Customer Reviews

A Scientist Researches Mary, Ark Of The Covenant

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Catholics might want to know that this book has the "imprimatur," but not the "nihil obstat." The nihil obstat and imprimatur were notations included in the front matter of Catholic religious works. The "imprimatur" (simply this one Latin word, meaning literally, "let it be printed") ought to mean, to judge from the Latin, merely that the Church does not oppose publication. The "nihil obstat" (simply these two Latin words, meaning literally, "nothing stands in the way") would say that the book is free of doctrinal error. One might suppose that that the nihil obstat would precede the imprimatur, but perhaps these two judgments are independent anyway. These Latin notations are not seen much any more. Books published in English under Church auspices these days included, instead, a notation in English that the book was published "with ecclesiatical approval."

Unfortunately, this book muddies the water of Catholic belief. A simple reading of it would see no distinction between confirmed Marian apparitions, worthy of belief, on one hand and on the other hand, for example, natural, explainable defects in photographs taken by the author. One photograph, in particular, clearly resulted from the camera's shutter's being open for longer than the flash. It is not "a profile of seven dove-like figures in flight," which is the sort of statement that prompts derision and, as I say, muddies the water. For interspersed amid the book's nonsense are, in this same book, genuine miracles and sound faith.

I do respect the author's beliefs, but he seems to have gone overboard, abandoning his critical faculties. At least, he would need to present more information about certain allegedly supernatural phenomena, such as the three people appearing in two photographs of a scene where, according to his recollection, there were no people. He does not say enough to convince this reader that he did not make a mistake in that recollection or perhaps in remembering when exactly, on what day, the photos were taken. Even if the photographs were miraculous, why should we understand the three people as representing the Trinity, as he does? This question of mine is not to say anything about the doctrine of Trinity, but only about the author's interperetation of a supposed miracle. Caveat lector (let the reader beware).