Tuesday, December 06, 2005
APPARITIONS TRUE AND FALSE
An article by Fr. Peter Joseph in the October 2004 issue of "Christian Order", is a good explanation of the Church's teaching. I've linked this article before, but current Catholic landscape is so filled with seers and apparitions that I'm blogging it again.
As a prelude, I should state my own interest in Private Revelations. I have visited Paray-le-Monial (where Jesus showed His Sacred Heart to St Margaret Mary in the 17th century). I have visited Rue de Bac (where the Miraculous Medal was given to St Catherine Labouré in 1830). I have visited Lourdes, Knock, and Fatima; also the two Belgian towns where Our Lady appeared: Beauraing (1932-33) and Banneux (1933). I wear the Brown Scapular and the Miraculous Medal. I have conducted Holy Hours to celebrate the Feast of Divine Mercy since 1993.
I think, from all this, you can see that I am not opposed to private revelations. But I am opposed to false revelations; I am opposed to dubious revelations; I am opposed to disapproved revelations; I am opposed to obsession with private revelations. I am opposed to all these things precisely because I do believe in genuine private revelations and their role in the life of the Church.
The abundance of alleged messages and revelations in the past forty years makes ever more necessary the traditional caution and discernment of spirits. Amid today’s confusion and spiritual wasteland, many Catholics are seeking contact with the supernatural via new private revelations, regardless of whether or not they have been approved, or even whether or not they are in accordance with the Faith.
Private revelations occur
God may, and sometimes does, grant revelations to private individuals. Those who receive them, and are perfectly certain that they come from God, should believe them. But the Church never imposes on Catholics the obligation of believing anyone’s private revelations, even those of the great saints. The Church gives her approval to them only when she is satisfied after rigorous examination of their spiritual utility and of the evidence on which they depend.
The Catechism
The Catechism at #67 says: "Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognised 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. … Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations’." (See St Thomas, Summa II-II, q.174, art.6, ad 3).
Whom does the Catechism have in mind? Among others, Moslems and Mormons. Mohammed claimed that the Gospels misrepresent Christ, and Mormons believe there is a Third Testament.
Sources of revelations
There are three sources, ultimately, of revelations, visions, prodigies, and suchlike things: God, man, or the devil.
Under the heading of God, I include God’s holy creatures, such as Our Lady or another Saint or an angel.
Under man, I mean any human knowledge or skill or trickery or imagination or any human activity or machine or device causing anything to happen.
Under the devil, I include the devil himself or any one of the other demons.
The power of the devil
Very few people are aware of the devil’s full powers, and his ability to deceive. Many Catholics think that as soon as any prodigy occurs, it must be the work of God. But, as I said, messages and prodigies can issue from three sources ultimately: God, man, or the devil. It is the work of discernment to identify who is at work in a given case.
It is knowledge of diabolical trickery which makes the Church cautious here. My next part on the power of the demons is taken from Father Jordan Aumann, a Dominican priest, who taught for many years at the Angelicum University in Rome.
What the devils can and cannot do
The devils cannot do the following:
(1) Produce any kind of truly supernatural phenomenon;
(2) Create a substance, since only God can create;
(3) Bring a dead person back to life, although they could produce the illusion of doing so;
(4) Make truly prophetic predictions, since only God knows the future absolutely, and those to whom He chooses to reveal a portion of it. However, the devil’s intelligent conjecture about the future might appear to mere mortals a prophecy;
(5) Know the secrets of a person’s mind and heart. However, their shrewd intelligence and observation may enable them to deduce many things about a person.
But the devils can do the following:
(1) Produce corporeal or imaginative visions;
(2) Falsify ecstasy;
(3) Instantaneously cure sicknesses that have been caused by diabolical influence;
(4) Produce the stigmata;
(5) Simulate miracles and the phenomena of levitation and bilocation;(6) Make people or objects seem to disappear by interfering with a person’s sight or line of vision;
(7) Cause a person to hear sounds or voices;
(8) Cause a person to speak in tongues;
(9) Declare a fact which is hidden or distant.
Whatever nature or science can cause, the devils too are able to cause, according to what God may permit. See the Book of Exodus where the magicians and sorcerers of Pharaoh were able to accomplish some of the prodigies wrought by Moses and Aaron (Ex 7:11-12; 7:22; 8:7; 8:18-19; 9:11). Close to 200 A.D., Tertullian writes, "first of all, they [the demons] make you ill; then to get a miracle out of it, they prescribe remedies either completely novel, or contrary to those in use, and thereupon withdrawing hurtful influence, they are supposed to have wrought a cure." (Apology of the Christian religion, 22).
In the face of the fallen angels’ power to deceive, it is no wonder that the Church is always very slow to declare a miracle or message authentic.
The devil has superhuman intelligence and is very clever, and to pretend that you can definitively judge in favour of something’s authenticity, without help, is presumptuous.
Continue reading...
In January 2005 there was a follow-up in which Fr. Joseph answered questions from readers. Two of them are particularly pertinent to Catholic news from some sources:
“Fr Joseph’s article failed to deal with Medjugorje, or the revelations of Fr Gobbi.”
My purpose was to give an exposé of the principles for judging all revelations; not to treat of any particular revelation in detail. The principles in my article make it clear that one cannot propagate the messages of Medjugorje. As to why, Bishop Peric’s talk in the same issue of Christian Order deals with that very fully.
On other occasions, I have told people (generally to no avail) to stop following it or promoting it. My reasons are basically: 1. The Bishop has said it is false. 2. No verified miracles. 3. Repetitive, banal messages, unworthy of the Mother of God. There are plenty of other reasons.
As to Fr Gobbi, I am not aware of any official judgement, positive or negative, but I think his messages are repetitive, prolix, and sometimes contradictory. The Antichrist did not appear in 1998, as prophesied; nor did the Second Coming occur, which the messages of the 1990’s were predicting for the end of the decade.
* * *
“How can we know which situations have actually been disapproved by a bishop of authority? In the case of Garabandal, I have read so many claims and counter-claims that I don’t know who to believe.”
It can be difficult to know exactly what judgement has been given. But a letter to the Diocesan Chancery, asking for the official position, will generally get you the answer you need.
The onus of proof is on those who claim approval. You need to say to them: ‘Please provide the full text (and the date) of the decree of the Bishop giving approval.’ Any claimed decree can then be verified with the Chancery.
In the case of Garabandal, I have read over the years statements of successive bishops giving negative judgments. I did see some years ago a letter from the Apostolic Nuncio of Australia, re-asserting a negative judgment on Garabandal, and deploring the disobedience of those who promote it.
As for the claim, ‘There is a new investigation’: even if true, it has no bearing on the current situation. You may not promote anything pronounced against, until a new decree overturns the earlier one.
