From the Q and A thread:

Dr. S: What are the Roman Catholic decision criteria for determining whether a candidate for sainthood has fulfilled the requirement of performing a posthumous miracle?

reader: The recipient of the miracle has to have documented proof of the illness or injury. They also need documented proof that the illness or injury no longer exists, and that medical intervention can't account for this. An example of this would be medically documented proof that someone had cancer but then no longer had the cancer without having first had the surgery. The person whose intercession they sought is the dead person.

In summary, Catholicism asserts that having an illness or injury heal without medical explanation, and having petitioned a deceased person P for intercession, suffice to determine that P performed a miracle healing.

This is absurd from so many aspects, I don't even know where to begin. Would anybody else care to go first?

Is there anybody who actually thinks this bit of Catholic epistemology is sound or coherent?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
From the Q and A thread:

[quote]
Dr. S: What are the Roman Catholic decision criteria for determining whether a candidate for sainthood has fulfilled the requirement of performing a posthumous miracle?

reader: The recipient of the miracle has to have documented proof of the illness or injury. They also need documented proof that the illness ...[text shortened]...
Is there anybody who actually thinks this bit of Catholic epistemology is sound or coherent?

Dr. S: In summary, Catholicism asserts that having an illness or injury heal without medical explanation, and having petitioned a deceased person P for intercession, suffice to determine that P performed the miracle healing.

The part in bold is incorrect.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Dr. S: In summary, Catholicism asserts that having an illness or injury heal without medical explanation, and having petitioned a deceased person P for intercession, [b]suffice to determine that P performed the miracle healing.

The part in bold is incorrect.[/b]

Please clarify. Is reader's answer incorrect, or is my summarization of her answer inaccurate?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Please clarify. Is reader's answer incorrect, or is my summarization of her answer inaccurate?

Your summary.

It would be necessary, but not sufficient.

EDIT: Perhaps this will make the point clearer:

5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his death, is necessary. The required miracle must be proven through the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues. This one too is concluded with the relative decree. Once the two decrees are promulgated (regarding the heroic virtues and the miracle) the Holy Father decides on beatification, which is the concession of public worship, limited to a particular sphere. With beatification the candidate receives the title of Blessed.

"6. For canonization another miracle is needed, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed and having occurred after his beatification. The methods for ascertainment of the affirmed miracle are the same as those followed for beatification. Canonization is understood as the concession of public worship in the Universal Church. Pontifical infallibility is involved. With canonization, the Blessed acquires the title of Saint."

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question619.htm&url=http://www.catholic-pages.com/saints/process.asp

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your summary.

It would be necessary, but not sufficient.

Given that reader is answering the question I posed, my summary is accurate. A set of decision criteria is a set of conditions such that having determined whether they have been met suffices to make the decision at hand. If some set of conditions do not suffice, they obviously cannot be the set of decision criteria, as there is at least one criterion external to the set which has bearing on the decision.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your summary.

It would be necessary, but not sufficient.

EDIT: Perhaps this will make the point clearer:

5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his death, is necessary. The required miracle must be proven through the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure an ...[text shortened]... rks.com/framed.htm?parent=question619.htm&url=http://www.catholic-pages.com/saints/process.asp

This doesn't help at all, as the question I am asking is essentially, What does "the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues" denote?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Given that reader is answering the question I posed, my summary is accurate. A set of decision criteria is a set of conditions such that having determined whether they have been met suffices to make the decision at hand. If some set of conditions do not suffice, they obviously cannot be the set of decision criteria, as there is at least one criterion external to the set which has bearing on the decision.

No, your summary is incorrect. I did not say that the person P did the healing. I said that one asks person P to intercede. That means that if you are praying to P for healing you are asking P to talk to God on your behalf. You are believing that P is already in heaven and not in purgatory, and thus is able to converse with God. It is not unlike my going to ark13 and asking him to talk to his father about some matter that concerns me, because I think having him bring it up would be more likely to bring about results than if I just went to his father directly.

Originally posted by reader1107
No, your summary is incorrect. I did not say that the person P did the healing. I said that one asks person P to intercede. That means that if you are praying to P for healing you are asking P to talk to God on your behalf. You are believing that P is already in heaven and not in purgatory, and thus is able to converse with God. It is not unlike my g ...[text shortened]... ng it up would be more likely to bring about results than if I just went to his father directly.

Oops. Strike my summary and restate it thus:

Catholicism asserts that having an illness or injury heal without medical explanation, and having petitioned a deceased person P for intercession, suffice to determine that P performed a miracle.

This is absurd from so many aspects, I don't even know where to begin. Would anybody else care to go first?

Is there anybody who actually thinks this bit of Catholic epistemology is sound or coherent?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Oops. Strike my summary and restate it thus:

Catholicism asserts that having an illness or injury heal without medical explanation, and having petitioned a deceased person P for intercession, suffice to determine that P performed a miracle.

This is absurd from so many aspects, I don't even know where to begin. Would anybody els ...[text shortened]...

Is there anybody who actually thinks this bit of Catholic epistemology is sound or coherent?

Your summary is still wrong... P doesn't perform a miracle,for goodness sake. Can't you understant it???

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Oops. Strike my summary and restate it thus:

Catholicism asserts that having an illness or injury heal without medical explanation, and having petitioned a deceased person P for intercession, suffice to determine that P performed a miracle.

This is absurd from so many aspects, I don't even know where to begin. Would anybody els ...[text shortened]...

Is there anybody who actually thinks this bit of Catholic epistemology is sound or coherent?

I think it makes a certain amount of sense from a psychological standpoint. Instead of just being a passive patient, waiting for the doctor to perform his work, believing in the power of prayer allows you to imagine that you are playing an active part, however small, in the healing process. Instead of just sitting around waiting for the results, it provides the believer with the illusion that he did something to help. This may be one instance, for many people, where a comforting falsehood is preferable to a disturbing truth.

Originally posted by Choreant
Your summary is still wrong... P doesn't perform a miracle,for goodness sake. Can't you understant it???

Perhaps he's not saying that the healing was the miracle. Perhaps persuading god to get off his lazy butt and do something was the miracle.

Originally posted by Choreant
Your summary is still wrong... P doesn't perform a miracle,for goodness sake. Can't you understant it???

Well, the question I asked was what are the decision criteria for P having performed a miracle. Presumably reader was answering that question.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, the question I asked was what are the decision criteria for P having performed a miracle. Presumably reader was answering that question.

So,this is a kind of a shortcut. The miracle performed by P is ipso facto,performed by the God. However,it's assumed to be the proof of the P holiness thus called miracle. Ok,from a logical point of view that's a term fallacy,but I suppose that the point is clear to everyone. And I hate arguing about terms,it brings nothing...

Originally posted by rwingett
Perhaps he's not saying that the healing was the miracle. Perhaps persuading god to get off his lazy butt and do something was the miracle.

😞

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This doesn't help at all, as the question I am asking is essentially, What does "the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues" denote?

The link is only a few paragraphs; your question is answered if you had made the effort to read the whole thing:

The bishop, once the 'nulla osta' of the Holy See is obtained, forms a diocesan tribunal for this purpose. Witnesses are called before the tribunal to recount concrete facts on the exercise of Christian virtues considered heroic, that is, the theological virtues: faith, hope and charity, and the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, and others specific to his state in life. In addition, all documents regarding the candidate must be gathered.


So there would be some sort of investigation to determine if the posthumous miracle occurred.

You're still wrong BTW. You asked what the decision criteria was and then made an all-encompassing statement basically saying that if some conditions were met that the decision was automatic. This is in error; it's not a formal logical statement, it's a sort of factfinding which doesn't have inflexible rules (kinda like deciding whether there was "probable cause" for an arrest).