Earlier this month, on the day of the canonization of Carlo Acutis (referred to as the "patron saint of the Internet," "God's Influencer" and the "first millennial saint") I questioned and in fact had a debate with Grok (AI) on the Acutis canonization. I asked: "Don't saints have to have performed miracles?" I was leery of the fact that the child saint had never actually performed any miracles in life. I believe the liberal/woke Pope Francis relaxed/downgraded the requirements while he was in power and Acutis's so-called "miracles" occurred after death. So, he created websites documenting miracles, but does that make him saint material? Acutis, at 15, after all, didn't have enough time to have been faced with the many challenges life brings to most saints, which cause them to question their faith.
Maybe it's inconceivable to some, but I compared the idea of Elvis Presley as having been far more deserving of canonization since he influenced generations the world over and brought more people to God/Jesus than almost anyone who ever lived. Most people don't know that the only Grammy award Elvis ever won was for his gospel music. Well, he wasn't a Catholic, and only Catholics are allowed to be sainted. Nonetheless, arguably, Elvis performed many miracles on earth. He was a humble, sweet man - he inspired, he was generous, he crossed the Color Line and did more to help society respect Black people in the Deep South than almost anyone. He was deeply devoted to God/Jesus every day of his life, in spite of his worldly struggles. His miracles were palpable.
"Elvis bridged racial divides in a segregated era - breaking barriers and inspiring unity..."
I truly believe the Catholic Church is trying to make Acutis into some kind of an icon to refill their dwindling coffers as well as their shrinking attendance due to all their scandals. Selecting an American Pope (though Leo seems to be more Peruvian) is one way (a nod to President Trump). Canonizing a 15-year-old Internet genius is another. But they're lowering their standards (a trend that began with far-left Pope Francis) out of desperation. In fact, they should be raising the standards of their moral authority by addressing the pedophile priest scandals head on instead of continuing to brush them aside.
Grok's comeback was surprisingly naive and/or seemingly in the tank for the Catholic Church, yet they denied it. Grok seemed unaware of the untold sums of money the Catholic Church will generate because of the child saint through merchandising, film, media and more...? This decision is a "hep" "solution" due to Carlo's modern appeal - handsome teen, youth/beauty... technology (which tends to distract humans from searching for the God within), i.e., there are already two films about Carlo.
When I think of a "real" Saint, I remember Saint Bernadette Soubirous/ Sainte Bernadette Soubirous of Lourdes.... or Mother Teresa (1910–1997) who lived 87 years, dedicating over six decades to serving the poorest of the poor in Kolkata, India, through the Missionaries of Charity. I tend not to agree with sainting someone who created Internet databases.
The pedophile priest "crisis" (costing the church over $3 billion in U.S. settlements alone) has more than eroded trust in the Catholic Church. The child saint could be a way of diverting the focus to a "positive, youthful figure" - albeit dead from Leukemia. Meanwhile, there are still no "abuse reforms." I always remember this incredible documentary which details just how the Catholic Church continues to sweep this terrible scandal aside - Pope after Pope... "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God." Watch it and weep.
No comments:
Post a Comment