Why has the Catholic Church not de-canonized Saint William of Norwich?

Answer

For those who may not know the story of St.William of Norwich here it is:

William was an apprentice leather worker in Norwich, England, who was murdered in 1144. It was said that in the course of his work he frequently called upon the homes of Norwich's Jews. He was said to be a religious boy and had was also worked for the local clergy some of whom were relatives.

He was last seen on Good Friday 1144, in company with a Jew. The following day he was found dead having suffered a violent death and two days later was buried in the woods where he was found. There has never been any reason why he was left where he was for two days.

Suspecting that the Jew he'd been with had killed him anti- Jewish feelings began to run out of control. A story began circulating that William had been murdered as part of a Jewish blood ritual and a witness came forward to say that she had seen the boy being crucified by some Jews. Feelings ran so high that the Sheriff of Norwich placed the city's entire Jewish population under his own protection.

One of Williams uncles who was a priest arranged for his reburial first in a local monastery and then later in the cathedral itself. At this point, with William buried in the cathedral, family honor may have been reasonably satisfied but for the fact that the jew who was suspected of murdering William was himself murdered. Now the Jews demanded punishment of the culprit. However, the local Bishop intervened and brought a counter charge of murder (of William) against the dead Jew.

It seems that at this point no further action was taken. However, during all the uproar it seems that the requisite two miracles became attached to William's name and he was canonized.

Now the point behind the question "Why has he not been de-canonized?" is that this is the first recorded allegation of Christian children being sacrificed by Jews during Easter - a persistent allegation from that point on and which rapidly spread across Europe. To fully answer that question it's necessary to try to untangle what actually happened in 1144 (no mean feat).

Firstly, it's necessary to point out that no Pope (England was a Catholic country at the time) has ever accepted the existence of a Jewish blood ritual and the allegation has been on many occasions officially condemned. Today, modern scholars view the allegation as plain anti-Semitism and the alleged witness to William's murder can be dismissed as someone seeking her 15 minutes of fame.

All the existing evidence concerning William (and there isn't much) agrees on several points however:

1. William really existed and was violently murdered.

2. He was last seen in the company of a Jew.

3. The suspected killer of William was himself later murdered.

Over the centuries three possible scenarios seem to have evolved:

1. William met up with a Jew that he may/may not have known and who murdered him. It's possible that being a religious boy William got into a religious argument that became violent. It's also possible the killer was a homicidal pedophile (they exist now and so also did then).

2. For some reason there has been a persistent suggestion that William may have accidentally poisoned himself with berries of some sort.

3. The defense put forward by Norwich's Jews at the time was that William had suffered some kind of fit and wasn't actually dead when he was found but was then buried alive by his relatives.

As all sides agree that he had severe injuries I think accidental poisoning is unlikely. Again, it's unlikely that a fit or seizure in the open would cause the extensive injuries suggested in all the evidence. And it's more than likely the suggestion he was buried alive by his relatives was an understandable attempt to divert hostility away from the Jews and can easily be countered by the fact that William wasn't buried for two days.

Of all the possibilities the first seems the most likely account.

Now (if your still with me) we can actually tackle whether William should still be a saint. My answer to this is yes, he should and for several reasons:

1. The alleged blood ritual that became associated with his death is not associated with his canonization.

2. The required miracles were attached to him during the lull between his murder and the death of his killer.

3. The cult of his martyrdom appears spontaneous and was officially discouraged early on and eventually completely suppressed.

4. No Christian church has ever accepted the existence of a blood ritual.

5. William is actually patron saint of victims of Kidnap and torture (not martyrdom) suggesting (to me at any rate) that the Church has always believed he fell victim to a predatory pedophile or child killer.

Added to that, I'm not sure saints can be de-canonized.

First answer by Blandina. Last edit by Blandina. Contributor trust: 149 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 15 [recommend question].