The new norms reframe the Catholic Church’s evaluation process by essentially taking off the table whether church authorities will declare a particular vision, stigmata or other seemingly divinely inspired event supernatural.
Instead, the new criteria envisages six main outcomes, with the most favorable being that the church issues a noncommittal doctrinal green light, a so-called “nihil obstat.” Such a declaration means there is nothing about the event that is contrary to the faith, and therefore Catholics can express devotion to it.
…
The norms also allow that an event might at some point be declared “supernatural,” and that the pope can intervene in the process. But “as a rule,” the church is no longer in the business of authenticating inexplicable events or making definitive decisions about their supernatural origin.
Never thought I’d see the day when the Vatican would take a “We can’t prove anything is supernatural” position. This is a big day for skepticism.
If I’m reading it correctly, they realized that with smartphones and the internet any/everyone can plainly see these miracles are fake, so they’re proactively sidestepping the entire thing.
It is in the sense that they’re not actively promoting the supernatural, but this wishy-washy approach where they say you can still believe in it if you want to and there’s nothing wrong with venerating supernatural things we can’t confirm to be real is not as helpful as it could be.
For a 2000 year old institution this is a big move. I’ll take any win I can get out of them.
You’re right. I shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I’m also glad to let the Roman Catholic Church render itself obsolete and irrelevant. The participation of the USCCB in the Christian nationalist movement, and the Catholic Federalist Society wing of SCOTUS is going to cause a heavy backlash against the entire church, including the Holy See if it continues to push dogma-driven doctrine and further strip civil rights.
It’s really time for religious institutions to resign from their position as the second estate.
I’m not so sure
Aren’t miracles “supernatural”? Don’t people need 2 “confirmed” miracles to be considered for sainthood?
Yes. And hagiography deals in manufacturing a myth by asserting it cannot be disproven with available data.
So are they going as far as to say the Resurrection of Jesus was likely to be ahistorical?
We’re used to a post-Newtonian world being free of ghosts, fairies and divine intervention. But recognizing that their own origins are mythical would be a significant step.
It’s as much admitted to seminaries, just not to the laity.
