Another fake Catholic miracle.

[FebruaryOfReason]

Excuse my ignorance here, but why would the Church need to "approve" a miracle?

Did they approve any of Jesus's "miracles"? If not, doesn't that mean that Jesus might not have actually done any of them?
Because if that's the case, that kind of undermines the Church's ability to "approve" anything, doesn't it, given that their authority is based on him being Truly the Sern Urv Gaaad, and all that?

Or is it down to that old Papal infallibility? You know, the Papal infallibility that is conferred on him by election - like George W Bush* - from a bunch of Cardinals who's own judgement is not infallible, and hence who might have voted for the wrong guy?

What if they made a fallible guy Pope? Would he automatically become infallible on his election to the Papacy? Or was he always infallible, even when he was spouting a bunch of rubbish about flowers and sandcastles when he was 6 years old?

Is Benedict XVI still infallible, or has he gone back to fucking things up now he's not Pope anymore?

I need details, dammit!

*yes I know Bush wasn't elected. But what if the Pope disenfranchised some cardinals too, and got his dad to bribe and blackmail the Supreme Court to appoint him Pope? How do we know he didn't?

[vorlon13]

From WIKI :

During the canonization process employed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate.[2] It was this person’s job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, and so on. The Devil's advocate opposed God's advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task was to make the argument in favor of canonization. During the investigation of a cause, this task is now performed by the Promoter of Justice (promotor iustitiae), who is in charge of examining the accuracy of the inquiry on the saintliness of the candidate.[3] The Promoter of the Faith remains a figure in the Congregation of the Causes of Saints and is also known as the Prelate Theologian.[4]

The office was established in 1587 during the reign of Pope Sixtus V. The first formal mention of such an officer is found in the canonization of St. Lawrence Justinian under Pope Leo X (1513–21).[5] Pope John Paul II reduced the power and changed the role of the office in 1983.[6] This reform changed the canonization process considerably, helping John Paul II to usher in an unprecedented number of elevations: nearly 500 individuals were canonized and over 1,300 were beatified during his tenure as Pope as compared to only 98 canonizations by all his 20th-century predecessors. In cases of controversy the Vatican may still seek to informally solicit the testimony of critics of a candidate for canonization. Aroup Chatterjee, the author of the book Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict, testified against the late nun as a so-called devil's advocate.


My take:
Looks like John Paul II greased the wheels to get more holy action going. Seems rather self serving to me, being able to pass out more boodle is a tried and true management technique. Seems a little too much 'carrot' to me instead of 'stick' however, and we all now Abrahamic deities are much more stick oriented.

[Brakeman]

From WIKI :

During the canonization process employed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against ..

Surely seems like an inferior "human only" solution occurred to the church leaders while they claim daily relationship type conversations in prayer, leadings, and ghost visits from god/jesus/hg.

Don't the theists find it curious that such a structure was unnecessary in the bible story and that god spoke directly, sometimes in early 16th century English, to those in the faith that needed information from god?

[Brakeman]

It doesn't matter to me if they stir the bullshit pot clockwise or counterclockwise, it's still bullshit. Nothing in our real word gives information about any imaginary world. There is no evidence of magic gods and no evidence of any breaking of the laws of physics by any middle eastern goat herders or their story followers.

Well, I only told you that because you asked me. If you don't care to know, then I don't see why you asked me. 

You are right, I suppose that I meant that in a rhetorical question because I already roughly knew how they confirmed it. They confirm it in a purely human manner, with just unspecific prayer requirements. My issue is that they decide without their god declaring it because of the risk of being shown wrong. The catholic church billows volumes of bs that they refuse to commit their god to saying. They, like other churches, claim vivid miraculous convo's with god, yet equally miraculously, in these convo's god fails to tell the church shit. (because we might see the little men behind the curtain)

Non-rhetorically, What has the current pope claim god has told him in summary? How would one find that in a google search of the church docs. I'd like to see if any of them are worded like the daily astrology fortunes with vague descriptions with rewording of previous god proverbs or are the claims clear and containing new information?

[mediocrates]

And exactly how would "The church" know if it was a miracle?

You can google the process they go through to approve a miracle, if you'd like.

The idea of an "approved Catholic Miracle" is really bizarre to me! lol! 

What exactly are the miraculous criterion for approval? 
 

[Catholic_Lady]

Non-rhetorically, What has the current pope claim god has told him in summary? How would one find that in a google search of the church docs. I'd like to see if any of them are worded like the daily astrology fortunes with vague descriptions with rewording of previous god proverbs or are the claims clear and containing new information?

Hmm I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[Catholic_Lady]

You can google the process they go through to approve a miracle, if you'd like.

The idea of an "approved Catholic Miracle" is really bizarre to me! lol! 

What exactly are the miraculous criterion for approval? 
 

They actually just need to determine if it actually was a miracle and not something that can be explained by natural causes. Like for example if a person who has cancer all of the sudden wakes up the next day with the cancer completely gone, they would need to determine if this was possible, medically. If the person's cancer had a 30% chance of being cured, for example, then they can't prove that it's a miracle. It would need to have a 0% chance of being cured. And they do this by investigating and interviewing the person's doctors, care givers, looking at ex rays, etc. It's usually a process that can take more than 10 years.

[robvalue]

Hmm. In other words, the argument from ignorance.

[GrandizerII]

The idea of an "approved Catholic Miracle" is really bizarre to me! lol! 

What exactly are the miraculous criterion for approval? 
 

They actually just need to determine if it actually was a miracle and not something that can be explained by natural causes. Like for example if a person who has cancer all of the sudden wakes up the next day with the cancer completely gone, they would need to determine if this was possible, medically. If the person's cancer had a 30% chance of being cured, for example, then they can't prove that it's a miracle. It would need to have a 0% chance of being cured. And they do this by investigating and interviewing the person's doctors, care givers, looking at ex rays, etc. It's usually a process that can take more than 10 years.

Which is all general talk, so how about a specific example where it has been clearly and reasonably shown it's a miracle through such process? I have yet to encounter one.

[mediocrates]

The idea of an "approved Catholic Miracle" is really bizarre to me! lol! 

What exactly are the miraculous criterion for approval? 
 

They actually just need to determine if it actually was a miracle and not something that can be explained by natural causes. Like for example if a person who has cancer all of the sudden wakes up the next day with the cancer completely gone, they would need to determine if this was possible, medically. If the person's cancer had a 30% chance of being cured, for example, then they can't prove that it's a miracle. It would need to have a 0% chance of being cured. And they do this by investigating and interviewing the person's doctors, care givers, looking at ex rays, etc. It's usually a process that can take more than 10 years.

Have there been (m)any approved miracles?  Is there a list of them somewhere?

I think I'll hit up google... I don't know why I'm suddenly fascinated by miracle approval! Maybe because the concept is alien to me; how can something that obviously cannot be proven be approved?  And for what purpose?  "This miracle has been approved for you to gaze at in awe."