Royal Saints and the Catholic Church
I recently had an exchange online (not the usual unpleasant sort) which I
thought worth bringing to these pages as others may find it
interesting. The question put to me was why, in the long history of the
Roman Catholic Church, have relatively so few royals been raised to the
status of recognized sainthood by the Church. Is it harder for monarchs
to achieve sainthood? Is something blocking their way? My short answer
was that it comes down to a little of column “A” and a little of column
“B”. For one thing, the Catholic Church hierarchy today holds a vastly
different broad view of politics than in the past. Whereas the historic
Catholic Church held that, as Pope Pius VI said, monarchy is the best
form of government, the Catholic Church of today is all about liberal,
representative democracy, or at least so they claim. It would certainly
be difficult to imagine Francis being very
praiseworthy of any monarch as an ideal Christian ruler. Loyalty and
obedience are not so popular as diversity and human rights nowadays.
Yet, this was not always the case.
 |
| St Louis IX w/Crown of Thorns |
Most Catholics, and indeed most western Christians of any sort know of
some saintly monarchs as these tend to date from before the Protestants
came to be. Most will have at least heard of one king-saint from most
countries that have been around a long time. There is King St Louis IX
of France, King St Ferdinand III of Castile, King St Edmund the Martyr
of East Anglia, King St Stephen of Hungary, King St Olaf II of Norway
and so on. However, given the huge number of kings over thousands of
years of Christian history, most of that history being dominated by
monarchies and practically nothing else, their ranks can seem rather
thin. Why is this? As stated at the outset, my immediate response is
both that of royal worthiness as well as political machinations that
would block the causes for the canonization of royals. In each case,
human frailty plays the dominant part I would say. In the first place,
monarchs are usually figures of wealth, power and prestige and, as such,
they doubtless face a greater degree of temptation than an ordinary
person would. In this way, yes, it is probably harder for a monarch to
be worthy of canonization than a lesser person would be.
It would, however, be absurd to think that politics does not play a part
in this either and not simply today when monarchy is the exception
rather than the rule and traditional monarchies are frowned upon as
being ‘backward’ and ‘authoritarian’. Christian monarchs, unfortunately,
have a long history of fighting with other Christian monarchs and this
applies to Catholics just as much if not more so than to Protestants.
When one considers the monarchs who have been recognized as saints, such
as those mentioned above, I direct your attention to who their enemies
were. In most cases, their enemies were non-Christians; pagans or
Muslims and the opinion of pagans and Muslims tended to hold little
weight in the Catholic Church in those days. If, however, the Catholic
Church had moved to canonize someone like King Henry VI, a monarch who
was once considered saintly by a great many people in England, one could
expect the French to protest against this vociferously as Henry VI had
not only claimed the French Crown (as many English monarchs did) but was
the only one to actually be crowned King of France in Paris. Likewise,
being of the House of Lancaster, the notables of the House of York might
have opposed it too. For a time, it seemed that the Tudors might have
pushed for his canonization but then the break with Rome over the
marriage of King Henry VIII brought all of that to a total halt.
 |
| Blessed Innocent XI |
So, you can see how this would play out. Try to canonize a French
monarch, you upset the Germans. Try to canonize a German monarch, you
upset the French. This also applied to the Roman Pontiffs themselves.
Pope Innocent XI, for example, was beatified centuries after his death
but his cause never progressed beyond that point and the reason for this
is well known to those familiar with his case. At the time of his
pontificate, the most powerful Catholic monarch was King Louis XIV of
France and, as we have discussed before, the Popes tended to oppose
whichever Catholic monarch was the strongest in their time and Pope
Innocent XI was very much opposed to King Louis XIV of France. As such,
when his cause for canonization came up, French clergymen blocked it
from going forward and it was not until the 1950’s that he was beatified
and his cause has not progressed since for, while there is no longer a
French monarchy to oppose it, there are few who feel strongly about
pressing it either. Doubtless there have been other, similar cases. Now,
as I have also mentioned before, contrast this with the sudden flurry
of papal canonizations. Since the Second Vatican Council, every deceased
pope has either been canonized or is at some point along in the process
of being canonized (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I & John Paul
II). A few have pointed out, particularly given how poorly the Catholic
Church has fared in this era, that this looks like an effort to
‘canonize the council’.
The person who raised this issue also pointed out that out of 46 (or 47
depending on how you count them) Holy Roman (German) Emperors, only one,
Emperor Heinrich II, is recognized as a saint. Once again, it would be
foolish to think that the long history of rivalry and antagonism between
the popes and the German emperors played no part in this being the
case. All of the most famous German emperors could expect heavy
opposition to any consideration of their piety. Even someone as widely
admired as Emperor Otto the Great would likely be opposed given that he
was quite strict about the Church in his lands being answerable to him.
Emperor Frederick Barbarossa is possibly the most famous of the Medieval
German monarchs yet, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, he was
a villain and, to be fair, from the standpoint of the Church, it is
just as legitimate that they view him as such as it is for the Germans
to view him as a hero for his victories. Even an emperor most Catholic
monarchists admire perhaps more than any other, Emperor Charles V, would
be an almost impossible case. It would be hard to imagine the Catholic
Church canonizing a monarch who waged war against the Pope, regardless
of the circumstances.
 |
| Empress Maria Theresa |
There are also those monarchs who might have been more easily canonized
in the past than today. Queen Isabella I of Castile, for example, has a
small but fervent following who wish for her to be canonized, yet such a
cause could expect to attract immense criticism upon the Church from
Jewish, Muslim and Native American groups and advocates. Such criticism
is basically groundless and shouldn’t have any impact but realistically
it should be expected and not surprising that the Church would wish to
avoid the whole subject and everything it would bring up from the
establishment of the Spanish Inquisition to the voyage of Columbus. The
Austrian Empress Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary, would also, I think,
be worth consideration for canonization, yet she too would attract a
great deal of opposition due to her attitude toward the Jews and such a
cause might also generate political opposition from Poland. Again, such
cases would bring up issues that the Church would rather not deal with.
Of course, canonizations are much more common among the ranks of the
clergy. Not only are they less susceptible to political objections but,
even among the hierarchy where the temptations associated with power and
prestige are more common, they are also the ones who determine whether a
cause goes forward or not which makes things much easier of course.
This is not to imply that the system is out or order of course, only
that any system consists of human beings and human frailty applies to
the clergy as well as the laity. It also cannot be denied that even
among the clergy, political opposition can still cause complications.
The cause of Saint Josemaria Escriva, for example, was the source of
considerable controversy because of his association with the regime of
Generalissimo Franco in Spain or the cause of Blessed Aloysius Stepinac
who was imprisoned by the communists and martyred after World War II for
complicity with the Axis regime of the Independent State of Croatia.
This sparked immense opposition and it remains to be seen if his cause
will progress further. The cause to canonize Pope Pius XII himself is
also very well known for the political opposition it has aroused due to
accusations that he was insufficiently zealous in opposing the Nazi and
Fascist government all the way to accusations of sympathy and
collaboration with them, all of which has aroused considerable debate
and acrimony. To date he has reached the status of “venerable”.
 |
| King Baudouin of the Belgians |
Unfortunately, the enemies of traditional authority are also not always
the only source of opposition to royal saints. For example, I would
think that the Belgian monarchs King Albert I and King Baudouin worthy
of examination but of course the mainstream types will not push for
causes for them, because they were monarchs and held traditional moral
views, yet there are likewise intransigent types on the right who will
neither take up their cause because of their opposition to a Belgian
monarchy existing in the first place (though this is absurd given that
Belgian independence came at the expense of a Protestant monarch and
their previous, failed, bid for independence was against a Catholic,
Habsburg monarch who far-right Catholics heartily despise). King
Baudouin has been talked about more than others, particularly by the
Pro-Life, anti-abortion community given his public stand on that issue.
However, that would also then invite opposition from leftists everywhere
and no doubt they would also take issue with his words of praise for
King Leopold II at the granting of independence to the Congo. The (now
retired) Cardinal Godfried Daneels, while praising King Baudouin, said
some years ago that a cause for canonization was “not going to happen”.
There is also the fact that, sadly, for a great many people Catholic
monarchies in particular are seen as a source of division rather than
unity, nothing but an open door to trouble that is best avoided. In
Spain, France and the former Italian states (basically an all Bourbon
problem) there continues to be intense internal dynastic disputes which
are unrelenting and which the Church, as with most others, would
certainly wish to avoid getting in the middle of. The left is content to
let the feuding monarchists focus on fighting each other and the right
would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire and look for other,
non-royal alternatives. Even if there was a worthy candidate, the Church
would have to show considerable courage to canonize someone in such a
position, given the intense opposition it would immediately attract from
the opposing faction of the various Bourbon family branches.
 |
| Blessed Maria Cristina di Savoia |
However, while all of this must seem grim to Catholic monarchists, and
it is certainly far from ideal, if one is prepared to not be partisan on
the subject, there is still room for hope. Royal canonizations are rare
but they are certainly not unheard of, even today. The most prominent
example, of course, is the beatification of Emperor Charles of Austria
and a French bishop did, in 2009, open a cause for his wife Empress Zita
of Bourbon-Parma which it would be hard to imagine anyone objecting to
and, while extremely rare certainly, saintly royals who are husbands and
wives are not without precedent. There are also currently a number of
potential royal saints under consideration within the historic ranks of
the Italian royal House of Savoy. Maria Cristina of Savoy, Queen of the
Two-Sicilies, was beatified in 2014 (being a Savoy means taking neither
side in the feuding branches of the Bourbon-Two Sicilies dispute),
Princess Maria Clotilde of Savoy has a cause open, making her a “Servant
of God” and Queen Elena of Italy (wife of King Victor Emmanuel III) is,
last I heard, under consideration for a cause of her own. All of this
is good to see, though I would caution that the Italian Royal Family has
a history of royals being beatified but not going on to sainthood.
Still, there are royal causes being pressed which I fully support and am
grateful for.
 |
| Blessed Charles of Austria |
Certainly, there are many others that I would think certainly at least
worthy of consideration and some I think should have been canonized long
ago. Speaking of the House of Savoy, almost every recent royal consort
would be worthy of consideration, Maria Pia of Savoy, Queen of Portugal,
King Charles Emmanuel IV and his Bourbon bride would both be worth
looking into I think. On the subject of the Bourbons, I think it odd
that King Louis XVI and his Habsburg bride Queen Marie Antoinette have
not been canonized already. The Dauphin, Louis XVII, would seem to be a
child martyr to me and his sister Marie-Therese would seem more than
worthy of consideration I think. There are others of course but, much
beyond that, in France or Spain or Italy, with the Bourbons you start
running into the dynastic disputes that make them all untouchable
without kicking off a firestorm of acrimony. King Baudouin of the
Belgians is, I think, deserving and I have been told that there has at
least been talk of a potential cause for Queen Astrid. There are also
others among the ranks of the Habsburgs who I would think would be
possibilities given that the current family leadership has, since the
days of Archduke Otto, become ‘acceptable’ to the powers-that-be and
considering that, thankfully, the followers of the Habsburgs have shown
more loyalty and adaptability than those of the Bourbons so that it
remains one of the few Catholic dynasties that is not at the center of
any serious inheritance disputes.
Clearly, there are obstacles and plenty of difficulties but hope remains
and there are plenty of causes worth pursuing. Certainly, nothing will
happen if no one at least tries.
