Link to full article (Story is from January; I just ran across a column mentioning it in the Fortean Times.)
I have to confess I’m kind of conflicted about this. On the one hand, it’s good to see the Church developing higher standards for this sort of “miracle”; on the other hand, it’ll probably be a reduction in cheap entertainment.
I think I’d flee if I knew the Holy Office of the Inquisition was coming to investigate me with exorcists and whatnot.
“Um, what’s that?”
“We call this a ‘thumbscrew’. We attach it like so…”
Remember Father Guido Sarducci from Saturday Night Live?
He did a bit once about the church canonizing some woman who had performed only three miracles instead of the required four. “They just waived the fourth one”, he said with disgust.
Then he ranted for a while, paused and said in that ridiculous accent, “I understand two of 'em was-a card tricks…”
Is this the RCC’s way of saying "Look, the Blessed Mother is not going to debase herself by appearing in your drywall mould, so knock this ‘Mary in my french toast’ crap off ", without casting doubt over the idea that oh yes indeed-iy, miracles happen (but only when we authorize them)?
Seems kind of counterproductive for the Catholic Church. Remove sightings by attention-seekers and crazies, and what have you got left?
Of course Catholic bashing is perfectly appropriate among the enlightened.
But I wonder if I might ask this question, and expect any kind of an honest appraisal from those that answer it: why do you suppose the author of the article chose to inform his readers that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used to be called the Holy Office of the Inquisition? I mean, yeah, it’s true… but the change away from that name took place over a hundred years ago, before the living memory of anyone reading that article. What was the intent of including that reference, do you think?
I wasn’t aware that one of the tools of the Inquisition was ignoring people. Which is what they’re threatening here:
It seems like a sensible way to keep the hysterics and attention-seekers from gaining ascendance. I don’t see a problem here.
It’s not really a major change in practice. They’re not changing their criteria for investigation or anything. They’re responding to a relatively recent (for the Church, the last 200 years is “recent”) phenomenon of ordinary people having access to publicity. In the past, the Church generally did the same thing…ignore the obviously bogus stuff (by their criteria). Prior to about 25 years ago, the Holy French Toast and the Sacred Highway Underpass would have received a quick once-over from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (hereafter known as CDF) and then be dismissed. Now, people go to the news outlets and internet first, then use the publicity to pressure the CDF to do more than just quickly dismiss.
The Church is saying that IF you truly believe your sighting is a true Apparition, you need to not hype it up before the Church has a chance to examine it. If you are more interested in publicity than spiritual confirmation, that shows that your “Apparition” is probably not spiritual in nature, and the Church is going to treat it that way.
Probably because virtually everyone has heard of the Inquisition and virtually no one has heard of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Hmmm… at least 3 committees have to pass on the, er… miraclocity of the experience. Theologians, psychiatrists, and my favorite, demonologists. Can you get a degree in that somewhere?
The problem with that rather generous theory is that the mission of the CDF is not quite the same as the mission of the Inquisition – it’s not just a name change, in other words. By mentioning the Inquisition – which people have heard of, but mostly in the context of medieval-era torturing – and then tying it to the CDF, the author creates an equivalency that is not accurate.
DO you think that was entirely unknown to the author – do you think, in other words, that he was simply searching for a way to explain to his readers what the CDF was, and decided to mention the Inquisition simply because that’s something they would have heard of, and nothing more?
I’m inclined to give a pass on that, simply on the basis that it’s kind of a neat thing to find out, that the Inquisition still exists (not as such, but the organization does, even with a new mission and name). I know back when I first realized that the CDF was actually the Inquisition, I was tickled. And I speak as a former Catholic who still has a soft spot for the Church I grew up in.
OK… but if you were writing an article and wished to include that fact, would you toss it out there alone, or add an additional couple of words to suggest that the mission of the current group wasn’t exactly identical to its ancestor?
That’s a point. But you also have to consider that the information isn’t necessary to the article, and also that the reporter may have included it, but the editor cut it for space. Was the story originally written for online content or was it ported from the paper version? Newspaper stories are cut for space all the time.
I believe you are fishing for someone to say that the name is being used for sensationalism, to generate fears that the church in in some ways returning to the days of torturing heretics. And perhaps that is partly correct.
But if it is correct that people claiming these visions are going to be grilled by at least three separate panels of church “experts”, I’d say “inquisition” is a pretty accurate word. Also, I seriously doubt that anyone would believe the church would result to violence against someone making such a claim.
Fair enough – but then my question about the author should be expanded to the editor’s motives in making that particular cut.
Yes, that’s what I’m fishing for.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Sorry, I had to 
Meh, I guess they are just sick and tired of the loonies (or con men) who see God on a piece of cheese and then put it on EBay. Whatever. If something really IS a miracle, no amount of scrutiny will discredit it. If it’s bogus, the more examination the better.
Nobody expects… well, at least I didn’t. I agree, for those of us for whom the word Inquisition brings to mind heresy prosecutions and medieval torture (like the dreaded Comfy Chair), it’s interesting to see another side of it.
I’d need to see more evidence of a bias before I’d accuse either the reporter or the editor of having one in this case. The editor’s motives in making that particular cut (if they did) would just as likely be “We need to cut another two column-inches to make this article fit! Let’s lop off the unnecessary explanation of how this agency is different from the Inquisition, because it’s not core information,” as “Let’s lop off this explanation of how this agency is different from the Inquisition so we can make the Church look evil and ridiculous at the same time.”
Exactly. YouTube, eBay, personal blogs and websites (not to mention Photoshop) – all bypassing the holy order. People can create and advertise a religious apparition without leaving their home. It kind of waters down the ‘message’ of a bleeding Virgin statue when every Tom, Dick and Mary’s got one (and when they can all be swabbed CSI-style).
Jesus blogged.
I like the sound of that.