{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025780862667327716, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014846030959070127, 'mean_word_length': 5.189396522332083, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The “Odor of Sanctity.” Veneration and Politics in Leonard Lessius’s Cause for Beatification (Seventeenth–Twentieth Centuries)

After his 1623, the Leonard became the object of public veneration—never approved by the Roman church—that aimed at promoting his beatification. The cult of this theologian, based on many supposed miraculous healings, increased in the seventeenth century but began to fade thereafter. The cult was revitalized in the nineteenth century, when some Flemish Jesuits began a “relic rush” in order to find Lessius’s remains, with the hope of reopening the process of beatification; the cause was, however, definitively abandoned in the twentieth century. The records relating to Lessius’s cause shed light on the policy of sainthood adopted by the new Society of Jesus and its connection with that of the old Society.


Introduction
On January 15, 1623, the Flemish Jesuit theologian Leonard Lessius died in Leuven.1 From that moment on, the Flemish Jesuits led a devotional Lessius possessed a multi-faceted personality that recalled Juan Caramuel , and his ideas embodied ante litteram Alfonso de Liguori's teaching : be strict with yourself, but benevolent toward your neighbor.6 The Jesuit's theology has been supported by some, criticized by others: many theologians considered him lax and semi-Pelagian (Blaise Pascal strongly criticized Lessius's theology in his Provincial Letters), while, for instance, Francis de Sales (1567-1622) and Alfonso de Liguori applauded his theology of grace.7 Lessius remains a very controversial figure whose theological doctrines have been discussed for centuries; his critics accused him of heresy and his supporters venerated him as a saint.8 The Vita on the Index On July 7, 1894, Torquato Armellini , the general postulator of the Society of Jesus, addressed a letter to Serafino Vannutelli , prefect of the Congregation of the Index (1893-96);9 he requested that the De vita et moribus R.P. Patri Leonardi Lessii,10 the biography of Lessius forbidden by the Index, be examined and reprinted by the Congregation of Rites: a revision to the biography would facilitate re-opening the cause for beatification.11 Although the documents stored in the archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith identify Leonard Schoofs as the author of the Vita, its true authorship is uncertain. According to the Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, it should be attributed to the Jesuit Jacob Wyns (Wjns or Wijns, 1593-1649), Lessius's nephew and the first unofficial postulator of Lessius's cause in 6 Julia A. Fleming, Defending Probabilism. the seventeenth century.12 Wyns would not have published the manuscript under his own name, as it would have appeared partisan; moreover, he was fearful of worsening his own situation in General Vitelleschi's eyes, as the latter already did not appreciate Lessius's public cult, which had not been approved by the Holy See.13 The Bibliothèque Royale of Belgium stores a two-volume manuscript titled De vita et moribus P. Leonardi Lessii, attributed to Wyns; certainly, this work is the basis for the published Vita.14 It is likely that Lessius's relatives (the publisher Thomas Courtois was also Lessius's nephew) worked together to promote their uncle's beatification. Indeed, the Vita functions as a hagiography, a fact which became the chief concern expressed by the Holy Office and the Index.
In the nineteenth century, an interest in renewing the cause developed in Flanders, where many Jesuits considered Lessius a national saint. The initial impulse to seek Lessius's beatification arose in the seventeenth century, when an informative process on his life and virtues was conducted in the diocese of Malines. However, the documents of this process have been lost. The author of a paper written in 1923 to celebrate the third centenary of Lessius's death claimed to have found the documentation of the informative process in the library of the archbishop's palace in Malines.15 Nevertheless, three years of searching for the records in Malines (1869-72) proved fruitless, and Armellini was similarly unable to find them in the 1890s. 16 Raffaele Pierotti (1836Pierotti ( -1905, a Dominican commissioner of the Holy Office and a cardinal since 1896, was appointed to examine Armellini's request. After the condemnation decree (December 28, 1646), the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office dealt with repeated Jesuit requests for its revocation.17 In March 1649, the text was transmitted to the Congregation of Rites, which had already examined the Vita and determined that it was an unauthorized hagiography.
The Index had proposed many corrections to the Vita in the seventeenth century, but these were never implemented. According to Pierotti, it would have been improper to reverse the condemnation from the seventeenth century. However, Pierotti eventually decided to agree to Armellini's request, as long as he advised the Congregation of Rites that the book had been condemned.18 In the 1890s, the commissioners who re-examined the book focused on two main issues, as their seventeenth-century predecessors had done: doctrinal controversies and the attribution of sanctity.19 The censorship of the Vita demonstrates how, in the mid-seventeenth century, the Index and Holy Office were deeply worried about both topics: first, they were concerned about the spread of theological controversies with the explosion of Jansenism; second, those were the years of the Roman reorganization of the procedures of canonization, and the new rules meant that popular veneration toward the dead considered to be saints-without the authorization of the Holy See-needed to be regulated under the authority of the Roman Church.
As regards doctrine, the commissioners underlined the necessity of eliminating the report on the theological controversies of Leuven. They were keen to bury the dispute, since it had undermined the doctrinal unity of Catholicism, and dangerously divided adherents of two specific theological trends, who charged each other with heresy. Lessius, who expounded an optimistic doctrine of grace, which highlighted the substantial importance of men's response to God's invitation, was attacked as being a semi-Pelagian. In contrast, the academics of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Leuven, influenced by the teaching of Michael Bay (1513-89), set forth a rigid Augustinism that Lessius considered very close to Calvinism. The re-examination of the biography in the nineteenth century focused on the papal edict of July 10, 1588 that imposed silence on the disputants; the commissioners concluded that it would not have been appropriate to publicize the partial viewpoint of Lessius's supporters.20 As for the attribution of sanctity, the commissioners determined that two points needed to be omitted from the book: Urban VIII's approval of Lessius's life and virtues, as claimed by the author; and the record of the miraculous healings attributed to the Jesuit post mortem.21 Also, the depositions concerning exorcisms conducted by Lessius or through Lessius's intercession could not be described in detail.
On The most significant aspect of Buonpensiere's evaluation emerged from an unofficial document. In a secret memorandum addressed to Cicognani, he stated that Armellini's request to reprint the Vita was a very complicated problem, and "for us, the Dominicans, it could be compromising."27 Buonpensiere was making the point that the issue could not be solved solely by amending the book; it was a more problematic question involving two religious orders in the early modern age, the Society of Jesus and the Order of Preachers. Employing the old idea of the Society as a wellspring of conspiracy, the Dominican saw the shadow of a Jesuit plot which he believed might jeopardize his own order.
Buonpensiere recalled Lessius's doctrine of grace and Holy Writ and strongly criticized his inspiration theory. He claimed (incorrectly, as Vincent Gasser's intervention during the third session of the First Vatican Council showed) that this theory had been condemned during the First Vatican Council, along with the doctrine of Daniel Haneberg (1816-76), who had been influenced by Lessius's teachings.28 Buonpensiere also noted that Lessius's inspiration theory had been condemned in the pope's encyclical letter on Holy Writ. The Dominican was surely referring to Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893), in which the pope, while not explicitly condemning Lessius's doctrine, stated that the true author of Holy Writ was the Holy Spirit.29 As a result, Lessius's doctrine opposing the verbal dictation theory was seriously undermined. Ultimately, Buonpensiere recommended that censorship of the Vita continue. Buonpensiere argued that the book surreptitiously promoted Lessius's doctrinal mistakes and that the promotion of his cause for beatification represented an official attempt to validate those (and the Society's) doctrines.
Buonpensiere reached misleading conclusions. Lessius's doctrine certainly did not represent the views of the entirety of the Society, and in fact had already been condemned by many Jesuits in the seventeenth century. Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621) and Generals Claudio Acquaviva (1543-1615) and Mutio Vitelleschi (1563-1645) strongly opposed Lessius's De gratia efficaci as a work that expounded a doctrine more radical than Luis de Molina's (1535-1600).30 Buonpensiere held the longstanding but incorrect view that the Society behaves as a monolithic block; on the contrary, despite generally probabilistic tendencies, doctrinal divergences within the Society had become so important in the early modern period that Acquaviva promulgated a decree on grace in 1610 to restore doctrinal unity within the order (a goal that had been pursued since Ignatius's time).31 It appears that Buonpensiere acted out of old notions of party politics, based on the mistrust that had divided Dominicans and Jesuits over the controversia de auxiliis for centuries.
In November 1894, Cicognani agreed to reprint the Vita, subject to the condition that Buonpensiere's corrections be applied.32 It would have remained on the list of forbidden books if Armellini had not revived the issue at the end of the nineteenth century.

The Evolution of Lessius's Cause
Up to the early twentieth century Lessius's cause had many sponsors, especially in Belgium. However, the campaign to reopen Lessius's cause for beatification slowed to a halt in 1905 due to a definite political choice made by the general of the Society.
Although the procedure for re-establishing the process had begun in the 1890s, it progressed slowly, as shown by the correspondence between Armellini and Charles van Sull, at that time a less-than-enthusiastic vice-postulator of Nevertheless, other unexpected obstacles arose. First, the Flemish provincial suggested waiting until after Father Alfred Wouthers finished a new biography of Lessius (based on Wyns's two-volume manuscript, discovered in the Royal Archives of Brussels). Second, in a letter to Beccari, van Sull emphasized that the theologians at the University of Leuven would not appreciate Lessius's beatification, since the Jesuit had condemned their predecessors as heretics, and many Flemish Jesuits still recalled Lessius as the opponent of the alleged heresy promoted by the faculty centuries before.35 Once again, the theological controversies had come back to weaken Lessius's cause. Finally, the absence of witnesses for the process and the unreliability of Schoofs's hagiography presented obstacles. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Lessius's cult, still strong in the nineteenth century, was disappearing, even in Flanders.
Several Jesuits were persuaded that a process in favor of Lessius was premature. Before it could proceed, it was necessary to exonerate him from some accusations, first of all that of disobedience towards the general after the publication of his treatise De gratia efficaci.36 A long silence followed. Between 1904-1905, Wouthers was authorized to conduct research for the new biography in the Jesuit archives. However, General Luis Martin (1892-1906) imposed a condition: if disagreements between Lessius and Bellarmine were discovered, Lessius's process should be dropped. As van Sull wrote, Wouthers told him about some letters which clearly showed disputes between the two Jesuit theologians.37 The reason for the general's decision was strategic, and coincided with a precise policy of sainthood promoted by the Society, which at the beginning of the twentieth century focused on one person-Robert Bellarmine. His 33 Archive of the General Postulation for the causes of saints of the Society of Jesus, [hereafter apsj], Postulation's diary, 1891-1904, Leonardo Lessio, August 1900February 1899. 34 apsj, Postulation's diary, April 28, 1901. 35 Van Sull to Beccari in apsj, 2, Corrispondenza 1898-1900. 36 Van Sull to Beccari, April 24, 1901in apsj, 3, Corrispondenza 1901 Van Sull to Beccari, January 21, 1905in apsj, 6, Corrispondenza 1904-1905 journal of jesuit studies 3 (2016) 238-258 beatification cause began soon after his death, but was interrupted several times; it culminated in his beatification in 1923 and canonization in 1931.38 In the first years of the twentieth century, interest in Cardinal Bellarmine's cause was very high due to his prestige and authority. He had been an extremely significant figure in the Counter-Reformation and Catholic renewal in the early modern period; as a theologian at the Holy See, he had composed crucial polemical works, and he inherited his moral zeal for the spiritual reform of the church from his uncle, Pope Marcellus II (r. April-May 1555).
Moreover, although Lessius was one of the most significant Jesuits in the early modern period for his innovations in moral theology and his role in disputes over grace and free will, his reputation did not equal Bellarmine's in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries or among historians who have studied the Society of Jesus. Lessius's most important works, De iustitia et iure and De gratia efficaci, have earned strong criticism, even within the Society. Lessius's reputation for sanctity was vaguely diffused in the order, but not many Jesuits were aware of his life story, and devotion to him, which, reached its peak in the mid-seventeenth century, had declined.
Bellarmine's beatification had the potential for a wider resonance. In May 1901, Cardinal Aloisi Masella (1826-1902)-prefect of the Congregation of Rites (1899-1902)-confided to the general postulator of the Society that the reason for the recent suspension of Bellarmine's cause in the 1890s was the publication of a pamphlet attacking the pope's temporal power, in which the author untruthfully attributed that position to Bellarmine.39 Eventually and after many delays, the cardinal's cause ended successfully.
The disagreements between Lessius and his old master on the subjects of grace and free will emerged from letters exchanged in the first years of the seventeenth century.40 At first, Bellarmine had supported Lessius's theological positions against the accusations of heresy that had been leveled against him by the theologians at the University of Leuven. Bellarmine also provided a censure against what he saw as the dangers of the academics' assertions.41 Their theological views were, according to Bellarmine, much too close to Calvinʼs and Melanchthon's doctrines-especially during that "difficult time" of the Protestant schisms. In particular, Bellarmine condemned the assertions made by these individuals that seemed to nullify the notion of free will and that accordingly stood in opposition to the formulations on this matter established by the Council of Trent. Bellarmine had also sought to highlight that these doctrines could be derived from those of Michael Bay, and wondered whether Bay's heresy had been reintroduced into the university. However, after the Congregatio de auxiliis and the publication of De gratia efficaci, Bellarmine declared that he had misunderstood Lessius's theology twenty-five years earlier, and changed his position, now strongly opposing his theology as heretical. The dispute between them focused on an essential matter, especially at a time when the church greatly feared the consequences of theological divisions. Lessius and Bellarmine were in agreement in rejecting physical predetermination, but not about the relationship between grace and good works, predestination, and election to glory. The cardinal believed that doctrines such as Lessius's and Molina's represented serious dangers for Catholic theology and for the reputation of the Society. During the Congregatio de auxiliis, the anti-Protestant function of Molina's doctrine had been praised but, at the end of the congregation, Bellarmine chose caution, embracing the general's policy.42 In 1610, the divergence between Bellarmine's and Lessius's opinions was extremely clear-unlike twenty-five years earlier. The cardinal began to think that Lessius could be indeed charged with semi-Pelagianism.
One specific point, among others, troubled the cardinal. From the De gratia efficaci, he understood that Lessius viewed predestination as descending merely from the prevision of merits, in order to preserve man's freedom; according to Bellarmine, the notion of the prevision of merits was to be seen as a manifestation of prescience, rather than predestination. That theory was extremely close to Catarinus's and opposed to the doctrines of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, and therefore unacceptable to Bellarmine. At the time of the Leuven controversies, Bellarmine interpreted Lessius's doctrine to mean that, although predestination to glory derived from foreseen merits, predestination to effective grace depended only on God's will. Lessius's letters show his disappointment and displeasure over his former master's change of mind.43 Having verified the existence of disputes between the two theologians and following the general's instruction, the Society finally chose Bellarmine and sacrificed Lessius's cause. Three hundred years after the quarrel with Bellarmine on the treatise De gratia efficaci, Lessius was defeated again post mortem in the "sainthood race." He had tried to embody sanctity by living an ascetic life, and had gathered many supporters, but that turned out to be insufficient in the context of the strategies of the new Society, even in a period in which many causes interrupted in the early modern period had bloomed again. The definitive interruption of Lessius's cause at the beginning of the twentieth century is evidenced by the list of the processes in progress sent by Beccari to the general.44 However, Lessius's supporters did not lose hope. Indeed, in 1907, the correspondence between van Sull and the general postulation reopened. Beccari communicated his intention to search for the records of the informative process in the archives of the Congregation of Rites.45 A few days later, he wrote to van Sull that his investigation had not borne fruit; he knew that the process had never arrived to the congregation, and that in the seventeenth century the biography had been forbidden by the Index. He suspected that the Leuven academics had opposed the dissemination of the book because of its description of the controversies.46 In 1909, van Sull-who became increasingly devoted to Lessius over timecommunicated to the postulation "good news": after nineteen years, Wouthers had renounced his intention to compose Lessius's biography. The provincial was looking for somebody who would take the assignment, and van Sull himself accepted it.
The most recent development concerning Lessius's cause dates back to the mid-twentieth century.47 The new general postulator Carlo Miccinelli (postulator 1928-1952)  interest in Lessius's cause, no progress was achieved in the twentieth century. Lessius's sanctity could not be verified through new and current testimonies that certified to an enduring veneration, strengthened by concrete signs, such as miracles attributed to his intercession. On the contrary, the cause for Lessius's sainthood was desired and promoted by only a small circle of men. Two elements characterized Lessius's cause between the seventeenth and the twentieth centuries: first, the long series of evaluations of Schoofs's Vita; and second, Bellarmine's cause for beatification, which had favorable features that Lessius's cause did not. Furthermore, the theological disputes that had first divided Lessius and the academics of Leuven, and then Jesuits and Dominicans in the Congregatio de auxiliis, were still being discussed three centuries later. Buonpensiere and van Sull kept the memory of the controversies alive: the Dominican with his private memorandum addressed to Cicognani; the Jesuit by referring to the academics' opposition to Lessius's cause in a letter to the general postulation. 48 Lessius's sanctity was disputed by many, whose number and authority exceeded that of his devotees.

Veneration and Miracles
The necessary element at the foundation of a cause for beatification is veneration of the deceased, who is considered by the devotees who pray to him capable of miraculously interceding on their behalf. This faith represents the substratum for commencing a cause: without veneration, sanctity (meaning sanctity as validated by the church, according to its law) does not exist. In the first half of the seventeenth century, just before the beginning of Lessius's informative process, Urban VIII reorganized the norm relating to this matter; the veneration accorded to Lessius seemed to violate this papal regulation.
The Vita describes the circumstances of Lessius's pious death, after having suffered from a debilitating illness for forty years. 49 Lessius became ill during his escape from Douai-then under attack from Protestants-when he was a boy.50 He suffered for his entire life from terrible aches in his legs and abdomen.51 His reputation for humility and wisdom attracted Flemish people, and after his death his relics became objects of veneration. Hair, nails, and pieces of journal of jesuit studies 3 (2016) 238-258 flesh were taken from Lessius's corpse and soon were believed to have thaumaturgic powers.52 In the early modern period, the model for sanctity was based on three main elements: veneration accorded to the dead when he or she was alive, heroic virtues, and miracles.53 A person's death played a substantial role in the verification of sanctity. It was believed that at the moment of death, the charismatic power migrated from the dead body to the relics, which became thaumaturgic.
Until the mid-seventeenth century, Lessius's tomb attracted pilgrims; according to the sources, many miraculous healings took place there. The thaumaturgic power of Lessius's relics was hailed in the statements of many devotees, who believed they had been miraculously cured of their illnesses or pains.54 The fame of Lessius's relics grew. The doorman of the Jesuit college in Leuven began to supply people with holy water in which Lessius's relics had been immersed. As has been pointed out, the Jesuits played an important role in popularizing the use of holy water sanctified by contact with the relics of a saint.55 In the early modern period, this was a common procedure because reaching and touching relics directly was rarely easy; therefore, water, oil, and flowers that came in contact with miraculous images or a saint's remains were used to provide indirect connections to the saint when asking for a grace.
Most cases of mysterious healings and exorcisms associated with Lessius occurred around 1640. Testimonies presented cases of people possessed by evil spirits or affected by maleficia [spells] who were healed through Lessius's intercession. In July 1640, for instance, a girl who had been paralyzed for three years was healed by the laying of a relic on her abdomen.56 The description of the cure in this and other cases has the supernatural features of an exorcism. Also in 1640, Maria van der Zupe and her house had been affected by an enchantment; the spell "domum nocturne terroribus et spectris infestabat" [haunted her house with terror and spirits during the night].57 A novena addressed to Lessius's relics was sufficient to heal the woman and to free the house from ghosts. 52 Lessius's Jesuit brothers amputated his thumbs and index fingers of both hands (used for the elevation of the host, during mass Three years earlier, a woman named Gertrud Berden had been struck down by an illness identified as originating from an evil spell, and some Capuchin friars had performed an unsuccessful exorcism. The source describes the demonic origin of the sickness and the effects of the first exorcism in fantastic terms (aquatic monsters apparently emerged from the body of the woman). She was finally cured through contact with Lessius's head, which was kept in Leuven.58 The connection between physical healing and release from demons was rooted in the Gospels, where Jesus was presented as a healer and an exorcist. The report on these extraordinary healings referred to "divus" [divine] Lessius as the new patron saint of Belgium, sent by God to help Flemish people against illnesses and spells.59 The demonic possession was considered equivalent to a real illness.60 The symptoms of some people supposed to be possessed are reminiscent of epileptic seizures, as in Joanna Goffin's case (1639): she was affected for seventeen years by a spell which caused spasms, and her bowels were haunted by evil spirits. The woman was completely healed after completing a novena (a recurring element) in front of Lessius's reliquary.61 A medical report signed by Ioannes Haestens, a surgeon in Leuven, dated June 3, 1640, labeled Henry Fox's healing as a miracle (it is important to highlight that this is the report of a physician with an expertise limited by his epoch). Fox suffered a long and varied series of symptoms, not ascribable to a specific illness, as often happened in the healings attributed to Lessius's intercession. Nevertheless, sometimes we can hypothesize about the origin of the illness, as in the healing of a nun in 1640; her symptoms-difficulty in breathing and chest pain-were probably related to cardiac pathologies.62 She was healed by drinking three spoons of water that had been blessed with Lessius's relics.
Some people who claimed to have been healed did not obtain an immediate cure; they recovered after a long process, characterized by relapses, and after several contacts with Lessius's relics and tomb. The Roman Church's conception of what constitutes a miracle has changed over the centuries and has been subjected to juridical regularization. The typology of cure described in these archival sources is often incompatible with the current conceptual model of instant, unexplainable, and definitive healing; however, it does correspond to exorcism, meaning not a single ritual but a series of sessions necessary to dispel demons. Beginning in the 1640s, Lessius's devotees began to make bequests to express their gratitude and veneration. For instance, the miraculously healed Elizabeth Isenbacht donated money to build a chapel dedicated to Lessius; moreover, she offered a five-hundred-florin gold crown for Lessius's head, which was removed from his body, crowned, and preserved in a reliquary.63 The growing veneration of Lessius's tomb and the encouragement provided by the Flemish Jesuits distressed General Muzio Vitelleschi. He realized that Lessius's cult had grown uncontrollably through the dissemination of stories about miraculous healings, even though the Holy See had not acknowledged their validity. He admonished Jacob Wyns and ordered him not to promote the cult, pointing out that it contravened the decree promulgated in 1625.64 Vitelleschi referred to Urban VIII's juridical reorganization, and especially to the decree established by the Holy Office on March 13, 1625, that forbade any cult, public or private, of a dead person with a reputation for sanctity without authorization from the Holy See. 65 However, Lessius's name had been inserted in the litany of the saints in Leuven, and devotees were being allowed to light candles on his tomb. 66 Vitelleschi was astonished that the superiors of the province had not forbidden such open veneration as it clearly contravened the Roman regulations.
In the first centuries of Christianity, popular veneration created saints; by the seventeenth century, the situation had radically changed. Wyns's inappropriate zeal undoubtedly damaged Lessius's cause. The general's orders were clear: the Holy Office's decree had to be respected and the veneration of Lessius's relics controlled. In 1644, the general forbade every act of veneration of Lessius and ordered that the distribution of water blessed with his relics be stopped.
The documentation suggests that Vitelleschi was not a supporter of Lessius's cause; as mentioned before, he had been one of the strongest critics of Lessius's doctrine of grace.67 Furthermore, as Vitelleschi himself suggested, the impatience shown by Lessius's Jesuit devotees probably worsened the situation. The supposed miracles occurred during the same years in which the informative process was conducted. The testimonies to the miraculous healings attributed to Lessius's intercession provided excellent material for the process; moreover, Lessius's supporters probably encouraged the practice of praying to him by spreading the stories about his intercessory powers. At this stage, it is impossible to say whether Lessius's Jesuit devotees promoted the power of his relics in order to foster the beatification process, or if the pilgrimages to Lessius's tomb were completely genuine, or some of both.
There were three constituent elements of the reported cures: the invocation of Lessius; contact with his relics, often through water; and prayer at his tomb. Some historians support the idea of a decline of the cult of relics in the early modern age, as compared with the Middle Ages.68 However, the records related to Lessius-in which we can also read about the veneration of the relics of Saints Francis Xavier (1506-52) and Jan Berchmans (1599-1621)-provide evidence that veneration of relics remained strong during the early modern period. The church's regularization of the practice in the early modern period was an attempt to curb superstition. 69 After languishing for many years, interest in the cause for Lessius's beatification was revived in the mid-nineteenth century with a significant element of continuity-a quest for Lessius's relics. Unfortunately, the location of Lessius's could see the relics. Some portions of the body had already been sent to Jesuit houses; the brain, the bladder stones, a thumb, and an index finger were kept in Leuven.
In 1650, the Jesuits demolished the church in which Lessius had been entombed to build St. Michael Church, and removed Lessius's remains to a temporary chapel, with an unmistakable tag indicating the identity of the bones. The documentation does not reveal when exactly Lessius's remains were moved to St. Michael Church. As mentioned earlier, in the second half of the 1660s, Lessius's head was detached so that it could be crowned (information that would have been useful for van Derker). In 1868, after van Derker unknowingly delivered a package containing Lessius's relics to an unknown sacristan, a change in the church's administration occurred and no documentation or trace of the relics survived. A second exploration of the crypt in 1872 was unsuccessful.
The crucial moment transpired in 1890, when the document describing the 1642 transfer of Lessius's remains was discovered at the Bollandist library.73 The document described the detail of the ribs linked by silver. Van Derker then understood that he had discovered Lessius's remains years before. In 1891, Charles van Sull conducted new research in the crypt at St. Michael. There, van Sull found the remains of the decorated wooden urn described in the record from 1642, in which Lessius's bones had been placed. Further confirmation that they were Lessius's relics was provided by the fact that the head and the ribs were missing; the head had been removed in the seventeenth century, while the ribs had been given to the sacristan by van Derker. Arthur van Gebruchten, professor of osteology at the University of Leuven, examined the bones and provided a description that matched the 1642 documentation. Lessius's remains were authenticated in 1896.
After van Sull's discovery, the bones were buried in a marble grave in the Jesuit church in Leuven. In 2007, his remains were transferred back to St. Michael Church. The quest for the relics demonstrated the veneration that some Flemish Jesuits still felt for their confrère. An article by the Jesuit Theophil De Beurm, published in Woodstock Letters in 1891, describes the enthusiasm for the resumption of Lessius's cause.74 It was a forlorn hope, yet it had been shared by many Jesuits over three centuries.

Conclusion
Three main elements need to be highlighted to understand completely the progression of Lessius's cause for beatification. The first is Lessius's personal struggle for sanctity. The Jesuit strove to reach sanctity through a continuing effort to lead an ascetic and virtuous life. Lessius, who embodied an optimistic view of Christian humanism and was tolerant and open-minded towards his penitents and their moral distress, was nevertheless obsessed by the idea of sin and the certainty of his being a sinner. He flagellated himself daily, fasted continuously, refused every comfort, and spent many hours each day and night praying and meditating on the Bible. According to the sources, he was granted ecstasies.75 This attitude attracted many followers and created a devotional atmosphere that became more fervent in the immediate years after Lessius's death. The miracles attributed to his intercession contributed to strengthening this veneration.
A second key element is the attribution of sanctity. For the early modern Flemish Jesuits, who intensely and actively venerated their confrère as a saint, Lessius's beatification and possible canonization would have provided endorsement for the order in their province; moreover, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the idea of creating a national saint contributed to the desire of some to undertake further research on Lessius's life and presumed sanctity.
The third important aspect is the policy on sainthood. Lessius's cause occurred in the context of strategies promoted by the old and new Society of Jesus. The pre-eminent role of Bellarmine's cause in the policy of pursuing recognitions of sainthood within the new Society eventually induced the general to drop Lessius's cause; also, the cause was not fully pursued by the order because it might have created problems arising from the Flemish theologian's positions on grace and free will.
The records related to Lessius's cause and life clearly show us the persistence of tension among theological trends and religious orders, even into the twentieth century; they display how strategic choices can be grounds for decisions concerning causes for canonization; and finally, they shed light on the wide range of theological positions that characterized the old Society of Jesus, within which Lessius's moral probabilism and open-mindedness towards man's freedom-in the soteriological process and also in daily life-were strongly criticized, eventually resulting in the abandonment of his cause. 75 Schoofs, De vita, ff. 69-75. The events connected to Lessius's cause stress the blurring of boundaries between the concepts of heresy and sanctity within Catholicism, particularly during the seventeenth century. Lessius's devotees did not succeed in confirming their assumptions of his sanctity, as several Catholic theologians considered him too daring or even heretical. Although Lessius has never been investigated as a heretic by the Holy Office, the absence of a strong devotional movement will probably never allow him to be beatified, not even after the success of Bellarmine's cause.