Vatican toughens up its official filters on what passes as supernatural

Originally published at:




This needs to come with a Papal approved grading system ranging from 1 Holy Ghost (a minor manifestation of the Holy Spirit inducing the same sense of contentment as a 100g store brand vanilla-scented candle) through to the full 5 Holy Ghosts (major revelations of the Ineffable Plan including stock tips and the next Euromillions Lottery draw; Rio’s Christ the Redeemer bleeding enough to keep an A&E ward going for a month; and ringside seats at the Great Megiddo Armageddon throw down).


Misread that first word as Vagina.

I’m either disappointed or relieved.


Don’t they have specialists to investigate this stuff?


Pro tip: They’re all fake. Every. Single. One.


The Vatican changed some archaic theological rule?

It’s a miracle!


So, me finding a few extra fries in the bottom of the bag, is probably out of the question… Even though it is SO awesome at the time!
:pray: :fries:


Glad the Church is becoming more skeptical. Otherwise, people might start believing that someone could rise from the dead

Puss In Boots Drama GIF

There’s an oddly-specific emoji for that.

Just to check, wine still turns into Jesus’ blood, right?

The fact that there’s even an option for ‘nihil obstat’ when it comes to worshipping something or not seems very odd theologically.

I could see taking the ‘so long as it’s non-idolatrous it’s fine’ position; on the grounds that one is worshipping the deity not the miracle; but in that case there wouldn’t really be a reason to discourage any sincere activity, since the correct worship would be occurring whether inspired by a shabby fake or a genuinely mysterious happening.

I could also see taking a very hard line, on the grounds that the risk of deception and idolatry in all but the most carefully scrutinized off-brand miracles is unacceptable when transubstantiation technicians are on standby to provide miracles of carefully standardized purity and potency incorporated into a validated observance.

Is it a mostly social and political designation, giving them flexibility to accommodate the rather syncretic tendencies of a lot of popular religiosity? Is there a theological position I don’t grasp that formally justifies the “specifically not endorsed but also not discouraged” category?

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.