Tuesday, August 08, 2017

Clergy wit


Fr Hunwicke recently used the word 'mingent', which some of those who commented on his blog didn't understand, It reminded me of a priest friend in my diocese, long since dead, who suggested 'mingency' could be a collective noun for clergy though he would also use it of the twenty years his predecessor's time in his parish, as in "during the mingency of Fr  ...."  ,

Clergy can be a bit acerbic, as well as witty about their superiors, here are few examples lest they be forgotten:


  • A miter: an artificial extension of a natural vacuum.
  • An auxiliary bishop: A theological nonentity.
  • An auxiliary bishop:The bishop's perpetual curate.
  • An auxiliary bishop: The real bishop's bully boy / bouncer.
  • Monsignor/Canon: a title to put on an envelope to impress the postman.
  • Monsignor/Canon: a title that denotes years of brown nosing that has ended in failure.
  • Being made a Canon: a kind way for a bishop to suggest retirement.
  • Of a deposed bishop: In my day he wouldn't have made his first confession let alone been consecrated bishop.
  • Of a new bishop: He intends to re-order the cathedral by replacing his predecessors' fence with his own particular throne.
  • A bishop symbolised by a singular cross, an archbishop a double-cross
  • A note to his bishop after a priest's burial, "My Lord, you have let me down for the last time".

Saturday, August 05, 2017

Gay Bullying

In Brighton today is 'Pride Day' and it looks as if it is going to rain on the various civic parties tonight.

I just met a young man Muslim who works for Sainsbury's, he was very upset because he was forced to wear one of these tee shirts. He didn't protest he wants to work.

The National Trust has been forced to lay off of bullying its volunteers, maybe our retailers might follow suit.

I tend to listen to a lot of BBC's Radio 4. I feel bullied, recently, every day there has been at least one programme glorying in homosexuality, one is actually called 'Gay Britannia'. Perhaps it is English sexual prurience but homosexuality seems more prominent even than heterosexuality on the BBC. It is surprising since only 2% of people self identified as homosexuals in the last census, perhaps in the artistic 'community' the figure is much higher than the national average but I wish they would just get on with their lives - quietly, like everyone else.


Friday, August 04, 2017

The Russian Revival

I can't help wondering what would have happened if we didn't have the liturgical reforms of the 60s/70s, there is nothing within the Catholic Church to help answer the question except Fr Montgommery-Wright's parish in France and the diocese of Campos in Brazil, where there were no loss in numbers, the working class seem to have remained faithful, both were headed by exceptional and somewhat eccentric clergy.

Perhaps the the Orthodox world might offer a clue, in Greece the decline though not as dramatic as in the Latin West seems to follow the same general decline but in Russia things are quite different. According to a recent Pew Forum survey over 70% of Russians identify as Orthodox. I remember a time when there were cities without a single open Church and Moscow and Leningrad (now St Petersburg) a solitary priest offered the liturgy in almost derelict cold churches for a few elderly women.

One must remember that many of the Russian Church's structures are the same as before the Revolution 100 years ago, they haven't undergone the changes that affected the West. The liturgy is of course unreformed and in Church (or old) Slavonic.

A friend of mine, a Greek bishop, who was recently a guest of the Patriarch of Moscow saw a Church which was quite different, the churches he was taken to were revitalised, full of young men and women on Sunday's and feast days, he visited four of the Moscow seminaries each with between 300 and 400 hundred seminarians. In formerly atheistic Russia there are now chaplains in the military and even in schools. There are huge outdoor processions and services and the number of baptisms increases year after year. Monasteries and convents once derelict are now filled with monks and nuns.

Obviously, Putin has used the Russian Church to construct the narrative of Holy Mother Russia after years of Soviet destruction not only of the economic and social infra-structure of Russia but also of the souls of individual Russians. It is worth remembering that at one time during the Soviet era women had an average of seven abortions in their life time, leaving Russia under populated.

I often wonder if Our Lady has appeared to young shepherd somewhere in Russia and has asked for the Consecration of, and prayers for the Conversion of the West. Perhaps when we realise that the West is in a similar situation to the Soviet Union in the 1980s our political leaders might realise the rediscovery of Christian Europe could offer it a form of moral regeneration, unless of course they turn to Islam.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Tradition: A theology from below



A few quick thoughts on Cardinal Sarah and mutual enrichment. I think the Cardinal is perhaps one of the most impressive spiritual writers of today, he is brave when others are craven – but he seems not to understand the nature of ‘Tradition’.

‘Tradition’ will always be regarded as dangerous, especially in an increasingly monarchical Church. It is not a movement, it is something below a movement, it is grass roots thing. Those who have respect for ‘Tradition’ should also have respect for the hierarchical structure of the Church but ‘Tradition’ is something beyond that. It might well be signified by a love for the Old Mass but it is more than that, after all what is the ‘Old Mass’? It is something which in the end ended a process of an organic development which ended with Missal of Blessed John XXIII in 1962, hence the attachment to that Missal but it is more than that.

‘Traditionalists’ are unhappy about the Cardinals suggestions for mutual enrichment, fine to introduce elements of the Old Rite into the New Rite but to do things the other way round is unacceptable. ‘Traditionalist’, many of whom have difficulty with certain aspects of Vatican II that are out of keeping with let’s say Newman’s theory of the development doctrine look to another age and another type of ecclesiology, something which arises from below, from forgive me for returning yet to him, St Vincent of Lerrins’, "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, creditum est." Or in English, "That which has been believed everywhere, always, by all people."

There is a tension coming to the fore in this Pontificate, amplified in part by Amoris Laetitia but its strong centralism too, and imposition of doctrine from above, with something far more pneumatological, the slow gentle movement of the faith amongst the grassroots of the faithful which is the real ‘theology from below’. It is something which Catholics have always understood from scripture about the working of the Holy Spirit, that he leads the Church into deeper understanding of the faith as he does through popular movements as much as he does through Papal or Episcopal interventions, indeed he does this in the reception by the faithful of Papal or Episcopal doctrine.

It might be necessary at times for Pope’s to interfere in the day to day running of individual diocese, or in the life of the whole Church but this is as Vatican I’s  Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus indicates, something to be exercised when the unity of the Church is threatened, not the normal function of the Sovereign Pontiff. It obviously demands that the Pope is indeed a servant and bishops see themselves as sharing in his apostolic office, essentially being faithful bearers of the Tradition, they too are given authority to bind and loose, the difference is Peter’s role in maintaining unity amongst his Apostolic brothers, at no time except in the hundred years or so has he been an innovator.

Monday, July 24, 2017

The Reception of Pope Francis




I am not sure, like most Catholic clergy nowadays, that the Orthodox are not Catholic or part of the Catholic Church, as one might say the churches founded in the sixteenth century are not, or those without valid sacraments are not. Of course those who receive baptism are always in some sense part of the Catholic Church, even if after baptism they go into schism. With the 'two lung' theory one might suggest that the Catholic Church itself is deficient without a unity of East and West and the Orthodox would say the same, hence the reaching out of East and West.

In practice one could even suggest that the Great Schism of 1054 only came into effect in 1870 with Vatican I. Until then there seemed to a fair degree of inter-communion, even the acceptance of mutual jurisdiction, Orthodox nuns sought out Jesuit confessors, even Orthodox declarations of marriage dissolution/divorce* were often accepted in most parts of Italy and most of parts of the Catholic world east of Italy. And although as in the Eucharist we might have expressed our theology very differently that these expressions were actually cultural rather than actually an expression of different beliefs, ultimately we could both say, "this is Jesus".

Yesterday I was listening to Austin Ivereigh on the BBC, the self appointed Papal apologist, who was speaking about the 'reception or non-reception' of Amoris Laetitia and the Holy Father's teaching or even reign and in Saturday's L'Osservatore there was this fascinating article which speaks of the Italian clergy, high and low opposing Francis. The inference being the Pope was a goody the clergy baddies and ignorant too. Historically that is not how the Church works and this article will probably only serve to highlight the isolation of the Pope and encourage others to speak about it.

I rarely agree with Ivereigh, I often wonder if the Pope does but I think that his reference to'reception' is important. In the West we have a very feudal and increasingly from the US a presidential attitude to authority, which sees it coming down from above and is imposed on those below. The Orthodox approach is I suspect a little more 'Catholic', certainly patristic, it is that Councils and Bishops teach but this is their teaching not the Church's belief until it is accepted by the whole Church (St Vincent of Lerrins, Catholic faith is that believed always, everywhere and by all).

Thus 'The Faith' is the belief of the whole Church and certainly not a few of its hierarchy. Indeed a Pope or Bishop cannot identify themselves as the Church they are ultimately as significant or insignificant as anyone else. Newman interestingly wrote after Vatican I that what the non placet party did and what happened to them was of great importance, obviously he was interested in the long term reception of the teaching Vatican I, post Vatican II we might be thinking not of Old Catholics but of the East too.

In the early days of this Pope's reign when he so often described himself not as Pope but as Bishop of Rome I thought that we might move to an understanding papacy acceptable to the lungs of both East and West, in line with Patristic teaching, and what I would say was in line with truly Catholic sentiment. A bishop has authority only because he acts in communion with his diocese and with the Church Catholic (the Church in Heaven and on Earth). The Bishop of Rome is no different, indeed than being President of the Church or even its monarch he is the servant of the servants, a title little used nowadays.

I have been bashed by a notorious sedevacantist recently; no rational person would question the election of Francis, he is Pope, despite the manipulations of the St Gallen group. What is a much more a Catholic concern is the acceptance of Francis' teaching, ultimately how the Church will remember him, indeed if it will remember him at all or as little more than a brief historical throwback or curio. Remembering or not remembering is how the Western Church really deals teaching from above, from Councils, Popes and Bishops.

If the L'Osservatore article is correct, and there is no reason to imagine that it is not, or that it is just reserved to Rome or Italy, it would seem that despite popular acclaim of journalists and those outside or the edge of the Church that the clergy as it says 'high and low' -and presumably the committed laity- will quickly forget Francis, most of them of course will still continue when Francis moulders silently in his tomb amongst his predecessors.

 'In the end the Lord wins'.



 *On the Orthodox divorce practice, I had a discussion with an Orthodox priest who said, it was practice of Orthodoxy but not its belief because it was plainly contrary to scripture and contrary to Orthodox practice, generally, of lifelong loving Orthodox marriages and therefore it could not be deemed 'accepted or received Orthodox teaching'.

Friday, July 21, 2017

Freedom


Some argue it is not possible for us to be free, it is the argument that 1970’s Jesuits put forward to argue that mortal sin was impossible.  The argument would run that an adulterer was not entirely free because of an inner compulsion, or because “she tempted me”, when he committed adultery. 

Another example would be to say a woman was not “free” when she made a decision to abort her baby because she couldn’t cope financially or couldn’t have time out from her career or she simply had a dislike of baby poo or didn’t want her figure spoilt. I am sure that most women have stronger reasons than these for making such a terrible decision but a catholic would argue that these reasons mitigated her culpability but could not say that she did not make a free decision to have the child in her womb killed, even if the alternative was her own death.

The same situation would exist behind the decision of someone whose wife and children were being tortured until he rejected Christ and accepted some Satanic or pagan cult. The Church would still judge him to be free. Our faith indeed sets us free, “for freedom, Christ has set us free” Gal 5:1 because for us freedom is always orientated towards God, even for unbelievers it is orientated to God via the natural law, we know by our nature what is right or wrong and are orientated, despite the external pressures, to act accordingly.

I am still contending with the “2+2=5” sedevacantist. He argues as many of his kind do that: Canon 332§2: If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone, would suggest that Pope Benedict's resignation was not free and therefore not valid.

He has a very modernist, uncatholic understanding of “freely”. It does not mean there is no pressure, that rarely happens with any human decision, it means simply that the decision is made “freely”, that is 'in Christ'.


One could argue that Pius XII’s resignation letter, that he wrote to come into effect if he was taken prisoner by Germans, would not have been a ‘free’ decision but this was of a very different character to Benedict XVI’s resignation, Pius’ hand was forced by the threat of his capture, possible drugging and manipulation. Benedict’s decision was made, as he himself has said and repeated frequently, freely, in conformity with Canon 332§2.

What is worrying here is a self appointed judge of Popes, should be so lacking in basic Catholic principles, which a few decades ago a child making his First Confession would be expected to understand.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Francis is Pope


Image result for 2+2=5Some, supply your own adjective, here, quotes me and then suggests I am suggesting that Pope Benedict did not resign ‘freely’ with the implication, presumably therefore that Francis is not a validly elected Pope, that is nonsense.

It is the type of logic coming from Roman courtiers who can make 2+2=5. Let me be quite clear Benedict was Pope, he is not now; Francis is Pope both de facto and also de jure, it is Francis I pray for at Mass, not Benedict or anyone else.


This 2+2=5er suggests I am suggesting Benedict did not resign ‘freely’ that is blatant lie. Very few of us act with absolute freedom; age, advice or pressure from others, fear or even threats might well influence our decisions but unless someone was physically forcing Benedict’s hand to write his name at the foot of his resignation, and pressed his seal to it amidst squeals of protestation, he did indeed act ‘freely’.


There is a great deal of nonsense written by these sort of sedevacantists or quasi- sedevacantists. The truth is that the Pope is the one who sits on the cathedra of Peter, possibly there might be doubt if there is a squabble over at the inaugural Mass or in the past the Coronation, no such thing happened with Francis, there is no anti-Pope and no alternative. Benedict’s resignation was followed by his filial acceptance of Francis’ election. Though one might regret he is no longer Pope, that does not mean anything: Francis is Pope, there is no other.


A great deal is said by some about JPII’s rules for a Papal Election, they do not alter the fact that Francis is also the Supreme Lawgiver, having been acknowledge as Pope by the College of Electors, the clergy and people of Rome, and the bishops, clergy and laity of the world, he alone has the ability to judge the validity of his election and whether it fulfilled JPII’s rules. Obviously he judges his election to be valid and Benedict’s resignation to be valid and legitimate.


I suppose Traditionalists might prefer older forms of election, there are plenty of good examples from history of the electors being coerced: an army bearing down on Rome happened from time to time, bribing the electors happened, the imprisonment or deaths of opposing cardinal electors happened, none of which invalidated any Papal election. Indeed even when there were three popes it seems at least in here in England all three were included in the Canon of the Mass.

Forgive me if this sounds angry but whilst I am happy to be quoted by anyone, even if the disagree with me, I think I have the right to be quoted accurately and not have my words deliberately misinterpreted - it is called 'honesty' and 'having integrity'.

The last time I looked this mischief maker or is it just a fool had not put up my correction or removed or corrected the post.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Benedict XVI's resignation: my theory

Mr Gibson, the mad Scots maths teacher used to drag boys around his classroom by their ears or their hair until they fell to the floor, causing as much pain as possible or slammed their foreheads against their desks. Miss Streeter, who became Mrs Holland, the fat French teacher would make boys put their heads in their desks and then sit on the desk. Mr Shin, the lunatic Games teacher was not adverse to having a whole class bend over in the gym and hitting them on their thin cotton shorts with an old gym shoe. Mrs Barter who taught pottery and design was happy to slash boys across the hand with the edge of a steel ruler. Both the headmaster and his deputy regularly caned boys. I suppose it could be a reason I have avoided maths and French and games and pots and had difficulty with institutions.

This happened in the 1970’s, schools were places of violence, fear and humiliation. There were good teachers but I suspect they avoided even thinking about the teaching methods of their violent and bullying colleagues, but we boys never spoke of these things, certainly not to adults. I suspect this was the case with George Ratzinger at Regensburger Domspatzen, he has already admitted to using violence on boys. I would find it difficult to imagine that German schools were much better than 
English schools. My school experiences compared to those of friends who attended the better public schools like Eton or Downside and Ampleforth was pretty moderate, for the time.

My theory about Benedict XVI’s resignation is that one key factor was the threat that his brother George might be implicated not only in the physical abuse but also in the sexual abuse of school pupils. Even if it was untrue, a Pope who had made it his work to deal with the cases of sexual abuse and the dismissal of abusers from the clerical state would be placed in an untenable situation if his beloved brother was caught up sex abuse scandal. Mud would have stuck and clung more deeply to the Church, he would have become the Pope with the abusing brother.

If one adds papers and objects being removed from Benedict’s own study, his blindness in one eye and increasing lameness, the pressure from groups like St Gallen mafia and Cardinal Martini, as well as his own desire to move away from Papacy of his larger than life immediate predecessors and return it to the restrictive fences laid around it by the First Vatican Council, his resignation would seem entirely reasonable.

High Ground

I haven’t read anything positive about Fr Spadaro’s little piece on Catholicism in America, there might be something somewhere. Perhaps the best response is Archbishop Chaput’s which can be read here.

Adjectives describe Spadaro as naïve, stuck in the 1970’s, intellectually weak or just plain ignorant. What is alarming is that Spadaro seems to be emerging as the Holy Father’s principle adviser.  There is an anti- intellectualism abroad in the Church, a failure to analyse or question or to take into account scholarship of any sort, ‘peer-review’ seems out of the question, it was one of the problems of a self-opinionated autocracy.

It reduces the Church to something that lacks rationality. The paedophilia crisis demonstrated, for many, the Church has little moral credibility, silly statements from the likes of Spadaro seem to demonstrate the Church has no intellectual authority either. How long until it is finally revealed that the emperor is completely naked?

In telling the truth, in morality, in the intellectual world it is important that Catholics occupy the high ground.

Monday, July 17, 2017

The Sin of Silence


One of the worst evils is keeping silent in the face of evil, the Church seems full of men who are too weak, too effete to condemn what is wrong. This was the great scandal of child abuse, men who turned a blind eye to the immorality of others, who covered their eyes and refused to see the abuse around them, who covered their ears to pleas for justice and gagged themselves and refused to speak either to denounce grave sin or to protect the innocent.

Silence signifies acquiescence. When it hides serious sins or crimes it makes us accomplices and equally damnable with the perpetrator. The silence of so many bishops and priests in the face of the teaching of error is grave wound on the Body of Christ.

It is true sometimes silence can be an act of prudence, especially if one doesn't know the facts. It might have been prudent for the Holy Father to have kept silent when he accused the government of a South American country of being complicit in the kidnapping and possible murder of someone who was actually a government soldier kidnapped by a rebel faction.

In the case of St Thomas More's silence on Royal Supremacy, though he refused to sign, but then even with More his silence, unlike Fisher's outspokenness, gave rise to some finding an excuse to accept Royal Supremacy. Perhaps here we see the difference between the prudence a married man with dependants should exercise over following God's will, and the freedom celibacy gives. Though ultimately both More and Fisher ended on the executioner's block, and contemporaries said, 'said his silence echoed like thunder throughout Europe'.

I came in for a little criticism recently, when I wrote, "I certainly don't trust Monsignori or anyone who is not willing to back up a damaging statement about the Pope without being willing to put his name to it". Some people suggested the climate of fear in the Vatican at the moment justified anonymity for fear of losing one's career or pension or the esteem of superiors or colleagues. These are not the arguments of those who trust in God.

It is certainly praiseworthy to bear one's own suffering in silence but to be silent when others suffer is not a Christian option, it is sinful.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

It is the soil - today's sermon

Image result for soil
"You will listen and listen again, but not understand, 
see and see again, but not perceive. 
For the heart of this nation has grown coarse, 
their ears are dull of hearing, and they have shut their eyes, 
for fear they should see with their eyes, 
hear with their ears, understand with their heart, 
and be converted and be healed by me."

It is easy for a preacher to forget these verses from Isiah that Our Lord quotes, and to concentrate on sowers and seeds but before we get there we have remember the effort a first century farmer would have to put into the land before it could be cultivated. 

Even if his forefathers had cleared the land of vegetation it was an annual struggle to clear it of weeds, to dig out the rocks and stones that just keep coming up, to ensure the irrigation ditches are clear, to repair the fences to keep out his or his neighbour's livestock.

Before tractors it was not too difficult if you were rich and had an ox or donkey but if you had to rely on your wife and children to pull the plough or simply had to dig it yourself it was back-breaking work. Seed too was expensive, what you sowed you didn't eat, at least not until the new harvest, and you sowed in the hungry times when what you stored for the winter was coming to an end - you didn't want to waste it - it was seed taken from your children's mouths.

Therefore before we consider anything else let us consider the soil - soil of the soul.
How can we listen and understand?
See and perceive?
How do we stop our hearts growing course?
Make our hearing less dull, open our eyes?
Indeed, how do we hear with our ears, understand with our hearts so that we are converted and healed by him?

We are supposed take as much care over the care of our souls as a farmer of Jesus' time took over the care of his soil.
First we need to stay close to Jesus, to irrigate our souls with the Sacraments and the Word of God, to stay close to the Church's constant teaching.
We need to get rid of the rocks, those hard places in our lives where the Gospel can't grow, the deep seated, heavy sins - that really can be backbreaking work.
We need to uproot the weeds, the evils in lives, the gossip, the hatred, the keeping silent in the face of evils done to others.
We need to fertilize the soil with good works, yes prayer again, frequent confession, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, acts of charity and generosity.

We are not doing this work alone, God is with us in this strenuous work, so is the great Mother of God, as too the angels and saints -read the lives of the saints- they prepared the soil in their own fields, they were experts in clearing the soil of the soul. 

God wants us to be successful. He is the sower scattering the precious seed of his grace into our hearts, he wants it to grow producing a rich harvest in our lives.

Friday, July 14, 2017

14th July ,,,

... and so the dreadful terror began that turned men into beasts...

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Nasty Courtiers



Did you believe the story about the Pope submitting his five dubia to Cardinal Mueller? No nor did I, I just don't believe the stories that begin Monsignor A told Bishop B that Cardinal C had said the Pope has said or done Y. I do my best not to listen to gossip, and not to report it. If we can't try to speak the truth we are unlikely to be faithful witnesses to Christ, we have an obligation to speak the truth even if it costs us dearly in order to be credible.

I certainly don't trust Monsignori or anyone who is not willing to back up a damaging statement about the Pope without being willing to put his name to it, especially as in this case it was also about someone like Cardinal Mueller who is quite able to state frankly his own case and has a certain reputation of being honourable. Passing on this kind of 'fake news' is trading in filth, I find it as scandalous as stories about sexual deviants having parties in the Vatican.

Poor Pope Francis has to battle as much against with his friends as against his enemies, many of the more vociferous on both side are pretty unpleasant, they contaminate with their filthy lies those who listen to them and pass on in all innocence what they have heard. Simply, the Gospel allow it and threatens judgement against those who do it!

There is a very good podcast by Damien Thompson and Fr Ed Conlon at the end of this piece in the Spectator. Fr Ed hits the nail by saying that invariably liberal commentators misinterpret the Pope, it is not just journalists but as is discussed even revamped the Academy for Life came out with a statement regarding not keeping little Charlie Gard alive by extending his treatment, whilst the Pope, the very next day invited the family to Rome for further treatment.

One of the great problems with every court is that courtiers tend to fail to understand the thinking of the Prince, which means of course one moment you can be by his side giving advice and the next in a cage on the roof Castel Sant'Angelo exposed to the elements. The other thing about courtiers is they are often very nasty people, they put their trust in princes and not in the Lord. To see this today one only has to look at Twitter to see the abusive or gloating comments of those who claim to be close to the Pope today. If they judge a man to be an enemy of Francis there is no end to the vilification and bile.

The more unpredictable or incoherent a prince becomes the more violent and malevolent become those who surround him, of course they wish to control him, in the case of the current Pope this probably impossible, in the words of Cardinal Pell, 'he is unique'.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

New Saints


Just seen the motu proprio about the  new criteria for a certain category of martyrs, those who give their lives for others. Maybe I am hyper-critical, or get a little to anxious about anything coming from Rome where ambiguity seems deliberately written into documents and where 2+2 can actually equal 5. I get anxious about anything that distracts us from Christ. On a quick reading it seems that it could be possible to be beatified for a love of humanity rather than for love of Jesus Christ.
Do feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I suppose I have a certain growing concern about the canonisation/beatification of so many, once for Christians in both East and West a person's sanctity was judged on their ability to intercede and work miracles, their post-mortem activity was often much more important than their lives. St Thomas Becket, for example, was raised to the altar not so much for his legal disputes with the King but for the stream of healing miracles after his death.

There is a danger too in the beatification or canonisation of an ideology or a faction rather than a truly holy person who is now in Heaven and enjoying the Beatific vision, interceding for the Church and its members. It would regrettable if canonisation/beatification became a posthumous ecclesiastical decoration for merely the great and the good.

A Coptic Orthodox friend says their criteria for canonisation is the need to be dead for 70 years and for numerous miracles or supernatural occurrences at their intercession or at the place of their burial.

Simply, I get worried about the removal of the clearly supernatural elements in our faith.