I was up early and watched some of this...

[Big RR]

Not necessarily Scooter, JP2 may well have backed off on some criteria for sainthood in some cases (I don't really follow those things, but I recall hearing that was a thing many popes before and after have done), but I also don't think mother Teresa is a saint, although she has been beatified (I'll check later if I get a chance).

[Econoline]

You are correct, Big RR. (I saved you the trouble.) Mother Teresa (a.k.a. "The Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, M.C.") was beatified in 2003, but even her first "miracle" is still controversial and the church is still waiting for another miracle before she can be canonized.






If she's Canonized, will she become an SLR or just a point-and-shoot?

[Big RR]

Thanks.

[Scooter]

Not necessarily Scooter, JP2 may well have backed off on some criteria for sainthood in some cases

Yes, he changed some of the criteria for declaring someone to be a saint, particularly reducing the number of required miracles from 3 to 2, and in the case of Mother Teresa, reducing the time period following death before beginning the process, but that did nothing to alter what being a saint means, as Dave has ridiculously asserted.

[Big RR]

I think those changes have occurred throughout history. Indeed, I recall reading that, in the early RC church saints were declared by public acclamation, often at the funerals of the person in question; now there is some sort of review by the Vatican.

As for reducing the number of miracles needed, I think this only makes sense since, as I said above, many things seen centuries ago as "miracles" are now known to be the product of natural processes. This makes it almost impossible to declare anything a miracle if there is any sort of real investigation.

Now I'm the first to admit I don't really understand why any church finds it important to declare some persons as saints, but then this has been the practice of the RC church for centuries. I'll leave it to the members to decide if the changes materially alter the concept of sainthood or not; but even if it does, this sort of change has been ongoing for centuries as well.

[Scooter]

I don't really understand why any church finds it important to declare some persons as saints

828 By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors. "The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history." Indeed, "holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal."

link

[Gob]

It's all just bollocks though, no matter which way you look at it.

[Scooter]

The supernatural crap aside, I think there is value in pointing to positive role models to emulate in one's own life. I think particularly of those who are called "saints" who devoted their lives to helping others as being particularly useful examples in this day and age when so many people care about nothing or no one but themselves, even as they profess a faith that commands just the opposite.

[Lord Jim]

I think there is value in pointing to positive role models to emulate in one's own life. I think particularly of those who are called "saints" who devoted their lives to helping others as being particularly useful examples in this day and age when so many people care about nothing or no one but themselves, even as they profess a faith that commands just the opposite.

I completely agree with that Scooter, I was just getting ready to post something similar. And I would add that their life stories are also useful teaching tools (especially for kids) about the history of The Church, and history (particularly European history) in general. (As a child one of the first things that got me interested in history were the stories I learned about various Saints)

I've always looked on the Saints as sort of a "Roman Catholic Hall Of Fame" ; what kind of pull they have or don't have with The Big Guy is not for me to say...

[Big RR]

I have no problem with that either, but then I think that is what Dave was complaining about, that the requirements for sainthood were diluted and reduced by JP2, and that sainthood was merely just an acknowledgement that they had led lives to be admired and emulated. I may be wrong, but that's what I thought beatification was, with or without the requirement of a miracle, and that sainthood was seen as something more.

I don't buy the supernatural explanations of things like the intercession of saints and others on behalf of living persons, nor do I think a panel of clergy can decide who is in heaven and who is not (although they may say that is what they believe based on the evidence presented, like any jury does). But it seems like the RC church believes sainthood is something more than being just admirable and worthy or being emulated, or beatification wouldn't just be a step on the road to sainthood, it would be the end of that road.

And that's what prompted my comment and question after Dave's post. Is sainthood now any different from beatification or not? And can we understand sainthood without introducing and discussing the supernatural "crap"?

[Scooter]

Again, I was not challenging Dave's claim that JPII's reforms had made it easier for someone to be proclaimed a saint - obviously, if you reduce the number of miracles required from 3 to 2, and if you eliminate the office of the Devil's Advocate, whose role was to argue against an individual's cause for sainthood, then clearly the number who qualify for canonization is going to increase. But that does not change what the Church is saying about those who are canonized i.e. that they enjoy the Beatific Vision, i.e they are face to face with God in heaven.

The distinction between canonization and beatification is that where canonization states as a certainty that the person has achieved heaven, beatification says that it is "worthy of belief". This also leads a distinction in the way they are celebrated - the feast days of saints are celebrated throughout the Church, whereas the feast days of the beatified are typically celebrated only in the places they are from or with which they have some connection.

My comment about their lives being admired and emulated was made only in reference to the value they hold for someone who does not believe in any of what I have written. Clearly in Catholicism one cannot divorce the concept of sainthood from the "supernatural crap" - my comment was directed to what an atheist might be able to value in studying the lives of the saints.

For example, for me the cause for which he died gives Martin Luther King a place among the Catholic martyrs, regardless of the fact that he was not Catholic, but Baptist. I would say the same of Norman Bethune, who was an atheist. One day there might be a pope courageous enough to expand the Church's understanding of those who have achieved heaven enough to include them in the canon of saints. At which point the heads of Dave and those like him whose only connection to the RC Church is to be hatched, matched and dispatched will collectively explode.

[Big RR]

One day there might be a pope courageous enough to expand the Church's understanding of those who have achieved heaven enough to include them in the canon of saints.

Some of the people in the early (just after the crucifixion of jesus) remained observant jews who became saints; indeed, even Jesus' mother mary, at least as I understand, remained a jew and is, at the very least, a saint (if not more) for the RC church. So who knows? Anything is possible.

As for the remainder of your post, your distinction between beatification and sainthood makes a lot of sense; using Jim's Hall of Fame analogy, those beatified (or called "servants of god" or "venerable") are in lower, more localized halls (like the Halls of fame at colleges or for specific teams) while those achieving sainthood are at the highest level (like a national or international HOF). That makes sense to me. But then I'm not catholic.

And that's the real problem. Not all saints led lives worthy of admiration; I recall one fairly recently canonized saint who was a pope forcibly converted jews to catholicism. At the time, I recall a Vatican spokesman saying that they concede some of what he did was wrong, but they were honoring him because he was "chosen by god" or something like that. When a person whose life even the vatician concedes is not worthy of being emulated is canonized, it weakens the HOF argument.

Edited to add: Sorry, the pope in question was Pope Pius IX, who (in the mid 19th century kidnapped a jewish child and forcibly converted him to Christianity, then refused to give him back to his parents unless they also converted, chastising them for not doing so. His pretext for the kidnapping was that a caretaker baptized him when he was in danger of death, and that his recovery showed god accepted him as a Christian. He was beatified by JP2 around 2000, but I cannot find evidence of his canonization. He apparently made some important reforms in Vatican procedures, but IMHO anyone who would take a child from his parents that way is not worthy of emulation.

[RayThom]

Logically -- or maybe more illogically -- if you believe in God, and heaven, and Satan and Hell, then a person of faith would have to believe in miracles.

The first miracle credited to the late pontiff involved a French nun.

It was Sister Marie Simon-Pierre’s prayer to John Paul and her unexplained and immediate recovery thereafter from Parkinson’s disease that provided the miracle needed for his beatification.

The second miracle attributed to the pontiff was reported by a Costa Rican woman who says she was partially paralyzed because of a brain aneurism. Floribeth Mora Diaz was told she had just days to live. She prayed to John Paul II from a small shrine dedicated to him. "That's when I heard the voice in my bedroom saying get up. That was a surprise. And I looked around the room.. Said, my god I am alone. And I heard something that said get up. And it repeated to me.. Get up, do not be afraid."

Doctors found no trace of an aneurysm in her brain and had no explanation for her recovery.

Pope Francis waived the second miracle requirement. His one miracle was the healing of an Italian nun. In 1966, Sister Catherine Capitani was not expected to live after an operation to remove a tumor in her stomach. But Capitani made a sudden recovery after other nuns placed an image of John XXIII on her stomach.

Her caretaker recalls how Capitani reacted. Sister Adele Labianca/ Caretaker of Sister Catherine Capitani: "You have ripped this miracle out of my heart' the pope said to Sister Catherine. After that Sister Catherine stood up and said 'I'm healed, I'm healed'. Nobody could believe what they were seeing."

The Vatican deemed it to be a miracle. Leading to Pope John XXIII beatification in September 2000.

...............................................................................................
Ebenezer Scrooge on miracles:
"Miracles may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about miracles, whatever they are!"

[Econoline]

Sorry, the pope in question was Pope Pius IX, who (in the mid 19th century kidnapped a jewish child and forcibly converted him to Christianity, then refused to give him back to his parents unless they also converted, chastising them for not doing so. His pretext for the kidnapping was that a caretaker baptized him when he was in danger of death, and that his recovery showed god accepted him as a Christian. He was beatified by JP2 around 2000, but I cannot find evidence of his canonization. He apparently made some important reforms in Vatican procedures, but IMHO anyone who would take a child from his parents that way is not worthy of emulation.

I think they had to let P-IX into the Saints Club; he's the one who made Popes infallible.

During his pontificate, he convened the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), which decreed papal infallibility

[Big RR]

You're right, I forgot that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Logically -- or maybe more illogically -- if you believe in God, and heaven, and Satan and Hell, then a person of faith would have to believe in miracles.

That's correct. However, one does not have to believe in fake claims of miracles - which is all the Roman church ever deals in

[RayThom]

That's correct. However, one does not have to believe in fake claims of miracles - which is all the Roman church ever deals in

OK... I'm totally impartial -- I believe none of it. However, what examples of REAL "miracles" do you know of? To keep it relevant for me don't quote any of that bible nonsense you've been led to believe.

[Guinevere]

It's all just bollocks though, no matter which way you look at it.

Thankfully, some of us are lucky enough to live in a country where: (1) it's perfectly fine to believe that; and (2) its also OK to say so, in public, without fear of governmental sanction.

That's pretty much all that matters to me -- at least with respect to the concept of sainthood and miracles. Obviously I have somewhat different thoughts about related issues., as I posted earlier But if someone wants to believe in saints and miracles, its no skin off my nose.

[Big RR]

Guin--I agree 100%.

RayThom--the real problem with miracles is defining them. I recall watching a show on miracles once and the vignette dealt with a woman whose child was "locked" in a running car; she was panicking because she could not get him out, but then she jiggled the handle a bit and the door opened. She claimed it was a miracle and the "angels" unlocked the door so she could save her child; I thought it was more likely a bad lock (or a door that wasn't locked in the first place), but without further information I can't debunk her belief entirely. But she'll never convince me it was anything other than happenstance either. I think she may well have been sincere in her belief, but mere belief doesn't make it real; and even significant doubt can't make something false. At the end it comes down to what we believe is more likely, but being the skeptic I am, I doubt there would ever be enough "proof" to make me believe something is likely a miracle.

I do think, as you said, that a person of faith would have to believe that a miracle is possible, but it's a big step from believing it is possible to believing that particular facts reveal a miracle happened.

[Econoline]

That's correct. However, one does not have to believe in fake claims of miracles - which is all the Roman church ever deals in

OTOH, I don't think the RC church has ever claimed any particular sports team's victory or any particular sports figure's accomplishment to be a "miracle"; that seems only to be a Protestant thing...