Apparitions/Private
Revelations
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive
Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the
glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already
complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith
gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private"
revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do
not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete
Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of
history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern
and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his
saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct
the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian
religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such
"revelations."
Public Revelation. The Church teaches as de fide (of the
Faith) that all that the Father desired to reveal for our salvation has been revealed in
His Word, Jesus Christ. The Word communicated this Revelation to His Apostles, who either
wrote it down or handed it on (traditio) in their preaching and teaching
(1 Cor. 15:1-3, 2 Thes. 2:15). The deposit of
the Faith, therefore, is to be found in the twin fountains of Public Revelation, Sacred
Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition.
While some things in Public Revelation can be known by
reason (the existence of a Supreme Being, elements of the moral law),
many matters involve supernatural
realities (mysteries such as the Trinity, divinity of Christ, grace,
etc.) which cannot be known or proven
directly by the senses or human reason. However, fortified by God's gift
of supernatural Faith the human
intellect is made capable of assenting to such truths (Mt. 16:17) and
even understanding them, in so far as human beings can. Catholics are obliged to believe the entire deposit of the
Faith by this divine
and Catholic Faith, the extent of which is known by the teaching of the Church. In the
words of the well-known Act of Faith addressed to God,
I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church
teaches, because You have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
The Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church alone, therefore,
determines what Catholics must believe by this divine and Catholic
faith. Everything else in life rests on human faith in the credibility of assertions
of truth of one kind or another, such as whether John Wilkes Booth actually shot Abraham
Lincoln or whether the Blessed Virgin appeared to a certain person.
Private Revelation. God continues to reveal Himself to
individuals "not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human
acts" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q174 a6
reply 3). Since it occurs
after the close of Public Revelation the Church distinguishes the content of such
particular revelations to individuals from the deposit of the Faith by calling it private revelation.
The test
of its authenticity is always its consistency with Public Revelation as guarded faithfully
by the Catholic Church. For example, alleged revelations which propose to improve upon,
correct or entirely supplant Public Revelation are rejected by the Church as inauthentic,
regardless of the claims made for them. Such revelations include those of Mohammed in the
Koran, Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon, the writings of new age mystics, psychics and
the like.
Some private revelations, however, the Church has accepted as
credible, calling them constat de supernaturalitate (that is,
they give evidence of a supernatural intervention). Such private revelations cannot correct or add anything
essentially new to Public Revelation; however, they may contribute to a deeper
understanding of the faith, provide new lines of theological investigation (such as
suggested by the revelations to St. Margaret Mary on the Sacred Heart), or recall mankind
prophetically to the living of the Gospel (as at Fátima). No private revelation can ever
be necessary for salvation, though its content may obviously coincide
with what is necessary for salvation as known from Scripture and
Tradition. The person who believes the teachings of the Magisterium,
utilizes devoutly the sacramental means of sanctification and prayer, and remains in
Communion with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, is already employing the
necessary means of salvation. A private revelation may recall wayward individuals to the
faith, stir the devotion of the already pious, encourage prayer and penance on behalf of
others, but it cannot substitute for the Catholic faith, the sacraments and hierarchical
communion with the Pope and bishops.
Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be
believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility
of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations
approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,
Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations
thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of
prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy
of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]
The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the
Holy See is meant, as only it's acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and
approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human
assent. That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith,
or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence
as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the
natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be
true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and
can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the
Catholic Church notes,
Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
[CCC 67]
However, on the other hand, they do not demand
acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the
aforementioned text,
it is possible to refuse to
accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so
with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of
setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]
Sources of Private Revelations. Approved private
revelations derive from two sources. First, there is the mysticism of the Servants of
God who have been proposed for canonization. When the diocese which initiated the
Cause has concluded its investigation and forwarded the documentation to Rome, the
Congregation for the Causes of the Saints undertakes its own study of the person's life.
If the Congregation determines that he or she lived a life of heroic virtue this
decision necessarily includes the judgment that the writings, including any mystical ones,
are not contrary to faith and morals. If the Holy Father concurs the person is declared Venerable.
The later canonization of the person (generally considered an act of papal infallibility),
only heightens the credibility of the person's writings and the pious regard Catholics
should have for them, according to the standard given by Benedict XIV.
The second kind of private revelation comes through apparitions. The
person who receives an apparition is not necessarily far along in the spiritual life,
though they are typically humble and simple souls. God grants this grace for the good of
the Church and not as the fruit of contemplative prayer. When apparitions judged
at the diocesan level constat de supernaturalitate (giving
signs or evidences of supernaturality) receive the approbation of the Holy See, as indicated
by a positive judgment, the granting of papal favors to the apparition site, the approval
of a liturgical feast, the canonization of the seer or other clear signs of approval, the
words of Pope Benedict XIV can certainly be applied, as well, "an assent of human
faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them."
Private Revelations Without Roman Approval. Since most private
revelations and alleged apparitions never receive the approval of the Holy See Catholics
must often judge for themselves whether they are credible. If the person (whether living
or dead) has a reputation for sanctity (such as Padre Pio had), then clearly any mystical
revelations have considerable credibility prior to any formal evaluation by the Church.
The witness of prudent priests, especially the spiritual director of the person, is a key
element in determining credibility. However, even here care must be
taken. The spiritual director himself must be competent in mystical
theology, credible as a person and in good standing with the Church.
False mystics have been known to "shop" for gullible,
extremely aged or incompetent directors. Ideally, a bishop upon hearing
of an alleged mystic would assign a competent director, thus insuring
the authenticity of the evaluation.
In the case of apparitions, however, they often occur to obscure
individuals with little or no reputation. Their human credibility may rest initially on
the attitude of the local clergy and the personal experience of observers. There may or
may not be phenomena which suggest something out of the ordinary. The message may or may
not be appear to be consistent with Church teaching. The person or
persons may or may not have a competent spiritual director. Finally they may or may not be
investigated by the local bishop to determine if they are credible. In the end the
faithful are often left to fend for themselves in a perplexing sea of information. If the
message is orthodox, the seer(s) of good reputation, the clergy favorable, the signs
supportive, even without an official investigation the faithful can make a prudent
judgment that it is credible. Certainly those who were present at the apparitions of
Lourdes and Fátima, as well as those who believed in them prior to Church approval, had
to have made such a judgment.
Certainly, however, the faithful benefit the most from the
judgment of
the bishop of the diocese in which the apparition occurs. He has the authority to assemble
a commission of scientific and theological experts, to judge the case, as well as the grace of vocation to
carry out this pastoral service. While his decision is not infallible, it
has the
presumption of being correct and should receive the respectfully
adherence of the faithful (Canon 753). Thus, such decisions should generally be decisive in the prudential
judgment of the faithful. It would require very weighty and sound
theological reasons (not feelings or mere agreement with the
content of the alleged apparition) to find defect in such a
decision. Such intellectual disagreement, however, does not permit
acting out of communion with the bishop. (See my FAQ on Medjugorje
for the attitude of the Holy See in one such case.)
With respect to any disciplinary precepts the bishop makes concerning the
apparition and its site, they should be followed faithfully (e.g. what
sacraments, if any, may be celebrated there). No Catholic should ever
violate the practical norms laid down by the local bishop with respect to an alleged
apparition, even if intellectually they disagree with his conclusion
regarding the alleged apparition. Such disobedience would be sinful, and
if it characterized the attitude of the followers of the alleged
apparition it would be a sign of its inauthenticity, i.e. by producing bad fruit.
Types of Decisions.
The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following:
1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as
supernatural), 2) constat de non supernaturalitate
(established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de
supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).
1. Constat de supernaturalitate. An apparition
judged supernatural (formerly called worthy
of belief) has manifested signs or evidence of being an authentic or
truly miraculous intervention from heaven. This judgment is possible
when there is evidence of supernatural phenomena, sound doctrine, moral
probity, mental health and sound piety of the seer(s) and enduring good
fruits among the faithful.
The issue of supernaturality is one that deserves to be explored
more fully. According to the common teaching of the Church, most extraordinary phenomena
in the mystical order (visions, apparitions, locutions, ecstasies, mystical knowledge
etc.) are caused by angels acting on God's behalf. Whether the burning bush which Moses
saw, the ecstatic flights of St. Joseph Cupertino, the stigmata of St. Francis or the
revelations of St. Catherine, the general rule in the spiritual order is that God does not
do immediately and directly what can be done mediately through a lower order nature, in
this case the good angels. The presence of such phenomenon is not,
therefore, unequivocal evidence of supernaturality. Each of the approved apparitions
have had such clear signs, from the instantaneous and inexplicable cures at Lourdes to the
natural prodigy of October 13th 1917 in Fátima, but also the
other marks of authenticity mentioned above.
2. Constat de non supernaturalitate.
The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not
supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or
lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for
example, which is doctrinally
dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could
even be demonic, especially if
there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to
deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his
message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to
believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of
Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of
his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling,
consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being
anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be
intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that
the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate
supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility
of revision.
3. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally,
it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is
authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further
evidence or development.
Responsibility of the Faithful. Today there are a myriad of
alleged private revelations and apparitions vying for the attention of the faithful. None
have been definitively judged by the Holy See, some have been approved by local authority
(e.g. Akita, Cuapa, Betania), others have been found lacking in supernaturality (e.g.
Medjugorje, Garabandal), some few have been condemned (e.g. Necedah, Bayside) and finally,
the vast majority have received no attention from Church authorities whatsoever.
The first responsibility of the faithful is to remain firmly established
in the faith, in the sacraments and in communion with the Pope and bishops. Any Catholic
who gives their primary attention to alleged private revelation at the expense of Sacred
Scripture, the teaching of the Church (especially the Catechism), sacramental
practice, prayer and fidelity to Church authority is off course. The running after
spiritual phenomena, such as alleged revelations, is condemned by St. John of the
Cross as spiritual avarice. This means that pious souls who would be repulsed by crude
materialistic greed think nothing of being greedy to know revelations and prophecies. An
exclusive, or even a predominant attention to these matters (especially apocalyptic ones),
cannot help but produce an unbalanced spirituality. Should the Church condemn some
favorite alleged revelation such a person may find themselves believing more in it than in
the supernatural authority of the Church. The devil will have succeeded in what he had set
out to do.
The second responsibility is to have regard, in the first place, for
those private revelations and apparitions approved by the Church. Within a balanced
practice of the faith the edifying content of approved private revelations can be a motive
for deeper piety and fidelity to the Gospel. God has chosen to give guidance to the Church
in particular eras in this way and we would, as I noted above, be imprudent to disregard
altogether what are credibly His prophetic interventions in the life of His Church.
Finally, there are many other private revelations that have not received
Church approval. The Second Vatican Council urges us to discern the Spirit in the case of
such extraordinary graces [Lumen gentium 12], which means being neither gullible or
incredulous, but subjecting them to all relevant theological and human tests of
credibility. Clearly, in this the judgment of the local bishop is the key element of such
a discernment as I noted above. Often enough, unfortunately, the laity are left to make
this determination themselves, relying on the testimony of the events, the
judgment of
holy and orthodox priests and common sense. It must always be kept in mind that however
credible and reasonable such revelations seem to be, God would never ask one to separate
oneself from the faith and discipline of the Church to follow it.
- Revised April 2001
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
|
