Catholic Archdiocese thinks they have a monopoly on talking with Jesus’ mom.

Apparently the Baltimore Archbishop is afraid of some competition in the speaking for imaginary friends arena:

HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP)—The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore has told a Pennsylvania woman to stop disseminating messages that she claims she receives from the Virgin Mary.
 
The warning in a pastoral advisory from Archbishop Edwin O’Brien marks an escalation of the church’s efforts to silence Gianna Sullivan of rural Fairfield, Pa. It warns Sullivan not to talk or write about the alleged apparitions anywhere within the archdiocese, which includes Baltimore City and nine Maryland counties.
 
The archdiocese concluded in 2000 that the alleged visions were not divine and barred Sullivan from delivering them at an Emmitsburg church. The Vatican upheld that decision in 2003.
 
Sullivan now delivers her messages at monthly gatherings at a conference center in Frederick County.

No word on what they plan to do if she keeps it up, but it’ll probably involve sending some priests over to threaten her children. Please, think of the children.

13 thoughts on “Catholic Archdiocese thinks they have a monopoly on talking with Jesus’ mom.

  1. You can’t make this up.

    In the good old times they would have burned the woman at the stake if her messages were politicallydogmatically incorrect. These days, they just warn her. I hope the woman doesn’t let herself be intimidated, though. She has as much right to talk to her imaginary friends than the Catholic Church.

  2. isn’t this the basic principle the catholic church is based upon: ONLY the church can speak to that imaginative and almighty being that can’t handle money, aka god.

  3. omphteliba: Actually, ONLY the church and god can handle your money. Please read: “Secrets of the Temple. How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country.”

  4. Well, the Catholic Church has acknowledged the legitimacy of many cases where individuals claimed that they had contact with Mary. No monopoly. Lourdes and Fatima are very famous celebrated instances where the Church acknowledged that Mary had appeared to the individuals who claimed contact with her. Clearly, then, they have no objection to the notion that Mary would communicate with someone. The idea that they are trying to “silence” her for the sake of preserving their “monopoly” is therefore baseless. If they had agreed that Mary was in contact with her, then they would likely instead be accused by their critics of perpetuating a hoax. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. But, they do investigate these cases and, more often than not, they determine through scientific means that the case is inauthentic. Perhaps they merely believe that this woman has an illness or perhaps is even faking it. As the article indicated, they determined that her claim was inauthentic, and they likely do not want her to mislead others. They could be wrong.

    As for the “imaginary friends” comments, well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

  5. But, they do investigate these cases and, more often than not, they determine through scientific means that the case is inauthentic.

    ROTFLMAO. Scientific?!

    As I said or implied before, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem that somebody else talks to one of their imaginary friends—but they do have a problem with the messages relayed by the woman. I wonder what got their authoritarian and doctrinal hackles up.

  6. Now, now, elwed.  I would bet that the CC is absolutely correct about the inauthentic status of these claims.  If only they would pursue their own recognized “miracles” with such vigor.  But then again, if they did that, they would probably be atheists, or at least Protestants. LOL

  7. Yes, scientific. The Catholic Church investigates a lot of these cases. Now, the point that was made by Les was that the Church is somehow threatened by someone claiming to be in contact with Mary. Les is incorrect, and perhaps if he studied Catholic history he would see that there are plenty of famous cases of them acknowledging similar claims. That was my main point. But to your point; yes, it would be interesting to know what she said exactly. But you are jumping to conclusions by assuming that they must simply be rejecting her claims because she might have said something that they didn’t like. You don’t know that, frankly, at least not going by this article. Maybe they determined, scientifically, that she has an illness or is merely faking it. Going by the article there is no evidence of what their motives are.

    Zilch, do you have any evidence that they have shown less vigor in investigating the cases that they deemed authentic? If so, do you have any evidence? I would be interested, thank you.

  8. Yes, scientific.

    mega-ROFTLMAO.

    The Catholic Church investigates a lot of these cases.

    I’m sure they “investigate”—but you can’t sell me on the scientific bit.

    Les is incorrect, and perhaps if he studied Catholic history he would see that there are plenty of famous cases of them acknowledging similar claims. That was my main point. But to your point; yes, it would be interesting to know what she said exactly.

    How can you defend the CC for accepting similar claims in the past when you’re ignorant of the present claim?

    But you are jumping to conclusions by assuming that they must simply be rejecting her claims because she might have said something that they didn’t like. You don’t know that, frankly, at least not going by this article. Maybe they determined, scientifically, that she has an illness or is merely faking it. Going by the article there is no evidence of what their motives are.

    Scientifically my ass. People seeing and hearing things that aren’t there are all ill or fake it—even if they themselves sincerely believe in their delusions.

    If whatever the woman spouts would be compatible with Catholic doctrine, the CC would either fall over themselves to acknowledge her delusions as authentic delusions (if they’re really happy) or would stick to a “no comment” policy (if they’re lukewarm).

  9. Positive, you ask:

    Zilch, do you have any evidence that they have shown less vigor in investigating the cases that they deemed authentic? If so, do you have any evidence? I would be interested, thank you.

    Although I suspect, along with elwed, that doctrinal purity plays a role in how vigorously a claimed miracle is scrutinized, I cannot prove this to be the case.  It might also be that the miracles that end up being canonized are more convincing because they are better prepared and presented, in the same way that Uri Geller was able to fool scientists at SRI into believing that he had paranormal powers.

    In any case, to talk of scientific vigor (or rigor) here is out of place: by scientific standards, all these claims of miracles would be rejected.  Or do you know of any that cannot simply be explained as deception or delusion?

  10. I will keep using the word scientific until you demonstrate that it is not.

    As for the rest of your reply, well, I have read that it normally takes the Church a century to approve of an apparition. Even Fatima, which was a case that did not take a long time, took thirteen years until they were willing to approve of it. I would not classify that as “falling over” oneself. They were skeptical of Padre Pio for a long time as well, and silenced him for a time, and he was not considered a heretic as far as I know, though there were other kind of rumors about him. The idea, then, that they would instantly jump at one of these claims and approve it merely because it did not contradict a Church teaching sounds like a misinformed statement. As I read more about this, apparently there was one case of a Marian apparition where it took them four hundred years to acknowledge it as legitimate. They are skeptical of these things, probably because they do not want to embarrass themselves by approving of an obvious hoax.

    I doubt that they would instantly believe me if I were to walk into a church one day and claim that I saw a vision of Mary. That would be an interesting experiment, though. Not that I would try it.

  11. Positive: I don’t see why the burden of proof is on me- it’s the Catholic Church that is making the extraordinary claims, not me.  If they claim there are miracles, it’s up to them to show scientific evidence for them.  Until they can do so, I will continue to believe the common sense default position that miracles don’t happen.

  12. …..it’s the Catholic Church that is making the extraordinary claims, not me.

    Actually the claim the cc is making is that the miracles are not authentic. At least I think that’s what Positive is trying to say.

    It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the cc is indeed using Science to disprove the alleged miracles. In that sense, Positive is technically correct.

    Of course, both Zilch and Elwed are right to laugh because Positive is being misleading by using the term ‘Scientific’ since it implies that the cc use the scientific method to “un-disprove” what they consider authentic miracles. And that idea is lauhgable. The cc in general never follows the scientific method, and certainly not when it is authenticating what its bone-headed followers refer to as miracles.

  13. (Positive) I will keep using the word scientific until you demonstrate that it is not.

    What zilch and Julian said. The burden of proof for the above claim rests with you—put up or shut up, eh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.