Investigating Apparitions and Visions
Theological Themes in the Vatican's New Norms
Last week, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) published a new set of norms for investigating apparitions, visions, and other supernatural phenomena like weeping or bleeding statues. The previous norms, superseded by the new guidelines, were published in 1978, during the last months of Pope Paul VI’s papacy and when the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was led by the Croatian Cardinal Francis Šeper.
The new norms give the Vatican, and specifically the DDF, a greater role in investigations of alleged supernatural phenomena, although the investigations themselves are still conducted by local bishops. The guidelines also move away from seeking “yes” or “no” judgments on the supernatural character of alleged apparitions, instead allowing for six different outcomes to an investigation. They also lay out the procedures that should be following during the investigation of potential supernatural phenomena and after its completion, something that was lacking in the previous norms. Although primarily focused on the practical aspects of investigating apparitions and visions, the new norms raise important issues of theological interest:
Our capacity to know, and especially to know with certainty, when something supernatural has occurred;
The relationship between divine activity and its mediation through human experience when there is an alleged supernatural occurrence;
The relationship between the local Church and the global Church.
Getting to the heart of things, the new norms propose four positive criteria for evaluating an alleged supernatural event, or in other words, four signs that the event may truly be supernatural in character:
The “credibility and reputation” of the recipients of a supernatural event and any other witnesses of the event;
The “doctrinal orthodoxy” of the apparition, vision, etc. and any messages arising from it;
“The unpredictable nature of the phenomenon,” or in other words, evidence that the phenomenon does not have a natural or merely human explanation;
The phenomenon has contributed to spiritual fruits, either among the recipients of the event or those who have been drawn to it. (art. 14)
These positive criteria are quite similar to those listed in the 1978 norms. By far the most significant difference, however, is that the earlier norms call for “moral certitude” regarding, or “at least [the] great probability of,” the veracity of the alleged events, a significantly higher standard than that proposed in the new norms. This difference in the texts suggests that the new norms reflect greater circumspection regarding our ability to know with certainty that a supernatural event has occurred.
This circumspection is reflected even more clearly in what the new norms say about the outcome of an investigation. The 1978 norms proposed that the goal of such an investigation is to render a judgment “regarding the authenticity and supernatural character” of a case, determining whether the event can be confirmed to be supernatural (constat de supernaturalitate) or not. The new norms, however, state that the most definitive conclusion that can be reached is a judgment of “Nihil obstat” (i.e., “nothing stands in the way”), that is, the investigation has uncovered no reasons to doubt that the event is of a supernatural character, even though this judgment is made “[w]ithout expressing any certainty about the supernatural authenticity of the phenomenon itself” (17). This is a fascinating shift, and the document provides an explanation for this change in how conclusions regarding apparitions and visions should be reached.
The document introducing the new norms begins by asserting that Christ “is the fullness and fulfillment of Revelation; everything God wanted to reveal, he did through his Son, the Word made flesh” (1), and therefore after Christ, there is no further public Revelation. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit continues to work in history to deepen the faithful’s understanding of this Revelation, including, on relatively rare occasions, through extraordinary experiences of supernatural origin (3-6), sometimes referred to as “private revelations.” Because these private revelations are not part of the Deposit of Faith, Catholics are not obligated to believe in them, even in cases where the Church itself encourages devotion to them (for example, by establishing feast days connected with the Marian apparitions at Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima).
This is long-standing Catholic doctrine, but as the letter accompanying the new norms, authored by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, the Prefect of the DDF, points out, the older method of concluding an investigation by declaring an apparition or other phenomenon “supernatural” had created confusion among the faithful, namely by suggesting that the faithful were obligated to believe in apparitions so designated. Fernández adds that this confusion was abetted by over-the-top statements from bishops, such as:
“The faithful are justified in believing [the supernatural character of the apparition] to be indubitable and certain.” - Bishop of Grenoble, 1851
“[O]ne cannot doubt the reality of the tears.” - Bishops of Sicily, 1952
“I confirm the absolute truth of the facts.” - Unidentified bishop, “recently”
“[T]he faithful must undoubtedly consider as true . . . [the supernatural character of the event].” - Unidentified bishop, “recently” [emphasis added in all quotations]
In contrast, the new norms emphatically state that, “The Diocesan Bishop will . . . take care to ensure that the faithful do not consider any of the determinations as an approval of the supernatural nature of the phenomenon itself” (art. 21 no. 2).
Although these changes may seem like splitting hairs, they seem designed to avoid opportunities for abusing the consciences of the faithful by insisting that Catholics must believe something that is in reality not part of Revelation or an official doctrine of the Church. The DDF also seems to be thinking carefully about the level of certainty that can be achieved through the tools of human reason, such as those used in the investigation of an alleged supernatural event, when dealing with something potentially supernatural, and therefore ultimately a matter of faith.
Interestingly, the new norms do not rule out entirely the possibility of an alleged apparition or vision being confirmed as supernatural. They state that the pope can initiate special procedures for declaring that a particular phenomenon is of supernatural origin (23). But here, however, this declaration would not be the result of an investigation based on the tools of reason, but rather a teaching of the Magisterium demanding a response of faith (although perhaps not the assent of faith reserved for dogmas of the Church).
Just as the new norms include positive criteria for assessing whether a phenomenon is potentially of a supernatural character, it also lists six negative criteria which would weigh against the credibility of the phenomenon:
Evidence that calls into question the veracity of the event, or that calls into question its supernatural character;
Evidence that the recipient(s) of a vision or message have added, either intentionally or unconsciously, “human elements” to the private revelation, potentially introducing doctrinal errors into their account of the event or the message they have received;
The phenomenon, or those associated with it, contribute to a spirit of sectarianism or division;
Those who are associated with the event are found to be pursuing “profit, power, fame, social recognition, or other personal interest”;
Similarly, those who are associated with the event are found to have committed gravely sinful actions, particularly around the time of the event in question;
Evidence that the recipients of an alleged supernatural event were in a psychologically altered state or had psychological conditions that may have influenced their experience of the event.
All of these but the third were also included as negative criteria in the 1978 norms, and in some cases the phrasing is borrowed word-for-word. The new criterion warning against phenomena that contribute to sectarianism or division is potentially aimed at movements that insist that only those who believe in this or that apparition can be considered “true believers” (therefore linking this concern with that for blurring the distinction between public and private revelation), or apparitions that seem to call into question the authority of the pope or bishops.
None of these negative criteria by themselves are necessarily dispositive in determining the status of an alleged supernatural event, except perhaps the first, if the contrary evidence is conclusive. They must be considered together, along with the positive criteria, when making a final judgment.
Theologically speaking, when both the positive and negative criteria proposed in the new norms are considered together, one gets the impression that the DDF wants us to consider potentially supernatural events not simply as isolated, extraordinary phenomena, but rather as potential personal encounters with the divine and intersubjective experiences that take place in a social context. For example, these criteria take into consideration the phenomenological aspect of a supernatural experience, including the way the subjectivity of the recipients may shape the experience or how the recipients communicate the experience to others. Similarly, the criteria consider alleged supernatural events as social phenomena, taking into consideration whether the event leads to good or bad fruits among those attracted to it and its message. There’s a certain parallel here, I think, with the way that biblical scholars and theologians speak of Divine Revelation in terms of its reception and transmission, from which Revelation can’t be isolated.
Cardinal Fernández’s letter introducing the new norms makes this more explicit. The opening paragraph of the letter is quite interesting from a theological perspective:
God is present and active in our history. The Holy Spirit, who flows from the heart of the risen Christ, works in the Church with divine freedom and offers us many valuable gifts that aid us on the path of life and encourage our spiritual growth in fidelity to the Gospel. This action of the Holy Spirit can also reach our hearts through certain supernatural occurrences, such as apparitions or visions of Christ or the Blessed Virgin, and other phenomena.
First of all, this opening encourages us to frame the issue of supernatural occurrences in terms of salvation history. Apparitions, visions, and miracles more generally are not random manifestations of divine power, but rather part of the Spirit’s unfolding work in history. This emphasis not only links the consideration of supernatural events to God’s revelation in Christ, the key event of salvation history, in the ways outlined above, it also suggests that there is a social and ecclesial dimension to these occurrences. The letter’s opening also links supernatural occurrences to the gifts of the Spirit, noting that both are manifestations of the Spirit meant to assist us on our journey, but also suggesting that apparitions, visions, and other supernatural occurrences serve the purpose of nurturing spiritual fruit in the hearts of the faithful.
The new norms seek to put this understanding of supernatural events into practice in a more complete way than the older norms in part through providing for six different possible outcomes for an investigation. Rather than leading to a “yes” or “no” outcome on the question of whether the event is supernatural in character, the six new possible ways of concluding an investigation focus more on how an alleged apparition or other event impacts the community of the faithful. They include:
Nihil obstat (“Nothing stands in the way”): The investigation has uncovered no serious reasons to doubt the veracity of the event, and the event has encouraged “many signs of the action of the Holy Spirit” among the faithful, and so devotion to the event can be encouraged;
Prae oculis habeatur (“Keep an eye on it”): There are positive signs of the Spirit, but also potential risks, including messages that may need clarification, and so continued discernment is needed;
Curatur (“It’s being tended to”): There are significant problems with the event or its reception, but devotion to the event has spread widely and contributed to spiritual fruits, so devotion to the event should be limited, but not in a way that could upset the faithful; (Some commentators have pointed out that this designation seems designed to apply to the alleged apparitions originating in Medjugorje, Bosnia)
Sub mandato (“Under the command”): The event itself seems credible and may have contributed to positive, spiritual fruits, but it is being exploited by an individual or group seeking financial gain, engaged in unethical activity, or undermining the authority of the local bishop, and so as a result of this judgment, the local bishop must exercise authority over affairs related to the alleged event until the situation is resolved;
Prohibetur et obstruatur (“Prohibited and blocked”): There are significant problems with the event and its reception by the faithful, and so the local bishop should declare that devotion to the phenomenon is not allowed while providing an explanation for the decision;
Declaratio de non supernaturalitate (“Declaration it is not supernatural”): There is decisive evidence that the event is not supernatural in character, such as evidence of fraud or fabrication. (17-22)
These six possible outcomes demonstrate the complexities of considering a potentially supernatural occurrence in its intersubjective and social context and provide pastoral leaders with a more nuanced way of assessing and responding to such phenomena.
The new norms also provide more concrete guidance on how an investigation into an alleged apparition or vision should be conducted and give the Vatican a more regular role in such investigations.
The norms propose that when a bishop learns of an alleged apparition or other supernatural event in his diocese, he should establish a commission with the purpose of investigating the event. If the event has already garnered devotees from multiple dioceses, or if it involves people from multiple dioceses, then the bishops of those dioceses can form an interdiocesan commission (art. 4).
The norms lay out the composition of this commission, which should include at least one theologian, one canon lawyer, and “one expert chosen based on the nature of the phenomenon” (A footnote reads, “Such as a medical doctor (and preferably one who specializes in a related discipline, such as psychiatry or hematology), a biologist, a chemist, etc.”) (art. 8, no. 1). Presumably one role of the theologian on the commission would be to assess the orthodoxy of the alleged events and any messages derived from them. The members of this commission should be “of unquestionable reputation, sure faith, certain doctrine, and proven prudence” (art. 8, no. 2). The purpose of the commission is to listen to the testimony of any participants in and witnesses of the event, to collect and evaluate any materials (including writings or other messages) related to the event, and, together with the bishop, to render a judgment in light of their findings.
Under the norms promulgated in 1978, the local bishop had the primary responsibility for rendering a judgment on an alleged supernatural event. The Vatican, however, could step in at the request of the bishop, at the request of “a qualified group of the faithful,” or on its own initiative. As Cardinal Fernández notes in his letter, this arrangement led to a number of problems. For one, it could lead to contradictory judgments, leading to confusion among the faithful. Although the apparition is not named in the letter, it refers to the case of the apparition of the Lady of All Nations in the Netherlands, which was judged to be not supernatural by the local bishop in 1956, a judgment confirmed by the Vatican in 1957. The Vatican repeated this judgment in 1974. In 1996, however, Bishop Hendrik Bomers of Haarlem (with the approval of the CDF) encouraged devotion to the apparition, and his successor, Jozef Punt, in 2002 declared the apparition was supernatural in origin. Finally, his successor, Johannes Hendricks, at the urging of the CDF, rendered a negative judgment on the apparition, apparently closing the matter.
Cardinal Fernández also points to the problem of secrecy under the prior norms. The 1978 norms themselves were kept secret until they were made public in 2011. Bishops were also expected not to mention the role of the Vatican in reaching a determination. Fernández describes the cases of the apparition of Our Lady of Laus (which took place between 1664 and 1718 but was not recognized until 2008), in the French Diocese of Gap, and that of Our Lady of Kibeho (which occurred during the 1980s and was officially recognized in 2001), in the Rwandan diocese of Gikongoro, in which the bishops in each case were not permitted to mention that the Vatican had given its approval to the two apparitions, which led to confusion over where the Vatican stood in each case. Adding to the confusion, other dioceses that had been impacted by the apparitions continued to ask the Vatican for guidance, not knowing the latter had already rendered a judgment.
The last problem identified by Cardinal Fernández, and perhaps the most significant from a theological perspective, is the role of mass communication technologies in spreading word of an alleged apparition or vision on a global scale, in some cases making it difficult, if not impossible, for a local bishop to render a judgment on the complex response to an event originating in his diocese.
For these reasons, the new norms require a local bishop, upon the completion of the appointed commission’s investigation, to report the findings to the DDF, which will assess the results (art. 19). Depending on the circumstances, the DDF “may request further information from the Diocesan Bishop, seek other opinions, or, in rare instances, even proceed to a new examination of the case separate from the one carried out by the Diocesan Bishop” (art. 20). The DDF then communicates its conclusion to the local bishop, who only then announces to the public the final judgment on the events in question (art. 21).
Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis has taken some initiatives toward decentralization, giving greater authority to local bishops or episcopal conferences, but in other cases he has promoted greater centralization. In this case, the Vatican under Francis’s leadership is centralizing the process for rendering judgment on apparitions, even if most of the investigatory work will still take place at the diocesan level. Although he doesn’t use the term, Fernández makes a case that this centralization is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, attempting to demonstrate how contemporary mass communications and the global nature of the Church make it difficult, or even impossible, for a local diocese to handle the process of investigating these phenomena entirely on their own.
Although apparitions and similar supernatural phenomena are not often the object of study for academic theologians, the new norms promulgated by the DDF for investigating these phenomena reflect nuanced thinking on theological themes like the capacity of human reason to recognize supernatural activity, the intersubjective, social, and historical nature of supernatural experiences, and the relationship between the local Church and global Church. Hopefully the new norms can also lead to a faster, more streamlined process for providing the faithful with guidance on whether to give credence to an alleged apparition, vision, or miracle.