Vatican rules on aparitions and revelations
A crucial document on apparitions prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is now available in five languages
Andrés Beltramo Alvarez
vatican city
5/22/2102
Visions, revelations, divine messages: The history of the Church is riddled with mystical events. Since the apparitions in Fatima and Lourdes, earthly manifestations of the Virgin which received official papal recognition, bishops and theologians from all over the world have found themselves battling with a number of supernatural phenomena. The same question always crops up: How does one judge whether they are true? The Vatican has the answer and is preparing to reveal it to the world.
The key to analysing these cases is a text entitled “Rules regarding the procedure for distinguishing supposed apparitions and revelations”. The document was approved in 1978 by Pope Paul VI and for years, its content could only be accessed by prelates and specialists. One of the reasons for this was that the only official version available was in Latin.
This looks to change in the next few days as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to publish translations of the text in Italian, Spanish, German, English and French. All of these will be official and final versions. Indeed, the Vatican Publishing House has already printed a number of copies and the Vatican daily broadsheet L’Osservatore Romano has published an article on this.
The text is a real vade mecum on the steps to follow when one becomes aware of a potential apparition. Contrary to popular belief, it is firstly down to the relevant bishop and not the Vatican to examine any potential supernatural phenomena. The Apostolic See lacks experts in the field and scientific investigators, but it can intervene in unique and extreme cases.
Despite this, the Roman Curia receives a number of dossiers on alleged revelations each year. The experiences described in these dossiers are extremely varied and in almost all cases are sent on to the dioceses. These visions spread fast among faithful thanks to the internet and today’s ease of travel makes spontaneous pilgrimages possible. This poses a real challenge to ecclesiastical authority.
Benedict XVI shared this concern in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Verbum Domini” in which he recognised the need to “help faithful distinguish correctly between the Word of God and private revelations” whose function “is not to provide a definitive and complete revelation of Christ but to help experience it more fully within a certain historical context.”
The rules provide both “positive” and “negative” criteria for assessing the credibility of extraordinary phenomena. The main objective is to safeguard people’s faith and prevent the spread of advocations that reject the teachings of the Church or directly contest these.
A rigorous investigation into an alleged apparition is key to guaranteeing the moral certainty of its occurrence. It is vital for “seers” to be psychically balanced, honest, people of integrity, sincere, obedient to church authority and able to return to a normal life of faith. They must not have experienced episodes of psychosis or collective hysteria.
Conversion is not enough to guarantee a divine apparition, although “abundant, constant spiritual fruits” are influential. The messages received by seers must respond to an “error-free doctrine.” The credibility of apparitions is tarnished by an obvious interest in material gain or by immoral acts committed by the seer or their audience during or following the apparition.
It is every bishop’s duty to be vigilant, get informed and act in order to resolve or prevent misconduct in the practice of worship, to condemn erroneous doctrine and avoid the danger of false or unsuitable mysticism. If they are certain of the occurrence of a divine episode, bishops have the power to allow public manifestations of devotion.
The decision to publish the set of rules was taken independently of the specific episodes and these can be applied in all cases. It is interesting that they have come to light just as an international commission formed by the Vatican is studying the apparitions which allegedly took place in the small Bosnian village of Medjugorje. This is an internationally famous phenomenon with thousands of followers and just as many critics. And it is a subject which the Holy See is very keen to declare itself on, based on a set of criteria that are now accessible to everyone.
I do hope that an explicit declaration from Rome against Medjugorje will help to convince those Catholics who are confused about the issue but wish to be obedient to come to terms with the fact that no apparitions have taken/are taking place there! I know several and such a finding — linking facts from the case to the official translations of the document — might help to sway them, where piecing together from the internet the signs of true and false apparitions and relating it to the case in point has failed. Waiting and praying…
*Good luck with that one, Siena. How many “Vatican investigations” have there been now?
Medjugorje is much, much more than just another spiritual fraud. The money and the cast of characters involved, enough to fill a John LeCarre novel, is huge.
And so it its secular, political and international financial influence.
The Medj is one filled diaper that ain’t comin’ off the baby for a long time. Even if the Pope struts out onto the porch at the Vatican and declares it’s a fraud. Too many people are too deep into it to get out, no matter what His Holiness says ( which He hasn’t, anyway, in a truly public and authoritative way – even though He think’s it’s a fraud and has said so privately. )
The Medjumaniacs have put their own spin on the document:
RELEASE OF ‘NORMS’ ON APPARITIONS MAY HINT AT UPCOMING STATEMENT ON FAMOUS HERCEGOVINA APPARITION
www.spiritdaily.com/medjugorjeandnorms.htm
It may be a coincidence that the Vatican finally has released the text of norms it designed for use in evaluating apparitions way back in 1978 at the same time that it’s evaluating the most famous apparition since Fatima and one of the most visited religious places on earth: Medjugorje, in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which has been experiencing building boom after building boom, such that anyone who visited in the late 1980s or 1990s or even as recently as five years ago would hardly recognize it.
What was once a hamlet surrounded by vineyards is now a city — one that, to our eyes, may be approaching the size of Fatima and Lourdes (if it has not already).
Though Americans no longer flock there as they did before the Yugoslavian civil war as well as terrorism threats and high airline prices, Poles, Irish, and particularly Italians have been flooding the site — maxing out even the great expansion in bed-and-breakfast-hotel space.
Yet, this is not an approved apparition — and no one, outside of perhaps the Pope, knows if it will ever be.
The norms released by Rome are “new” to the vast majority and fascinating because they are not only comprehensive but unambiguously dispel a notion — widely and tirelessly circulated by opponents to the apparitions during the past dozen or so years — that only a local bishop — no one else — can rule on such private revelations. (Although he may be softening a bit — some think recent statements from him indicate a more positive Vatican view — the local bishop has long and vehemently opposed the alleged miracles.)
The norms clearly spell out that “the Apostolic See can intervene if asked either by the Ordinary himself, by a qualified group of the faithful, or even directly by reason of the universal jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff (cf. infra, no. IV),” adding that it’s up to the Sacred Congregation “to intervene motu proprio in graver cases, especially if the matter affects the larger part of the Church” — which Medjugorje — drawing pilgrims from around the globe (including dozens of cardinals, hundreds of bishops, and tens of thousands of priests) has for decades.
It is now spelled out clearly for this situation which since 1987 has been out of the local bishop’s hands and since 2010 has been taken from a committee of several Bosnia-Hercegovinian prelates for handling directly by a special Vatican commission that has been assiduously researching the apparitions and interviewing seers.
What this commission will recommend — and whether it will even be made public — is anyone’s guess. For months now the rumor has been that it will make recommendations by the end of the year. The Pope will then do whatever the Pope wants to do with the recommendations.
Credible reports indicate that Benedict visited Medjugorje when he was Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (he was seen there by eyewitnesses, and photographed another time in Linz, Austria, with a famous Medjugorje priest, right), and it makes sense in that his superior at the time, John Paul II, who beyond doubt favored the apparitions, encouraged his cardinals to visit there. As his right hand man — in charge of the Congregation that oversee private revelations — it only makes sense that Cardinal Ratzinger visited (incognito, as observers from Rome still visit).
While indications are that in the early days Cardinal Ratzinger was in the camp of believers, no one knows his current thinking; where John Paul II spoke to any number about Medjugorje, Benedict XVI has been tight-lipped with visiting bishops (or, bishops have been tight-lipped with anything that has been said). There was a rumor several years ago that when he was still cardinal the Pope had concerns about the way at least one seer was conducting life as a visionary and the norms include monetary gain as a negative though not sole determinant to consider when evaluating private revelations.
A key and perhaps the key norm in apparitions (one mentioned prominently in the norms) is whether there have been fruits, and at Medjugorje these have been legion — countless healings, conversions by the hundreds of thousands (if not millions), deliverance, and priestly vocations. It can be argued that no apparition has had more fruits at the same point and perhaps none has had more in the same time span.
Still, the likeliest outcome from the commission is a statement to the effect that final proof of supernatural authenticity has not yet been definitively established but the faithful are allowed to continue attendance and devotions. Recently, as mentioned, Bishop Ratko Peric seemed to soften a trifle — saying in a homily during Confirmation at Saint James Church that Medjugorje could be a “new Jerusalem” (or, if commercially consumed, a “Babylon”). That implied he saw what has occurred there as something that will remain and hinted that the commission will be less than condemnatory.
But that doesn’t mean formal acceptance (it is rare for an ongoing apparition to be officially recognized, before alleged prophecies are at least partially fulfilled).
And there remains a significant chance that the apparitions will be rejected (in which case we, as a Catholic news site, will closely adhere to the ruling, as we will whatever is determined by the Pope).
While it is difficult to envision outright condemnation of an apparition that has been visited by tens of millions, has affected more people than anyone can count, and has greatly bolstered the Church in places where it is in severe crisis (particularly Ireland, Italy, and also many parts of North America), not to mention the economic and diplomatic repercussions (it has become highly important to Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, the pilgrims breaking records at the Mostar airport, one of several they use), anything is possible and the commission is at least somewhat weighted (and perhaps very substantially so) in the direction of psychology. It also may be privy to information that we are not.
Reverberations of a rejection would be seismic — but must be obeyed.
There are rumors in every direction.
Will the seers (who currently travel widely, and appear before tens of thousands, as in the case recently in Italy and Lebanon) be reined in? Will the Vatican allow them to maintain pilgrim homes (as does virtually everyone else in this former farming community)?
Stay tuned.
The release of the norms in various regular languages (beyond Latin) was expected years ago and thus has been long overdue and is now newsworthy; it will be interesting to see if there are similar delays in a statement on the apparitions.
The current status of Medjugorje is what they call non constat de supernaturalitate, more or less a preliminary statement saying that so far there has been no objective final proof. That view (which, despite the way some try to spin it, is not a negative verdict, nor even an actual judgment) was issued on April 10, 1991 and followed by two Vatican statements saying that Catholics (including priests) were allowed to go to Medjugorje as long as it is not an official parish pilgrimage. Detractors circulated this to be a prohibition, in the same way that they insisted that the local bishop’s judgment was final in this matter. This status of non constat de supernaturalitate may be reiterated, with continued permission to visit the shrine.
“It is up to the Sacred Congregation to judge and approve the Ordinary’s way of proceeding or, in so far as it be possible and fitting, to initiate a new examination of the matter, distinct from that undertaken by the Ordinary and carried out either by the Sacred Congregation itself or by a special Commission,” say the norms released this week, which were formulated under Cardinal Francis Šeper and in restrospect seemed to set the stage for the removal, in the 1980s, of the Mostar bishop’s authority (and establishment of the current commission).
Whatever the final Church view of Medjugorje — and at this point, it seems like a toss up — the misunderstandings about the bishop having total and ultimate jurisdiction have now been definitively shown to be just that: an error, or misrepresentation.