Benedict on Conclusive and Confirmed, Sort of.

Pew Forum ran this piece about scientific tests performed on the bones from the remains housed under the Basilica of St. Paul.  Church tradition has long held that these are the actual remains of the Apostle Paul. According to the piece Pope Benedict said the tests, which dated the bones to the first or second century c.e., "seem to conclude" that they are the bones of Paul. In a longer quote, Benedict says, "This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul."

Here finally is the reason I can never be Catholic. A series of tests conducted on bones believed by the Church to be the bones of Paul dates those bones to the first or second century, and that is conclusive when combined with the testimony of Church tradition that these are in fact Paul's remains? Because the Church has never lied about remains or relics. Because the Church has never constructed fake histories. Because dating a set of anonymous remains to within one hundred years of the historic figure is the same as confirming the story? I know the Roman Church has never been all that rational, at least since Aquinas (and even his rationalism was predicated on the assumption that God exists), but this seems to be a pretty low standard of proof. The larger question, I guess, is: proving they are Paul's bones proves what?

Comments

[Leighton]

It proves that pilgrims can continue to affirm that they have a subjectively rational basis to visit Vatican City and spend lots of tourist euros. It's nice to be reminded that American evangelicals don't have a monopoly on religion as brand loyalty writ large.

[cheek]

That's what's so annoying (alarming?) about specified religious belief. We all have to take a minimum of epistemic risks to avoid the morass of skepticism, but religion seems to make otherwise intelligent and studied people defend propositions both implausible and inconsequential. What in Purple Sky World possesses anyone to care so much whether a pile of dust used to be a successful church-planter?

[Kevin Powell]

It also "proves" the miracles caused by the relics. And by extension, the church's authority, by virtue of the church having possessed them, and confessed them to be authentic.

[dr dobson]

Clearly these are relics directly from the Saint himself, but only because the Church has them. This is no different than the Church's authority on the veracity of manuscript duplications, as well as the fact that it is all inerrant, right?