Devil's Advocate

marty1985

With Cardinal Newman on the road to sainthood, I was thinking about the topic of saints within the Catholic church.
I have heard the Pope has always been a great admirer of Newman's writing, but I don't know much about Newman myself. But I was wondering if he really deserves to be a saint. Can anyone shed any light on the process of deciding him worthy of sainthood? One religious scholar on the BBC admitted the miracle which is the basis for his beatification was very weak indeed. Apparently, someone with a bad back prayed to him. Doctors and specialists involved saw nothing unusual with his recovery. So, is it really just at the whim of the Pope to beatify whoever he admires?
The previous pope seemed to make new saints left, right and centre. Does anyone have any idea how many saints there even are anymore?
I also disagreed with his attempts to fast track Mother Theresa's beatification process. Weren't they friends? Doesn't a person need to be dead for X amount of years before this process can begin? this would ensure the process is fair and impartial.
Lastly, I think in a lot of cases it can be politically motivated, for lack of a better phrase. I recall Reading before criticisms from the Chinese government that the Vatican would announce the beatification of some Chinese priests on particular national days in China. They all seemed to be done as a protest or dig at the government there.
Any thoughts?
By the way I'm just playing Devil's advocate here!

alex73

A saint is a person who is in Heaven. All Catholics are called to be saints (or to live a life of saintity). Some souls live an exemplary life and the church honours them. But we are all called to imitiate christ and to be with him in Heaven.

marty1985

I appreciate that but it doesn't really address the points I was making in my post.
The church require miracles to be attributed to someone in order to make them a saint. As an aside, I intend getting into heaven myself, by hook or by crook, but nobody will call me a saint.

georgieporgy

marty1985 wrote: »

I appreciate that but it doesn't really address the points I was making in my post.
The church require miracles to be attributed to someone in order to make them a saint. As an aside, I intend getting into heaven myself, by hook or by crook, but nobody will call me a saint.

there are a lot of Church sources you can google for detailed info on all your queries. Here is one;
What is a Saint?

VATICAN CITY, JUL 29, 1997 (VIS) - When Pope John Paul canonized Blessed John Dukla, a Bernardine Franciscan, in Poland on June 10 during a pastoral visit to his homeland, the new saint was the 278th that this Pope has proclaimed since he was elected in 1978.
In 33 canonization ceremonies the Pope has proclaimed 278 saints, including 245 martyrs and 33 confessors. The penultimate step to canonization is beatification and the Holy Father has presided at 100 such ceremonies in nearly 19 years, proclaiming 770 blesseds, of whom 579 were martyrs and 191 confessors.
All Christians aspire to become saints, that is, persons in heaven (officially canonized or not), who lived lives of great charity and heroic virtues.
In official Church procedures there are three steps to sainthood: one becomes Venerable, Blessed and then a Saint. Venerable is the title given to a deceased person recognized as having lived heroic virtues. To be recognized as a blessed, and therefore beatified, in addition to personal attributes of charity and heroic virtue, one miracle, acquired through the individual's intercession, is required. Canonization requires two, though a Pope may waive these requirements. Martyrdom does not usually require a miracle.
When beatification and canonization procedures were not yet consigned to the authority of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (instituted in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V) and to the Holy Father himself, it was the "vox populi" or "spontaneous local attribution" which led to the proclaiming of saints. This was the case, for example, of St. Anthony of Padua.
No precise count exists of those who have been proclaimed saints since the first centuries. However, in 1988, to mark its 4th centenary, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints published the first "Index ac status Causarum." This book and its subsequent supplements, written entirely in Latin, are considered the definitive index of all causes which have been presented to the congregation since its institution. It has been updated through 1993.
Excluding beatifications and canonizations celebrated by Pope John Paul, these volumes show that 3,464 causes are pending, 1,385 cults have been confirmed and 565 blesseds and 285 saints have been proclaimed.
These actual totals are probably slightly higher, because in several cases the name of the person was accompanied by the words "and companions," without specifying a number. One such example is the pending cause (begun in 1932, protocol number 333) for "Ioannes Maria Gombault Duval Tussanus et Socii."
The editor of these books, Msgr. Pietro Galavotti of the same Congregation, explained in 1993 when the third supplement was published that "saints are venerated by the universal Church and blesseds by the local Church. The martyrs are those who die in defense of their faith."

To read or search for articles from the Vatican Information Service, go to the Official Holy See Site.



As for the particular miracle used in Newman's case, it was his surgeon who said it was medically inexplicable first. And before the Church signs off on it, it has to pass stringent testing by a panel of experts (and I mean real experts) and isn't just rubber stamped.

Seaneh

marty1985 wrote: »

I appreciate that but it doesn't really address the points I was making in my post.
The church require miracles to be attributed to someone in order to make them a saint. As an aside, I intend getting into heaven myself, by hook or by crook, but nobody will call me a saint.

You can't "get yourself" into heaven.
You have to ask Jesus, it's like calling a mate and asking him to stick you on the guest list.

kelly1

marty1985 wrote: »

With Cardinal Newman on the road to sainthood, I was thinking about the topic of saints within the Catholic church.
I have heard the Pope has always been a great admirer of Newman's writing, but I don't know much about Newman myself. But I was wondering if he really deserves to be a saint. Can anyone shed any light on the process of deciding him worthy of sainthood? One religious scholar on the BBC admitted the miracle which is the basis for his beatification was very weak indeed. Apparently, someone with a bad back prayed to him. Doctors and specialists involved saw nothing unusual with his recovery. So, is it really just at the whim of the Pope to beatify whoever he admires?
The previous pope seemed to make new saints left, right and centre. Does anyone have any idea how many saints there even are anymore?
I also disagreed with his attempts to fast track Mother Theresa's beatification process. Weren't they friends? Doesn't a person need to be dead for X amount of years before this process can begin? this would ensure the process is fair and impartial.
Lastly, I think in a lot of cases it can be politically motivated, for lack of a better phrase. I recall Reading before criticisms from the Chinese government that the Vatican would announce the beatification of some Chinese priests on particular national days in China. They all seemed to be done as a protest or dig at the government there.
Any thoughts?
By the way I'm just playing Devil's advocate here!

I believe Cardinal Newman was beatified, not canonized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatification

marty1985

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe Cardinal Newman was beatified, not canonized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatification

I found your reply to be a little harsh, given the bluntness of it and the fact that I never said he was canonized. I used the term beatified a number of times. I was hoping for a discussion on this topic, without blunt replies or links to wikipedia without reading my post. The term Devil's Advocate refers to a canon lawyer that would argue against the canonization of a candidate, and was an part of the process for centuries, but the office was abolished by Pope John Paul II, who then proceeded to beatify almost 1500 people. Therefore, I think it is worth discussing.
Someone already mentioned that the decision is taken by a panel of experts, but I feel that perhaps sainthood is too easily achieved, and that the process proceeds too quickly and without due care.

kelly1

marty1985 wrote: »

I found your reply to be a little harsh, given the bluntness of it and the fact that I never said he was canonized. I used the term beatified a number of times. I was hoping for a discussion on this topic, without blunt replies or links to wikipedia without reading my post. The term Devil's Advocate refers to a canon lawyer that would argue against the canonization of a candidate, and was an part of the process for centuries, but the office was abolished by Pope John Paul II, who then proceeded to beatify almost 1500 people. Therefore, I think it is worth discussing.
Someone already mentioned that the decision is taken by a panel of experts, but I feel that perhaps sainthood is too easily achieved, and that the process proceeds too quickly and without due care.

Sorry, I just got the impression you're weren't clear on the difference when you said "But I was wondering if he really deserves to be a saint. Can anyone shed any light on the process of deciding him worthy of sainthood?"

No offence intended.

lmaopml

marty1985 wrote: »

With Cardinal Newman on the road to sainthood, I was thinking about the topic of saints within the Catholic church.
I have heard the Pope has always been a great admirer of Newman's writing, but I don't know much about Newman myself. But I was wondering if he really deserves to be a saint.

Hi marty1985,

I think the best way to familiarise yourself with Newmans work itself and to appreciate the great depth, understanding and sense of the man is to read his works....Honest, they are really worth the read..., but you need to have time to digest them and take them in order..

They are free online; Here's a link : http://www.newmanreader.org/works/index.html

Yes, I believe the Pope admired Blessed John Henry Newman, along with very many others who have admired him; ever since he became familiar with his work, and through it; his actual life and faith journey...I think Newman's writings ( even if one isn't Catholic ) contain great insight into very many things that are troublesome, especially in these times....and like he says; 'Heart speaks to Heart'.....He's right, his heart is evident all over his work....

He certainly imo deserves to be 'Blessed'.