Sainthood

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/19/montreal-saint-andre.html

Sainthood is a strange concept. It boils down to two things 1) You performed actions in your life that were favourable towards the Church and religion 2) You performed miracles in life and death. I suppose they realized that if the first option was the only criteria for becoming a Saint then any devout follower of the Church could be considered a Saint and we all know that in the world of the Catholic Church we can’t allow everyone to be considered equal now can we.

“He was beatified in 1982 after a case of healing in 1956 was recognized officially by the Vatican as a miracle. Over the years, millions of people have signed petitions asking for his sainthood.

Last December, Pope Benedict XVI attributed to him a second miracle healing described as scientifically inexplicable, a requirement of sainthood. Details of the miracle have not been disclosed to the public.”

Miracles have never been proven by scientific examination, likely because they aren’t given the opportunity to be examined scientifically. If any event occurs, no matter how unlikely it seems, it should be studied instead of simply being described as scientifically inexplicable. Translated: I can’t conceive of this happening without the power of god therefore, it must be a miracle. The appropriate method would have been to subject the healing case to a scientific analysis. If there was even a fraction of a percent of a chance that the healing was due to natural causes, then god and a miracle must be ruled out. Miracles exist within the realms of the supernatural meaning a natural cause of healing cannot be considered miraculous. I’m also amused with the fact that details of the second miracle have not been disclosed to the public. Is it too much to ask for the public to be allowed to determine for themselves whether or not they believe a miracle occurred? Maybe the Church is just uncomfortable with giving people a chance to think for themselves.