[Goanet] Young Jesuit Saints
FN is right in referring to a reference of mine to the links of the early founders of the Society of Jesus to the declining feudal aristocracy. The very foundation could be viewed as their effort at finding a socio-economic solution (gainful self-employment?) to their plight. This analysis could be applied with some differences and degrees to the membership of the Society of Jesus till its suppression in the mid-18th century. But one major factor in obtaining the beatification / canonization of its members by the Society of Jesus depended on its socio-political clout. It is not a surprise that while Portugal got its first Jesuit canonized only in the mid 20th century (St. Britto martyred in India), Spain could get 3 of its saints canonized on the same day and year: Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier and Theresa of Avila! Incidentally, Portugal was under Spanish rule at the time and the canonization of Francis Xavier had a part to play in the Spanish efforts to neutralise the Portuguese resistance. There have been some research efforts at analysing these factors in the recent times. The festschrift *Metahistory* that was dedicated to me last year, contains an interesting article by Jorge Guimarães, a Portuguese scholar, analysind the politics behind the hagiographies of St. Francis Xavier at the time of his canonization. Dr. Ines Zupanov, teaching and researching at Sorbonne, also produced some interesting publications on this issue. Message: 8 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:11:06 +0530 From: " Frederick Noronha [??? ???] " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Goanet] St Stanislaus To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Actually, I was rather puzzled on reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaus_Kostka and wondered what exactly the 17-year-old did to deserve sainthood. Is the Wikipedia page inadequate in reflecting his life? Or, did he get sainthood because of his family connections and links to influential rulers of Poland? I think it was Dr Teo de Souza (or someone else I read) who made the point about the Jesuits being formed by largely by members of a class with links to feudalism, that was under pressure at that particular point in history. I've studied in a Jesuit school myself (Britto's) and do appreciate some aspects of this religious order, their commitment to academics, discipline etc. But this doesn't necessarily imply one should have a closed mind towards debate. FN
[Goanet] Young Jesuit Saints
--- On Thu, 8/7/08, Fr. Ivo C da Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ***Let me correct the statement: Miracles are assessed by scientific procedures as being "extraordinary events", beyond the reach of of physical laws. Dr.Santosh Helekar replied: "The above statement is wrong. No scientific procedure is followed by anybody to assess any miracle. No genuine scientific field or study has ever certified any event as extraordinary, and proclaimed such a certification to be a valid scientific procedure". ***This statement is a classical example of 'scientific absolutism'. Not being a scientist myself by profession, but knowing what scientific procedure is, I lean on the authoritative statements of the scientific authorities and state again that there are 'unexplained', 'extraordinary' events, not to be explained by Science. We ascribe them to God's power. Being an agnostic, Dr.Santosh can only say that he does not know whether there is God or whether there are miracles. He cannot deny them. This would be un-scientific behaviour. Being limited to his specialization in Neuroscience, Dr.Santosh cannot speak for all the physicians of the world. I quote from Lourdes Medical Bureau. I have the full dossier of the miracles, published by the International Medical Committee of Lourdes. "Cures and Miracles In 1859, Professor Vergez of the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier was appointed to examine the cures. Seven cures were recorded before 1862 promoting the argument for the recognition of the Apparitions by Bishop Laurence. In 1905, Pope Pius X requested 'to submit to a proper process' the most spectacular of the cures of Lourdes. The Medical Bureau was set up to carry this out. "Medical Bureau" has two different meanings. It is, first of all, a place in the Sanctuary with two offices where a doctor practices. This doctor receives the declarations and begins an examination of the facts according to the traditional criteria as it was defined in the 18th century by Cardinal Lambertini the future Pope Benedict XIV for the process of beatification If the case appears serious, the doctor arranges a Medical Bureau which is a consultation where all the medical doctors, regardless of their religious persuasion, present in the Sanctuary on the day may attend. If the doctor of Lourdes and the gathered medical bureau find in favour the file is sent to the International Medical Committee of Lourdes (C.M.I.L.). This is made up of some 20 members, respected in their own particular area. This committee has been in existence since 1947. In 1954, Bishop Théas wanted it to have a true international dimension. This Committee is chaired jointly by the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes and one of its members nominated by the Bishop for a set period of time which can be renewed. The doctor of Lourdes is the secretary to this committee. This committee makes a judgement about a case. One or more of its members are them charged with examining it in detail and informing himself on all the medical literature published on related subjects... The person charged with the case may consult with colleagues on the outside. Normally the person concerned is not summoned to be present. The Committee meets once a year, in the autumn. They examine the current files. When everything is in place (this can take some time) the Committee decides by way of a vote whether to declare or refuse to confirm that this cure is inexplicable according to present scientific knowledge. A two-third majority is required for an affirmative vote. The medical result is sent to the bishop of the diocese where the cured person lives. The bishop would, naturally, have been kept up to date with the proceedings. If it appears that the result is going to be positive the bishop is advised, in advance, to set up locally a small medical committee who can, at the given moment, consider the conclusions of the Committee. In the light of current events, the Bishop can decide or abstain from recognising the "miraculous" character of this cure. As Christians, the physicians know that a miracle is a spiritual sign. They don't want to be judges on this matter. Moreover, for a modern mentality, it is difficult to say that something is "inexplicable". They can only say that it is "unexplained". +Jacques Perrier Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes 17 March 2003
Re: [Goanet] Young Jesuit Saints
What would explain the Polish saint, in this case? Intrigued. FN 2008/7/31 Teotonio R. de Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > But one major factor in obtaining the beatification / canonization of its > members by the Society of Jesus depended on its socio-political clout. It is > not a surprise that while Portugal got its first Jesuit canonized only in > the mid 20th century (St. Britto martyred in India), Spain could get 3 of > its saints canonized on the same day and year: Ignatius of Loyola, Francis -- FN * Independent Journalist http://fn.goa-india.org 784 Nr Convent, Saligao 403511 Goa India Ph +91-832-2409490 M: +91-9970157402 16,000+ photos from Goa: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fn-goa/
Re: [Goanet] Young Jesuit Saints
Analyzing hagiographies (biographies and literal writings of holy people) is great and exquisitely intriguing in working out or interpret the thinking / machinations at work during that period in time. Rather than crediting the socio-political clout of the Jesuits or the Spanish vis-a-vis Portuguese, which allegedly led to sainthood for more Spanish compared to Portuguese, the more relevant question is: How many Portuguese formed religious orders like the Spanish Loyola and Xavier, (founders of the Jesuits); Teresa of Avila and John the Cross (founders of the Discalced Carmelites), Dominic (founder of the Dominicans) etc.? If there was a marked difference between the number of Spanish to Portuguese-based religious orders, the next question is why? (Not many Goans may know, but there is a vibrant branch of the Discalced Carmelites (men and women) in Goa and India. Any religion honoring individuals as 'saints' is no different from other scientific fields which honors those who made a major contribution to the particular field; or fundamentally inspired others; or shifted the line of thinking leading to a paradigm shift in perspective. Some of the perspectives may not stand the test of time. Yet, regard is given to those who dedicated their life for a cause. The fact that their work may not stand the test of time is not a discredit. It is amazing how a few decades later, the same thinking may come full circle, with the work (and the individual's fame) resurrected once again. As in many scientific fields, as we "know more and more about less and less", we loose sight of the important issues. Led to its logical conclusion, one ends up "knowing everything about nothing." In medicine, the issue is how does any information presented practically benefit CURRENT practice (patient care). Or is what is being presented 'basic scientific research', which at least theoretically may be useful at a later date? When listening to the history of medicine, we are often feted with useful anecdotes; which served as the catalysts for stumbling on the "right thing". Anything else is considered "gossip" on some of the fore-runners of the field, who are not around to defend themselves. Regards, GL -- Teotonio R. de Souza wrote: But one major factor in obtaining the beatification / canonization of its members by the Society of Jesus depended on its socio-political clout. It is not a surprise that while Portugal got its first Jesuit canonized only in the mid 20th century (St. Britto martyred in India), Spain could get 3 of its saints canonized on the same day and year: Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier and Theresa of Avila!
Re: [Goanet] Young Jesuit Saints
Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any religion honoring individuals as 'saints' is no different from other > >scientific fields which honors those who made a major contribution to the > >particular field; or fundamentally inspired others; or shifted the line of > thinking leading to a paradigm shift in perspective. > The above equation of religion and science is absolutely wrongheaded. In no way is religion a scientific field nor is it in any way like a scientific field. Science does not revere any scientist as a saint, no matter how eminent. It simply recognizes his or her scientific contribution, and fully expects others to modify or improve upon it. For example, unlike a religious committee that recognizes a saint, a Nobel prize committee does not have to certify that a new science prize winner has performed two miracles. The contributions of scientists are supported by objective evidence. They do not rely on supernatural entities and mechanisms, and they can always be confirmed or falsified by others. If falsified, the natural explanations that were inferred from them have to be modified or replaced by better supported ones. This is not true of supernatural explanations and miracles, which are accepted entirely based on faith. As for the rest of the assertions made in the above quoted post, none of them make any sense in the context of either the issue of recognition of religious saints in general, or of young Jesuit saints in particular. The need to bring up personal idiosyncratic misconceptions about science and medicine in this unrelated thread is thoroughly inexplicable. Cheers, Santosh Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Some of the perspectives may not stand the test of time. Yet, regard is > given to those > who dedicated their life for a cause. The fact that their > work may not > stand the test of time is not a discredit. It is amazing > how a few decades > later, the same thinking may come full circle, with the > work (and the > individual's fame) resurrected once again. > As in many scientific fields, as we "know more and > more about less and > less", we loose sight of the important issues. Led to > its logical > conclusion, one ends up "knowing everything about > nothing." > > In medicine, the issue is how does any information > presented practically > benefit CURRENT practice (patient care). Or is what is > being presented > 'basic scientific research', which at least > theoretically may be useful at a > later date? When listening to the history of medicine, we > are often feted > with useful anecdotes; which served as the catalysts for > stumbling on the > "right thing". Anything else is considered > "gossip" on some of the > fore-runners of the field, who are not around to defend > themselves. >
Re: [Goanet] Young Jesuit Saints
Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Any religion honoring individuals as 'saints' is no different from other >scientific fields which honors those who made a major contribution to the >particular field; or fundamentally inspired others; or shifted the line of thinking leading to a paradigm shift in perspective. Dr.Santosh Helekar commented: The above equation of religion and science is absolutely wrongheaded. In no way is religion a scientific field nor is it in any way like a scientific field. *** As usual, Dr.Santosh is sounding his trumpet of slogans of conflict between Science and Religion. The parallelism between the Saints who have devoted their lives to the betterment of humankind and the Scientists who have devoted their skills to the uplift of the quality of life is valid. The Church calls "Saints" those who have lived a quality of life and worked for the betterment of the society. Science will praise those who have discovered new scientific-technological discoveries and have raised the standard of life. Science does not revere any scientist as a saint, no matter how eminent. ***Certainly not, that is the task of the Church. It simply recognizes his or her scientific contribution, and fully expects others to modify or improve upon it. ***Logically so, because Science deals with scientific skills. For example, unlike a religious committee that recognizes a saint, a Nobel prize committee does not have to certify that a new science prize winner has performed two miracles. ***Quite right, because Nobel Prize Committee does not canonize Saints. The contributions of scientists are supported by objective evidence. ***That is why it is called scientific field. They do not rely on supernatural entities and mechanisms, and they can always be confirmed or falsified by others. If falsified, the natural explanations that were inferred from them have to be modified or replaced by better supported ones. ***That is the definition of the scientific methodology applied to natural phenomena. Science grows step by step through the scientific hypotheses and theoretical models. Supernatural beings go beyond the scientific realm. This is not true of supernatural explanations and miracles, which are accepted entirely based on faith. ***Let me correct the statement: Miracles are assessed by scientific procedures as being "extraordinary events", beyond the reach of of physical laws. They will be called "miracles" by theological authorities who ascribe these events to God through the intercession of the Saints. They are accepted with prudence. All human means should be used in the case. Miracles do not discredit Science. They are signs of God's existence. There is no conflict between the scientific discoveries and Faith. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Young Jesuit Saints
--- On Thu, 8/7/08, Fr. Ivo C da Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ***Let me correct the statement: Miracles are assessed by > scientific procedures as being "extraordinary events", > beyond the reach of of physical laws. > The above statement is wrong. No scientific procedure is followed by anybody to assess any miracle. No genuine scientific field or study has ever certified any event as extraordinary, and proclaimed such a certification to be a valid scientific procedure. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Young Jesuit Saints
As you can see, the procedure described below is clearly not a scientific procedure of any kind. A committee meeting chaired by a Bishop deciding by a 2/3 majority vote whether something is unexplained or inexplicable based on current knowledge, is possibly the farthest one can get from a scientific procedure. What's more, the fact that the committee members are presumed to be pious Christians, as stated below, with a strong ideological conflict of interest, and a vested desire to continue their hallowed traditions, makes this exercise not even a nominally objective one. The deck is undoubtedly loaded and stacked in favor of affirming their preconceived beliefs. The claim that this is a scientific procedure is therefore laughable by any standard. Cheers, Santosh --- On Fri, 8/8/08, Fr. Ivo C da Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This Committee is chaired jointly by > the Bishop of Tarbes > > and Lourdes and one of its members nominated by the > Bishop for a set > > period > > of time which can be renewed. The doctor of Lourdes is > the secretary to > > this > > committee. > > > > This committee makes a judgement > about a case. One or > > more > > of its members are them charged with examining it in > detail and informing > > himself on all the medical literature published on > related subjects... The > > person charged with the case may consult with > colleagues on the outside. > > Normally the person concerned is not summoned to be > present. > > > > The Committee meets once a year, in > the autumn. They > > examine the current files. When everything is in place > (this can take some > > time) the Committee decides by way of a vote whether > to declare or refuse > > to > > confirm that this cure is inexplicable according to > present scientific > > knowledge. A two-third majority is required for an > affirmative vote. > > > > The medical result is sent to the > bishop of the diocese > > where the cured person lives. The bishop would, > naturally, have been kept > > up > > to date with the proceedings. If it appears that the > result is going to be > > positive the bishop is advised, in advance, to set up > locally a small > > medical committee who can, at the given moment, > consider the conclusions > > of > > the Committee. > > > > In the light of current events, the > Bishop can decide or > > abstain from recognising the "miraculous" > character of this cure. > > > > As Christians, the physicians know > that a miracle is a > > spiritual sign. They don't want to be judges on > this matter. Moreover, for > > a > > modern mentality, it is difficult to say that > something is "inexplicable". > > They can only say that it is "unexplained". > > > > +Jacques Perrier > > Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes > > 17 March 2003
