Amato to Saints, Ladaria to CDF?

The intrepid Andrea Tornielli of Il Giornale has a solid on some changes.  Here is my fast translation:

Before Benedict XVI’s departure for the long trip to Australia, which will take place mext Saturday, the name of the new Vatican "minister" for saints will be announced, who will take the place of the Portughese Cardinal José Saraiva Martins. 

The new Prefect of the Congregation for Causes of Saints – the announcement will probably be Wednesday 9 July, will be the Salesian Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 2003 (where we was named as the successor to Bertone, promoted to the Archbishop of Genoa), who then will be put into the list of new cardinals for the next (but not imminent) concistory, together with the new Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the American Raymond Burke. 

Cardinal Saraiva, theologian and university professor, in Rome since 1950, chosen by John Paul II first as Secretary for the Congregation for Catholic Education and then as the head of the "saint factory", confirmed in his role by Benedict XVI, was the Prefect under whom there were proclaimed Blesseds and/or Saints, John XXIII and Pio IX, Gianna Beretta Molla, Padre Pio, Mother Theresa of Calcutta.  After the turn-about taken by the new Pope, who wanted to reserve to himself only canonizations, leaving beatifications as more typically a local undertaking, Cardinal Saraiva Martins has presided over many ceremonies for the Pope as his delegate. 

In the place of [Archbp] Amato at the former Holy Office, after months of uncertainty at last it seems the the candidacy of the Spanish Jesuit Luis Ladaria is becoming more firm, since 2004 Secretary of the International Theological Commission, theologian and anthropologist, professore of dogmatic theology at the Pontifical "Gregorian" University.  It was he, in May of last year, who explained the reasons which brought the committee to express itself about limbo and the salvation of babies who die without having been baptized.  The nomination of Fr. Ladaria, also, who worked on the draft of "Dominus Iesus", could be made known on Wednesday. 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Iosephus says:

    What do we know about Ladaria?

  2. Aric says:

    The article says he “explained the reasons” that motivated the committee that wrote the position paper on limbo. Now maybe there is a limbo and maybe there is not. But the committee’s pposition paper was ludicrous, claiming that St. Augustine did not appreciate the mercy of God as well as we do. That is a forehead-slapper, and I would hope the Church would not be run by those responsible for such forehead-slapping.

  3. Michael Riker says:

    Ahem, Rajinth? Is he certainly out of the running? I hope — and pray — not.

  4. Tobias says:

    Should “Bertone” be “Bagnasco”?

  5. Tobias says:

    Nope, I was mistaken: Tarcisio Bertone was Archbishop of Genoa before Bagnasco.
    But given my past experience with blogs, at least one person will read my
    first post without reading my second, and correct me again. Sigh . . .

  6. Iosephus says:

    Yeah, the bit about the limbo paper didn’t have me excited . . .

  7. Antonio says:

    Ladaria is a surprise.

  8. Andrew says:


    The Church’s teaching on unbaptized infants taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that we may hope in their salvation, based on the Church’s veneration of the Holy Innocents, and it opening the possibility of salvation to non-Christians, who follow the light of their conscience.

    However, because there has been no revelation on the status of these children, Limbo still remains an option for Catholics to believe in, ie the denial of the beatific vision.

    John Allen (a great journalist I might add) among others, erroneously have said that because of the document, the teaching on Limbo has been abolished, regardless of Cardinal Ratzinger’s suggestion in this vein in The Ratzinger Report (1984).

    Here is an interview I conducted with Sr Sara Butler, (a member of the International Theological Commission) about what it was trying to say, keeping in mind this was not a magisterial statement either, just a tool for theologians, who are for the most part, lecturers in seminaries or theological colleges.

  9. Padre Steve says:

    This is more great news and another honor for the Salesians! I am really happy for Archbishop Amato!

  10. Alessandro says:

    Luis Ladaria was one of my best professors at the Gregorian University in Rome, a sublime teacher for clarity and dogmatic precision.
    About Ranjith: I spoke recently with the Archbishop of Colombo who was visiting our Shrine in Padova after a meeting in Rome. He kept saying that “in Sri Lanka they are waiting for Malcom Ranjith…” and he was meaning “as my successor”.

  11. Fabrizio says:


    IMHO we should stop swallowing what the media (and certain rad-trad sources) say about what “the Church” said, and actually read the documents being discussed. Don’t ever confuse liberal wishful thinking and rad-trad compulsive Rome-bashing with facts.

    Fact: that document while not an act of Magisterium, DOES NOT change the traditional position of the Church about limbo (a non-settled matter anyway), but most important it DOES NOT change the doctrine on the necessity of baptism, which is what neo-mod and rad-trad whish Rome did, the former to rejoice, the latter to be once again happy of being unhappy.

    read it.

    Observation: while not an act of Magisterium, not only it doesn’t budge an inch on essential matters of doctrine, but it uses a “modern” language to actually change the conversation and redirect tholigical discussions towards more balanced positions. This is, btw, how people who actually worked on that document also describe it. It isn’t a piece of neo-modernist babble aimed at moving teachings further to the left. It is an articulated reasonment – long-winded, verbose, if you will -that actually takes ordinary commonplaces form the “left” and moves them – slowly but surely – to the “right”. Read it.

    The next time someone will cite NOT the document, but what the liberal and rad-trad media say the document says, it would be nice to have solid Catholics able to counter such assertions with facts, because they will have taken the time to actually read the document, pray and reflect and go beyond the at times unpalatable language to understand what the document really says. Keeping in mind what kind of audience it is meant to talk to. We need people to drop the “gotcha” attitude with the Church and think that maybe the Pope knows what he’s doing, and maybe just maybe Rome is not the hopelss modernist nest many – from the ditch on both sides of the road – seem to hope.

    Check this thread on the Catholic Online Forum

    scroll down to Pilgrim’s posts, with links, commentary and all.

  12. Matthew Mattingly says:

    If Ladaria worked on the notification “Dominus Jesus”, which was recieved very badly by Protestant groups (almost with outrage for its clarity in re-stating centuries old Catholic doctrine and teaching which Vatican II clouded, and then the more radical of the ecumenists further obscured intentionally), then he can’t be bad at all. Having restated in a document Catholic tradition so clearly is proof enough to me that he isn’t that unknown not to be trusted.

  13. Gregor says:


    what a splendid comment, thank you very much.

  14. PA says:


    Tarcisio Bertone was Archbishop of Genoa before Bagnasco.


  15. Prof. Basto says:

    Nowadays the burden of proof is against a jesuit regarding evidence of religious orthodoxy. So, knowing nothing about Ladaria, I’m suspicious. Is it a prejudice? Perhaps. But considering the present state of the Society of Jesus, I don’t think my doubts are an absurdity.

    For instance, I have a question: Was Ladaria a member of the recent General Congregation of the Jesuits (the one in which no one wore clerical dress)?

  16. Xpihs says:


    How right you were.

  17. Tobias says:

    Xpihs, I’ll be charitable and guess that PA was being ironic (sigh again).

  18. Michael Riker says:

    So, Ranjith certainly off to Sri Lanka? What a wasted opportunity to better relations with traditionalists… Especially in the wake of the whole “ultimatum” thing (note scare quotes)…. I for one continue to hope and pray the possibility remains for Ranjith as Prefect of the CDW.

    The alternative, that of indirectly reminding the SSPX of the unfortunate, quasi-condescending document poo-pooing both Augustine’s concerns as well as the venerable solution of Aquinas (the limbo of the infants), is pretty much the **opposite** of that hat-tip to “Tradition” (scare quotes again) that the Ranjith appointment would most certainly convey — something quite needed during the presently shaky relations of the SSPX with the Holy See!

  19. Prof. Basto says:

    I too think that the rumored departure of Mons. Ranjith to his native Sri Lanka is a waste of a very important talent that could do much good if he headed a Dicastery in the Roman Curia.

    If he is indeed appointed Archbishop of Colombo as rumored, let’s hope that he gets the red hat on the first opportunity, instead of having to wait like the Archbishop of Paris, who was only made a Cardinal on the second consistory after his appointment.

    But I would still prefer a Cardinal Ranjith as head of something big in the Roman Curia. And considering that Card. Castrillón is 79 and will face compulsory retirement from all curial positions next year, Ranjith’s appointment to head a beefed-up Eccesia Dei Commission (or some Pontifical Council that replaces it) wouldn’t be bad at all, so long as it implied Ranjith’s promotion to the Cardinalate. But an appointment to the See of Colombo would seem to contradict the prospect of Ranjith as head of Eccesia Dei.

  20. Louis E. says:

    I reiterate…it would be unprecedented if retirement at 80 were applied to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.

    The first President of Ecclesia Dei was Cardinal Mayer,who had retired at 77 as Prefect of CDWDS,he retired from PCED in July 1991 after his 80th birthday in May.
    The second President of Ecclesia Dei was Cardinal Innocenti,who had retired at 75 as Prefect of the Clergy,he retired from PCED in December 1995 after his 80th birthday that August.
    The third President of Ecclesia Dei was Cardinal Felici,who had retired at 75 as Prefect of the Causes of Saints,he retired from PCED in April 2000 after turning 80 in August 1999.
    Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos was 70 and still serving as Prefect of the CLergy when he became fourth President of PCED,so he broke some precedents,but don’t assume that leaving on his 80th birthday will suddenly be enforced on a PCED president for the first time.

  21. For instance, I have a question: Was Ladaria a member of the recent General Congregation of the Jesuits (the one in which no one wore clerical dress)?

    He was not.

Comments are closed.