I think your are brilliant in the art of scarcasm
2007-08-31 15:57:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The formal process of sainthood involves a complicated process taking time, money, testimonies, and miracles, and the church follows a strict set of rules in the process. Once the applicant is approved as a candidate, an appointed postulator interviews those who knew the individual. Personal testimonies, letters, and writings of the candidate's are put together. A relater then sifts through this information and prepares a position paper. If the volumes of evidence prove a life of "heroic virtue", the person is given the title "venerable" by the Pope. The next title, beatified (blessed), is attained if it can be proven that a miracle occurred after the death of the candidate, the result of someone praying to that person for help. To finalize a canonization, it must be established that a second miracle occurred. (Martyrs are the exception. The pope can reduce their miracle requirement to one or waive it altogether.) Most often prayer requests are for a physical healing. Verifying a miracle is considered the most difficult hurdle in the process. Just deciding what constitutes one causes debate. A life of heroic virtue is obviously easier to establish than a healing that results from prayers. At this point, Diana has met only one qualification, that being that it has been at least 5 years since her death.
I agree that Diana was an exceptional woman who left this world much too soon. Whether she will ever be considered for sainthood is probably a stretch.
2007-08-31 09:29:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by claudiacake 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Even in the Anglican Catholic tradition, to venerate Diana would be downgrade the memory of some very committed Christians. Yes, she worked with AIDS patients and called for the abolishing of land mines, but given this criteria, Angelina Jolie is bucking for sainthood. Mother Teresa in a Versace frock she wasn't. Of course, the Russian Orthodox Church now venerates the family of Nicholas II as sainted martyrs.
2007-09-03 11:47:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ellie Evans-Thyme 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, I don't think that will happen, even if Diana had been Catholic. Indeed, I think Diana herself would say she was no saint. Besides, the process of canonization in the Roman Catholic Church is a very long, thorough and arduous one, it's also historically very subjective...a great many very worthy people do not make the cut because of the criteria put out there by the Church...and there are some who made it to sainthood, but were still very questionable...and after further scrutiny wound up being suppresed or even de-canonized like St. Christopher.
As for other branches of Christianity that recognize saints?
It would not make sense for the Orthodox churches to elevate her to sainthood either, since Diana was not Orthodox, nor of the ancestry that most people are in Orthodox churches.
Now, it's somewhat within the realm of reality for Diana to be venerated within the Anglican Communion aka the Church of England. The process to be declared a saint in that faith community is not as rigorous as in the RC church, and no "verified" miracles are required. It's just a matter of demonstrating that those people went that extra mile in their life and work.
A bit of history re: Anglican sainthood. Since the English Reformation, only King Charles I has been canonized in the Church of England. However, Anglicans do have a calendar of saints. Other more recent persons, while not officially declared saints, may be added to the national calendars for veneration. For example, C. S. Lewis (November 22) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (April 4). Right now, there is a movement within the Anglican/Episcopal church to have civil rights justice Thurgood Marshall venerated by 2009.
However, to venerate Princess Diana could still cause some contention within the CofE and the worldwide Anglican communion as well as the Royal family...because of the politics that would surely be involved with the possibility of Prince Charles accessing the throne someday. The reining monarch is also considered The Defender Of The Faith...so it could be a very ticklish situation for him having an ex-spouse declared a saint. Just my opinion there.
To me, Diana is a role model, a heroine but she is not a saint. From a Roman Catholic/Papal point of view, the lives of saints are supposedly perfect and sinless, with miracles attributed to them...and this was not true of Diana. No disrespect intended, but it is a matter of public record that she fell from grace on a few occasions. It's ok to admire, but one should be honest about their heroes and heroines without being judgemental about them. After all, to err is human. As of yet, no one has attributed any supernatural types of miracles to the Princess. Her "miracles" were more of the everday kind that you or I are equally as capable of doing, too.
In a lot of ways I think it's better for history and the human psyche that Princess Diana not be elevated to sainthood. It would be all too easy to put her on a shelf and forget her legacy that way. To me, the world needs to know that even if we as people are imperfect and do miss the mark on occasion, we can still be good, caring and compassionate people who can really make a difference in the world, each in our own way.
To me, Diana demonstrated that in her daily life in very tangible and attainable ways...and that alone is worthy of admiration and respect.
2007-08-31 10:51:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
No I wouldnt go that far...She did good works with her big heart but her time got cut short. If thats the case then Angelina Jolie is next in line...Yeah Right ! I personally feel that Diana was picked off by the queen to avoid public humiliation towards the royal family...its happened before so to me its no surprize...its sad but thats how a monarch runs
2007-08-31 11:36:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Michael G 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
Oh for god's sake. Diana was hardly a saint. Yes, she did some good work, but off-hours she hardly lived a saintly life.
That aside, there are a few barriers to sainthood: she wasn't Roman Catholic, and not miracles are attributed to her.
Fawn over her if you want, but get a grip. She was a rich girl who married well and then blew it.
2007-08-31 09:26:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by brian s 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
she may have done a lot of charitable work and been an inspiration to millions, but in order to be canonized, you have to
a) be Catholic &
b) have 3 miracles performed in your name
PS
Angelina Jolie does a lot for charity also. Is she a saint too?
2007-08-31 09:26:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by CGAA72 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
A Saint? I sure hope not!
If so, then they're just handing out sainthoods - I'll make sure I show up to that line a little while after I die.
2007-08-31 09:26:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by 280znoob 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'm sorry to not agree-but that is going a little too far. She wasn't that perfect. She was just a nice person who used her name and face to sometimes help others not as fortunate as herself. But to say she was a saint. No.
2007-08-31 09:43:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by dee 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
She was a member of the royal family (it doesn't deserve capitalisation anymore) and therefore used our taxes to buy her everyday things.
The only thing the royal family does for us is bring in tourism.
Although she was a wonderful woman, there are plenty of people out there that get no recognition for their work - and are therefore more deserving - they just didn't get the same publicity.
2007-08-31 09:28:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
You Hard on!
you do realize what it takes to become a saint, don't you?
You have to have two confirmed miracles!!!
Yeah princess Dia was cute but for fu*k's sake
a Saint ?!?
2007-08-31 09:30:28
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋