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