# Were any Saints not so saintly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 12, 2006, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189 "2006-10-12T14:12:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/41 "2006-10-13T13:14:46Z")
[QUOTE=glee] Don’t you need to have performed miracles to be a Saint? If so, I’m confident that no scientific investigation has ever taken place, which leaves us with a circular argument: - X is a Saint because they performed miracles - we know X performed miracles because they are a Saint. [/QUOTE] Touchy question, and I’ll try to respond without getting too deep in GD territory. There are levels of credulity. Compare the difference in: [ul][li]Devout Catholic goes to the grocery, buys taco shells, notices that one has a discoloration resembling the bust of a woman wearing a mantilla. DC decides it’s a message from the Blessed Virgin warning of worldly sinfulness.[/li][li]Three children claim to have seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary at a given time and place, and that she had said she would reappear in a month. Crowd gathers, and is debriefed separately. 3,000 people claim to have seen an apparition of the Virgin, accompanied by “dancing” sundogs alongside the Sun.[/ul][/li]Both strain credulity as miracle-apparition. But the first is substantially less solidly documented than the second. Sure, the taco’s there, but there are **many** other potential explanations than a divinely inspired imprint of the BVM. Second could be mass hallucination, the eyewitness-confirms-the-popular-explanation phenomenon, etc. – but objectively the evidence **is** relatively stronger. The typical canonization procedure calls for nomination by people who knew the _sanctabile_, reviewed and forwarded to the appropriate Vatican congregation by the local bishop, and then reviewed critically by that congregation. Their definition of what constitutes a valid miracle would not suit any Doper skeptic, but is significantly more stringent than the _Taco de la Virgen_ sort of phenomenon. There are a number of clauses in the critical-review procedures specifically targeting the credulous popular-piety “miracle.” As an example, any claim of miraculous cure of an “incurable” disease at Lourdes **must** involve total remission for a greater time span than medical literature indicates as standard for a “natural” remission. Orthodox and Anglican procedures begin in the same way but: (a) the local bishop is the final authority for the Orthodox, and takes his critical review job seriously; (b) Anglicans don’t canonize in the strict sense at all – in fact, in England they don’t do it whatsoever – they merely add to the national church’s calendar a commemoration of a saintly leader, e.g., Phillips Brooks, Bishop of Massachusetts, great preacher and author of “O Little Town of Bethlehem.” But the bottom line is that there are procedures in place to eliminate the most National Enquirer of claims. They may not be as stringent as the more skeptical might like, but they do exist, and they do eliminate a large number of supposed “miracles.” ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/42 "2006-10-13T13:42:34Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] Touchy question, and I’ll try to respond without getting too deep in GD territory. There are levels of credulity. Compare the difference in: [ul][li]Devout Catholic goes to the grocery, buys taco shells, notices that one has a discoloration resembling the bust of a woman wearing a mantilla. DC decides it’s a message from the Blessed Virgin warning of worldly sinfulness.[/li][li]Three children claim to have seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary at a given time and place, and that she had said she would reappear in a month. Crowd gathers, and is debriefed separately. 3,000 people claim to have seen an apparition of the Virgin, accompanied by “dancing” sundogs alongside the Sun.[/ul][/li]Both strain credulity as miracle-apparition. But the first is substantially less solidly documented than the second. Sure, the taco’s there, but there are **many** other potential explanations than a divinely inspired imprint of the BVM. Second could be mass hallucination, the eyewitness-confirms-the-popular-explanation phenomenon, etc. – but objectively the evidence **is** relatively stronger. The typical canonization procedure calls for nomination by people who knew the _sanctabile_, reviewed and forwarded to the appropriate Vatican congregation by the local bishop, and then reviewed critically by that congregation. Their definition of what constitutes a valid miracle would not suit any Doper skeptic, but is significantly more stringent than the _Taco de la Virgen_ sort of phenomenon. There are a number of clauses in the critical-review procedures specifically targeting the credulous popular-piety “miracle.” As an example, any claim of miraculous cure of an “incurable” disease at Lourdes **must** involve total remission for a greater time span than medical literature indicates as standard for a “natural” remission. Orthodox and Anglican procedures begin in the same way but: (a) the local bishop is the final authority for the Orthodox, and takes his critical review job seriously; (b) Anglicans don’t canonize in the strict sense at all – in fact, in England they don’t do it whatsoever – they merely add to the national church’s calendar a commemoration of a saintly leader, e.g., Phillips Brooks, Bishop of Massachusetts, great preacher and author of “O Little Town of Bethlehem.” But the bottom line is that there are procedures in place to eliminate the most National Enquirer of claims. They may not be as stringent as the more skeptical might like, but they do exist, and they do eliminate a large number of supposed “miracles.” [/QUOTE] As usual, I appreciate your calm explanations. 🙂 I’m not trying to offend anyone, but certainly on the SDMB we would state that there was insufficient evidence for any ‘miracle’ claims of the Saints. For me, the trouble with Church recognition of ‘miracles’ is that it leads to claims of Christ appearing on all sorts of food, plus statues weeping and healing at prayer meetings and Lourdes. Shouldn’t the Church have the confidence to have its amazing claims thoruoghly investigated? ---
**Author:** ![FormerMarineGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/65b543/32.png) [@FormerMarineGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FormerMarineGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/43 "2006-10-13T13:50:37Z")
[QUOTE=glee] Shouldn’t the Church have the confidence to have its amazing claims thoruoghly investigated? [/QUOTE] Very good question. Along the lines of the thread, when the Church is investigating/looking into making someone a saint, there is an investigation in general. What good deeds were done? What miracles happened after the death of this person? What about bad deeds? Do they actively search for the bad that was done? It seems that in the past they did not, going by the examples given here and by my basic knowledge of history/Crusades/fill in the blank. How about now? ---
**Author:** ![FormerMarineGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/65b543/32.png) [@FormerMarineGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FormerMarineGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/44 "2006-10-13T13:52:05Z")
Oh, and **Polycarp** , that was a very nice, fine, intellectual, well-written statement. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/45 "2006-10-13T13:59:38Z")
[QUOTE=jimmmy] Somewhat similarly, Charles I is a Saint in the Anglican Church - depending on your view of the English Civils war he could be seen as a not-so-“Saintly”-guy. At the very least, he was definitely not someone who believed that Parliament had as much a say in running England as most modern Westerners would. [/QUOTE] Nitpick: Charles I is not an Anglican saint. There is a group of Anglicans who are strong advocates for his canonization, and have been since before I was born. But nobody official has ever formally recognized him as a saint. (As far as I know – I make no claim to be the world expert on what, e.g., the Church of the Province of Rwanda has done or not done.) The arguments on this are arcane even by Anglican standards, but there is some solid evidence to suggest that in the confused hodgepodge of political and religious sentiment of English Civil War times, the final straw leading to his execution was his refusal to accede to the Presbyterian/Separatist concept of the Church. Not that his “divine right” claims didn’t have a lot to do with him getting to that point in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/46 "2006-10-13T14:03:05Z")
[QUOTE=jimmmy] St. Louis IX was also known as King Louis IX of France. He actually put down an uprising against Feudalism and led two crusades. I can’t judge him really - I am not scholar of 13th Century Europe, nor was I in his silk slippers - But his tale, even on the most pro-Louis tale I could find on-line [this](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09368a.htm) Catholic Website, he doesn’t sound very “Holy” - and I have my doubts that he would pass muster today. [/QUOTE] Yeah, but putting down uprisings and leading crusades would be good things, right? Don’t those give you credit on the whole “saintliness” scale? ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/47 "2006-10-13T15:26:30Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Yeah, but putting down uprisings and leading crusades would be good things, right? Don’t those give you credit on the whole “saintliness” scale? [/QUOTE] Yeah I agree that in 1297 that was a big boon to your candidacy (although the site notes that the inquiries as to exactly _why_ he was made a Saint don’t exist any more). I was saying that doubt if an uber-Catholic leader, say President Rick St. Ant-or-Rum, lead a crusade today, and put down a political/Economic civil revolt (even if he were on the Church’s “side” in the conflict), these would lead to his canonization today - and in fact I doubt there would be anything short of Jesus coming back and ordering it that would make him a Saint in 2006. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/48 "2006-10-13T15:48:42Z")
[QUOTE=glee] Don’t you need to have performed miracles to be a Saint? If so, I’m confident that no scientific investigation has ever taken place, which leaves us with a circular argument: - X is a Saint because they performed miracles - we know X performed miracles because they are a Saint. [/QUOTE] Father Guido Sarducci: “We got some Italian people, got fifty, sixty, seventy miracles to their name, they can’t get in because the Pope says there’s already too many Italian saints. Then along comes this Ann Seton, three lousy miracles. I understand two of 'em was card tricks…” ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/49 "2006-10-13T16:13:24Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Yeah, but putting down uprisings and leading crusades would be good things, right? [/QUOTE] Not for the oppressed people behind the uprisings and the innocent people killed or subsequently oppressed by the crusades. You need to realize that revolutions and uprisings, while usually led by rivals to the established regime, often receive the support of the working or peasant classes who believe that the revolution will free them of oppression and exploitation. A ruler who puts down such an uprising is therefore championing the continued oppression and exploitation of the majority by a rich and elite minority. Since the Church leaders were (and still are) part of this rich and elite minority, it’s no surprise that they seek to glorify rulers who acted against uprisings. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/50 "2006-10-13T16:55:16Z")
[QUOTE=jimmmy] Yeah I agree that in 1297 that was a big boon to your candidacy (although the site notes that the inquiries as to exactly why he was made a Saint don’t exist any more). I was saying that doubt if an uber-Catholic leader, say President Rick St. Ant-or-Rum, lead a crusade today, and put down a political/Economic civil revolt (even if he were on the Church’s “side” in the conflict), these would lead to his canonization today - and in fact I doubt there would be anything short of Jesus coming back and ordering it that would make him a Saint in 2006. [/QUOTE] Sure, of course, but like you said, that’s because our values, and the values of the Catholic church, changed, and smiting the heathen and oppressing the commoners aren’t considered good anymore. But that’s different than the OP’s question, which asked: > [@](#): > > 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. So, the question seems to be, not, “Did they at one time, canonize people for stuff we wouldn’t now?”, but “Did they ever canonize someone, being ignorant of the stuff that he or she did, that, had they known it, would have stopped the canonization?” ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/51 "2006-10-13T18:34:46Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] So, the question seems to be, not, “Did they at one time, canonize people for stuff we wouldn’t now?”, but “Did they ever canonize someone, being ignorant of the stuff that he or she did, that, had they known it, would have stopped the canonization?” [/QUOTE] Good distinction & I didn’t read that in. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/52 "2006-10-13T18:58:37Z")
Reggie Bush was recently accused of taking money while in college. ---
**Author:** ![FormerMarineGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/65b543/32.png) [@FormerMarineGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FormerMarineGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/53 "2006-10-13T20:10:02Z")
[QUOTE=Bearflag70] Reggie Bush was recently accused of taking money while in college. [/QUOTE] Saint Reggie Bush? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189/54 "2006-10-13T21:44:32Z")
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy] Very good question. Along the lines of the thread, when the Church is investigating/looking into making someone a saint, there is an investigation in general. What good deeds were done? What miracles happened after the death of this person? What about bad deeds? Do they actively search for the bad that was done? It seems that in the past they did not, going by the examples given here and by my basic knowledge of history/Crusades/fill in the blank. How about now? [/QUOTE] Anyone who wishes to bring up some negative evidence about the person can just submit it before the investigating panels. I dunno if **Bricker** or **tom~** may be more up to date on this, IIRC there used to be an overtly adversarial component to some phases of the process – what was popularly referred to as the “Devil’s Advocate”, which was not really about fishing for things to impugn the character of the person (after all, doesn’t God absolve all sins if you truly repent and believe? 😉 ) but to challenge the “evidence” presented and/or the credibility of those advocating in favor; it had for some time become a procedural formality, so John Paul 2 officially did away with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-any-saints-not-so-saintly/376189.md?page=2)