±«Óãtv

Good post

"American deacon, Jack Sullivan, was miraculously cured of a spinal disorder, after praying for John Henry Newman's intercession."

It's good to know that the Vatican takes this beatification business seriously, and engages credible evidence in the process, rather than just the slobbering say-so of total nutters. I mean, if it did *that*, it would cost it a certain amount of credibility, wouldn't you think?

I am not sure how this miracle stuff works. Why was Mr Sullivans bad back chosen? No other pleas of greater worth or merit? Or, are these infrequent events randomly distributed like premium bond winners. Is there a celestial ERNIE?Also, why so few? What are the constraints on the performance of miracles. Is it with the producer, or would more and better prayer produce more? And, as with Mr Sullivan is it always more efficacious to appeal to a junior member rather than going straight to the top?

First off, Deacon Jack Sullivan had to claim that he was cured by the intercession of John Henry Newman.

For the miracle to be considered valid the medical cure must be sudden, complete and permanent. Moreover, the person's physician must claim that there is not medical explaination for the cure. If accepted by the Vatican, it is reviewed by a pannel of 5 Italian physicians. Three of the five must show that there is no reasonable medical explaination for the cure.

It is then forwarded to a group of Cardinals. They must agree that it the miracle occured via the intercession of the candidate for beatification. Thus, if you pray to 10 different saints, and got a cure, it wouldn't count. There has to be pretty strong evidence that you specifically asked for the help of that saint, and was granted it.

It takes years to certify a miracle. Most cases are found to be explained by ordinary medicine.

The second step that neilgalbra describes is a classic 'miracle of the gaps' way of thinking:

"Moreover, the person's physician must claim that there is not medical explaination for the cure. If accepted by the Vatican, it is reviewed by a pannel of 5 Italian physicians. Three of the five must show that there is no reasonable medical explanation for the cure."

Go back a while in history and medical science didn't have answers for all sorts of things that it can perfectly well explain today. So things that might have passed the test in the past, would no longer be accepted today. Why can't the nutty believers in miracles extrapolate that a little into the future? Things that are as yet unexplained by science, might not be so anymore 10 years from now. But hey, 'Medical science can't explain it NOW, so our great Magic Mans miracle becomes the top candidate for explanation! Praise Him!'

The next step described sounds more hopeful:

"It is then forwarded to a group of Cardinals. They must agree that it the miracle occured via the intercession of the candidate for beatification."

But I wonder how exactly the cardinals determine that it was the intercession of the candidate for beatification.

'Saintmaking' is completely unBiblical, since every member of the early church was regarded as a saint, i.e. someone sanctified in Christ. The elaborate rituals associated with the makings of uppercase saints, who have to be validated by associated miracles, etc.developed, along with relics, etc, to control the ignorant masses, and impose authority, especially after Constantine brought the sword into Christianity. In medievel days any dissent was punished cruelly by dungeon, fire and sword, but you cannot do that today, and the ludicrous nature of this distracting and unscriptural practice in a modern setting is easily seen. Look at the farcical events leading to the beatification of Cardinal Newman. Buried beside his partner in life, there was a dispute with the local council because a fence was erected without planning permission; ostensibly to protect his remains. Then on disinterment it was discovered the body had completely decomposed. Add to this the desire of Peter Tatchell of Outrage who is agitating to have him declared the patron saint of gays. Could you make it up. Then there was Padre Pio, and the accusations that he used carbolic acid to mantain his stigmata. Upper case saints are a distraction from worship of our Lord Jesus Christ; and today are well past their 'sell by' date. The saint/sinner dichotomy which encourages us to put these people on a pedestal to be revered is nonsense.To my recolletion, nowhere in the N.T. is anyone other than Jesus Christ promoted as a model for emulation.

So what happened to spine then? Maybe Newman could be made the patron saint of the neurologically-impaired. Or perhaps that post is already taken.

Ah, Landover Baptist, H, so you do go to church afterall!

:-)

Peter, how could I resist? :-)

Since Deacon Fred of Landover Baptist came up, and this blog is the frequently the scene of unpleasant homophobic utterings, this would be an excellent occasion to post a YouTube url that combines the various elements:



Harry Potter wasn't mentioned in this thread or other recent threads, but he did came up in the news recently:



Will, is that thread fodder for a quiet week?

For more information about John Henry Newman and his Cause for Canonisation why not look at the official website:

Nice informative post. I like the matter.

Just struck me - don't know why I didn't notice it before - but the depiction in the icon makes him a dead ringer for Peter Cook...

(Note to self: Mustn't think of the 'Things that give me' sketch. Naughty, naughty boy!)