In the
Tablet of 9 January, Clifford Longley wrote a piece in which he questioned the idea of "canonisation miracles." He wrote:
The idea that God would demonstrate that a saint is truly in heaven by instantly healing someone’s fatal illness because he has been asked to by the said saint – who is in turn responding to the prayers of the victim or those near to him – seems to me so simplistic, so credulous, so presumptuous, so mechanical and so manipulative, that it brings no credit to the Catholic religion and indeed confirms the worst prejudices of its enemies. Is that really the kind of God we believe in? Don’t millions of people offer prayers every day for the recovery of a loved one – some of which are answered, some not? Doesn’t the very idea of canonisation miracles – in effect miraculous prayers as part of a PR exercise – mock them cruelly?
The blog for the cause for the canonisation of John Henry Cardinal Newman has responded with an article
Who needs a miracle? Not surprisingly, the article draws on the writings of Newman himself.
In the Tablet of 9 January, Clifford Longley wrote a piece in which he questioned the idea of "canonisation miracles." He wrote:
11 comments:
Clifford Longley has little of the Catholic faith about him im his writings. His contributions to Thought for the Day make me wince with embarrassment.
I wish such writers did not present themselves as spokesmen for the Church.
PR has got a bad name today, with spin, buying soap powder etc. So to deride a process as PR is just to sneer at it probably because one hasn't got a better argument.
In the Acts we read that St Peter cured the lame man 'Silver and gold I have none...' This example helped people to convert to Christianity and be baptised. Was this therefore a 'PR exercise'?
I have always thought that process of Canonisation is the process by which God shows us that the candidate is definitely in heaven - as opposed to those whom we hope are in heaven, and whose feast day is All Saints.
Poor chap.
I think he's telling us more about himself than about the Catholic faith.
Miracles?
Of course.
Why not?
If God is so good and loving, why would He not extend His power to the intercession of those are "His Own" in heaven?
He needs prayers.
Dear "Shepherd". You are very courageous to listen to "Thought for the Day" !!!
The Church clearly takes great care to establish that an alleged miracle cannot be accounted for in other ways, but even if that is so it is a big jump to asserting that the miracle is caused by the direct intervention of God. We may believe it in faith, but cannot prove it. Medical science is imperfect and the workings of the human body often mysterious, so if we cannot identify a medical explanation for a healing that does not entail that there is no such explanation. The Newman website does not seem to address this point. Our Lord, when healing someone, often says, 'Do not talk about it.' Is the Catholic Church wise to ignore that instruction?
Again to use Newman's own insight, it is not a case of "proving" God's intervention in a positivistic way, but of examining the phenomenon for which there is no medical explanation, and considering the circumstances surrounding it to make a judgement that brings a moral certainty. Newman called this the "illative sense".
On some occasions, Our Lord asked the person not to speak. On other occasions, the miracle was clearly public to give witness to the glory of God. Cf. John 9.2
I wonder what Clifford Longley is afraid of. In our age of unbelief, large numbers of believers in miracles are not in evidence, so what is it that bugs him? That they might be true, after all?
There are all sorts of unexplained healings which can occur at any time and the medical world understand this. I have an incurable medical condition for example. One Jewish specialist admitted to me that sometimes these incurable conditions can 'come and go'. The majority will tell you this could never happen. There is no mention of miracle from either party.
The issue is one of interpretation in the event of an unexplained healing.
He's afraid of signs of favor from the Lord.
Well, one group was mocked by that: "The wicked will see it and be vexed, He will gnash his teeth and melt away; The desire of the wicked will perish."
Wouldn't Mr Longley be happier as an Anglican - where he wouldn't have to believe in anything other than himself, let alone anything supernatural?
This popped up on the screen under today's article. I know it is a while back now since you wrote it but, I wanted to make the following point.
Is it not now time to stop the selling of the Tablet in Catholic churches?
Enough is enough and this should not be allowed to continue.
Post a Comment