That began to change in the early 20th century with Saints such as St Gemma Galgani (1878-1903) whom, although she was an stigmatic which normally slows down the canonisation process requiring futher investigations, was canonised only 37 years after her death. For more info see:
Canonisation of St Gemma

The advantage to this is that first hand eyewitnesses to the life and heroic virtue of the Saint in question are still alive and can attest to the facts.

Joseph Johnson

I think you are smart, but I didn’t mean to address you as Brain. Sorry about that.

Actually the prayer is the part of a complaint or petition or motion that states what relief the Plaintiff is asking the court to provide.

Don’t know if this term is still being used in law courts, but it was for centuries.

To understand the Catholic position, don’t deify Saints. Humanize them instead - think of the saints as your extended family. Kind of like an aunt or uncle who you know you can turn to in a pinch. And don’t let the miracles throw you off. Saints perform miracles the same way miracle workers on earth do, by the merit of their special communion with God.

Next, remember that pray in it’s most basic sense means to ask. So we can ask saints to pray for us or ask them directly for their help just as you might any other person. Let’s say you were in some legal trouble and your Aunt was friends with a really good lawyer who wouldn’t normally take a case like yours. You might ask your Aunt to pull some strings with her buddy to help you out. But say your Aunt is a really good lawyer herself, you’d probably just ask your her to help you directly. Similarly, you might also ask St. Thomas More to pray for you or you might ask him to directly intervene in your case.

The one caveat is that we’d never ask saints to do something that only God can do like forgive our sins.

As far as who does the healing, there’s probably no way to know in a scientific sense. In reality it’s most likely a moot point. The ultimate source of a miracle is God’s grace, whether the saint plays a role in asking for that grace on your behalf or in the delivery of the grace (or both) doesn’t really make too much of a difference. But I don’t understand why so many people accept the idea that you can ask a saint to be involved in asking for the grace, yet can’t conceive of a saint being involved in its delivery.

The topic of intercession and what role the saints play was discussed in a recent post I did on a story from the Baltimore Sun http://www.getreligion.org/?p=14303. Here’s a post Terry did on the subject two years ago. http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2320. The question, as it’s been voiced here by Terry, is do Catholics pray “to” or “with” the saints? And a question I was interested in was: who does the healing, according to Catholic doctrine? God? God and the saints? Does the intercession of the saint help the process along?

I didn’t say that it was troubling. I do believe that it’s fair game for an article. Terry’s post got 93 comments!

“Paulson doesn’t address this subject — and he doesn’t go too deeply into what it means to say, as Catholics do, that the saints ‘intercede’ for ‘those who seek their help.’”

What is troubling about this? What is complicated about it?

I wonder, too, if modern science would punch holes in the medical miracles of the past.

Saints have to have someone to promote their cause which requires time and money. There is an overabundance of saints in the past several hundred years who were the founders of religious orders - the order would dedicate the full-time job and money necessary to push the cause to completion to burnish their order’s reputation. There has been an effort to widen the range of candidates to include more lay people.

And some of the increased numbers are due to groups of martyrs being recognized. For instance the 8,000 plus Korean martyrs of 1839, 1846 and 1867 canonized in the 1980s by JPII. Then there were the 85 Martyrs of England and Wales beatified by JPII in 1987.

Are miracles the only correct criteria?

They are not a criterion at all in the case of martyrs. Their willingness to die for the faith is the only testimony necessary.

The only other quibble I would have with the question as posed is that the issue is not with “miracles” but with verifiable ‘healing miracles.’ The cause for beatification/canonisation of Venerable Matt Talbot has been impeded by the lack of such healing miracles. But many would accredit his intercession for their own recovery from addictions to alcohol or drugs.

In 1985 in the closing hour of the 68th Episcopal General Convention, the culmination of efforts led by the Oklahoma Committee on Indian Work, spearheaded by Lois Clark, resulted in both houses voting to include David Pendleton Oakerhater among the notables of the Episcopal Church. From that moment forward David Pendleton Oakerhater would forever be known as Saint David Pendleton Oakerhater.

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Oakerhater/bio.html

In Sufism, such people can be called “Wali’s” or Friends of God. Kabir in India had miracles attributed to him. So I wish the story had included a nod to non-Catholic saints.

Are miracles the only correct criteria?

That is the question. The internal state is, to me, the real criteria but how can ordinary people know who is a saint and who is not.