In a message dated 4/24/00 9:58:11 AM Central Daylight Time, rjs@rsie.com
writes:
> In the same vein, this week's Economist has an interesting article on
> the process by which Catholic authorities validate alleged miracles -
> they use real medical doctors, have well-defined criteria, and look for
> cases where there is no (yet) known scientific explanation for the
> miraculous recovery. The article notes that the standard for miracles has
> been rising over the years as medical knowledge increases (both in
> medical capability and in knowledge of the weird but explainable stuff
> that biology is capable of).
Yes, and in a very Roman fashion, the process is carried on in a judicial
proceeding, with each side having an advocate, i.e. one for the "prosecution"
of the claim, and one defending against it. (Just as a modern Anglo-American
lawyer could adjust to cases in the courts of Henry II with a little
retraining, I think Cicero would be at home in modern "curial" proceedings.)
The advocate opposing sanctification is known as the "Advocatus Dioboli", or
"Devil's Advocate", whence comes the term. I can remember as a very young
boy thinking that this was a cool job I might like to have when I grew up.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:57 MDT