Returning to the beatus/sanctus discussion, and to Dennis Martin's
suggestion that sanctity has primarily to do "not with sinlessness or
nobility or likeability but with recognition of and sorrow for one's sins,"
I wonder whether other listmembers agree with me that this seems a
problematic criterion. Thinking historically, the main question that
interests me is whether the medieval faithful would have accepted this as
the primary criterion for determining whether or not someone was a saint.
My guess is that, while this criterion might be theologically defensible,
perhaps especially in modern terms, evidence concerning medieval saints'
cults suggests that when deciding whether to identify someone as a saint,
medieval laypeople and clerics alike tended to be interested in dynamic
personal qualities and abilities, extreme demonstrations of virtue and/or
asceticism, and a person's likeness to Christ, rather than in a potential
saint's penitence. While it's obvious that penitence can be closely allied
to other virtues, to asceticism, and to distinctively Christian behavior,
I'm not convinced that medieval Christians viewed it as the or a main
criterion for sanctity. In the case of St. Joseph, for example, much
eventually is said about his virile strength, his chastity, his humility,
and his love for Jesus, but as his cult developed no extant texts appear to
highlight his penitence for his sins--rather, various texts imply that he
was largely sinless.
Chara Armon
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|