[sunnykerr]

There's a trial, that much I know. That's where the whole "devil's advocate" expression comes from. The person dies, and every miracle that is attributed to them goes on trial.

They gather all the physical, scientific evidence and whatnot. And then they presence the case to... someone or someones who get to make the final decision... Anyway, during that trial, someone is charged with arguing that it's not a miracle. And they get to build a case, too.

At some point in there, they also exhume the dead person's body to look at it, because a sainted person wouldn't decay as rapidly as a normal person (or something like that).

Anyway, it's not "I prayed to so and so and my lumbago went away on its own" and wham! he's a saint.

There's a lot of steps.

[Callace]

Good At least that is reassuring to know

[TheAngel]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) There's a trial, that much I know. That's where the whole "devil's advocate" expression comes from. The person dies, and every miracle that is attributed to them goes on trial. They gather all the physical, scientific evidence and whatnot. And then they presence the case to... someone or someones who get to make the final decision... Anyway, during that trial, someone is charged with arguing that it's not a miracle. And they get to build a case, too. At some point in there, they also exhume the dead person's body to look at it, because a sainted person wouldn't decay as rapidly as a normal person (or something like that). Anyway, it's not "I prayed to so and so and my lumbago went away on its own" and wham! he's a saint. There's a lot of steps.

But is exhuming the body necessary. Because I know in some cases there's no body to exhume, especially when you get into cases like St. Joan whose body was tossed into the river after she was burned in Rouen. Is that a more modern thing or do they just make special exceptions for those lacking...well, bodies?

[sunnykerr]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure, really. Like I said, I'm not expert. I was talking to my mum about this (she was raised Catholic) and remembered that I skipped right over the beatification period.

Anyway, I looked it up on wikipedia. And, inasmuch as you can trust that site, exhumation is standard procedure (to make sure no occult signs have developed around the body or some malarkey like that and to collect relics), but I'm assuming it's not obligatory.

What I "know" about canonization is from what I remember of the process with Mother Teresa and, again with the help of wikipedia, turns out I got most of that wrong, too. Canonization requires two "proven" miracles.

Beatification, the step before, which is where Mother Teresa is at, requires one "proven" miracle. And, at some point in there, I assume they exhume.

[TheAngel]

Ah, alright. Yeah, all these rules are kind of crazy to me, but hey, whatever floats your boat...well, not yours specifically but you know what I mean.

[sunnykerr]

I hear you.

Now, onto a slightly more ridiculous religious news item:

Indian Court Sides With Sikhs on Plucking Eyebrows An Indian court has upheld the decision by a medical school to deny admission to a Sikh girl who plucked her eyebrows, thereby violating the faith's rules against cutting one's hair.

RNS Feature: "Indian court sides with Sikhs on plucking eyebrows"

I don't mean to be splitting hairs here (har, har!), but how is plucking the same has cutting? I can sorta see it, if the rationalization is that hair is entirely God's domain. Then, yeah, plucking is as bad as cutting.

But it's not cutting. Wherever her brows went, those hairs were not clipped.

Either way, makes me grateful, yet again, for the separation of church and state.

[Callace]

OMG, that's just ridiculous. Poor girl, though.

you are right. That such religious rules are upheld by the courts is plain absurd!

[vc318]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) I hear you. Now, onto a slightly more ridiculous religious news item: RNS Feature: "Indian court sides with Sikhs on plucking eyebrows" I don't mean to be splitting hairs here (har, har!), but how is plucking the same has cutting? I can sorta see it, if the rationalization is that hair is entirely God's domain. Then, yeah, plucking is as bad as cutting.

Man, some places are tough! But I feel her pain - I couldn't shave until I was in high school! Er, did I give away too much information there?

[Callace]

enough to have me craving for more, at least You had a religious upbringing?

[sunnykerr]

Monks Complete Four-Year Retreat A Tibetan centre in southern Scotland has welcomed a group of monks emerging after a four-year Buddhist retreat. The 20 men have been cut off from the outside world since June 2005 when they entered a special sealed-off study centre on the Isle of Arran. They emerged at the weekend to be taken to the Samye Ling Centre at Eskdalemuir in Dumfries and Galloway. One of the monks described it as "the most difficult thing I have done in my life, without question". The format of the retreat was designed to achieve the deepest possible understanding of Buddhism and of their own minds. SOME OF THE EVENTS THE MONKS HAVE MISSED August 2005 - Hurricane Katrina strikes the US December 2006 - Execution of Saddam Hussein June 2007 - Tony Blair resigns as Prime Minister August 2008 - Beijing Olympics Their days began at 3.45am and finished at about 11pm and were filled with rounds of prayer, meditation and study - every day for four years. A warden delivered essential supplies to the threshold of the former farm buildings where they were based, off the west coast of Scotland. Apart from occasional family letters and visits from outside teachers they had no contact with - or knowledge of - the wider world. One of the monks - Martin, known as Gega - was convinced to take the retreat by a Buddhist teacher at Eskdalemuir. "I was interested in trying to understand what my mind is and he said to me if I really wanted to do that then the place to go would be into retreat," he said. "Ordinary life is just too busy, you don't have the opportunity." The men on retreat were completely unaware of most of the major events of the past four years and have just started "catching up". Paul, named Zangpo, said: "We did get snippets of news through, for instance we heard about this economic meltdown and stuff like that and President Obama getting into power. "We were getting little bits of information in." One nun who has been on a previous retreat described it as the "most useful, beneficial and effective years of my life". "We know that they have made such an effort ... it is quite an intensive programme," said Ani Lhamo. "Whereas we have been enjoying all the things you can enjoy in normal life. "Just thinking of that generates a feeling of respect." Sense of Achievement Many members of the group are now being gently reintroduced to ordinary life with a week of prayer, meditation and socialising at the south of Scotland centre. "Even just to be around the energy of groups of people is a bit tiring, it is strange," said Paul. However, Martin added that there was a feeling of pride in having completed such a lengthy retreat. He said: "Just to keep that together for four years is quite a hard thing to do. "So there is a sense of some kind of achievement and we will see in the future what long-term benefit comes from it."

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | South of Scotland | Monks complete four-year retreat

Wow!

All I know is I don't think I would be able to do something like that. Nevermind the uber-short nights and the no breaks, but the focus something like that must require is just, at this point, way beyond me.

[wanderer78]

I wasn't sure whether to put this under religion or U.S. news. But the shooting at the Holocaust Museum is so sad. I visited there once years ago, and while it's not a place of worship, I consider museums (especially this one) sacred in their own way.

Investigators in Holocaust museum shooting continue to look for clues

[sunnykerr]

Well, you beat me to the punch. I put it under the racism thread, but of course this is a story that has many facets.

I simply don't understand hatred towards a religion. I understand people feeling their religion may be superior to others. After all, I would assume people stick by what they think is the best approach to God or the best way to live their faith. But I so don't understand reviling a group for their own relationship with God.

[GrhmLz]

I respect people's right to be against abortion, especially when they base it on such an appreciation for life. But I do think we're too quick to forget that the mother is also a life to be valued.

Exactly.

I was raised Catholic - I consider myself pro-life because I respect/appreciate life; however, there are exceptions to the rule. This is where I often find myself at odds and struggling with the instruction of the Catholice faith because the "church" (not God) tends to create these mandates that are black and white for some issues that just aren't black and white, just like they do with the issue of contraceptives. Some are - some aren't IMO.

This is a child that was raped. For crying out loud, I think a woman who is raped should be allowed to decide whether or not she feels it's best to terminate the pregnancy - just for mental health reasons alone. A nine year old child being forced to give birth against her will? It's the law of God not to kill? Yeah, well it's the law of God not committ sexual immorality too - meaing RAPE! The conception of those twins was natural in occurance (meaning that the actual physical cyle that allows conception to occur was taking place - surprisingly at NINE but it's happened); the conception wasn't "divinely inspired" or "meant to be" like some extreme proponents of the right to life movement would try to argue. Because if I accept that argument, then that means I have to accept that God fully intends for acts of rape to be committed against women so that a life "God wants to be born will be born." Rape = baby? And I'm sorry, I just can't accept that, not from the God I've come to love and learn about. I think some people of the faith forget that free-will leads to some of these horrific catastrophes - not God. Stop blaming it on God or excusing it away with "God wills it to be." No he doesn't will everything to be sometimes bad choices "will it to be" which means that sometimes we have to make hard decisions for the precious life (whether that be some woman or THIS child) that already exists.

Like you said, the woman is a life to be valued too. I have nothing against making our world a better place for our children but sometimes I feel like we've crossed the line and have become too child-centric as a nation. The lives of women seem to take a backseat in alot of areas when it comes to "children" whether it be with the issue of abortion or domestic violence etc (meaning child custody and father's rights will take precedent so the child can have a father. Nevermind that the woman's life is put at risk when you force her to remain in contact raising children with her abuser. Or they arrest the woman for her abuse because she has children when she really needs deep psychological help, not a felony warrant for "risk of injury" and a jail sentence). I just don't get it - if you're really "pro-life" as I like to consider myself, all life matters that it includes the adults and children.

But Catholics will say in one breath that they have to accept all Catholic doctrine, and then in the next act like abortion is a more important issue than the death penalty. The term "pro life" does not only mean abortion. You are not pro-life in the definition of the term if you only oppose abortion.

Eh - you are so right about this and it annoys me as a Catholic. I am so opposed to the death penalty - that is outright murder, it's sanctioned murder by the state for purposes of revenge. I get that some people have done some horrific things but make no mistake - I firmly believe they will have to face their maker (God) and answer for what they've done. Yet, it's not viewed that way as strongly by the Catholic church and I don't get why not.

However, personal beliefs to the side, it's without a doubt a double standard. The other exception I've heard made in Catholic doctrine is that "killing/murder" is acceptable in times of war. Yeah, okay, like I'm suppose to sit well as a real christian when innocent men, women, or children become casualities of war because their tyrant goverments go to war with other nations and they have no say in that whatsoever. Whatever.

Seriously, it really gets to me how Catholic church authorities can make "exceptions" with life issues when it pertains to such things as war or the death penalty but when it comes to abortion? Nope, rape doesn't matter. Incest doesn't matter. The health of the mother isn't an excuse. It's beyond hypocritical.

This is one thing I can actually understand though. The argument is that a bad person has chosen to live that way. If they do something that brings about the death penalty it's their fault, whereas children are innocent and to abort a baby is, in their minds, the death of an innocent child. I don't agree with this argument, I figure, if you're going to be for one or against one you shouldn't rank them based on individual preference, but I get it.

See, but as a Catholic, when people argue what you pointed out - it makes no sense because anyone who practices the Catholic faith knows that a baby is not considered innately innocent. That's why there's the sacrament of baptism - it's intended purpose is to wash away original sin that the faith acknowledges is automatically passed on to us from birth from the fall of Adam and Eve. So by all rights in the Catholic faith, a baby is not innocent.

I know you said you didn't support the argument, lol. I just wanted to point that out about Catholics who may use the argument against abortion. If they really practiced/understood their faith, they'd realize they were contradicting themselves with it when they compare the death penalty to abortion.

[sunnykerr]

I so agree on the whole thing, the idea of preserving all life (though I am absolutely pro-choice), the double standard with being against abortion but fine with the death penalty, etc.

The only thing I'd be curious about, though, is when people travel to foreign lands where the judicial code is completely different and they commit a crime and then protest against having to face the consequences.

I say that with hesitation, though, because I do believe that the death penalty is always, always, always state-sponsored cold-blooded murder.

But I also think people ought to take responsibility and due their due diligence before breaking the law in foreign lands.

[fetch]

[b]"What parents were demanding was the right to ignorance, the right to protect their children from being exposed to the existence of other religions," he said. "This right to ignorance is certainly not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of religion does not protect the right not to know what is going on in our universe."

Students must learn about other religions: judge