3 ms·

I'm not sure why this man's investigation is being treated the way he says it is. Catholicism is not only open to having purported miracles investigated; it's,

by jawns 14y ago

I'm not sure why this man's investigation is being treated the way he says it is. Catholicism is not only open to having purported miracles investigated; it's, in fact, a requirement. Every year, many such investigations are conducted, and the vast majority find that nothing miraculous has occurred. The Church is fine with that; it's just as happy to weed out "imposters" as anyone else. For instance, here's a story about a U.S. archdiocese declaring a "bleeding" consecrated host to be nonmiraculous: http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/135600233.html http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/135600233.html And here's the quote that sums up the Church's position: "While the Catholic Church fully recognizes the possibility of miracles and remains open to their possibility, it does so with extreme scrutiny, investigation and care. This incident was the result of natural biological causes and should not be considered in any other way." So I'm surprised that some in the the Catholic community in Mumbai are resistant to this finding.

jawns 14y ago
Ah, just as I suspected, there's more to this story than the Slate article suggests, and it makes the Catholic community's response a bit more understandable: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 tl;dr: The Catholics aren't mad because he revealed a natural explanation for the dripping cross; they're mad because he alleged, apparently without offering any evidence, that it was all a scam set up by priests to bilk people out of their money.
- billpg 14y ago
  Maybe he just had faith it was all a scam.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  He had facts which supported his assertion that the water was mundane rather than miraculous; he used those facts as an excuse to accuse priests of being scammers, and all religious people of being gullible, regressive, and irrational. If he had stopped with a mere debunking, he'd be the "good guy" here. But he followed it up with defamation and attempts at provocation, which makes him something more akin to a troll. I have noticed this sort of behavior elsewhere: someone will make a series of statements, including some that are provocative and defamatory (accusing others of major character flaws, criminal activity, etc.) and then, when faced with backlash, will act as though they're being silenced or criticized over the most factual, least controversial part of their statement. IMO it's important, even for those who support their overall point, to call out this sort of behavior because it does not promote rational discourse.

by jawns 14y ago

jawns 14y ago

Ah, just as I suspected, there's more to this story than the Slate article suggests, and it makes the Catholic community's response a bit more understandable: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 tl;dr: The Catholics aren't mad because he revealed a natural explanation for the dripping cross; they're mad because he alleged, apparently without offering any evidence, that it was all a scam set up by priests to bilk people out of their money.

billpg 14y ago
Maybe he just had faith it was all a scam.
lotharbot 14y ago
He had facts which supported his assertion that the water was mundane rather than miraculous; he used those facts as an excuse to accuse priests of being scammers, and all religious people of being gullible, regressive, and irrational. If he had stopped with a mere debunking, he'd be the "good guy" here. But he followed it up with defamation and attempts at provocation, which makes him something more akin to a troll. I have noticed this sort of behavior elsewhere: someone will make a series of statements, including some that are provocative and defamatory (accusing others of major character flaws, criminal activity, etc.) and then, when faced with backlash, will act as though they're being silenced or criticized over the most factual, least controversial part of their statement. IMO it's important, even for those who support their overall point, to call out this sort of behavior because it does not promote rational discourse.