Rome Newsroom, May 17, 2024 / 05:33 am (CNA).
The Vatican’s top doctrinal office is centralizing its authority over the investigation of alleged Marian apparitions and other religious phenomena under new norms it issued Friday, a break from past protocols that gave local bishops greater autonomy in discerning such cases.
While emphasizing that “discernment in this area remains the task of the Diocesan Bishop,” the new guidelines state that the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith “must always be consulted and give final approval to what the Bishop decides before he announces a determination on an event of alleged supernatural origin.”
The document spelling out the new procedures, titled “Norms For Proceeding In the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena,” explains that the doctrinal office previously played a role in the evaluation process, but generally did so behind the scenes.
“While previously the Dicastery had intervened but the Bishop was asked not to mention it, today, the Dicastery openly manifests its involvement and accompanies the Bishop in reaching a final determination,” the document states. “Now, when the Bishop makes his decision public, it will be stated as ‘in agreement with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.’”
The DDF’s prefect, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, who signed the document, held a press briefing for journalists at the Vatican Friday at noon local time.
The new norms take effect on Pentecost Sunday, May 19, abrogating the previous norms established under Pope Paul VI in 1978.
Centralizing control
In the document’s introduction, Fernández observes that under the older norms, “decisions took an excessively long time, sometimes spanning several decades,” delaying “the necessary ecclesiastical discernment.”
Fernández also highlights that in the past there was greater deference to the local bishop in ascertaining the validity of alleged supernatural events, stating that “some Bishops insisted on being able to make a positive declaration of this type.”
“Even recently, some Bishops have wanted to make statements such as, ‘I confirm the absolute truth of the facts’ and ‘the faithful must undoubtedly consider as true …’”
“These expressions,” Fernández states, “effectively oriented the faithful to think they had to believe in these phenomena, which sometimes were valued more than the Gospel itself.”
Responding to the “development of modern means of communication,” and “the increase in pilgrimages,” the document notes that these alleged events assume a global character “meaning that a decision made in one Diocese has consequences also elsewhere.” The DDF’s document makes no mention of any specific cases.
The document also emphasized that there have been cases of alleged supernatural events which have been “detrimental to the faithful,” adding that the Church “must respond with utmost pastoral solicitude.”
Some of the issues Fernández outlines included “the possibility of doctrinal errors,” “an oversimplification of the Gospel message” and “the spread of a sectarian mentality.”
Restrictions on pronouncements
The new guidelines note that during the discernment process “the Diocesan Bishop is to refrain from making any public statement in favor of the authenticity or supernatural nature of such phenomena and from having any personal connection with them.”
The document continues: “If forms of devotion emerge in connection with the alleged supernatural event, even without true and proper veneration, the Diocesan Bishop has the serious obligation of initiating a comprehensive canonical investigation as soon as possible to safeguard the Faith and prevent abuses.”
In those cases, the bishop must establish an investigatory commission to include at least one theologian, one canonist, and “one expert chosen based on the nature of the phenomenon.”
The document also stipulates that an interdiocesan commission must be created to evaluate cases that involve “the competence of multiple Diocesan Bishops.”
The new norms emphasize that should “alleged supernatural events continue” during the investigatory process and “the situation suggests prudential measures,” then it is incumbent upon the bishop to “enforce those acts of good governance to avoid uncontrolled or dubious displays of devotion, or the beginning of a veneration based on elements that are as of yet undefined.”
Weighing positives and negatives
During the evaluation phase, the commission is to look at both the “positive” and “negative” criteria of the alleged apparition, the DDF’s new norms state.
The document identifies four positive criteria:
- “The credibility and good reputation of the persons who claim to be recipients of supernatural events or to be directly involved in them, as well as the reputation of the witnesses who have been heard.”
- “The doctrinal orthodoxy of the phenomenon and any messages related to it.”
- “The unpredictable nature of the phenomenon, by which it is evident that it is not the result of the initiative of the people involved.”
- “The fruits of the Christian life, including a spirit of prayer, conversions, vocations to the priesthood and religious life, acts of charity, as well as sound devotion and abundant and constant spiritual fruits.”
The new norms also set forth six negative criteria to be considered:
- “The possibility of a manifest error about the event.”
- “Potential doctrinal errors.”
- “A sectarian spirit that breeds division in the Church.”
- “An overt pursuit of profit, power, fame, social recognition, or other personal interest closely linked to the event.”
- “Gravely immoral actions committed by the subject or the subject’s followers at or around the time of the event.”
- “Psychological alterations or psychopathic tendencies in the person that may have exerted an influence on the alleged supernatural event.”
At the end of the evaluation process, the bishop and a delegate he appoints to oversee the commission’s work are to prepare a “personal Votum” in which the bishop proposes to the dicastery a final judgment. That decision will normally follow one of six formulas:
- Nihil obstat: “Without expressing any certainty about the supernatural authenticity of the phenomenon itself, many signs of the action of the Holy Spirit are acknowledged ‘in the midst’ of a given spiritual experience, and no aspects that are particularly critical or risky have been detected, at least so far,” the document states.
- Prae oculis habeatur: “Although important positive signs are recognized, some aspects of confusion or potential risks are also perceived that require the Diocesan Bishop to engage in a careful discernment and dialogue with the recipients of a given spiritual experience.”
- Curatur: “Although important positive signs are recognized, some aspects of confusion or potential risks are also perceived that require the Diocesan Bishop to engage in a careful discernment and dialogue with the recipients of a given spiritual experience.”
- Sub mandato: “In this category, the critical issues are not connected to the phenomenon itself, which is rich in positive elements, but to a person, a family, or a group of people who are misusing it.”
- Prohibetur et obstruatur: “While there are legitimate requests and some positive elements, the critical issues and risks associated with this phenomenon appear to be very serious.”
- Declaratio de non supernaturalitate: “In this situation, the Dicastery authorizes the Diocesan Bishop to declare that the phenomenon is found to be not supernatural,” the document states.
Next steps
Following the DDF’s final decision, the diocesan bishop, unless directed otherwise by the dicastery, “will inform the national Episcopal Conference of the determination approved by the Dicastery” and “will clearly make known to the People of God the judgment on the events in question.”
The document notes that a Nihil obstat “allows the pastors of the Church to act confidently and promptly to stand among the People of God in welcoming the Holy Spirit’s gifts that may emerge ‘in the midst of’ these events.”
The document explains that the phrase “in the midst of” denotes that “even if the event itself is not declared to be of supernatural origin, there is still a recognition of the signs of the Holy Spirit’s supernatural action in the midst of what is occurring.”
But the norms stress that in cases where a Nihil obstat is granted, “such phenomena do not become objects of faith, which means the faithful are not obliged to give an assent of faith to them.”
As in the case of charisms recognized by the Church, the document states, “they are ‘ways to deepen one’s knowledge of Christ and to give oneself more generously to him, while rooting oneself more and more deeply in communion with the entire Christian people.’”
This is a developing story.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
These new rules seem needlessly complicated and almost invite abuse. “Good fruits” was a typical argument during the surge in apparitionism in the 1990s but some of the “seers” who attracted large followings turned out to be frauds. Others, I think, just had over-active spiritual imaginations.
When investigating possible supernatural phenomena, I’ve long wondered why no one thinks to consult professional stage magicians. They’re specially qualified to detect hoaxes and illusions.
Penn and Teller moonlighting as miracle investigators just seems right somehow.
I have something you should see I caught on video 12 years ago. I can send you the link I uploaded it to Youtube. It’s amazing.
Now, if only the same rigor and clarity were applied to the clericalist illuminati who have received private revelations on matters of moral theology, and who lead from behind after decades of non-evangelization and now synodal ambiguity around the event or whatever.
Take, for example, the recent appointment as a seminary rector a priest who opines that “A homosexual relationship does not lose its dignity due to the lack of fertility.” https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/05/17/vatican-overturns-own-decision-on-seminary-dean/
The shell game continueth!
In a governance decision, the ventriloquist illuminati erase the moral substance of the Incarnation, the Catechism, and the encyclicals Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor—regarding the inseparability of the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality. And, invent a way to turn this trick without having to mention any of these directly or by name…
The enigmatic “paradigm-shift” Church weareth no clothes.
Thank you!
Bingo. The episcopate and the inhabitants of theology departments are concerned about Marian apparitions while gleefully posing as the recipients of new revelations for the past sixty years without respite. And oddly, as they pass away they hand on this erroneous “grace” of receiving even more revelations to their progeny. It is just amazing.
Even more amazing is the lack of self-awareness and the utter hubris of this new class of mystics we have been forced to shoulder since the mid-century council.
“Now, if only the same rigor and clarity were applied to the clericalist illuminati who have received private revelations on matters of moral theology…”
Peter, you hit the nail on the head!
But sadly we know Tucho is not likely to apply much “rigor and clarity” to “the clericalist illuminati who have received private revelations on matters of moral theology” that contradict Scripture, the 2,000 year old teaching of the Church, and the previous 265 popes.
Instead, this new centralized power will be used to harass the faithful and let the dissenters go free.
I can’t help but wonder if Tucho and his boss aren’t worried that some new private revelations will reveal heaven’s anger over the current “smoke of satan” being allowed to rage untreated within the Church. That’s why they want to take control of the revelations like they want to control the synods and everything else.
How ironic (hypocritical?) from a papacy that claims to want to “decentralize” decision making!
Dear Maggie,
BINGO!! You get the gold star for the insight into what this is really all about. Only Satan would want to squelch and silent the “little stones” that our Heavenly Father has and is raising up to speak out against the mockery in Christ Bride here on earth.
Thank you so much for this link. The article title is misleading. It should be VATICAN APPOINTS AS DEAN OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY A PRIEST WHO TEACHES MORALITY AND WHO FAVORS BLESSING HOMSEXUAL UNIONS
If the seers present their vision as saying something idiotic, it’s false. Not complicated. As simple solution.
And a double benefit:
In this way we’ll be spared the idiotic judgments of this current pontificate.
I take comfort in the clause “the faithful are not obliged to give an assent of faith to them.” I remind myself of this every time I hear the latest conspiracy theory regarding the Third Secret of Fatima. I’ll take the public deposit of faith, thank you very much. What’s enough for God is enough for me.
An attempt at suppression of Marian devotion?
Would any readers buy a second hand car off Tucho ? Bergoglio ? Paolin ?
Even less trust their words on matters of faith and morals…
Probably. This latest document gives to the exceptionally all-knowing pope and his infinitely kiss-healed minister the power to pronounce as frauds the two witnesses (Elijah and Enoch) who shall perform wonders and speak against the Anti-Christ when he comes. They could also grant papal approval and authority to the likes of the anti-Christs themselves.
This author of perverse books has zero aurhority to judge any apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Zero.
She came to warn us that one day Rome would be the seat of Bergoglioism, Tucho and chums. That Tucho seeks to control her messages only confirms the situation predicted at La Salette.
First , the Latin Mass, next ax Fatima and Lourdes.
Thinking of Fr. Benedict Groeschel making us laugh when he was discussing his great book – A Still, Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations:
“Private revelations don’t belong to the deposit of Faith. So you don’t have to believe ‘em. But if you don’t believe in Lourdes, you’re an idiot!” 😂
That’s a good one. Although I often shake my head while hearing some Catholics talk as if Marian visions were the source and summit of Catholic life, the story of Bernadette was very instrumental in my return to the Catholic Church 30 years ago. Necessary for salvation? No. Helpful toward salvation. YES!
About Fr. GROESCHEL, whom I as a visitor was lucky to meet when in 2003 he visited St. Nicholas Parish in back-country Gig Harbor in Washington state…he opined that Medjugorje might well have included a genuine apparition at the beginning, while all the rest was what he speculated as more of a recurring “echo,” possibly innocent but more of the human imagination.
In 1991 the non-Catholic associate professor at the University of Kansas, Sandra L. Zimdars-Swartz, published “Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje” (Princeton University Press)– which “is neither apologetic nor antagonistic.” One recurring THEME in some cases is the interactive shaping of a possibly unclear experience into something both solid and false—due to the reinforcing exchange between the individual and other enthusiasts not directly affected. The announced NORMS seem to me to exhibit the rigor and precision one would hope for in discerning what is unreal from what is real, or only partly so…
On the stage of history, the sociological reinforcement of some experiences by engagement with others outside such experiences is of enormous interest and relevance. To the point—how exactly did MUHAMMAD come to believe, probably sincerely at first, that his experience at Mt. Hira in A.D. 610 was a visitation from Angel Gabriel to begin dictating (!) the Qur’an in tribal Arabic?
Islamic history, itself, records that, at first, Muhammad himself was unsure and troubled…He CONSULTED his first wife, Khadijha (they were atypically monogamous for the twenty-five years that she lived), and from her sought the advice of her revered and aged cousin, Waraqua ibn Naufal, at first an Arabian monotheist (hanif)—and then a Jewish convert and then convert to some version of Christianity. (peripheral Arabia was a pagan mixing zone influenced by Arian spinoffs: Nestorianism and Monophysitism, etc.).
“Waraqua knew something of the older scriptures and declared that what had come upon his cousin’s [Khadijha’s] husband was none other than what had previously descended upon Moses, the ‘namus’. This term seems to have been understood by the Arabs as meaning an angelic messenger, especially Gabriel, but it is a corruption of the Greek nomos, meaning ‘law,’ or Torah” (Frederick Denny, “An Introduction to Islam,” Macmillan, 1994, p. 64.) This and similar commentaries draw from the Qur’an, itself.
Islam is theoretically egalitarian and has NO magisterium, NOR a Congregation/Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (meaning “belief”). Angelic dictation in Arabic, or possibly only auditory recall under some form of epileptic seizure? Later followed by a pattern of self-originated echoes and confirmations by battle victories? The rest is history!
As some would morph the “hierarchical communion” of the perennial Catholic Church into more of an egalitarian “fraternity,” or “inverted pyramid,” or “polyhedron,” or whatever—unwittingly resembling contour-free and hyper-sectarian Islam?—we Catholics can take heart that, at least regarding the range of real/alleged apparitions, our dicastery still has a pulse.
If only the ILLUMINATI in purple and red hats—so intent on detaching (im)moral practices from the real Faith and Magisterium, i.e., the Catechism, Humanae Vitae, Veritatis Splendor—were equally scrutinized.
Muhammad smiles…
If the “curatur” criterion — the phenomenon is producing spiritual fruits — is reason to leave something alone, when are Francis and Fernandez announcing that Traditionis Custodes is repealed?
Taking controll is what this is all about. Our Government is or has done the very same thing. Pope Paul VI said SMOKE IS IN THE CHURCH. faithful laity was move on this.
“By their fruits you shall know them.” Let’s wait a few months to see what the fruits of this new document are, instead of immediately applying a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” My guess is that the last word will soon be said about a certain alleged series of apparitions in Eastern Europe.