Mother Teresa gets her second miracle, now on the fast track to sainthood

December 18, 2015 • 11:30 am

The Big News this morning is that Pope Francis has, miraculously, come across another miracle performed by Mother Teresa—or rather by her spirit. This gives her the second miracle she needs to go beyond beatification to full canonization, becoming Saint Teresa. The Vatican clearly put the old fraud on the fast-track to sainthood ever since she died, and now they get their chance. In the old days, it took decades or centuries from candidacy to canonization, but now, trying to court popular sentiment, the Vatican has accelerated the process.

But remember that even Mother Teresa’s first miracle was totally bogus. As I wrote in Faith Versus Fact:

The Vatican itself, which requires a miracle to beatify someone, and two miracles to make them a saint, is none too scrupulous about the medical evidence needed to elevate someone to the pantheon. The beatification of Mother Teresa, for instance, was the supposed disappearance of ovarian cancer in Monica Besra, an Indian woman who reported she was cured after looking at a picture of the nun. It turns out, though, that her tumor wasn’t cancerous but tubercular, and, more important, she’d received conventional medical treatment in a hospital, with her doctor (who wasn’t interviewed by the Vatican) taking credit for the cure.

(See also the objections of Indian rationalists to this “evidence.”)

Now, just in time for Christmas, the Pope has recognized a second miracle. The BBC reports:

Pope Francis has recognised a second miracle attributed to Mother Teresa, clearing the way for the Roman Catholic nun to be made a saint next year.

The miracle involved the healing of a Brazilian man with several brain tumours in 2008, the Vatican said.

Mother Teresa died in 1997 and was beatified – the first step towards sainthood – in 2003.

. . . “The Holy Father has authorised the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to proclaim the decree concerning the miracle attributed to the intercession of blessed Mother Teresa,” the Vatican said on Friday.

She is expected to be canonised in Rome in September.

. . . There are few details about the recovery of the Brazilian man, whose life the Vatican says was saved in the second miracle.

His identity has not been disclosed to maintain the discretion needed for the investigation, the Catholic New Agency has said.

It says he was unexpectedly cured from brain tumours in 2008 after his priest prayed for Mother Teresa’s intervention with God.

Well, before Agnes Bojaxhiu can be elevated to the Heavenly Pantheon, she has to be vetted, including examination by the genuine “Devil’s Advocate,” who militates against making her a saint. It was Christopher Hitchens who did that when Bojaxhiu was up for beatification, as described in this article.

But the procedure is not an objective examination of the miracles and saint-worthiness of Mother Teresa; it’s a pure put-up job. We can see that because the Vatican already says she’ll be a saint within a year. I wouldn’t bet against that!

The Church is none too scrupulous about these “miracles,” of course. They decide in advance that someone will become a saint, like the popular John Paul II, and then, if you look hard enough, you’ll find people willing to come forward to provide the requisite two “miracles.” It’s not even close to an objective, scientific procedure.

Even if there were no natural explanation for these “miracles,” usually involving the disappearance of a disease, isn’t it odd that those diseases happen to be the ones that can show spontaneous remission anyway? Nobody gets canonized for helping legs or eyes grow back. And in the case of Mother Teresa’s first miracle, the “remission” occurred after medical treatment, and the disease was misdiagnosed anyway.

Catholics should be ashamed of themselves for buying into this bogus vetting of saints. For, after all, this is not just an earthly honor, for sainthood is not supposed to be bestowed on an individual by the Church, but recognized as a special sign of holiness and God’s favor. And once you’re a saint, you have special access to God, and therefore praying to saints gives one a hotline to the divine.

What a foolish idea, and one made more foolish by the purely subjective decision that it takes at least two miracles to confer—excuse me, recognize—sainthood, and by the arbitrary and tendentious way these miracles are recognized.

mother-teresa-cat

h/t: Matthew Cobb

Props from FEMEN

December 18, 2015 • 10:30 am

Inna Shevchenko, head of the feminist and anti-theocratic organization FEMEN, was profiled in Paris Match in the article below. She adds on her Facebook page, “In french Paris Match magazine (hidden propaganda of Jerry Coyne book :)”

Translation of the headline by Francophone Matthew Cobb: “Yes, I am the leader – I don’t believe in anarchy!”

10714422_1011788805529542_8213822949178163750_o

Fire! Fire!: A new attack on free speech

December 18, 2015 • 9:15 am

by Grania Spingies

Jerry called my attention to an article written in Slate by Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School: “ISIS Gives Us No Choice but to Consider Limits on Speech“. Posner argues that in light of the recent trend of disaffected and naive youths enticed into joining ISIS, criminal sanctions should be applied to those trying to access websites with pro-ISIS content.

As disturbing and tragic as these stories are, it isn’t quite the tsunami of defection that some media outlets and Donald Trump would have you believe.  The biggest estimates put it at around 250 Americans (out of 318.9 million, which comes to 0.0000783% ) and 430-440 British (out of 64.1 million). Even at double those figures, the number of people leaving to become jihadis in Syria is infinitesimally small.

Nevertheless, Professor Posner suggests that there should be this:

a law that makes it a crime to access websites that glorify, express support for, or provide encouragement for ISIS or support recruitment by ISIS; to distribute links to those websites or videos, images, or text taken from those websites. [My emphasis.]

I’m neither an American citizen nor a lawyer (and I don’t even watch pretend-lawyers on TV), but it seems to me that Posner’s is a deeply unconstitutional and illiberal suggestion.

One of the paragraphs  that leapt out at me was one in which he argues that protections could be allowed for “legitimate” interest:

One worry about such a law is that it would discourage legitimate ISIS-related research by journalists, academics, private security agencies, and the like. But the law could contain broad exemptions for people who can show that they have a legitimate interest in viewing ISIS websites. Press credentials, a track record of legitimate public commentary on blogs and elsewhere, academic affiliations, employment in a security agency, and the like would serve as adequate proof.

But that doesn’t really reassure me much: it doesn’t give much protection to the average human being whether they be Joe Citizen, let alone Jamilla Immigrant who may just be rubber-necking, taking a look out of curiosity and horrified fascination. The average person does not have press credentials or employment in a security agency; and I’m not even sure what a track record of legitimate public commentary would look like. But that lack doesn’t make a convincing case for making criminals of ordinary people looking up websites out of curiosity—even websites run by appalling human beings. ISIS is almost universally loathed and condemned. Why would it be necessary for a liberal society, in which support for such a group is statistically non-existent, to threaten and criminalise its own people for looking at the “wrong” things, or reading the “wrong” kind of website?

I’m not trying to argue that one could find anything useful or even educational on such websites. But there doesn’t have to be. That absence does not provide much support for the Ban It! team’s claim that it should be considered criminal  for someone with an internet connection to look at such material, let alone how banning it would be of benefit society. I can, however, think of how it could be harmful to society to allow government agencies to start threatening private individuals for reading the wrong sort of stuff.

Interestingly, Donald Trump agrees with Posner. That alone should give us pause.

A few years ago, Christopher Hitchens participated in a rousing debate in Canada on the subject of state censorship. It’s a short speech I find myself returning to again and again over the years whenever someone suggests that it would be better for everyone if the publication of certain things were banned and if people were not permitted to access to certain images, texts or ideas:

“Every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something.”

“Who’s going to decide…. or to determine in advance what the harmful consequences are going to be that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor?”

The point here is not that there might be anything salubrious on pro-ISIS websites. It is surely quite the reverse. But what better way of proving it than letting people see the horror for themselves if they so choose?

Hitchens’s full speech here: (do yourself a favor and watch it; it’s a classic of rhetoric and eloquence):

=========================================================================

Recommended reading: Ken White (criminal defense lawyer and blogger at Popehat): “Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough“, a very worthwhile examination on the limits of free speech, the relevant U.S case law on the subject and why quoting Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes on the “shouting fire in a theater” analogy is not a smart choice. [JAC: I’ve just read this and it’s an excellent piece, well worth the time invested.]

Postscript: I see that Ken White has also read Posner’s article and has written about it, rather more colorfully and comprehensively than I. Do give it a read as well.

What Brits really get up to at Xmas

December 18, 2015 • 8:15 am

by Matthew Cobb

The UK Office of National Statistics tw**ted this graphic showing the frequency of births in England and Wales around the year. As my pal, BBC TV producer Gideon Bradshaw, tw**ted, Merry Sexmas everybody!

Non-UK readers should realise that many people find themselves stuck with family for several days over Xmas. Rail travel is nigh-impossible (Network Rail chooses the holiday period to do major repairs on our 19th century infrastructure), and in the past many shops were closed (that has changed, but the feeling that we are living under siege conditions persists). Under those circumstances, what else is there to do but to increase our fitness?

Or perhaps people get so drunk at New Year that they forget to use contraception… Can readers provide figures for any other countries which would act as a useful comparison?

Readers’ wildlife photographs

December 18, 2015 • 7:30 am

Just in: a cool fossil courtesy of reader James Blilie:

This photo isn’t of a living thing; but rather its traces:  A tetrapod trackway in Permian or Carboniferous sedimentary rocks, Cedar Mesa, southern Utah.  2001, Kodachrome 64, probably a Pentax A 20mm f/2.8 lens.  Probably f/11 at 1/125 sec. Pure speculation, but it could be from Eryops, or a similar animal. Scale:  Those marks are probably 3-4 inches in diameter (7.5 – 10 cm). This first (and only) trackway I’ve found “in the wild” on my own.  I might not have noticed it if it hadn’t been for the angle of the sun.

2001_Utah_Cedar_Mesa

Here’s a reconstruction of the large Eryops (up to 3 meters), a semi-aquatic carnivore that lived about 300 million years ago:

1280px-Eryops1DB

Reader Kevin Voges, a retired university professor in New Zealand, sent a photo of a bird I didn’t know existed (or, if I did—and I probably posted about it years ago!—I’ve forgotten). It’s the tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae), once called the “parson bird” because of its striking white collar, and it’s endemic to NZ. Kevin’s notes:

Just the one photo from me. We’ve been planting natives on our property in the Wakatipu (New Zealand), as well as trying to keep the predator population down, and I put in some bird feeders. This Tui has just moved in this year, apparently they tend to stay once they’ve arrived. The early Europeans called it the parson bird! The yellow on its head is pollen from a flax plant (you can see them at the back).

Tui is the Maori name, not sure of its origin. The Maori have a range of other names, depending on location and age, but Tui is the most common name. The tufts are called poi. We put sugar water in the feeders (one cup per litre), which helps them through the winter when there are less blossoms about. There are a few food sources on our place, flax and fuchsia, with more on the way as the trees mature, but he obviously likes the sugar as well.

SONY DSC

Kevin adds, “They are good mimics as they have two voice boxes. Apparently the Maori taught them quite complex speeches“. Here’s a video of a permanently injured (and therefore captive) tui named “WoofWoof,” who speaks prolificially in a Kiwi accent, makes kissing noises, and even whistles “Pop goes the weasel”:

And while we’re on birds from down under, reader Ben Batt (who sent us “spot the stone curlew”), provides more photos:

Bush Stone-curlew (Burhinus grallarius). These birds were quite tame, and would usually just walk away or crouch down and freeze as we approached. They skulk about in an amusingly shifty way, freezing whenever you look at them:

Bush Stone-curlew (Burhinus grallarius)

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus):

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus)

Rainbow Lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus):

Rainbow Lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus)

Blue-winged Kookaburra (Dacelo leachii):

Blue-winged Kookaburra (Dacelo leachii)

Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina):

Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina)

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus):

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)

 

Friday: Hili dialogue

December 18, 2015 • 5:22 am

One week from today it will be Christmas Day and, more important, the beginning of Coynezaa. That means you have only seven shopping days left before the annual orgy of materialism. As for yours truly, I am still suffering from a sore throat, but a day in bed was so incredibly boring that I am going to hie myself to work and see how I do. On this day in history, Charles Dawson announced the finding of Piltdown Man, a staple of creationists although it was later revealed—by scientists!—to be a hoax. It is still used to discredit every ancient hominin skull ever found. On December 18, 1917, Congress approved the language to inaugurate the ill-fated era of Prohibition: no alcohol in the US! Brad Pitt was born on this day in 1963, making the heartthrob 52 (already?). And in this day in 1829, French biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck died at the ripe old age of 85. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is avoiding the cold weather outside by going to sleep.

Cyrus: Did you notice that they were complaining about the weather again?
Hili: No, I slept through it.

P1030686

In Polish:
Cyrus: Czy zauważyłaś, że oni znowu narzekali na pogodę?
Hili: Nie, przespałam to.

Squirrel of the Day

December 17, 2015 • 2:45 pm

Reader Anne-Marie Cournoyer of Montreal, who lately has specialized in photographing squirrels, sends us an early warning from her northern outpost:

Squirrel of the day says: be ready for the winter. No snow yet, but it’s coming!!!

DSCN0436

Professor Ceiling Cat (Emeritus) adds: There is beauty all around you, no less in the squirrels than in the flowers. Pay attention to our friends in the Sciuridae, and give them sustenance for the winter.