The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on Friday issued new norms for the evaluation of supernatural apparitions, and set out new standards by which they might be acknowledged by Church authorities.
> While Rome remains clear that the Church never affirms Catholics must believe in supernatural apparitions, many want it to do just that and conversely would find it hard to accept any official denial.
I am glad that the new norms cover the perplexing situation that necessarily would exist when, hypothetically speaking, nothing supernatural has originally occurred at a place *and yet* people descend upon that place asking our Blessed Mother for help and, like a good mother, she obtains for them supernatural graces (because that is what you *do* for someone who goes on a pilgrimage with the best of intentions... what are you going to do, tell them "Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!"?), which is self-reinforcing because other prospective pilgrims see the graces received by these pilgrims. I think we could all ask our mama on behalf of ourselves (primarily) and the entire Church (secondarily) for an increase in humility, obedience, and detachment from our own preferences, but if these seem like unappealing things to ask for (they don't sound very fun to me ALTHOUGH THEY ARE), we could instead ask to be set on fire (figuratively) with an overwhelming love of God.
You make a very good point about Our Blessed Mother obtaining graces. A vision may be as phoney as a three dollar note, but God may bring good out of it. I refer to my two other comments here on Marpingen, which was once the Medjugorje of its day. The wall beside the small chapel is covered with devotional plaques and thanks for favours received. The prayers of the faithful are honest and the Divine Response may be genuine.
As I found on my visit, Marpingen has a long way to go before it justifies its ludicrous claim to be the "German Lourdes". So it is unlikely to lead many astray. In contrast, Medj is an out of control monster. It is obviously too big and making too much money to be suppressed, unless the Vatican is willing to risk massive dissent and perhaps another schism, as per the nuns in Spain on whom the Pillar recently reported.
From where I'm sitting, the most striking (because bonkers) part is that the 1978 norms were kept under the pontifical secret for over 30 years.
Meanwhile, the most exciting part for many of us will surely be the prospect of finally getting a definitive ruling on that famous Marian grilled cheese sandwich.
I understand that the main reason the 1978 norms were "officially" published in 2011 was that they had been leaked and unofficially published for years before. There has never been any problem with the norms. If the Vatican hesitate to fully back the local bishops, who can directly speak to the "visionaries" in their own language, we are stuffed. Rome can keep moving the problem on indefinitely.
When I was in Medj in 1996, one of the "visionaries" recounted the latest message to us. She might as well have been giving us a recipe for weedkiller, as we were 100% dependent on the translator. One writer claimed that some bored translators just made up the shite on the spot for the benefit of anglophone customers, as the original messages were so banal and probably false.
This reminds me of a story about the horrid Ceaușescus of Romania.
Elena Ceaușescu was not terribly well educated but played the part of a groundbreaking research chemist. It was simple enough to force talented Romanian scientists to write papers that could be published in her name; but as she built up her reputation, made diplomatic visits with her husband, collected honorary degrees, that sort of thing...well, there were people who understandably wanted to meet and have a conversation with this renowned chemist, and that presented a bit more of a challenge.
Which was solved by having a top scientist, possessed of the necessary language skills and also deeply familiar with her work (if not one of the actual writers of her papers in the first place), act as her "translator". The foreign interlocutor would ask a question or offer comments; the "translator" would first turn to Elena and engage in a bit of superficial conversation, and then turn back to the foreigner and give a proper scientific response.
(I imagine they took pains to prevent any outsiders who actually knew a bit of Romanian from being party to these conversations.)
When Star Trek: Picard was announced, the group of authors who had been writing the spin-off novels since 2001 decided to come up with some sort of denouement for their stories, since it was clear that the new TV shows would contradict most, if not all, of the established "canon". The authors did this (and got Pocket Books to sign off on it) in major part because they didn't want the fans who had been following their books for 20+ years to feel completely alienated, as had been observed after Disney purchased Star Wars in 2015 and declared decades' worth of shared experiences non-canon. In officially closing out the "relaunch" book series, these authors hoped to provide fans with some level of closure and validation of their investment in the project; "all good things" and so forth.
Why this seeming non sequitur? Because I've become fixated on this sentence: " 'In this situation, a ban that could upset the People of God is not recommended,' the DDF says." I wonder what lessons the DDF is seeming to have learned, and whence.
Yeah, people are celebrating these new norms, but all of this seems like another muddying of the waters by Francis, to my eyes.
Not every single thing has to be done from a position of “being pastoral”—in the sense of bending over backwards to accommodate people’s feelings.
Every so often the truly pastoral thing is to close the door and say, “You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here.”
These new norms seem to be tailor made for accommodating charlatans just to avoid upsetting the people who buy into their bollocks.
It speaks to Pope Francis’s motivation to make decisions based on what will make him most popular with the largest number of people, rather than actually governing the church.
I am heading to the Saarland for a holiday and particularly want to visit Marpingen. This village was the site of an alleged Marian vision in 1876. The phenomenon quickly got out of hand, even without benefit of the Internet, and for a while it was getting more pilgrims than Lourdes. I thought that it had been recognised as a fake at least a hundred years ago. But then there was a return visit in 1999:
So in 2005 ecclesiastical authorities were still taking an interest:
"The most recent pronouncement by the Catholic Church on these events was made by the Bishop of Trier, Dr. Reinhard Marx. On December 13, 2005, he published the following decree:
"It cannot be confirmed that the events of Marpingen during the years 1876 and 1999 were of supernatural character. There are serious reasons which do not allow us to recognize the events as supernatural."
Trier, December 12, 2005
Dr. Reinhard Marx
Bishop of Trier"
At this rate the Medjugorje farce will run for centuries.
I can recommend David Blackbourn's book, which tells the enthralling 1876 story in huge detail and with several poignant anecdotes. The religious aspects were caught up with so many background events - the Franco-Prussian war, Bismarck's Culture War against the Catholic Church and the recent success of Lourdes.
- The deepest question that people have about an alleged spiritual event is "is this real or not." These new norms don't seem to respond to that need. Perhaps a lack of confidence in being able to say?
- The "norms" make the diocesan bishop a middle manager, collecting information for the real decision makers. This means that bishops will just appoint a committee but with otherwise be totally hands off. Why bother, if someone else is going to tell you what to do anyway?
- Concerned about the loss of the idea that the Bishop has a spiritual charism to discern spiritual truth.
- I'm guessing a lot of local spiritual phenomena are good, devout people simply mistaking their own thoughts for God speaking to them, showing them something, etc. This situation would seemingly "pass" under the new norms.
- There are various approaches one can take to discerning spiritual phenomena, including an ignatian one. The norms don't seem to be particularly aware of such things.
- More transparency is in general a good thing.
- Moving the decision making process to the Vatican bureaucracy has the potential to make this a Rome political game, though I'd imagine the popular devotions already have various lobbies for their causes.
- Delaying judgement on spiritual experiences seems wise in most cases.
- Fans of unapproved apparitions (etc) where there has been a negative judgment may want "their" apparition re-evaluated under these new standards.
How does popular devotion then "make the leap" from Nihil Obstat to establishment of a dedicated feast? Or is Nihil Obstat simply as "official" as it gets?
I live in Wisconsin and recently had my first visit to the shrine in Champion, WI - a lovely place, if any Pillar readers ever have the chance to visit. I guess that recent visit, in line with this article, have sparked my questions. The statement from +Ricken in GB said the following, per The Pillar's linked article above:
"As such, in 2010, a year after the 150th anniversary, Ricken “declared with moral certainty” that the apparitions of Mary to Adele “exhibit the substance of supernatural character” and are “worthy of belief (though not obligatory) by all the Christian faithful.”"
Under the new norms, can a statement with this level of certainty and weight still exist?
Follow up to my comment on Marpingen on the Saarland. I visited the shrine on Thursday 24th May. It was a glorious sunny day in Mary's month. The woodland location is idyllic, with a stream burbling beside the site. And there were..... Er, three visitors. Me and two ladies.
I had seen one young woman heading downhill with her satnav while I was heading uphill with my satnav, so I guess she was a pilgrim.
The information boards brazenly claim that this is the "German Lourdes", despite the Church's clear disapproval. The chapel, which might seat 50 people if they are friendly, is lovely. And there is an outside wall full of devotion plaques giving thanks for favours received.
I would recommend a visit for the historically curious. The scenery is wonderful. The Saarland and surrounding bits of Europe are enthralling. I would also recommend a cab from St Wendel railway station if you don't have a car and don't like uphill walking after taking the not very frequent R12 bus from St Wendel. I caught the even less frequent T1 bus directly from the car park back to St Wendel.
Historic St Wendel itself is well worth a visit. And you can get there directly from the regional rail platforms at the enormous Frankfurt Airport, which serves most of the planet.
V interesting article!
> While Rome remains clear that the Church never affirms Catholics must believe in supernatural apparitions, many want it to do just that and conversely would find it hard to accept any official denial.
I am glad that the new norms cover the perplexing situation that necessarily would exist when, hypothetically speaking, nothing supernatural has originally occurred at a place *and yet* people descend upon that place asking our Blessed Mother for help and, like a good mother, she obtains for them supernatural graces (because that is what you *do* for someone who goes on a pilgrimage with the best of intentions... what are you going to do, tell them "Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!"?), which is self-reinforcing because other prospective pilgrims see the graces received by these pilgrims. I think we could all ask our mama on behalf of ourselves (primarily) and the entire Church (secondarily) for an increase in humility, obedience, and detachment from our own preferences, but if these seem like unappealing things to ask for (they don't sound very fun to me ALTHOUGH THEY ARE), we could instead ask to be set on fire (figuratively) with an overwhelming love of God.
Bridget,
You make a very good point about Our Blessed Mother obtaining graces. A vision may be as phoney as a three dollar note, but God may bring good out of it. I refer to my two other comments here on Marpingen, which was once the Medjugorje of its day. The wall beside the small chapel is covered with devotional plaques and thanks for favours received. The prayers of the faithful are honest and the Divine Response may be genuine.
As I found on my visit, Marpingen has a long way to go before it justifies its ludicrous claim to be the "German Lourdes". So it is unlikely to lead many astray. In contrast, Medj is an out of control monster. It is obviously too big and making too much money to be suppressed, unless the Vatican is willing to risk massive dissent and perhaps another schism, as per the nuns in Spain on whom the Pillar recently reported.
From where I'm sitting, the most striking (because bonkers) part is that the 1978 norms were kept under the pontifical secret for over 30 years.
Meanwhile, the most exciting part for many of us will surely be the prospect of finally getting a definitive ruling on that famous Marian grilled cheese sandwich.
Delicioso sed non supernaturalitate
^^^Underrated comment. lol
I understand that the main reason the 1978 norms were "officially" published in 2011 was that they had been leaked and unofficially published for years before. There has never been any problem with the norms. If the Vatican hesitate to fully back the local bishops, who can directly speak to the "visionaries" in their own language, we are stuffed. Rome can keep moving the problem on indefinitely.
When I was in Medj in 1996, one of the "visionaries" recounted the latest message to us. She might as well have been giving us a recipe for weedkiller, as we were 100% dependent on the translator. One writer claimed that some bored translators just made up the shite on the spot for the benefit of anglophone customers, as the original messages were so banal and probably false.
This reminds me of a story about the horrid Ceaușescus of Romania.
Elena Ceaușescu was not terribly well educated but played the part of a groundbreaking research chemist. It was simple enough to force talented Romanian scientists to write papers that could be published in her name; but as she built up her reputation, made diplomatic visits with her husband, collected honorary degrees, that sort of thing...well, there were people who understandably wanted to meet and have a conversation with this renowned chemist, and that presented a bit more of a challenge.
Which was solved by having a top scientist, possessed of the necessary language skills and also deeply familiar with her work (if not one of the actual writers of her papers in the first place), act as her "translator". The foreign interlocutor would ask a question or offer comments; the "translator" would first turn to Elena and engage in a bit of superficial conversation, and then turn back to the foreigner and give a proper scientific response.
(I imagine they took pains to prevent any outsiders who actually knew a bit of Romanian from being party to these conversations.)
When Star Trek: Picard was announced, the group of authors who had been writing the spin-off novels since 2001 decided to come up with some sort of denouement for their stories, since it was clear that the new TV shows would contradict most, if not all, of the established "canon". The authors did this (and got Pocket Books to sign off on it) in major part because they didn't want the fans who had been following their books for 20+ years to feel completely alienated, as had been observed after Disney purchased Star Wars in 2015 and declared decades' worth of shared experiences non-canon. In officially closing out the "relaunch" book series, these authors hoped to provide fans with some level of closure and validation of their investment in the project; "all good things" and so forth.
Why this seeming non sequitur? Because I've become fixated on this sentence: " 'In this situation, a ban that could upset the People of God is not recommended,' the DDF says." I wonder what lessons the DDF is seeming to have learned, and whence.
Some of the less-solid apparitions could absolutely be described as Catholic fanfic.
Yeah.... Međugorje is fake lol
Yeah, people are celebrating these new norms, but all of this seems like another muddying of the waters by Francis, to my eyes.
Not every single thing has to be done from a position of “being pastoral”—in the sense of bending over backwards to accommodate people’s feelings.
Every so often the truly pastoral thing is to close the door and say, “You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here.”
These new norms seem to be tailor made for accommodating charlatans just to avoid upsetting the people who buy into their bollocks.
It speaks to Pope Francis’s motivation to make decisions based on what will make him most popular with the largest number of people, rather than actually governing the church.
I am heading to the Saarland for a holiday and particularly want to visit Marpingen. This village was the site of an alleged Marian vision in 1876. The phenomenon quickly got out of hand, even without benefit of the Internet, and for a while it was getting more pilgrims than Lourdes. I thought that it had been recognised as a fake at least a hundred years ago. But then there was a return visit in 1999:
https://www.dw.com/en/virgin-mary-gets-an-excused-absence-in-germany/a-1823196
So in 2005 ecclesiastical authorities were still taking an interest:
"The most recent pronouncement by the Catholic Church on these events was made by the Bishop of Trier, Dr. Reinhard Marx. On December 13, 2005, he published the following decree:
"It cannot be confirmed that the events of Marpingen during the years 1876 and 1999 were of supernatural character. There are serious reasons which do not allow us to recognize the events as supernatural."
Trier, December 12, 2005
Dr. Reinhard Marx
Bishop of Trier"
At this rate the Medjugorje farce will run for centuries.
I can recommend David Blackbourn's book, which tells the enthralling 1876 story in huge detail and with several poignant anecdotes. The religious aspects were caught up with so many background events - the Franco-Prussian war, Bismarck's Culture War against the Catholic Church and the recent success of Lourdes.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/916643
I have many, too many thoughts on this:
- The deepest question that people have about an alleged spiritual event is "is this real or not." These new norms don't seem to respond to that need. Perhaps a lack of confidence in being able to say?
- The "norms" make the diocesan bishop a middle manager, collecting information for the real decision makers. This means that bishops will just appoint a committee but with otherwise be totally hands off. Why bother, if someone else is going to tell you what to do anyway?
- Concerned about the loss of the idea that the Bishop has a spiritual charism to discern spiritual truth.
- I'm guessing a lot of local spiritual phenomena are good, devout people simply mistaking their own thoughts for God speaking to them, showing them something, etc. This situation would seemingly "pass" under the new norms.
- There are various approaches one can take to discerning spiritual phenomena, including an ignatian one. The norms don't seem to be particularly aware of such things.
- More transparency is in general a good thing.
- Moving the decision making process to the Vatican bureaucracy has the potential to make this a Rome political game, though I'd imagine the popular devotions already have various lobbies for their causes.
- Delaying judgement on spiritual experiences seems wise in most cases.
- Fans of unapproved apparitions (etc) where there has been a negative judgment may want "their" apparition re-evaluated under these new standards.
How does popular devotion then "make the leap" from Nihil Obstat to establishment of a dedicated feast? Or is Nihil Obstat simply as "official" as it gets?
I live in Wisconsin and recently had my first visit to the shrine in Champion, WI - a lovely place, if any Pillar readers ever have the chance to visit. I guess that recent visit, in line with this article, have sparked my questions. The statement from +Ricken in GB said the following, per The Pillar's linked article above:
"As such, in 2010, a year after the 150th anniversary, Ricken “declared with moral certainty” that the apparitions of Mary to Adele “exhibit the substance of supernatural character” and are “worthy of belief (though not obligatory) by all the Christian faithful.”"
Under the new norms, can a statement with this level of certainty and weight still exist?
Follow up to my comment on Marpingen on the Saarland. I visited the shrine on Thursday 24th May. It was a glorious sunny day in Mary's month. The woodland location is idyllic, with a stream burbling beside the site. And there were..... Er, three visitors. Me and two ladies.
I had seen one young woman heading downhill with her satnav while I was heading uphill with my satnav, so I guess she was a pilgrim.
The information boards brazenly claim that this is the "German Lourdes", despite the Church's clear disapproval. The chapel, which might seat 50 people if they are friendly, is lovely. And there is an outside wall full of devotion plaques giving thanks for favours received.
I would recommend a visit for the historically curious. The scenery is wonderful. The Saarland and surrounding bits of Europe are enthralling. I would also recommend a cab from St Wendel railway station if you don't have a car and don't like uphill walking after taking the not very frequent R12 bus from St Wendel. I caught the even less frequent T1 bus directly from the car park back to St Wendel.
Historic St Wendel itself is well worth a visit. And you can get there directly from the regional rail platforms at the enormous Frankfurt Airport, which serves most of the planet.