Today the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) released “Listening to the Spirit Who Works in the Faithful People of God,” a new set of norms for discerning alleged supernatural phenomena, such as apparitions, miracles, visions, and other mystical events are claimed to be of divine origin. These norms were approved by Pope Francis, who ordered their publication. They will take effect on Pentecost Sunday, May 19, 2024, and they entirely supersede the previous norms, which were approved in 1978 and officially published by the Vatican in 2011.
Overview of the process
Speaking broadly, the new process requires the diocesan bishop — once he learns of an alleged supernatural phenomenon in his territory that has “the semblance of truth” (II. B. Art. 7 § 1) — to initiate and conduct an investigation of the claims. He does this in dialogue with his national bishops’ conference. He then formulates his judgment (Votum) on the phenomenon and sends it to the DDF along with the results of the investigation (cf. II. A. Art. 1). Next, the DDF evaluates the results of the investigation and grants its approval or rejection to the bishop’s determination (cf. II. A. Art. 2).
Once the DDF’s judgement is reached, they send their response to the diocesan bishop who will notify the national episcopal conference and “will clearly make known to the People of God” what the DDF decided (cf. II. B. Art. 21 § 1-2).
That is the basic overview. Of course, the norms provide details about how the investigations should be conducted and who should participate. The document accounts for a number of contingencies, such as the involvement of multiple bishops and dioceses. It also provides guidance on how to handle different types of phenomena, such as objects that might be involved in miracles or ongoing messages from alleged visionaries. It repeatedly advises the bishop to remain vigilant about the phenomenon during the course of the investigation and evaluation. It mentions points at which the bishop, DDF, or pope might intervene.
Possible outcomes
This is where the document differs significantly from the previous norms. There is no longer a judgement on the supernatural nature of phenomena (constat de supernaturalitate, non constat de supernaturalitate, constat de non supernaturalitate) but an assessment of the spiritual fruits related to the phenomenon. Because final judgements on the supernatural nature of these events are rare, many of these events are left without a clear assessment by the Church, leading to confusion among the faithful. A new approach was proposed by the DDF to the pope:
To prevent any further delays in the resolution of a specific case involving an event of alleged supernatural origin, the Dicastery recently proposed to the Holy Father the idea of concluding the discernment process not with a declaration of “de supernaturalitate” but with a “Nihil obstat,” which would allow the Bishop to draw pastoral benefit from the spiritual phenomenon. The idea of concluding with a declaration of “Nihil obstat” was reached after assessing the various spiritual and pastoral fruits of the event and finding no substantial negative elements in it. The Holy Father considered this proposal to be a “right solution.”
There are now six possible outcomes of the investigations into such phenomena:
– 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. The bishop is encouraged to appreciate the pastoral value and promote the dissemination of the phenomenon, including pilgrimages;
– 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. If there were writings or messages, doctrinal clarification might be necessary;
– Curatur: Various or significant critical elements are noted, but the phenomenon is already spread widely, and verifiable spiritual fruits are connected to it. Therefore, a ban that could upset the faithful is not recommended, but the local bishop is advised not to encourage the phenomenon;
– Sub mandato: The critical issues are not connected to the phenomenon itself but to its improper use by people or groups, such as undue financial gain or immoral acts. The Holy See entrusts the pastoral leadership of the specific place to the diocesan bishop or a delegate;
– Prohibetur et obstruatur [prohibited and stopped]: Despite various positive elements, the critical issues and risks associated with this phenomenon appear to be very serious. The Dicastery asks the local bishop to offer a catechesis that can help the faithful understand the reasons for the decision and reorient their legitimate spiritual concerns;
– Declaratio de non supernaturalitate: The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith authorizes the local bishop to declare that the phenomenon is found to be not supernatural based on concrete facts and evidence, such as the confession of an alleged visionary or credible testimonies of fabrication of the phenomenon.
First thoughts
A few quick observations about the document as a whole:
1) Granting a “nihil obstat,” which means, roughly “nothing stands in the way” seems appropriate as a sign of approval, given that Catholics are not required to believe in any private revelation. And a Catholic can derive spiritual fruit from a popular devotion regardless of their level of belief that an alleged phenomenon is supernatural.
2) The “Curatur” designation seems tailor-made for the Medjugorje apparition, which has provided clear spiritual fruits but many have pointed to problematic elements of the phenomenon, including disregard for the local bishop’s judgements, the commercialization of the local area, the claims that some of the visionaries have profited from it, etc. But Medjugorje is not going away, and many sincere Catholics have a deep devotion to it. Therefore, I agree that in this case, “a ban that could upset the faithful is not recommended.”
3) The document’s Presentation section states, “In dealing with such cases, and especially when preparing an official statement, some Bishops sought the necessary prior authorization from the Dicastery. Then, when granted that permission, Bishops were asked not to mention the Dicastery in their statement.” Going forward, bishops will be required to publish the judgement of the DDF. This is a good thing, because bishops have been known to “go rogue” with regard to apparitions in the past.
4) The document provides two past examples of apparitions that were approved by the dicastery but the diocesan bishop was prohibited from saying so publicly. It appears this information is being made public for the first time: Our Lady of Happy Meetings, a 17th-century apparition in the Diocese of Gap in France, which was approved in 2007; and Our Lady of Kibeho in the diocese of Gikongoro in Rwanda, which was approved in 2001. The document explains that “In these situations, the Bishop could not even mention that the Dicastery had given its approval. Meanwhile, other Bishops, whose Dioceses were also affected by these phenomena, were also seeking an authoritative opinion from the Dicastery to attain greater clarity.”
5) Sharing the judgements of the DDF could shed light on the status of other alleged apparitions, such as those in Akita, Japan, is difficult to discern due to conflicting information from the diocesan bishop — who granted his approval in 1984 — and the papal nuncio to Japan in 1990, who stated that the Vatican had never approved the apparition. We should not have to wait decades for an authoritative clarification of an apparition’s status.
Some Questions
It seems to me that the new norms will provide clarity and help resolve confusion about these phenomena. But the document isn’t entirely clear on how quickly the process will take, what freedom the local bishop has to put a stop to a phenomenon when the discernment process is ongoing, and what recourse can be taken when the local bishop is either negligent in investigating a phenomenon that has spread widely or if he seems to lend his support to a phenomenon that lacks DDF approval.
Note: This is a developing story. Stay tuned for further updates.
Image: Apparition Hill – Medjugorje, Bosnia and Herzegovina. “06.07.15-Queen of Peace” (CC BY-SA 2.0) by kristinefull.
Mike Lewis is the founding managing editor of Where Peter Is. He and Jeannie Gaffigan co-host Field Hospital, a U.S. Catholic podcast.
Popular Posts