- The deepest question that people have about an alleged spiritual event is "is this real or not." These new norms don't seem to respond to that need. Perhaps a lack of confidence in being able to say?
- The "norms" make the diocesan bishop a middle manager, collecting information for the real decisi…
- The deepest question that people have about an alleged spiritual event is "is this real or not." These new norms don't seem to respond to that need. Perhaps a lack of confidence in being able to say?
- The "norms" make the diocesan bishop a middle manager, collecting information for the real decision makers. This means that bishops will just appoint a committee but with otherwise be totally hands off. Why bother, if someone else is going to tell you what to do anyway?
- Concerned about the loss of the idea that the Bishop has a spiritual charism to discern spiritual truth.
- I'm guessing a lot of local spiritual phenomena are good, devout people simply mistaking their own thoughts for God speaking to them, showing them something, etc. This situation would seemingly "pass" under the new norms.
- There are various approaches one can take to discerning spiritual phenomena, including an ignatian one. The norms don't seem to be particularly aware of such things.
- More transparency is in general a good thing.
- Moving the decision making process to the Vatican bureaucracy has the potential to make this a Rome political game, though I'd imagine the popular devotions already have various lobbies for their causes.
- Delaying judgement on spiritual experiences seems wise in most cases.
- Fans of unapproved apparitions (etc) where there has been a negative judgment may want "their" apparition re-evaluated under these new standards.
I have many, too many thoughts on this:
- The deepest question that people have about an alleged spiritual event is "is this real or not." These new norms don't seem to respond to that need. Perhaps a lack of confidence in being able to say?
- The "norms" make the diocesan bishop a middle manager, collecting information for the real decision makers. This means that bishops will just appoint a committee but with otherwise be totally hands off. Why bother, if someone else is going to tell you what to do anyway?
- Concerned about the loss of the idea that the Bishop has a spiritual charism to discern spiritual truth.
- I'm guessing a lot of local spiritual phenomena are good, devout people simply mistaking their own thoughts for God speaking to them, showing them something, etc. This situation would seemingly "pass" under the new norms.
- There are various approaches one can take to discerning spiritual phenomena, including an ignatian one. The norms don't seem to be particularly aware of such things.
- More transparency is in general a good thing.
- Moving the decision making process to the Vatican bureaucracy has the potential to make this a Rome political game, though I'd imagine the popular devotions already have various lobbies for their causes.
- Delaying judgement on spiritual experiences seems wise in most cases.
- Fans of unapproved apparitions (etc) where there has been a negative judgment may want "their" apparition re-evaluated under these new standards.