Delirium wrote:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>Starting an article as follows: "Saint Bernard
of Clairvaux" will offend
>many a lot human beings who are not members of the Roman church.
I partially agree, and partially disagree. "Saint
Bernard of Clairvaux"
is perfectly fine, as people who have been beatified are often referred
to as such, both by those who recognize the sainthood and those who do
not (there are plenty of atheists who debate the viewpoints of Saint
Peter, for example).
I think that Saint Peter is different from Bernard of Clairvaux.
As an atheist, I typically say, in ordinary conversation,
"Saint Peter", "Saint Paul", and the like -- or better yet,
"the Apostle Peter", "the Apostle Paul", and the like.
The reason for this is disambiguation (in natural speech);
in the context of discussing the Acts of the Apostles,
that's not necessary, but in general it is, and I do that.
But "Bernard of Clairvaux" needs no additional title.
Similarly, I say "Mother Teresa" even though "Mother" is a title
(and a violation of Matthew 23:9 in the opinion of some Protestants),
because this title is what distinguishes her from other "Teresa"s;
yet I would not add "Blessed" -- nor even "Saint" in the future --
since this is not necessary.
In short, "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux" doesn't offend me, an atheist;
yet I also find it unnecessary to use (unlike "Saint Paul", which I do use).
-- Toby