For the longest time, Catholic churches and individuals have made money from claims of the supernatural, such as religious statues weeping or bleeding or the image of Jesus appearing on toast or in stains on walls, people claiming to have seen visions of Mary, and so on. Some of these claims were given credence by local priests and bishops.
The Catholic church has decided that this nonsense has gone too far and is exposing the church to ridicule and has decided to crack down, at least on some of the sillier claims.
Apparitions of the Virgin Mary and weeping statues have been part of Catholicism for centuries, but the age of social media has prompted the Vatican to issue a crackdown against potential scams and hoaxes.
New rules issued on Friday say that only a pope, rather than local bishops, can declare apparitions and revelations to be “supernatural”. The document, Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, updates previous guidance issued in 1978 that is now considered “inadequate”.
…There was “the possibility of believers being misled by an event that is attributed to a divine initiative but is merely the product of someone’s imagination, desire for novelty, tendency to fabricate falsehoods (mythomania), or inclination toward lying”.
The new rules strip bishops of the power to recognise the “supernatural” nature of apparitions and other purportedly divine events. Instead it offers bishops six potential conclusions, ranging from nihil obstat (nothing hinders), which would allow and even encourage popular devotion, to a declaration that a phenomenon is not supernatural.
Well, there goes a great source of amusement.
… there goes a great source of amusement.
Not necessarily: Francis perceives the supernatural everywhere.
If you took all the body parts of Jesus from all around the world, you could probably build thousands of Jesuses.
I recently heard about a DNA study of Beethoven’s hair. Of the eight samples they obtained, three were different from the other five (which were the same, and presumably authentic).
“There was “the possibility of believers being misled by an event that is attributed to a divine initiative but is merely the product of someone’s imagination, desire for novelty, tendency to fabricate falsehoods (mythomania), or inclination toward lying”.”
Hmm. Kinda like religion itself.
Matt G @ 2
Quick; clone Beethoven!
Matt G @ 3
At least, they are keeping the exsorcists. There is a Catholic one that is doing exsorcisms by telephone.
BTW if you reviewed the christian -especially the catholic -- world view in the manner of critically reviewing a SF or fantasy book you would pounce on the inherent antropocentric ideas and the inconsistencies. JRR Tolkien literally spent decades removing inconsistencies from his work, which is why it is so lasting. Yes, LOTR and The Silmarillon are literally superior to christianity, its Jewish predecessor and islam. Plus all the other several thousand ones.
But Ganesha the blue elephant god gets points for style. I will also grant Ukko the Finnish god of thunder the compliment of being smarter than Thor. And Melek Taus -- the angel of the yazidians -- has a peacock as symbol. Peacocks are nice.
What about God? Can God declare apparitions and revelations to be “supernatural”.?
“Peacocks are nice.” Until they start screaming. They probably motivated Jesus to come out of his tomb to tell them to knock it off.
birgerjohansson says @ 4
“At least, they are keeping the exsorcists. There is a Catholic one that is doing exsorcisms by telephone.”
I could use that. I’m sure my phone is possessed.
That bar is so low it’s at ground level.
The hoaxers are not likely to go away. They get their lulz from fooling the rubes. If it takes in a bishop or pope, that’s just a bit of icing. There are so many rubes willing to be fooled, the officials get lost in the crowd.
Such a shame the big G did not send a missive to the pope to make a rule like this from the start, he could have saved his people a great deal of embarrassment from the start.
Holms, God knows best. So far, so good… the Church remains.
Not that many human institutions have lasted 2,000 years, have they?
(Inscrutable, is the Dog)
@ Morales
Oh come now.. Catholicism might mythologize itself as two thousand years old, but no actual scholar takes that seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Siricius
So, Silentbob, you reckon one can either be an actual scholar or a believing Catholic, but not both.
It follows you don’t think any actual scholars are Catholics.
Heh.
It always amazes me how it’s only ever Roman Catholics who see the Virgin Mary, only ever Muslims who see Arabic writing spelling out compliments to Allah in natural phenomena, only ever Hindus who see statues of cows drinking milk, and so forth.
Even in today’s modern, multicultural melting pot, you never seem to hear of cross-faith miracles, such as a Sikh slipping a slice of bread under the grill and seeing Jesus in the resulting toast.
Have the Gods got some sort of non-compete agreement, or something?
[bah, bob the snipe always runs away. A bit different from using a comment-blocker, a tad less snowflakey, but same thing really]
Come on, did you mean to imply that the first Bishop of Rome who called themself ‘Pope’ is the origin of the Catholic church?
Heh.
Here, for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Peter#Catholic_view
—
Right. On-topic. Church, miracles.
The Church has been around for a while now — only a hyper-literalist would imagine exactly 2,000 years — and obviously this sort of stuff has come up in the past.
Any actual scholar would know that the Church has officially investigated miracles for centuries, and determined which ones it endorses as a matter of pragmatism and convenience. There’s been a whole bureaucracy set up for it for ages, ostensibly for determining whether canonisation was warranted.
Basically, this is nothing new.
(Holms obviously knows naught about this stuff)
—
(See also Church, exorcisms)
Well, technically, though the process itself is not new, what is new is that it is a further centralisation of managerial control, much as was the origination of papal infallibility (ex cathedra) on the basis on papal supremacy.
A recapitulation.
Remember how it goes in the RCC:
Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and laity.
Pretty straightforward.
Maps pretty well to feudal views of societal hierarchies ;)
Go on, Bobiferant. You started it, but you can’t finish it, can you?
Heh.
What do actual scholars think is the actual age of the RCC, as you see it?
What religion was the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome before Siricius, in your imagination?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_Rome)
A curious synchronicity?
In the news: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11kyy58dgo