Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Miracles as marketing

By Rodney Crisp - posted Tuesday, 19 October 2010


Mother Mary MacKillop of Australia was canonised by Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday October 17, 2010 and became Australia’s first Catholic saint.

The Catholic Church excommunicated her for insubordination in 1871 but, as in the case of Joan of Arc, it subsequently made a complete turnabout when Pope Benedict XVI paved the way for her canonisation as Australia’s first saint by approving a decree in 2009 recognising a second miracle that had been attributed to her.

Joan of Arc was condemned as a relapsed heretic by her French judges, excommunicated and handed over to the English to be burned at the stake on Wednesday, 30 May 1431 at the age of 19.  As soon as the English were driven out of the country she was hailed as the saviour of France.  She was canonised by Benedict XV in 1919 and became known as Saint Joan of Arc.

Advertisement

A legendary story, often quoted, regarding Catholic Saints relates that until around the 12th century, local churches and bishops were responsible for making saints, not Rome.  The number of saints soared to inflationary proportions.  But in 1170, Pope Alexander III reportedly sent an irate letter to King Canute of Sweden, criticising a bishop for tolerating devotion to a local saint who, Alexander believed, had been killed in a drunken brawl.  Thereafter no public veneration could take place without the approval of the pope, and the Vatican began to assume control of the canonisation process to ensure that the saints did in fact qualify for inclusion in the holy list.

Before Pope John Paul II died on 2 April 2005, the procedure for investigating and recognising saints was streamlined.  The Devil’s Advocate position was eliminated and the number of miracles required was halved from four to two.  Over his 27 year tenure, Pope John Paul II named more saints than all his predecessors combined.  He beatified more than 1,300 individuals and canonised nearly 500.  He even fast-tracked Mother Teresa’s canonisation.

The Catholic Church does not, of course, have a monopoly on the elevation of individuals to sainthood, whether meritorious or otherwise.  Many religions, including the four main monotheistic or Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha’i Faith, are peopled with numerous saints.  Naturally, they are not all the same.  Each religion has its own gallery of saints, some of whom have the good fortune to be revered by more than one religion. 

The definition of what constitutes a saint is more or less the same from one religion to another.  Martyrdom is an important factor.

Needless to say, the widespread religious tradition of saintly martyrdom and its presumed consequential heavenly recompense is a major source of motivation for the more radical Islamic movements such as Al-Qaida in their present day struggle against what they perceive to be occidental imperialism.  In the minds of the members of such radical movements, martyrdom is no doubt considered a faster and surer route to heaven than that of attempting to produce miracles.

Australia has now witnessed its first two miracles and it would seem appropriate to examine the phenomenon a little closer.  A miracle, of course, is not just the realisation of what may be considered an unimaginable, highly improbable or impossible event.  It has nothing to do with mathematical calculations of probability or the imagination of expected outcomes.  It specifically indicates the intervention of some divine or supernatural force.  It is a purely religious term.  

Advertisement

Contrary to popular belief, religions make no attempt to prove that a particular phenomenon is a miracle.  Nor do they offer any justification for their decisions to recognize particular phenomena as miracles.  They place the onus of proof concerning the occurrence or non-occurrence of miracles squarely in the court of science. 

They consider that it is the role of science, not religion, to provide proof.  Religion is a question of faith, not proof.   If science cannot provide irrefutable proof that a particular phenomenon is due to natural causes, then the way is free for religion to claim responsibility in the name of its god or gods or whatever supernatural force it purports to represent, as having produced yet another miracle.

This is a well known dialectic stratagem known as “argument from ignorance” (argumentum ad ignorantiam), a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true simply because it cannot be proven false.  However, it can hardly be considered dishonest as religion does not pretend to be scientific or even logical for that matter.       

Healing and religion have always been closely associated from the very beginning and a large number of miracles have to do with miraculous cures.  It should be recalled that illness remained very much a mystery until the 19th century and it is only since that relatively recent period that the paths of healing and religion have diverged to any appreciable extent.

By application of the “argument from ignorance” technique, religions usually take the precaution of allowing a large lapse of time to pass before declaring that a particular spectacular healing is due to a miracle.  This has the twofold advantage of assuring that all the necessary medical analyses and investigations have been correctly carried out and that time has erased all possible material evidence permitting any future contestation.

Despite those elaborate precautions, however, the fact remains that nothing will have been proven, either one way or the other.  It only signifies that science is not able to prove that the recovery is due to natural causes.

Needless to say, although the state of the art of medical science at any particular point in time may not be capable of providing a satisfactory explanation for the recovery, that does not mean that one may not be forthcoming at some future time as a result of subsequent progress in the state of the art of medical science.

Also, as is often pointed out by the medical profession, many illnesses, including some of the most serious ones such as cancer, are sometimes healed by the patient’s own immune system without any outside intervention whatsoever.  This is called spontaneous remission which actually happens more frequently than one may imagine.  In the case of cancer, for example, it has been estimated that about 1/100,000 cases remit spontaneously.  The second miracle attributed to Mary MacKillop was an unexplained recovery from cancer and may well fall within this category

In addition, there are, unfortunately, quite a large number of diagnostic errors committed by medical practitioners every day of the year.  This seems to be unavoidable given the complexity of the human body and all the variables and particular circumstances that have to be taken into account.  Mistakes are sometimes the result of a lack of specialist medical knowledge or due, alternatively, to a low probability combination of different factors which the doctor who carries out the diagnosis may ignore or fail to take into account.

It is possible that as a result of an erroneous diagnosis, a patient may become convinced some time later that he was miraculously cured of a fatal illness which in fact he never had.  Any subsequent medical examination could only reveal that he no longer had whatever serious illness had previously been diagnosed.

The objective that religions seek to achieve in recognising miracles is obviously not to impress the intellectual elite members of the community but the more modest layers of society which constitute the large majority of the population.  In commercial terms, miracles are marketing tools that help consolidate and increase the client base. 

If it were politicians who declared miracles they would be accused of populism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

22 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Rodney Crisp is an international insurance and risk management consultant based in Paris. He was born in Cairns and grew up in Dalby on the Darling Downs where his family has been established for over a century and which he still considers as home. He continues to play an active role in daily life on the Darling Downs via internet. Rodney can be emailed at rod-christianne.crisp@orange.fr.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Rodney Crisp

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Rodney Crisp
Article Tools
Comment 22 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy