The New York Times recently had an op-ed about the Vatican and its new concern about how it appoints saints “Trials of the Saints.”1 Saints, per the Roman Catholic Church, have magical powers to heal, etc. Most times, this healing happens after they are dead.
One would think that determining the actuator of a “miraculous” event, when very dead and at best now only “spirit” and therefore invisible, might be rather difficult. However, the RCC insists that it has very rigorous procedures to determine whether saint-caused miracles are “real.” In the article, Mr. Martin says that the Vatican uses “teams of doctors (not all of them Catholic) who assiduously rule out any other cause for a healing.” The Congregation for the Causes of Saints does not have the document mentioned in the article up at the time of this writing2 However, an earlier document, New Laws for the Causes of Saints, states, “34. a) In the case of a cure from some disease, the Bishop or his delegate is to seek help from a physician, who is to propose questions to the witnesses in order to clarify matters according to necessity and circumstances. b) If the person healed is still alive, he is to be examined by experts so that the duration of the healing can be ascertained.3 It does not mention that any of the doctors need to be not Catholic, and I suspect, without corroborating evidence, that those non-Catholic physicians are few and far between. After this review by experts, the following occurs: “14) The Congregation examines cases of alleged miracles in the following way: 1. The Relator assigned to this task is to prepare a Position on alleged miracles. They are discussed in a meeting of experts (in the case of healings, in a meeting of physicians), whose votes and conclusions are set forth in an accurate report. 2. Then the miracles are to be discussed in the special meeting of the theologians and, finally, in that of the Cardinals and Bishops.”4 There is nothing that requires the Cardinals and Bishops to accept the findings of the physicians. I have yet to find any definitive information on what standards the bishops and cardinals use. I have also not found out how they determine a particular miracle can really be assigned to a particular candidate. It seems to be only determined by who the miracle-claimant said that they most recently prayed to for healing. Truly, I suppose that’s the only possible way to figure it out, without the use of a PKE meter.
We can see that there is a built in prejudice for the acceptance of saints. We see that Pope Benedict has stated that “The evidence for the causes is collected and studied with supreme care and with a diligent search for the historic truth through testimonies and documentary proof “omnino plenae,” for they have no other aim than the glory of God and the spiritual good of the Church and of all who are in search of the Gospel truth and perfection.”5 People with “no other aim” are indeed prejudiced in favor of the RCC. If they were perhaps claimed to have “no other aim” than the truth, perhaps one could more confidently accept what they aver.
I can agree with Mr. Martin in that the RCC must be very careful in how it presents its saints and should endeavor to be very meticulous in its examinations. However, since most “miracles” come from countries with poor health care and record keeping, how can a doctor, or any person really be assured that a miracle occurred? How many recipients of “miracles” have medical records that support their claims of imminent death? Why are there no “miracles” that have the regrowth of an amputated limb, surely not beyond the capabilities of saints who can supposedly cure horrific cancers? Why is the most stringent requirement of the beatification/canonization process the determination of witnesses to be “trustworthy” by members of the Church? If one could actually find any evidence that miracles were “serious scientific business” as Mr. Martin claims, if we could see the reports, etc., I’m sure it would be “more difficult for agnostics and atheists to disbelieve.” However, that has not happened for the last 2000+ years and I doubt it ever will.
Come again? What “evidence”?
As humans, we’ve generally been taught that lying isn’t good. Now, sometimes it is used to spare feelings, or soften a blow, but in generally, to lie is to willfully ignore the truth for some reason, generally to the liar’s advantage. I personally don’t like lying because it tries to refuse reality which is pointless. Tim Mazur has a similar idea, though based on the Kantian idea that humans have intrinsic worth, something that I don’t particularly agree with wholeheartedly. “Lies are morally wrong, then, for two reasons. First, lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that gives me moral worth. Second, my lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally. When my lie leads people to decide other than they would had they known the truth, I have harmed their human dignity and autonomy.”
