Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.misc
Subject: Re: RE: St. Christopher
Message-ID: <559@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 9-Feb-84 13:08:46 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.559
Posted: Thu Feb  9 13:08:46 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 08:13:41 EST
References: <439@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 16

I understand your point, Rich, & probably agree with you.  But if it's
not being boorish to make the further point....:  saints as defined by
the RCC are supposed to be historical human beings (why not merely mor-
tals, including animals?  I don't see why not having souls makes them
incapable of performing miracles; the Vatican is human-chauvinist!), i.e.
individuals who really existed.  Unlike deities or angels (or devils).

The RCC certainly favors symbols (the goddess Virgin Mary, a veritable
one-spirit pantheon of every female deity of antiquity, including Hecate).
It simply has this thing about saints: like theologians and most heretics,
they ought to be real folks.  Perhaps the reason why is that canonization is 
a procedure exclusively owned by one of the Vatican bureaucracies.  It's not
bureaucratically nice to deal in complete (as opposed to partial) fictions.

					Cheers,
					Ron Rizzo