A nun known as Sister Alphonsa will be canonized by the Catholic Church later this year, becoming the first Indian female saint, according to the BBC. 
Sister Alphonsa has a somewhat dark life story:
Sister Alphonsa (1910-1946) of Kerala was beatified in 1986 by the late Pope John Paul II on a visit to India. She will be formally canonised in October.
She had burnt and disfigured herself to avoid a marriage, having chosen to dedicate her life to Christ.
She will become a saint ahead of the Albanian nun Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Mother Teresa was beatified in 2003.
The decision to accord sainthood to Sister Alphonsa was made over the weekend at a meeting between the Pope and other cardinals at the Vatican.
Sister Alphonsa, whose real name was Anna Muttathupadathu, was described by those who knew her as generous and loving. (link)
I should note that the story about it being an intentional self-injury is not repeated on Sister Alphonsa’s Wikipedia page, nor did the Catholic Church refer to it that way in its statement on Sister Alphonsa’s Beatification in 1986. (Also, see how her story is described by Catholicism.org) So perhaps the story isn’t true, or if it is true, it may not be important to those who revere Sister Alphonsa. (If readers have experience with Sister Alphonsa, do people tend to believe this story? Is it important to the popular understanding of why she is revered?)
Of course, Sister Alphonsa is not becoming a Saint for that back-story, but rather because she lived a pious life, overcame her disability (and the lifetime of pain that followed her injury), and helped people. Two miracles are also attributed to her (that is also a requirement for canonization, as I understand it).
That said, I have to say I find the back-story powerful. Is it really true that at age 13 she burned herself in this way to escape a marriage she didn’t want, in order to dedicate her life to the Church? If so, that is at once an amazing and horrible act of self-assertion — and renunciation.
Well, no, it is.
I don’t see how a state that demands mandatory agnosticism and requires that all people be skeptical about metaphysical claims can allow the existence of conflicting religions that require belief in truth claims about the existence of a god – which is in direct conflict with that position. You seem to be confusing secularism with agnosticism. And yes, it is true that secularism or freedom of religion conflicts with totalitarianism. Unless my understanding of the term is completely broken, agnosticism does not advocate equal respect for all religions and points of view.
No, it isn’t. And neither is a belief that current evidence allows judgment in either direction on the question of existence of a G. Unless, you are including a lack of interest in the question of G’s existence under the umbrella of agnosticism. That just sounds like apathy to me, though.
We seem to be going around in circles a bit, so this will be my last comment on this subject.
18 · A N N A said
Just fyi, there are actually 2 canonized Saints in the Indian-Orthodox Church. Mar Dionysius (Vattesseril Thirumeni) is the other (the factoids one learns from Sunday School trivia!)
“I am explaining my attitude towards it.” Rahul says, “No, you claimed that atheism is responsible for the evils in Russia and China. That is blatantly false.” You and brownelf are pretty much confirming to me that atheism does not breed a neutral “attitude.” My attitude is that atheism IS largely responsible for these evils, just as fanatical religion is responsible for much of what is going on in other parts of the world. Can you imagine 20th century Communist Russia or Mao’s China not atheist? And yes, I do know Chinese concepts of religion were different than those of monotheists but they did have beliefs is ‘gods’ or higher powers. You’re looking for neutral as a positive good, cultivate agnosticism.
Any religion — including Atheism. Spanish Inquisition (Catholicism), Taliban (Islam), Communist Soviet Union (Atheism).
Atheism is different from the other “isms” you list, because it is not a belief, it is defined solely as absence of belief. It has no tenets to enforce the way actual religions do. The “ism” that people died under in the USSR and China was Communism, not atheism. Under Mao, an atheist Nationalist would have been targeted for retribution just as surely as any theists might have been.
To say that atheism is a bad “religion” is like saying that bald is a bad hair color.
101 · Rahul said
That’s certainly not agnosticism. I’m really not sure what you’re talking about. For agnostic, see definition and word history, and common misunderstandings. And no, for the record, I wasn’t confusing secularist and agnostic — they’re completely different. Anyway, instead of re-explaining, I just let my previous comment stand as is.
Regards to all, z
Sorry — link mistake! @105 should be common misunderstandings
103 · amreekan said
Just a quick side, but Stalin and Mao didn’t specifically kill masses of people in the name of atheism, which is why it is a bit difficult to label them atheist extremists. The motivating factor was an extremist ideology, but not one of atheism. You could compare the fascism to religious fanaticism, but not their atheist beliefs.
On topic, I thank SM for the post of this topic. I am one of those who had never had the good fortune to have heard of this woman, and I could certainly do with some more education about the various Christian communities in S. Asia.
Mary Mary Not Contrary:
Excellent post. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m quite sick of my relatives harassing me about my atheism.
Zacko, I apologize for continuing the hair splitting, but I wanted to clarify:
From the second link:
An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a god or gods cannot be proven or known. Agnosticism is a statement about the limits of human knowledge. It is an error to suppose that agnostics perpetually hesitate between faith and doubt: they are confident they cannot know the ultimate truth.
What I said:
I don’t see how a state that demands mandatory agnosticism and requires that all people be skeptical about metaphysical claims can allow the existence of conflicting religions that require belief in truth claims about the existence of a god – which is in direct conflict with that position.
Seems the same to me.
Unless the view is that the only reasonable view of God is a non-interfering one, and hence the question of existence is irrelevant – which is again in conflict with the positions of pretty much all major religions that I know of, a lack of opinion on the existence of God seems to just be apathy.
I don’t think the definition of agnosticism as it applies to belief is neutrality, it is that the only acceptable position is skepticism. Secularism is neutrality.
Anyway, the important point as regards this discussion is that the guiding agenda of totalitarian Russia or China was not atheism, it was subservience to the state in all aspects.
109 · Rahul said
Totalitarian states cannot tolerate religious freedom because they simply cannot concede that there is a higher, more transcendent reality whom people are obliged to obey. Totalitarian governments must preach atheism or argue that they speak for God. Thus totalitarian governments either force a particular religion down the throats of people or force people to accept there is no God.
The guiding agenda of both China and Russia was communism. Communism is entirely predicated on a materialist worldview, which is by definition an atheist worldview. In effect both regimes used atheism to wipe away traditional morality and recreate a new “morality” that was used to justify mass murder and subservience to the state.
Atheism doesn’t lead to mass murder, it can lead to a secular humanistic philosophy. But it can also be a guiding philosophy to justify terrible acts of violence.
This is a great narrative and a neat reframing, but it is unfortunately not true. Of particular relevance is this sentence: Influential scholars such as Lawrence Aronsen, Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, Carl Friedrich, and Juan Linz have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the official state ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties.
No, they cannot tolerate religious freedom because they cannot have power centers (like priests, temples etc.) other than government authorities around which people can coalesce.
I dare say atheism wouldn’t have been as annoying if many leading atheists didn’t have 2 b such jerks about it
112 · Aniruddha said
(Un)fortunately Lenin, Mao, Marx and Castro have prolific writings on their views. All of these men have argued that the idea of religion must be destroyed, not simply organized religion. It is impossible for religious people to accept the idea that the state is the highest power. The atheist totalitarians correctly assumed that belief in God was in itself an affront to state authority.
On the practical level, totalitarians do indeed oppose religion because they want to squash alternative power centers. But totalitarian regimes are also based on complex ideologies that seek to squash competing ideologies. Marx and Lenin recognized that religion was a challenge to Communism ideology long before the 1917-Bolshevik Revolution.
The idea of God is itself a competing power center that totalitarians cannot tolerate.
Marx saw religion as a threat to reason itself, and since he thought that if people thought through capitalism, then they would realize they were being exploited. But since religion was used to maintain the status quo in society, people’s blind subscription to it would prevent them from realizing the structure of the system. In this sense, he did not think that religion was a competing ideology, but rather a world-view that prevented people from actually understanding how the world works.
Your analysis is missing totalitarian states that put God and religion as the basis of their right to control – Europe in the dark ages to some degree, Hitler, Taliban, the Ayatollah Al-Khomeini. Totalitarians will subscribe to any ideology that allows them to control the state and the apparatus of power [Various African dictators or people like Trujillo or Ceaucescu or Turkmenbashi either did not concern themselves with religion or if they did, it was an alliance of convenience]. Of course, in that attempt, they mangle or pervert that ideology [eg Hitler wrt Christianity; Stalin wrt to Communism; Mussolini wrt nationalism]. Totalitarianism, in itself, is not aligned with any belief system or religious orientation or lack thereof. What form of totalitarianism have in common is a lack of respect for the rights of individuals, which totalitarian regimes can be sacrificed in achieving the ‘larger’ goal or securing the central power.
I think america is so backward compared to europe with regard to these religious matters mainly because of all the excessive cold war era propaganda against communism (and communists being godless cruel evil people, etc.)
At this rate, especially with the increased globalization, the US might hardly be able to hold on to its supremacy in science and technology a couple of decades into the future…
112 · Aniruddha said
To be honest, at least in America, atheists have a little more wiggle-room as far as being defensive. Consider the statistics. Every poll on the subject shows that Americans would rather vote for a Muslim leader than an atheist one, and various others show atheists being discriminated against and stigmatized in a variety of ways, more so than the religious groups here. I often hear religious American people talking about how atheists are always aggressive, intolerant and in-your-face, but in certain ways, they have to suffer more because of their (lack of) belief than do the theists. I mean, Christopher Hitchens certainly is obnoxious, but still…
Its amazing how Amardeep was more concerned about her behaviour at the age of 13 and did not talk about her work as an adult.
In previous ages people had to exhibit severe asceticism like retiring to the Himalayas and standing on one foot for decades with but a loincloth on, withstanding heat, cold, wind, rain, poisonous snakes etc, in order to achieve moksha.
Nowadays you just have to be born in the West and go to India. Living there is austere enough to count for all what the yogis went through in previous times.
Oh Pardesi Gori, your austerities have impressed us. I grant you the boon of being able to put your foot your in your mouth at will. Oh I see you’ve already been given that….
…………LOL!
109 · Rahul said
Reminds me Jon Stewart’s sketch on Bush. To rephrase: “I would rather have a strong opinion than be right.”
I cannot see any other position being rational than agnosticism. Atheism claims a belief in the non-existence of God without conclusive proof, while deriding any belief in the existence of God (irrespective of religion) because it is without conclusive proof.
From “dependable” Wikipedia:
Perhaps it is agnostic theism that allows for neutrality?
Mary Mary Not Contrary said
Borrowing from above analogy: Atheism asserts someone is bald while they are covering their head. All religions seem to assert their hair color is one thing or other. Alas! It would be apathy if we don’t have an opinion on other’s hair :).
Alphonsamma is going to be remembered as the patron Saint of Syro Malabar Catholics (the most educated and afluent community in India). Come and see the wonders, this community has received through her hevaenly intercession. Visit the Central part of Kerala, the God’s very own country ! All glory and honor to God almighty!
122 · George said
I think Sister Alphonsa would prefer humility in her devotees, but wtf do I know…I’m an uneducated and middle-class Orthodox penne. I’d also like to think that Saints are not so petty, that they will only direct their heAvenly grace towards narrow slivers of a community. But I am not excessively educated, nor am I afFluent, so I am quite probably wrong.
Seriously, was that necessary? It’s a turn-off when anyone types such things, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Punjabi or Bengali; all suck same. I’m very proud of being Malayalee. I think Kerala– and not just the central part of it, where my blood is from– is amazing. There are ways to express such sentiments which are more appropriate.
Sorry, if it sounded offensive. What I was trying to say that if this humble saint is known only in Central Kerala, she should be made known world wide. It does not matter whichever religion you believe, just ask for her intercession, you will be blessed. You’re humbling yourself in front of God, by asking for intercession through a humble servant of him. The so called evangelical born again Christians , please take a note.
Yep! Krishna says, “whowever says they are My devottee, they are not. But who says they are a devottee of My devottee, they are My real devottee”.
God/dess loves humility.
Anna, Sorry about the tone in my comment & about the 2 typos. Doing this night shift at Dallas for the IT firm, and wandered away from the central point. I just browsed through your previous comments, and I do see your point.This is a secular form and I do appreciate your wisdom and advice. My apologies..
Later Day Saints, I do appreciate you for your pearls of wisdom. It does truely convey the essence of our great Indian culture.
I hope that today Sister alphonsa will defenitly be cannonized as a Saint.What might be the God Almighy’s feeling when human beings are trying declare a Person who died to be declared as Saint?Here question is that it is a practice in Catholic Church to declare a died person as a Saint?But in some other religions the living persons where delared by that community or by the person himself as a God.Human beings has the capability to think and imagine and make things to their own considerations.But there are ecconomic and spiritual belief or aspects gets ahead.Anyway I personally feel that it is better not to think much about these activities of such communities as “Human Love and Compassion should be our goal in deciding things”.Human are living for getting love and be loved.That is all.
What a great day today for humanity and especially for India ! Lets offer our prayers to Sister Alphonso ! May Lord Jesus give continued divine light to this great sister from India. May she protect and guide all of us. Sister, we love you.
Canonization of sister Alphonsa to sainthood is an honour given to India.As Indian christian communities faces persecution these days this graceful moment is a strenth to the chrintians in our Mother Land and Our Living God exsalts us amidst humilation and sufferungs.St. Alphonsa is praying for us to bear witness to Christ.St. Alphonsa remains as a role model and inspiraton to the catholics in India.
Photographs associated with Saint AlphonsAmma in http://www.alphonsamma.com.
Thanks Manoj Mathew
jyotsana,i don’t think baba amte was so deserving to get the name .sister alphonso is the right one
i think it is very amazing to burn her feet to avoid marriage and and become a sister in a church and to be the follower of jesus christ