I was reading this article about Blessed Mother Theodore Guerin which discusses a French nun becoming the first person from the US to achieve sainthood in the Catholic Church since 2000. I know there is now certain criteria to achieve sainthood and this thread is not about what it takes to become a saint.
Are there any saints out there that in retrospect were not so saintly? Let’s say they were thought to be the most peaceful person out there and were sainted by the church, but documents were later recovered showing a dark, evil, torturous side.
Most of the saints listed in my Penguin Dictionary of Saints seem to be sketchy, or posdsibly legendary, or genuinely good and admirable people. There’s a process one goes through in modetn sainthood that generally filters out inappropriate people (although I know there’s going to be controversy about Mother Teresa, as Eve has already said).
I don’t know anything more about the man, but the definition of “Saint” in Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary has always piqued my curiousity, although not enough to investigate it further:
Joseph seems to have been bestowed the honour of sainthood for the sole reason of being Jesus’s foster father. Almost nothing more is known about him. For all we know he could have been a wife-beating, kitten-torturing, virgin-raping serial killer.
One saint that some people are uncomfortable with is the young girl known as Saint Wilgefortis, whose claim to fame is growing a beard and dressing as a man in order to escape a gang of rapists. Fancy that, a transgendered/transvestite saint!
There have been a number of saints who led very sinful lives befire turning things around, so to speak. Augstine, to pick a famous example, was a womanizer who had concubines and fathered a child out of wedlock with at least one of them. He’s famous for his “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet!” utterance.
The prevailing theory about Wilgefortis, and other saints with the same legend, like St. Oncomber, is that they derive from a misinterpretation of Church art. The usual depiction of Christ Crucified shows him with a loincloth, but some art depicted him in a lonmg robe. Apparently, some folks interpreted the gowned figure being cricified as a bearded lady being crucified, and an elaborate legend arose to explain how she was a maiden who was against her will engaged to a non-Christian. She prayed for deliverance, and miraculously grew a beard. She was unsuitable as a mate, so they crucified her.
It’s a weird, unlikely legend, but I think its real roots lie not in willful misinterpretation of art, or misidentified tyransvestites, or whatever. The real clue is that she’s the patron saint of women who want out of their forced marriages. The name “oncomber” derives from “unencumber”, and other saints with similar legendfs have similarly suspicious names that suggest they are associated with separating one from an unwanted marriage.
This is in the Penguin Dictionary of Saints I cite above. Wilgefortis seems opretty clearly in the realm of legendary saints. Mosdt of the old saints are merely names, and a lot of saint legends are demonstrably late additions. We simply don’t know a lot about most early saints.
WTF! There are a few things written in the Bible about Joseph, perhaps you should check it out before you start making inflamitory statements Psychonut. Joseph was choosen by God to be his son’s Fostor parent because he was not only righteous man but was a direct decendant of David, thus making Jesus a decendant of David.
From Matthew:
18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.”
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, “God with us.”
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
I see no mention of anything that would even remotely suggest that he was a wife-beating, kitten-torturing, virgin-raping serial killer. :mad:
IIRC, when he did eventually repent, he just up and kicked his wife and child out so he could be celibate. That’s pretty shitty. He was also something of a misogynist.
Si Amigo, could you point to exactly where Psychonaut said Joseph was a “wife-beating, kitten-torturing, virgin-raping serial killer”. As far as I can see, he only said “We know nothing about him.”
(And you quoting the Bible to prove something…in the bible…isn’t much proof, to me. But that’s beside the point. I just think you kind of jumped the gun there.)
The Church has been trying to downplay some of the earlier saints who might be more legend than fact. St. Christopher is one such saint. He hasn’t been un-canonized or anything, but you don’t hear much talk about him these days.
I’ve also heard the claim that St. Bridget was actually a pagan goddess who was converted (so to speak) into a saint when the Irish became Christian. I don’t know how widely accepted that theory is, mind you; it might just be some scholar’s WAG for all I know.
It was a vieled insult and a cheap shot. Even if you don’t beleive in the Bible and only see it as a nice story you have to beleive that God is a good judge of character. Thier are lots of saints he could have used as an example other than one of the most highly regarded (by God) people in the Bible.
No, it wasn’t a veiled shot, it was an example. And all your biblical quote says about Joseph is that, before the angel spoke to him, he was willing to quietly drop the idea of marriage to a woman pregnant with someone elses child, rather then make a big public fuss about it. That set of verses says NOTHING about Joseph’s character other then that.
I don’t believe in god. So how could I think any god is a good judge of character when one doesn’t exist?
And I don’t see it as a veiled insult in anyway. To me it definitely came off as:
There is Joseph, who is a Saint
But we don’t know anything about him
So he could have been a bad person for all we know.
His comment was not “Joseph is evil” but that “Joseph is revered but we know nothing about him”. So methinks you are reaching for offense where there was none.
Then, as to your second argument, you come along and give me quotes from the Bible. But lots and lots of things in the Bible are flat-out wrong so I don’t think the Bible is a valid source of proof of anything. Plus you can’t use the Bible to prove something within the Bible. It’s a circular argument.
And lastly, I donn’t see the Bible as a nice story to begin with and there is nothing in there that should tell you it is a “nice story”. Have you read the Old Testament? It’s about as far from nice as you can possibly get.
