St. Francis Xavier - Part 2: Modern Opinions and Controversies

+
JMJ

As hinted at in the earlier post, a cynicism accompanied the modernism that permeated the Catholic Church from the seminaries upward. Words such as legends, myths came to be used in describing the miracles worked by saints and eventually even Our Lord Jesus Christ.

One reference that I came across was an article titled GROWTHS OF LEGENDS OF HEALING THE LIFE OF XAVIER AS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE written by Andrew Dickson White in 1896. 

In it the author claims that:

The letters given in it [Collection of Letters by Emanuel Acosta - published ~20y after Francis' death.] Fr. were written by Xavier and his associates not only from Goa, which was the focus of all missionary effort and the centre of all knowledge regarding their work in the East, but from all other important points in the great field. The first of them were written during the saint's lifetime, but, though filled with every sort of detail regarding missionary life and work, they say nothing regarding any miracles by Xavier.

 White goes on to note that none of the letters of St.Francis' contemporaries and associates report any miracles by Francis. White's cynicism and bias creeps through into his writing several times:

This silence regarding his miracles was clearly not due to any “evil heart of unbelief.” On the contrary, these good missionary fathers were prompt to record the slightest occurrence which they thought evidence of the Divine favour: it is indeed touching to see how eagerly they grasp at the most trivial things which could be thus construed.

Their ample faith was fully shown. One of them, in Acosta's collection, sends a report that an illuminated cross had been recently seen in the heavens; another, that devils had been cast out of the natives by the use of holy water; another, that various cases of disease had been helped and even healed by baptism; and sundry others sent reports that the blind and dumb had been restored, and that even lepers had been cleansed by the proper use of the rites of the Church; but to Xavier no miracles are imputed by his associates during his life or during several years after his death.

 
White marches on to state that the Saints own words contradict the notion that miracles, such as the gift of tongues, were worked through St. Francis Xavier.

On the contrary, we find his own statements as to his personal limitations, and the difficulties arising from them, fully confirmed by his brother workers. It is interesting, for example, in view of the claim afterward made that the saint was divinely endowed for his mission with the “gift of tongues,” to note in these letters confirmation of Xavier's own statement utterly disproving the existence of any such Divine gift, and detailing the difficulties which he encountered from his want of knowing various languages, and the hard labour which he underwent in learning the elements of the Japanese tongue.

There are few things to counter this thought:

• Absence of reports of miracles in these particular writings does not prove that they don't exist. 
• If a priest is truly close to God, then I would expect them to suppress the reports due to humility.
• The author seems to have been selective in his sources. According to Simon Ditchfield (Thinking with Jesuit Saints: the canonization of Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier in Context. Journal of Jesuit Studies. 1. pp. 327-337. ISSN 2214-1324) testimony from witnesses started to be collected as early as 1556, a mere four years after the death of the Saint.  This primary data seems to contradict the author's thesis - so perhaps, just perhaps, there is a confirmation bias at play in this situation.
• Regarding the lack of report from contemporaries: I don't know if they were with him when the miracles occurred, India is after-all a big country.

Fr. John Hardon wrote  (The Real Presence - link) a rebuttal that I found on the web at the link.  In the section 'Alleged Silence of Contemporary History' Fr. Hardon directly responds to White's thesis:

Gaspar Barze, in a letter dated December 13, 1548, wrote of Francis Xavier to his brethren in Portugal, describing what happened at Goa when on one occasion the missionary was delayed in returning from Cape Comorin: “Suddenly the rumor was spread that Master Francis had died…. His friends were deeply grieved at this news and said among themselves, 'Though it should cost us 30,000 cruzados, we will see that he is canonized.' Then they began recounting the miracles, the very great miracles, which he had worked while living in their country. I will not describe them to you because it is not fitting that we should talk about these things, except to God, to render Him thanks for granting such graces.” [11]

... [several different accounts are related - please see link for details]  ...

This seems sufficient, the Bollandists observe, to negative the assertion of an absolute silence of contemporary history. “Even the few extracts we gave, prove abundantly that, while still living, the Apostle of the Indies enjoyed among his brethren and fellow-workers a well merited reputation for miraculous power. Naturally we do not find in the letters of the missionaries from India and Japan more than a fraction of all the miracles which the juridical inquiry was later on to reveal. But are we on that account to conclude to the evolution of a legend ?” [17]

An extant letter penned at Goa by a Jesuit Superior shortly after Francis' death shows how unjust is the accusation of developing a Xavier legend imputed to his brethren and later biographers. It also helps to explain the relative reticence among Jesuits on the subject of St. Francis' miracles while he was yet alive. "As regards the death of our Father Francis," wrote Balthasar Diaz, “there are many people in this city who have lived with him in different places and have seen him do and say among the pagans such things as were evidently supernatural and equal to those which we read in the lives of the saints. Persons of great integrity have come to ask me why we do not begin a formal investigation and gathering of testimony of all these things, with a view to having him canonized. However, because I felt that this should be undertaken by someone duly authorized, and also for personal reasons, I did not wish to begin the inquiry on my own authority.” [18]

So White's single legged stool is, I think, effectively toppled on its own confirmation bias.  Suffice to say that official inquiries into the life of St. Francis Xavier started in short order after his death, included testimony from witnesses, and did not support the evolution of the legend.

P^3