It demonstrates very ill will and is an insult to all who have died for the Catholic faith for you to insult the Holy Father this way. For shame!

[Unam Sanctam]

UNORTHODOX=HERETICAL! That is the plain sense of the words. You sir are a Marxist casuist with no sense of truth or decency. You manipulate language to serve your anti-Papal agenda. That is precisely what Marx and Lenin and the Modernists and Liberation Theologians did. You have apparently learned at their school.

[Unam Sanctam]

The Pope is neither unorthodox nor heretical in any way shape or form. You have roved nothing. Your unremitting hostility to the Pope and the Catholic Church and your devious methods of subverting language are absolutely despicable.

[ultima ratio]

Subverting language? I have said the Pope is unorthodox--and he is--in both senses of the word. I stand by this. I was once a great admirer of JPII. But I have come to believe he has caused great harm to the Church. While he is conservative in his moral theology, he has been a modernist on most other matters. This has endangered the faith.

[ultima ratio]

Your association of the word "unorthodox" with heresy is incorrect. One is heretical only if one breaks with a dogma of the Church. But one may be unorthodox in the opinions one holds about many matters other than dogmas. Literally "orthodoxy" means "correct doctrine." But not all doctrines are dogmas.

As for being a Marxist--that is laughable. I'm a Bush conservative. Nor am I a casuist. I speak honestly and truthfully as I understand the truth. What annoys you is that although I am a Catholic, I simply don't believe the Pope should be beyond criticism. Such criticism, in fact, is long overdue. Perhaps if he got a little less adulation and more honesty from subordinates, he would weigh the damaging effects of his behavior more realistically.

[Unam Sanctam]

You are incorrect. A dogma is "a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful." The dogma must therefore be proposed to the faithful by the Church in a fairly definite verbal form. However, the doctrines included in the deposit of faith through Scripture and Tradition may or may not be in choate form or verbal formulas. Thus to be heretical does not merely mean to formally teach contrary to particular dogmatic definitions, but to teach against the teachings of the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles through Scripture and Tradition. Teachings of the ordinary magisterium may be in line with the deposit of faith, simply giving verbal form to what has always and everywhere been taught(the "ordinary and universal magisterium"), or applying it to new situations. However, to the extent it is not part of the deposit of faith, it is reformable. The Pope has not in any way taught in opposition to infallible dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or popes, nor has he taught in opposition to the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. Consequently, he can in no way be said to be unorthodox. If he has done so, then you might have an argument. Since he has not, you are in error to call him unorthodox.

I never said one could not criticize the Pope. I have done so often on prudential matters. But criticism should be constructive and respectful. And one should not lie and say he is unorthodox when he is no such thing. That is just false, hateful, unconstructive and aimed at tearing down the Church of Christ. Come back to me when you have proof that the Pope has taught in opposition to infallible dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or popes, or the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, and then we will talk.