--- Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Maybe Santosh, who has not examined St. FX's
> >remains, yet continues his cynical insinuations
> that
> >the remains were preserved in some artificial
> manner,
> >can show us some evidence that someone has asked
> for
> >permission to examine St. FX's remains and is being
> >denied.
> >
>
> Good show! At last, we have a concession that there
> is
> no evidence that someone has asked permission to
> scientifically examine SFX remains to determine
> whether they were naturally, semi-naturally or
> artificially preserved.
>
Mario responds:
>
Concession? What concession? I don't even know if
someone has asked for permission and been rejected, as
you have slyly insinuated without providing us with
any evidence.
>
The Catholic Church does not make it's decisions on
sainthood lightly, and has de-certified certain saints
when evidence indicated that this was appropriate.
This counters your cynical atheist insinuations that
saints are created willy nilly to fool the gullible.
>
All I have said is that I have no problem with a
modern analysis of any saint's basis for sainthood
because our religion does not depend on any saint and
there are several whose credentials are beyond the
reproach of even the most cynical atheist.
