Vatican Releases Smudge-laden Handwritten Document 

as the 1951 Negative Verdict on Lipa Apparitions

By Peter I. Galace

The Vatican has released a smudge-laden handwritten document that contained a directive for a public declaration purportedly that the Lipa apparitions did not have a supernatural origin and character. The document, however, may have only bolstered the contention that the Vatican negative verdict on Lipa in 1951 as legally non-existent, or that it was not properly promulgated in accordance with the Canon law of the Church. Canon 8 requires that for an issuance to be promulgated, it should be published in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, or the Official Acts of the Holy See, or made known by other means of communication. 

The Lipa apparitions 

The apparitions occurred in Lipa City in the Philippines in 1948 to a Carmelite novice, Sr. Teresita Castillo. The Blessed Mother reportedly appeared 15 times in white robes with a rosary and told Castillo: “I am Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace.”

The visions of Castillo were reportedly followed by a shower of rose petals that miraculously fell from the skies, many bearing religious images. Many conversions and healings reportedly occurred, and the phenomena were followed by hundreds of thousands of Filipinos, including the wife of then Philippine President Manuel L. Quezon.

On orders of then Apostolic Nuncio Egidio Vagnozzi, the Philippine Church formed a commission composed of six bishops to investigate the events. On April 11, 1951, the bishops declared the Lipa phenomena excluded any supernatural intervention.

The very next day, on April 12, 1951, as a result of the special commission’s report, then Apostolic Administrator of Lipa, Bishop Rufino Santos, issued a decree banning public veneration of the image of Our Lady Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace. Santos concluded his Decree by stating “…. until a FINAL decision on the matter will come from the Holy See.’’ 

After the statue of Mary Mediatrix was locked and hidden, things quieted down a bit. But there were new “incidences” in later years that seemed to justify the reopening of the Lipa case. Mariano G. Gaviola, who served as bishop of Lipa from April 1981 to December 1992, probed the matter. Finally, he lifted the ban imposed by the April 12, 1951 ruling, openly expressing his belief in the authenticity of the 1948 Marian apparitions, even declaring the said miracles as “worthy of belief.” The phrase “worthy of belief” is the Catholic Church’s byword for an authentic apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On September 12, 2015 or 67 years later, Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles declared the apparitions of Mary Mediatrix of All Grace as “supernatural in character” and “worthy of belief,” overturning the results of the bishops’ investigation in 1951. Following the results of an inquiry he formed, he approved the apparitions of Mary Mediatrix to Castillo and the subsequent miracles attributed to it.

Arguelles was promptly castigated by the Holy See. On December 11, 2015, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued PROT. N. 226/1949 and maintained that the Lipa phenomena “have no sign of supernatural character or origin.” PROT. N. 226/1949 also affirmed that a CDF negative verdict on March 28, 1951 was confirmed by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1951. PROT. N. 226, signed by CDF prefect Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, inevitably voided the approval of Arguelles. 

This disclosure of PROT. N. 226/1949 was totally new to most Filipinos, including the Philippine church hierarchy, who learned for the first time of a Vatican March 28-29, 1951 negative ruling on Lipa. 

In shame, Arguelles resigned as Archbishop of Lipa in July 2020, three years ahead of the mandatory retirement age of 75, after serving the Lipa archdiocese for almost 13 years.

Despite the release of PROT. N. 226, many pro Lipa devotees remained skeptical and demanded from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the CDF the release of full documentation of the March 28/29, 1951 CDF and papal decrees. This compelled the CBCP to ask the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), the new name of CDF, for the release of the 1951 decree, only to be handed a handwritten document, with pockmarks and corrections, to establish the validity of the negative verdict. 

DDF letter to Philippine Bishops

The 1951 handwritten decree in Italian reads: 

S.O. 226/49

28th day of March 1951

By order of the Most Holy Father’s will:

The apostolic delegate is to authorize the apostolic administrator to issue a document from the Curia, in which is declared that the events of Lipa, after serious examination, turns out not to have a supernatural origin and character.

In audience with His Holiness

Thursday, 29th day of March 1951

Signed by L. Ottaviani

In a letter to the CBCP President Pablo Virgilio David in October 6, 2023, Manuel Victor Cardinal Fernández said “…since the non-supernatural nature of the aforementioned events has been clearly established, it now seems appropriate that for the future, unless further intervention by this Dicastery becomes necessary, it should be this Episcopal Conference that discerns what is necessary for the good of the faithful regarding the aforementioned events.”

Is a mere draft valid as a formal decree?

The boiling issue is if an unmistakably draft document carries with it the effectivity and validity of a formal decree of the Holy Office. The S.O. 226/49 was handwritten at a time when use of typewriters in the office environment have become widespread and ubiquitous. 

Alfredo Ottaviani was named Cardinal in 1953 and served as secretary of the Holy Office from 1959 to 1966, later reorganized to become the CDF. Although Cardinal Ottaviani was the CDF prefect up to 1968, it is not known under what capacity he was signing the supposed decree in 1951 as he was not the prefect at that time. 

A formal judgment from the highest doctrinal authority in the Church necessarily requires the formality of the presentation of a clean copy of the finalized text shorn of corrections of the process of editing and revising. 

It is expected that the Holy Office only release decrees or papers that are duly edited in form and style, following juxta Stylum Curiae. What that means is that any decree or law, to be properly promulgated, must follow strictly the style, standard, and format of the Holy Office before it becomes a law. Afterall, Vatican is known to follow scrupulously its standards. 

The smear-laden handwritten document does not even meet the norms of customary propriety and of rudimentary presentability of common everyday business correspondence. It contravenes the time-honored practice in the Roman Curia of adhering to the requirements of the exercise of ecclesiastical authority with propriety and in a respectful manner as befits the highest religious authority on earth.

If the smudge-laden handwritten document is seen and treated as a mere draft, which was never promulgated as a decree of the Holy Office, then the Vatican retains its dignity, majesty, and respectability as a spiritual authority that can demand the assent, compliance, and obedience of Catholics all over the world.

No publication, no promulgation

Then there is the onus of proving the actual promulgation of the alleged March 1951 in the Acta. A careful and exhaustive review of all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, and instructions of Pope Pius XII in 1951, which are all published in the Acta do not contain anything that resembles a declaration made against Lipa. 

The Acta Apostolicae Sedis or AAS is the official gazette of the Holy See and was established by Pope Pius X on 29 September 1908 with the decree Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones. AAS contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The laws in it are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue, unless a shorter or longer time is specified in the law.

Publication began in January 1909 and today, the AAS archives are available on the Internet (http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_sp.htm) and all the CDF and papal Decrees can be viewed year by year. 

By forwarding to the Philippine bishops a handwritten document that is still the subject of editing and revision, Cardinal Fernández may have only proven that the CDF never finalized or issued in March 1951 a negative verdict on Lipa. Thus, expecting the assent, submission, and obedience of many Filipino Catholics to a draft that was never promulgated would be non-sensical. 

And it can be asked why it should take more than 70 years to release a smudge-laden handwritten document that did not contain any sensitive or confidential information?

Dead letter

Notwithstanding all the obvious defects in style and format of the S.O. 226/49, its long-delayed release or publication is also a dead giveaway to Lipa believers. Since the document, having kept hidden for more than 70 years, was officially released only on October 6, 2023 to the CBCP, its directive was and is ineffective. 

Juridical acts or official decisions are, as a matter of course, issued or promulgated while the person exercising the authority is still breathing and alive. The curial officials during the incumbency of Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius XII himself are long gone, dead and buried for many decades now. The entire historical narrative of Lipa from 1948 to 2014 contains no reference, allusion, or acknowledgment of SO 226/49. Dead men no longer promulgate official acts. 

1979. Ottaviani, who signed the supposed decree, died in 1979. Pope Pius XII died in 1958. In October 2023, the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith surfaces an alleged Holy Office decision supposedly ratified by Pius XII. Since they are both dead before the release or publication of the supposed decree, they can no longer promulgate decrees.

Proven to not being issued and published during the lifetime of A. Ottaviani and Pius XII in the decades following, the 1951 handwritten SO 226/49 could not be considered a valid issuance from the Roman Curia.

Written not on an Official Stationery but on a Notepad

The October 6, 2023 letter of Cardinal Fernández letter to Bishop David bears the official letterhead of the DDF because it deals with the official business of that particular dicastery. 

S.O. 226/49 is supposed to be a formal decree of the highest doctrinal authority in the Catholic Church and it is written on a plain notepad? This is just a further evidence that the smudge-laden handwritten document was at the very least just a draft because official business is conducted using official stationery.

Also, S.O. 226/49 bears the logo of “DICASTERIUM PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI.” The Dicasterium Pro Doctrina Fidei is the CURRENT official name of what was once the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office as it was then known during the incumbency of Pius XII in 1951.

If S.O. 226/49, as transmitted to the CBCP by Cardinal Fernández, is an official document coming from the same office in 1951, the name in the logo should have been that of the Suprema Sacra Congregatio S. Officii as it was then named and known.

Notification of Negative Verdict

The format and language of the text in the supposed decree is not presented and worded in the proper format as such. It is also not a public announcement meant to inform the Catholic people and is not addressed to no one in particular. 

In its correct form, a decree is properly composed of premises consisting of the “whereas clauses,” which serve as introductory statements to explain the reason and purpose of the final decision, and the dispositive section where the ruling or decision is clearly enunciated.

S.O. 246/49 contains no premise and neither is there a setting forth of the exercise of jurisdiction by the use of formal language in authoritatively laying down the judgement in the dispositive part of a decree.

At best, S.O. 226/49 is a draft of a prospective communication that seeks to communicate to an unnamed person a specific directive or assignment. It delineates a specific course of action to be undertaken such that the Apostolic Delegate in Manila is to get the Apostolic Administrator of Lipa to make a public declaration that Lipa was not of supernatural origin. It is not a public announcement; therefore, it needs an addressee.

Who is to get the Apostolic Delegate to communicate with the Apostolic Administrator of Lipa so that the public declaration on the Lipa apparitions will be made?

Is it the Cardinal Secretary of State to whom the Apostolic Delegate reports to in the Roman Curia? Or is Ottaviani directing the Apostolic Delegate himself?

There being no addressee, S.O. 226/49 should be dismissed as a draft that was never sent out.

Confession of Mother Cecilia

In the same letter in October 2023 to the CBCP, Cardinal Fernández also attached a letter in which Sister Mary Cecilia of Jesus, OCD, then the superior of the convent where the known events occurred, “confessed guiltily to having deceived the faithful about the alleged apparitions in Lipa and consequently asked for forgiveness. This fact definitively and directly confirms the non-supernatural nature of the events in Lipa.”

However, this supposed confession could easily be dismissed as it is well-known by Lipa devotees that Mother Cecilia was pressured by the Church leaders not to speak positively about the alleged apparitions. She was exiled to the Carmelite convent of Jaro in Iloilo, where she was not allowed to participate in the prayers and recreations of the community. She was treated like a prisoner, stripped of her dignity as Mother Prioress. After the negative verdict was issued by the Catholic Church authorities, she was reduced to the status of a scullery maid. 

PROT. N. 226/1949 claims there were deliveries of rose petals to Carmel Lipa and that Mother Cecilia manipulated things so as to imbed sacred images on to the rose petals. While it may be possible with contemporary electronic technology to now print on rose petals, the nuns at the convent didn’t have any computers and printers in war-torn rural Lipa. How then could a convent of cloistered nuns who have vowed to live a life of penance and prayer transform their monastic environment to a rose petal art factor? 

They did not even have electricity!

Reports say that the Blessed Mother manifested her presence before Mother Cecilia, who reacted by saying, “I am so happy because our Blessed Mother STILL follows me.” This simply implies that she has always been in favor of the apparitions, and it is very unlikely that she would admit in her confessions that she was deceiving the faithful.

Conclusion

If the dicasteries in the Vatican can write episcopal conferences worldwide transmitting directives on a sheet of paper still bearing the blots of editing corrections, then it will be okay for the CBCP Secretariat to in turn relay decisions from Rome in smudge-laden documents to diocesan bishops in the Philippines.

Then diocesan chanceries can likewise be loose and lax in complying with generally accepted standards of formality and courtesy in the conveyance of official communications, and following the example of the Vatican may resort to issuing diocesan circulars riddled with blots, smears, and smudges.

The handwritten smudge-laden document released by Cardinal Fernández is prima facie evidence that the purported March 28-29, 1951 decision cannot in any way, shape or form be construed as a validly promulgated decree against Lipa. It was merely a draft and remains a draft to this day.

It is well to recall the directive of Bishop Santos: “All visits are suspended temporarily, no letters will be allowed, until final decision on the matter WILL COME from the Holy See.”

The Apostolic Administrator of Lipa as of April 12, 1951 was still awaiting the formal decree from Rome, not having received the “final decision” from the Vatican. Bishop Santos could not receive the “final decision” because the Holy See does not and cannot send out a rough draft with editing corrections still very visible and propose such a draft to be a formal decree duly promulgated as such.

 

Sources: 

Acta SS. Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith Decree: Assertae Beatae Mariae Virginis Apparitiones Et Revelationes in Loco Ezquiotioga, Diocese of Victoria, Spain. Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Annus XXVI – Series II – Vol. I. Feria IV, June 13, 1934

Acta SS. Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith Decree. Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Annus XXXXIII – Series II – VOL. XVI II. July 18, 1951.

Arguelles, Ramon Archbishop. Statement: December 10, 2010. Retrieved from http://miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/statements/lipa_statement_03.html

Curia Diocesana: Official Statement on Reported Extraordinary Happenings at Carmel of Lipa.  Vol. XXV, Numero 275. Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas. May 1951, page 288. Arzobispado de Manila. 

Gaviola, Mariano G. April 16, 1995. ‘Reflections’ on Mary Mediatrix of All Grace in Lipa Carmel Monastery from 1948 and Subsequent Years. Manila, Philippines.

Hilling, Nicolas. (1907). A Concise and Practical Handbook. Joseph F. Wagner. New York

Martin, Michael. (1913). The Roman Curia As It Now Exists. Benziger Brothers. New York

PROT. N. 226/1949 Presumed Apparitions of the BVM at the Carmelite Convent in Lipa Retrieved from https://dioceseofpasig.org/blog/vatican-issues-decree-on-lipa-apparition/

Rosales, Dency.  (2005). Alfredo Aranda Obviar: Bishop from Lipa, Shepherd in Lucena. St. Pauls, Manila, Philippines.

[resources: Michael Brown retreat May 18]