FR01-15 UROLOGICAL DISEASE AS A BASIS FOR MIRACLES IN THE CANONIZATION PROCESS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyHistory of Urology Forum I (FR01)1 Apr 2019FR01-15 UROLOGICAL DISEASE AS A BASIS FOR MIRACLES IN THE CANONIZATION PROCESS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Naji Touma* and Jacalyn Duffin Naji Touma*Naji Touma* More articles by this author and Jacalyn DuffinJacalyn Duffin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555406.32493.82AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Health and healing have been part of all the major religious and spiritual traditions in the world. In the Roman Catholic tradition, miracles, especially healing miracles, have formed the basis of recognition of a venerable person’s relation to God. Since the counter-reformation, the Catholic Church has relied on a process that scrutinizes the medical aspect of a healing miracle. It is a process that relies on medical testimony to demonstrate the supernatural nature of a healing miracle. Miracles involving urological disease have constituted the basis for canonization of several saints over the last four centuries. In this work, we seek to determine the nature of urological conditions that have served this process unique to the Catholic Church. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2007, the medical historian and physician, Jacalyn Duffin, conducted several long research trips to the Vatican where these records were examined. At least one miracle, preferably the final one, was examined for every cause since 1588. A total of 1409 miracles pertaining to 229 different canonizations and 145 beatifications from 1588 to 1999 were collated. A conservative estimate suggests that this collection represents a third to half of all the miracles. The saints whose causes were examined spanned the course of one millennium, from 928 to 1922. In this work, we examine the miracles related to urological conditions. RESULTS: Urological conditions played a role in 34 miracles examined representing 2.6% of all healing miracles for this post congregation canonization process spanning from the late sixteenth century onwards. Prior to the seventeenth century, most urological miracles involved either a cure for renal colic or retention. As technology improved, new diagnoses started appearing in the records of the twentieth century. Male miraculés were the majority of benefactors of urological miracles but were as likely to appeal to male or female saints. CONCLUSIONS: Healing miracles have formed the basis for the canonization process in the Roman Catholic tradition. Urological miracles have played a role in this process with old diseases such as renal colic and retention figuring prominently in the seventeenth century and newer conditions playing a role more recently. Source of Funding: None Kingston, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e248-e249 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Naji Touma* More articles by this author Jacalyn Duffin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».