New Norms for the Discernment of Apparitions and Private Revelations (1)

The New Criteria for Discernment

Officially, it is a question of escaping the slowness of the old procedures—the last ones dating from 1978 and only made public in 2011—whose lengthiness meant that the “ecclesiastical discernment often came too late,” according to Cardinal Fernández. He emphasizes that the dissemination of information on these phenomena is today amplified by the advent of modern means of communication, which requires additional attention to prevent the dangers which can arise from them.

The Argentine prelate mentions “serious critical issues” that have arisen, particularly in cases in which “some events of alleged supernatural origin” could have been used “to gain ‘profit, power, fame, social recognition, or other personal interest’ (II, Art. 15, 4°).” He also cites cases in which these phenomena are used “’as a means of or pretext for exerting control over people or carrying out abuses’ (II, Art. 16).”

The Roman document gives bishops the procedure to follow. Each bishop must examine cases of alleged supernatural phenomena occurring in his diocese. He is asked “to avoid fueling a sensationalistic climate,” to avoid “ confused religious manifestations,” and “to refrain from making any public statement.”

The Holy See provides positive and negative discernment criteria to evaluate these phenomena. The four positive points to consider are the credibility and good reputation of the persons concerned, the doctrinal orthodoxy of the phenomenon and message disseminated, the unpredictability of the phenomenon, and its fruits for Christian life.

The six negative points are a manifest error of fact; doctrinal errors; the observation of a sectarian spirit or a search for profit, power, fame, social recognition, or personal interest closely linked to the event; gravely immoral acts committed at the time of or around the event; and finally, psychological alterations or psychopathic tendencies of the subject, or even a psychosis, collective hysteria, or other elements relevant to the pathological domain.

At the end of the preliminary investigation, the bishop writes a report with a personal opinion and transmits to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith all the acts of the investigation, with his judgment. It is up to Rome to give the final approval, insists the document, stipulating that the DDF “can intervene [...] at any moment and stage of the discernment regarding alleged supernatural phenomena.” The Dicastery’s decision is made according to six graduated formulas:

• Nihil obstat (nothing obstructs). But the Vatican remains cautious: “Without expressing any certainty about the supernatural authenticity of the phenomenon itself,” the document clarifies. Rome recognizes “many signs of the action of the Holy Spirit [...] and no aspects that are particularly critical or risky have been detected,” not without adding, “at least so far.”
• Prae oculis habeatur (to watch). Rome recognizes “important positive signs,” but also notes “aspects of confusion or potential risks.” An “careful discernment” and a dialogue of the bishop with the recipients of the phenomenon are required. A “doctrinal clarification” may be necessary if there were messages.
• Curatur (to be treated). The Dicastery has noted “various or significant critical elements,” but “the phenomenon has already spread widely, and there are verifiable spiritual fruits connected to it. In this situation, a ban that could upset the People of God is not recommended,” explains the document, inviting bishops “not to encourage this phenomenon but to seek out alternative expressions of devotion and possibly reorient its spiritual and pastoral aspects.”
• Sub mandato (under mandate). Rome does not contest the phenomenon itself but “a person, a family, or a group of people who are misusing it” and deriving from it, for example, a financial advantage. In this case, the management of the place is entrusted to the bishop or to a person delegated by the Holy See.
• Prohibetur et obstruatur (to prohibit and obstruct). In this assessment, “the critical issues and risks associated with this phenomenon appear to be very serious,” and “to prevent further confusion or even scandal [...] the Dicastery asks the Diocesan Bishop to declare publicly that adherence to this phenomenon is not allowed,” explaining the reasons to the faithful affected and reorienting their “legitimate spiritual concerns.”
• Declaratio de non supernaturalitate (declaration of non-supernaturality). Rome authorizes the bishop to declare that the phenomenon is recognized as “not supernatural. [...] For instance, if an alleged visionary admits to having lied or if credible witnesses provide elements of proof that allow one to discover that the phenomenon was based on fabrication, an erroneous intention, or mythomania.”

That is what the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and each diocesan bishop can do when faced with an alleged supernatural phenomenon. Nothing more. The Pope is the only person who “may intervene exceptionally by authorizing a procedure that includes the possibility of declaring the supernaturalness of the events.” But the document clarifies that this is an “exception” that “has been made only rarely in recent centuries.”

Norms for Discerning the Supernatural or for Dismissing It?

As Stefano Chiappalone notes in La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana [Daily Compass] on May 18, we cannot help but think that now there will be “a greater centralisation in the hands of the Dicastery, six possible conclusions regarding the facts under examination and above all the almost total exclusion of a positive judgement regarding the supernaturalness of the phenomena - something which only the Pope will be able to do ‘in a totally exceptional way’.”

The journalist points out that, “During the presentation press conference, Cardinal Fernández made it clear that (barring supreme intervention) ‘supernaturalness will not be declared’.”

Which leads him to note: “Once the previous categories confirming, denying or suspending the judgement of supernaturalness (respectively: constat de supernaturalitate, constat de non supernaturalitate or non constat de supernaturalitate) have been archived, it will be possible to say at most: nihil obstat (nothing forbids that...). For the record: it does no harm...”

Stefano Chiappalone highlights some sentences from the document: “’it is reiterated that neither the diocesan bishop, nor the Episcopal Conferences, nor the Dicastery, as a rule, will declare that these phenomena are of supernatural origin, not even if a nihil obstat is granted’.”

Certainly, “’the diocesan bishop is encouraged to appreciate the pastoral value and also to promote the diffusion of this spiritual proposal’. But precisely, only 'pastoral value', discouraging everything else,” the journalist remarks.

What strikes Stefano Chiappalone is the timing of the publication of the new norms, indicated in the document itself: “A review of the criteria for discernment, inevitable after a few decades, had begun in 2019, but ‘over these five years, several proposals for revision have been drawn up, all of which, however, were judged insufficient’.

“Until, on ‘16 November 2023, the need was finally recognised for a global and radical revision of the draft that had been drawn up to that point, and another draft document was prepared, totally rethought in the direction of greater clarification of the roles of the diocesan bishop and the Dicastery’. In short, there was no end in sight and then the situation was unblocked - we could say 'by a miracle', but without any certainty as to supernaturalness - immediately after the arrival of Cardinal Fernández.

“So that after five years of delays, in just five months the document came to light. Naturally operating "a global and radical revision" - on the other hand, the leitmotif of this and other acts of the present pontificate is: ‘Before we did so and so, but we instead...’.

“Some doubt remains in the end. Because of the previous legislation, the only element that remains unchanged concerns the declaratio de non supernaturalitate; the change, rather than resolving the negative cases, seems aimed at reducing the impact of the positive ones.”

Hence the journalist’s bitter remark: “What if Our Lady really did appear? Good for her - the Dicastery seems to reply - but don't come and teach us the trade.”