The figure of young Carlo Acutis, who will be canonised on September 7, gives me some food for thought. I have already reflected on some of these points in other posts on my blog.
Among them, there is undoubtedly a reference to the Eucharistic miracles that highlight his focus on the presence of the Lord among his people, with the most comprehensive collection of this specific phenomenon, called precisely “Eucharistic miracle,” in which the substantial presence (always invisible and imperceptible by dogma) becomes visible and tangible (like blood, like flesh, like …).
Carlo Acutis was 13 and 14 years old when he developed this interest. The “exhibition” of Eucharistic miracles seems like a collection put together by a young person with strong spiritual enthusiasm, but with very basic and one-sided tools of analysis and cultural forms; therefore, it is not very critically examined or carefully evaluated.
This is clearly true for the young Carlo Acutis. It should also be true for the organization that supported his cause for beatification after his death, as well as for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints that carried out the beatification and canonization process.
It would be unfair to classify Carlo Acutis as having “anti-Jewish” intentions. He was not even aware of the anti-Jewish roots and implications of some of the so-called “Eucharistic miracles” he enthusiastically collected, without questioning many aspects or concerns regarding what he was gathering.
That said, the treatment of certain episodes that clearly display an anti-Jewish element can even be somewhat superficial, which cannot be fixed simply by removing the identity of the subjects involved. This is a serious issue that must not be ignored and would have benefited from more caution, even with a more careful and conscious analysis of the “miracle cases.”
The “innocent superficiality” that can be forgiven, if you will, in a 14-year-old boy who lacks the criteria to discern properly in his passion for “collecting” Eucharistic miracles, is not acceptable in the adults who accompanied him and then reconstructed his life and works.
Indeed, the path solemnly established by the document Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council (1965) is in no way challenged by the canonization of Carlo Acutis: reconciliation with the Jewish tradition remains one of the Church’s most valuable achievements over the past 60 years.
Instead, the Catholic Church should focus on how traditionalist groups have used this young man to create an atmosphere of “classical holiness,” characterized by features of a certain form of classical apologetics, uncritically reviving both modern and medieval models of Catholic culture, including its anti-Jewish elements.
This ancient understanding of holiness, which regards it as primarily “contrary” [to Protestants, non-Catholics, and therefore any other religion], risks interpreting what Carlo Acutis conceived and studied out of genuine faith as a call to revert to the past, to deny the Second Vatican Council, to pursue ecclesial restoration, and to reaffirm with a somewhat arrogant tone the uniqueness of Catholic Christianity compared to other Christian denominations and religions.
A reactionary spirit found in some traditionalist circles risks confusing healthy Catholic tradition and the Gospel with anti-Judaism. However, this is a serious mistake that a Catholic must avoid repeating.
I realize that this real risk of misunderstanding isn’t directly about Carlo Acutis’s figure and profile, but rather about certain exaggerated, forced, and overly simplistic ways he’s been officially presented and understood. There may even be institutional responsibility if this has risked promoting misunderstandings.
The problem isn’t Carlo Acutis, but how his “passion for the Eucharist,” because of insufficient education during his lifetime, has been oversimplified and made dull by the overly simplistic way reflection on Eucharistic miracles is presented.
It can even be confidently stated that any anti-Jewish use of Carlo Acutis’s image would go against the intentions of the young man who is to be canonized. He had no explicit anti-Jewish beliefs, apart from what he repeated from a tradition, understanding only what devotion and feelings immediately conveyed to him, without any historical or theological study. Carlo Acutis himself could become a victim of anti-Jewish interpretations promoted in Catholic circles based on his testimony.
However, some arguments for Eucharistic miracles could even pose an objective challenge for a 21st-century Church.
A caricatured and distorted version of the Church’s own Eucharistic identity, without proper discernment of its history, would not help distinguish healthy traditions from unhealthy ones.
Father Joseba Kamiruaga Mieza, CMF
