In 1966, Paul VI, implementing Vatican II’s statement on the right of the mass media to information, lifted the requirement that all writings about private revelation need ecclesiastical approval before publication, repealing canons 1399 and 2318 from the Code of Canon Law of 1917. With this change and the disappearance of the Index, the floodgates for claims of private revelation had been opened. Fr. René Laurentin, the world’s foremost Mariologist, acknowledged the change in apparition trends by labeling the rise “an explosion of the supernatural” and expressed concern that the reports of apparitions had become frequent, “numerous and even disturbing.”29 He found this to be such a paradigm shift that he divided the almost 2,500 apparitions catalogued in his comprehensive work, Dictionary of the Apparitions of the Virgin Mary, into two parts: (1) apparitions in Christian history before 1966 and (2) those occurring after.
The most recent CDF document and the current standard that lays out the guidelines for the judgment of apparition claims is the Normae Congregationis de Modo Procedendi in Diudicandis Praesumptis Apparitionibus ac Revelationibus (Norms of the Congregation for Proceeding in Judging Alleged Apparitions and Revelations), approved by Pope Paul VI on February 27, 1978, and written sub secreto in Latin for the eyes of bishops alone. The document was later publicly produced in translations released to the bishops. With these official translations having been leaked to the Internet and other unofficial translations abounding online, the Vatican formally released five translations of the document more than two decades later on May 24, 2012, admitting knowledge of its previous availability in the introduction by William Cardinal Levada.30 The purpose of the document, as indicated by Levada in his introduction, is to
aid the Pastors of the Catholic Church in their difficult task of discerning presumed apparitions, revelations, messages or, more generally, extraordinary phenomena of presumed supernatural origin…. [May it also] be useful to theologians and experts in this field of the lived experience of the Church, whose delicacy requires an evermore thorough consideration.
The Normae Congregationis sets out the procedures to be followed in investigating the authenticity of extraordinary claims. The document clarifies the role of Church officials in investigating the authenticity of claims of private revelation. There are four ways the competent ecclesiastical authority is to act with respect to a claim of private revelation. The authority can or must:
1. Inform himself without delay and keep vigilance over the claim.
2. Promote some form of cult/devotion at the request of the faithful if the above negative and positive criteria do not prohibit it.
3. Intervene on his own initiative, especially in grave circumstances.
4. Refrain from intervening in doubtful cases, but remain vigilant.
Bishops evaluate evidence of private revelation according to these guidelines:
1. The facts in the case are free of error.
2. The person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere, and respectful of Church authority.
3. Doctrinal errors are not attributed to God, the Virgin Mary, or to a saint.
4. Theological and spiritual doctrines presented are free of error.
5. Moneymaking is not a motive involved in the events.
6. Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result, with no evidence of collective hysteria.
St. Philip Neri (1515–1595) was often brought in by bishops to give his opinion on the authenticity of mystics. With a careful eye on obedience and humility, he was able to ferret out false mystics with great success. One day in 1560, the cardinals were discerning about a nun who was having visions. Since they sought his opinion, Philip went to see the young sister. He kindly said to her, “Sister, I didn’t want to see you; I wanted to see the saint.” The nun answered, “But I am the saint!” and Philip was able to report confidently to the cardinals that her visions were not from God.31
Judgment can find that a revelation shows all the signs of being an authentic supernatural intervention from heaven, that it is clearly not miraculous, or that there are not sufficient signs to establish whether the alleged apparition is authentic.
If a vision of the Virgin Mary, for example, is recognized by the bishop, it means that the associated message is not contrary to faith and morals and that Mary can be venerated in a special way at the site. Pope Benedict XVI commented on private revelation in his 2010 apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini:
Ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation essentially means that its message contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. It is licit to make it public and the faithful are authorized to give to it their prudent adhesion. A private revelation can introduce new emphases, give rise to new forms of piety, or deepen older ones. It can have a certain prophetic character (cf. 1 Th 5:19–21) and can be a valuable aid for better understanding and living the Gospel at a certain time; consequently it should not be treated lightly. It is a help which is proffered, but its use is not obligatory. (no. 14)
According to Tradition, the “competent authority” refers to the local ordinary, who is expected to fulfill the duties and obligations that fall to him. Although the diocesan bishop possesses the right to initiate an investigation, that country’s national conference of bishops can subsequently intervene at his request or at the request of a qualified group of faithful not “motivated by suspect reasons.” If necessary, the Vatican can then also intervene if the situation involves the Church at large or if discernment requires it. The CDF judges the manner in which the local ordinary conducted his investigation and decides whether it is necessary to initiate a new examination. It is the right and responsibility of local bishops to investigate and make judgments about alleged apparitions, and ordinarily the Vatican does not become involved in the process. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has an obligation of “guidance and vigilance.”
In an essay for Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis (PAMI) on the topic of Normae Congregationis, Msgr. Charles Scicluna, promoter of justice for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, notes that once a decision of the CDF is given, it cannot be overturned by a lower authority, as it is of “undisputed hierarchical authority.”32
A classic modern example of the progression in the levels of intervening authority is the controversial Medjugorje case, in which the famed apparition phenomenon that began in 1981 was first investigated and discouraged by the local ordinary, was later judged to be “not established as supernatural” by the 1991 Zadar Commission of the Yugoslavian bishops, and then was re-examined by a Vatican commission formed on March 26, 2010. (Note: At the time of the publication of this book, the results of the commission were unknown.)
Church officials are called to assess the phenomenon and the people who report them, looking for evidence of authenticity. Typically, if the situation merits it, the bishop will assemble a commission of experts in various disciplines to create a report to advise him on how to render judgment. These experts may come from a variety of fields and are usually theologians, psychologists, psychiatrists, Mariologists, or anthropologists.
Next they are to study any messages that are associated with the extraordinary reports, to ascertain whether they conform with Church teaching.
The third question raised by the document appraises the pastoral implications of the phenomena by studying the fruits of the reported apparitions. Miraculous physical healings, conversions, vocations, and a return to the sacraments are considered to be good fruits.
In September of 1888 at Castelpetroso, Italy, Fabiana Cecchino and Serafina Giovanna Valentino, both in their thirties, had a vision of the Virgin Mary as Our Lady of Sorrows. After some time, news of the occurrence reached Msgr. Macarone-Palmieri, bishop of the Diocese of Bojano, where Castelpetroso is located. He was called to Rome for the business of his diocese, and while he was there, he updated the Holy Father on what was going on at Castelpetroso,