Comments on: The Economics of Sainthood

By: Friday Links | Vicki Boykis

Friday Links | Vicki Boykis — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:27:54 +0000

[...] Economics of stainthood [...]

By: thomas warner m.d.

thomas warner m.d. — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:03:24 +0000

Craig has it right. We need saints more than American idols. One way to get immersed in this subject is to study the lives of the saints — who were real people —- and one could spend a lifetime on this . As for miracles ,I have seen them and confidently believe in them. They really are a part of our existence. TW, M.D.

By: Tracy McManamon

Tracy McManamon — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:24:38 +0000

I am grateful to both for the many examples. I can’t wait for them to be sainted as well.

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:46:27 +0000

Interesting analysis, but it is presumptuous to expect a constant rate of canonization. If constancy is not observed it does not mean anything is amiss. There are thousands of times more saints in heaven than will ever get canonized. Many no doubt participated in God’s miracles, but were never formally promoted for sainthood or even had their deeds recorded. The fact that recent popes address our human need for holy examples is to their credit without being a discredit to their predecessors who focused on other matters. There’s plenty of holiness out there to recognize. The past century has seen more martyrs than all previous centuries combined. It’s been as good time as any to catch up on recognizing them!

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:30:08 +0000

If the Church says something is a miracle, that’s enough for me. However, where reason enters the equation, the use of science is not only acceptable but should be wanted. Scientific scrutiny simply strenghens the miralce by proving no natural explanation.

Do I simply take on face value every person who claims the BVM has given them a vision? Do I accept every claim that some televengelist placed hands on someone and healed them as legitimate?

Of course not.

By: Will

Will — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:11:14 +0000

@ Pat

I find your notion that there are “real” miracles to be distinguished from the fake ways a little disturbing. If we allow for the existence of miracles, then why look for reasons for this up-tick? We can just say it was a miracle.

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:31:25 +0000

Ironically the scientific revolution has actually helped the cause for miralces and hence, the overall increase in the number of saints.

In the past the RCC had few means to validly determine that something was a miracle. Lots of antedoteal evidence and word of mouth stories about the dead, so the Church couldn’t delcare them a saint. Now, with the advancement of physics, chemistry, and etc, the Church can debunk those that are not worthy of belief (e.g., stautes crying blood that DNA proves is the owners blood) and prove those that are real.

Since many miracles can now be proven real because the science cannot find another reasonable cause, there are more saints being delcared.

The Church has always tried to be rational when it comes to declaring saints.

By: bt

bt — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:25:34 +0000

I believe Pope John Paull II loosened the requirements for obtaining sainthood, while Pope Benedict XVI tightened the requirements! Either way, all of those sainted are saints!

By: Xauri'EL Zwaan

Xauri'EL Zwaan — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:35:11 +0000

The scientific revolution has made it more difficult to detect genuinely miraculous phenomena. This has paradoxically thrown the criteria for miracles wide open as people seek desperately to insert divine meaning into everyday events and coincidences.

By: Rob Sama

Rob Sama — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:09:41 +0000

Yes, but population has exploded as well. How would you account for the fact that recent popes have much larger congregations than previous ones? How does such a graph compare when overlaid on a world population graph, or even a Catholic population graph?