Legal Definitions - advocatus diaboli

The term advocatus diaboli is Latin for "devil's advocate." In its specific legal context within ecclesiastical law, it refers to:

An official whose formal role is to present arguments against the beatification or canonization of an individual. This position ensures that the claims of sanctity are rigorously tested and that any potential objections, doubts, or weaknesses in the case are thoroughly examined before a final decision is made by the Church.

Here are some examples illustrating the role of an advocatus diaboli:

• Scrutinizing Virtues: Imagine a historical figure proposed for sainthood, known for their charitable works. The advocatus diaboli would meticulously review all historical records, testimonies, and documents related to this individual. Their task would be to identify any instances where the person's actions might have been motivated by self-interest, or where their virtues were not consistently demonstrated, thereby challenging the claim of heroic virtue required for sainthood. This ensures that the Church's declaration of sanctity is based on an unassailable record.

• Challenging Miracles: When a miracle is attributed to the intercession of a candidate for sainthood, the advocatus diaboli would play a crucial role. For instance, if a medical healing is presented as miraculous, this official would bring forward expert opinions suggesting natural explanations for the recovery, question the diagnostic methods, or highlight any gaps in the medical evidence. Their objective is to ensure that only events truly inexplicable by science are accepted as miracles, thereby upholding the integrity of the canonization process.

• Investigating Controversies: Suppose a candidate for sainthood had faced public criticism or accusations during their lifetime, even if these were later dismissed. The advocatus diaboli would be responsible for re-examining these controversies, presenting the counter-arguments, and ensuring that the Church's investigation into these matters was exhaustive and impartial. This role prevents any potential blemishes or unresolved questions from being overlooked in the pursuit of canonization, reinforcing the thoroughness of the review.