Does a saint’s intercession heal? Or are the faithful in the Roman Catholic Church praying with the saints to Jesus Christ?
That’s the big doctrinal question that is a wee bit mysterious in a well-researched, lengthy, and generally helpful article about the procedure for examining whether 19th-century Maryland priest Francis X. Seelos, should be declared a saint.
There are a few other, more minor problems with this generally thorough story. The most evident one is in the photo caption of the article in the Baltimore Sun. One GetReligion reader wrote us that the term “charm” (more reminscent of Shakespeare and witchcraft) to refer to the religious relic Mary Ellen Heibel wears around her neck was so “ignorant” that he couldn’t read the article.
The canonization process (Seelos was beatified by the Vatican in 2000) is a long one, and requires that those arguing for sainthood document a second event that fulfills the criteria for a miracle. The context for Arthur Hirsch’s article is the healing of Mary Ellen Heibel, a parishioner at St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Annapolis, Maryland — which might or might not be the miracle that those campaigning for sainthood need to make their case.
Starting with a few paragraphs about the Maryland parishioner, Hirsch cuts back and forth between her story and the process that the Archdiocese of Baltimore is undergoing in evaluating whether it should ask the Vatican to canonize Seelos. This isn’t simple stuff, by any means. And generally, Hirsch does a pretty nice job explaining it. Heibel doesn’t pray “to” Seelos. She prays “with” him.
But these two paragraphs in particular seemed confusing.
For only the fifth time in its 200-year history, the archdiocese has launched a test of faith and science to help the Vatican determine whether one of its own was not only exemplary in virtue during life but now has the power in death to intercede with God. In the end, it will be up to the pope to rule on whether Seelos is to join the men and women held up by the church through the centuries as models of holiness.
“Did what happened come about by the intercession of Blessed Seelos? That’s what we have to discover,” said the Rev. Gilbert J. Seitz, the judicial vicar who heads the committee, emphasizing that its job is not to judge the case but to gather information in a process akin to taking a deposition.
As I understand the Roman Catholic doctrine of intercession, the saints can pray with and for believers, but it is not up to them as to whether the prayer is answered. It would be up to God.
I wish the author had asked Seitz how any earthly court would be able to figure out whether Seelos was responsible for the healing — and what that means..
Closer to the middle of the story, when discussing the “painstaking” canonization process, Hirsch quotes Seitz again. “Hundreds stall at the midpoint of beatification, either for lack of a verifiable miracle or the support neccesary to bring such information to the Vatican’s attention.”
Now that’s a fascinating sentence. Readers might want to know what makes a healing or other occurrence a “verifiable” miracle — and what kind of bureaucratic, financial ( for research and writing), or popular suppport is neccesary to get the attention of the Vatican.
I’m not thrilled with the use of the word “magical” a few paragraphs later to describe events in the lives of the saints. On the whole, however, Hirsch displays what seems to be a willingness to both understand and chronicle carefully the beliefs and language of the people he’s telling us about. Local readers probably appreciated that — and would eagerly wait for more chapters in the ongoing story of a homegrown pastor made very, very good.
I know you’ll know this, but that’s not the “real” Seelos in the YouTube video — it took me a minute to figure it out
 | Posted at 4:58 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (12) |
July 1, 2009, at 5:35 pm
Does a saint’s intercession heal? Or are the faithful in the Roman Catholic Church praying with the saints to Jesus Christ?
As with everything Catholic the answer is both/and. We ask saints for their prayers and for their intercession. Catholics don’t have the huge divide between the Church Militant and Church Triumphant that Protestants tend to have. So, in the Catholic mind, just as God uses people on earth to distribute His grace through acts of charity He also uses His saints.
July 1, 2009, at 6:32 pm
It is also important to point out that ALL those in heaven are saints (including your mother). Canonized (recognized) saints are saints who God has chosen to be a yardstick (canon) life to follow as an example. To study the lives of canonized saints is, in a sense, Bible study in the flesh. And it is the Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which collects the lives of saints God wants recognized (using indicators like miracles) just as it was the Church that collected together the books of the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
This article seems better than most in its attempt to accurately portray the canonization process.
July 2, 2009, at 6:19 am
Ms. Evans, your post seems more concerned with correcting Catholic errors than journalistic ones. I don’t see anything wrong with the section you highlighted. I also don’t have a problem with praying “to” saints. If I am talking to the Mother of God (or Bl. Francis), what else should I call it? For that matter, it may be theologically incorrect, even in Catholic terms, to talk about charms and magical events, but phenomenologically, not so much.
July 2, 2009, at 7:37 am
Chris, I am not correcting anyone’s “errors.” I’m not here to make doctrinal judgments. I’m simply saying that I thought that Catholics believed that while saints (and I hear you, Deacon John, that all Christians are saints in Catholic doctrine) might be models of heroic virtue and more effective pray-ers, it was God who actually did the healing.
July 2, 2009, at 9:07 am
It all seems such a far cry from biblical Christianity. Perhaps if one has grownup with practices that involve the elevation of saints to some sort of intercessory level it seems natural. As an outsider to such practices they seem truly foreign, far removed from anything anywhere near our faith. Fellowship requires patience on both sides.
July 2, 2009, at 9:59 am
I hope I can make this Pagan observation without starting an argument. It seems to me that something in the human heart demands polytheism — gods closer to home than the august creator of everything — and that Catholicism provides for this need through the saints.
July 2, 2009, at 11:51 am
Chris, I am not correcting anyone’s “errors.” I’m not here to make doctrinal judgments. I’m simply saying that I thought that Catholics believed that while saints (and I hear you, Deacon John, that all Christians are saints in Catholic doctrine) might be models of heroic virtue and more effective pray-ers, it was God who actually did the healing.
Why was it God (exclusively) who actually did the healing? True, God is the ultimate cause of all charity but that doesn’t mean we don’t give credit to the person who performs the work. If you’re sick and you go to a doctor and he heals you, do you say that God alone healed you and not the Doctor? Absolutely not. If the doctor is unable to cure you and instead you go to a person who you believe is a miracle worker, do you give the miracle worker no thanks and give all the credit to God? I would think not. So, why, if you ask a miracle worker who has died in this world for help and is alive in Christ would you not thank him for healing you? Gratitude is not a zero sum game. Giving the instrument that God uses the proper thanks takes nothing away from one’s gratitude to God.
Now either prayer to saints is efficacious or it’s not. I understand why if we start from the premise that we can’t communicate with saints, we shouldn’t thank them for miracles. But even if Mary Ellen Heibel wasn’t actually cured by Bl. Francis Seelos, if she prayed to him and mistakenly thought he was responsible for her cure why wouldn’t she thank him?
July 2, 2009, at 11:57 am
The article makes some good points, but there are some serious flies in the ointment that really concern me (I’m the guy who found the charm reference “ignorant”, as Ms Evans related; I didn’t want to read the article right before work, but have since read it).
The charm reference is one, and so is the “magic” described later on in the sentence. With stuff like this, it isn’t surprising that pagans or fellow Christians may think of Catholics as somehow polytheistic.
The Sun missed some pretty important context, such as how the personal items of St. Paul had the power to heal in Acts, or even how the bones of the prophet Elisha could bring the dead to life. Early Christian graffiti from the first century or so of the Church also showed that people asked Peter et al. for intercession.
Sure, there are people who think of saints’ intercessions as being magical, and people may have all sorts of motives for wanting to get someone canonized (e.g., the director of the Seelos Center’s talking about “we’ll get Seelos where he needs to be”). But the sloppy terminology and poor historical background don’t do justice to this widely misunderstood topic. Even if the journalist couldn’t be persuaded to look at the precedents for relics or intercessory prayer in the Bible and early Christianity, terms like “magic” and “charm” are pretty easy gaffes to avoid.
July 2, 2009, at 9:06 pm
I think the canonization process itself is misunderstood in that many non-Catholic people think it is the Pope who is claiming to decide who gets into heaven. No, back in the day people would claim someone or the other is a saint and start elaborate devotions to that person. The Church decided there has to be some rationale so it started trying to discern if someone was really likely to be in heaven.
You can ask anybody living or dead to pray to God for you, but you’d want to contact people who more apt to be of help.
Like the Deacan said earlier, everybody who gets to heaven is a saint, but it should only be the really, really obviously holy ones who should be officially and publicly venerated and held up as role models.
This process is not infallible, but it does try to be as close to accuracy as is possible here below. A fair number of people have been taken off the list of saints -among them is St. Christopher, who was deemed to not have actually existed.
There is a group called the Bollandists who have been checking out the various traditional Lives of the Saints for several hundred years to see what about various popular saints is reality-based and what is well-intentioned devout but false myth.
http://www.kbr.be/~socboll/
To me it seems a lot like deciding who is going to get in the Hall of Fame at Cooperstown. I’ve seen all the relics there and it really is similar. Except that Cooperstown isn’t really heaven, altho lots of people think it is the equivalent.
Check out the Golden Legend for some very amusing stories about saints written way back in the Middle Ages. I’m particularly fond of Christina the Astonishing.
July 2, 2009, at 9:22 pm
Lots of people misunderstand the “canonization” process, thinking that the Pope is claiming to decide who gets into heaven. No, that’s God’ job. Way back when people started revering deceased people they considered saints and it sometimes got out of hand. Martyrs were obvious but it’s not so clear about others.
Like the Deacon said, everybody who gets into heaven is a saint. The Church decided it should try to introduce some rationality into the process - because some saints get special days, with special readings and verses for the Mass that day. Also, it wouldn’t do to have people misled into revering someone who is really a rapscallion.
There is a group called the Bollandists who have been investigating old lists of saints for several hundred years now. As a result some saints have been removed - notably St Christopher, who was determined not to be a real person.
The canonization process is not claimed to be infallible.
http colon slash slash www dot kbr dot be slash tilde socboll slash
You can also check out the medieval best-seller called The Golden Legend with lots of lives of the saints showing why the Bollandist work was necessary. However, I am particularly fond of Christina the Astonishing even though I don’t believe a word of the astounding things attributed to her.
July 2, 2009, at 9:29 pm
“It all seems such a far cry from biblical Christianity.”
Well, yes, and biblical Christianity is a far cry from the Church Christ founded.
July 6, 2009, at 10:57 am
It’s pretty simple. First you investigate the person out the wahooeymooey, thus taking care of the natural side. Then you wait for God to send evidence of His grace and favor upon the proceedings, in the form of a miracle associated with the saint’s intercession. Then you investigate some more. Then you wait on God some more. Repeat until you have discerned something clearly negative on the natural side, or something clearly positive on the divine side.