This picture is related to the newly approved shrine in Wisconsin U.S. I have been thinking recently about the serious matter of investigating reported mystical phenomena and private revelations. I believe there are some important principles to be laid down (and, for the most part they are!). Of course, no private revelation has the status of Holy Scripture or the Sacraments. Such things must be judged in relation to Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. There must be an investigation into any "teaching" or "prophecy" to see if these reported "communications" agree with the constant teaching of Bible, Councils and the Magisterium of the Church. Clear guidelines are laid down, by the Vatican (according to Canon Law) regarding the conducting of such investigations. One of the things that must happen is that the alleged visionary or locutionist is interviewed. Some satisfaction should be obtained regarding the person's psychological health and the environment against which such reported events have taken place should also be examined. It is not necessary for a person to be mentally ill for there to be false "visions" etc. Leaving aside for a moment the possibility of demonic deception, "normal" people can experience what appear to be genuine mystical events which turn out to be "not of supernatural origin".
Recently I have become aware of some reported apparitions, "messages", seers and "locutionists" where there has been, to put it mildly, insufficient examination of the person, their mental state, the environment, and - most alarming of all - the actual content of the so-called "messages".
Some time ago the late Karl Rahner, in one of his volumes of Theological Investigations made an important point about apparitions and the like. Basically he asked the simple question that if such things do come from God, shouldn't we take them more seriously? The late Marian theologian Fr. Buby made a similar observation, and in Francis Johnston's "Fatima, The Great Sign", there is a discussion around the idea that such things may be safely ignored. There has been some faulty reasoning here. To say that something is not necessary for salvation does not mean that it may be simply ignored, still less brushed aside or treated with contempt. Graces given by God should not be treated in this way, and whilst we are not obliged to believe in any apparition etc, we are obliged to follow our consciences. If, for example, the message of Fatima seems likely to be true, I am not at liberty to treat it as though it is false - that is called dishonesty. If I become convinced that the message is true, then I place myself in the position of either having to accept what I personally believe are a number of requests from Heaven or choosing to ignore them. Which of these is most likely to aid my sanctification? The answer is obvious.
As I have said before on this blog, we cannot dismiss mystical events from the Christian Faith. Saul had a mystical experience on the road to Damascus. Clearly, without this, he would not have become St. Paul. St. Augustine once thought that the miraculous and the mystical was no longer needed. He had an experience which made him eat his words. Sometimes good people see statements apparently from bishops, from their chanceries and from others in other places which they take to be condemnations. What happens when those basic procedures outlined by the Pope himself (in the "Ratzinger Report" for example) have not been followed? What happens when no one can find necessary documents showing that a proper investigation (including interviews with the seers etc) has taken place? What happens when the visionary has no idea that he or she is being investigated, and receives no formal notice of any decision? Are people obliged to obey or accept incomplete, undocumented, insufficient, and summary negative judgements or warnings? Given that we have Canon Law and that it should be followed by everyone in the Church, the answer to that question has to be "No". It is not simply a matter of the letter of the law, or the letter of recommendations in the law; there are obligations relating to natural justice and the law of charity. Simply because someone claims to be having a vision or some such does not make him or her "fair game" for those who want to treat such people with contempt. Everyone is entitled to basic respect, and defamation, amongst other things, should especially not be encouraged by those in positions of pastoral authority. Where there are definite signs of injustice in such matters there simply cannot be an obligation to follow what appear to be negative recommendations or restrictions. No one is above the law, and with regard to so-called "visionaries" no one should be regarded as being beneath it.
Sadly, the lack of proper investigations leaves many followers of such things confused and even deeply discouraged. One of the problems in recent years has been the vast number of reported events and proposed messages. It is true, no doubt, that many - if not most - are false, but what of those that are not? Those charged with the pastoral care of people, and especially those directly involved in investigating such matters have an awesome responsibility. It is clear that, in not a few cases, for one reason or another, this responsibility has, apparently, been poorly exercised.
Recently I have become aware of some reported apparitions, "messages", seers and "locutionists" where there has been, to put it mildly, insufficient examination of the person, their mental state, the environment, and - most alarming of all - the actual content of the so-called "messages".
Some time ago the late Karl Rahner, in one of his volumes of Theological Investigations made an important point about apparitions and the like. Basically he asked the simple question that if such things do come from God, shouldn't we take them more seriously? The late Marian theologian Fr. Buby made a similar observation, and in Francis Johnston's "Fatima, The Great Sign", there is a discussion around the idea that such things may be safely ignored. There has been some faulty reasoning here. To say that something is not necessary for salvation does not mean that it may be simply ignored, still less brushed aside or treated with contempt. Graces given by God should not be treated in this way, and whilst we are not obliged to believe in any apparition etc, we are obliged to follow our consciences. If, for example, the message of Fatima seems likely to be true, I am not at liberty to treat it as though it is false - that is called dishonesty. If I become convinced that the message is true, then I place myself in the position of either having to accept what I personally believe are a number of requests from Heaven or choosing to ignore them. Which of these is most likely to aid my sanctification? The answer is obvious.
As I have said before on this blog, we cannot dismiss mystical events from the Christian Faith. Saul had a mystical experience on the road to Damascus. Clearly, without this, he would not have become St. Paul. St. Augustine once thought that the miraculous and the mystical was no longer needed. He had an experience which made him eat his words. Sometimes good people see statements apparently from bishops, from their chanceries and from others in other places which they take to be condemnations. What happens when those basic procedures outlined by the Pope himself (in the "Ratzinger Report" for example) have not been followed? What happens when no one can find necessary documents showing that a proper investigation (including interviews with the seers etc) has taken place? What happens when the visionary has no idea that he or she is being investigated, and receives no formal notice of any decision? Are people obliged to obey or accept incomplete, undocumented, insufficient, and summary negative judgements or warnings? Given that we have Canon Law and that it should be followed by everyone in the Church, the answer to that question has to be "No". It is not simply a matter of the letter of the law, or the letter of recommendations in the law; there are obligations relating to natural justice and the law of charity. Simply because someone claims to be having a vision or some such does not make him or her "fair game" for those who want to treat such people with contempt. Everyone is entitled to basic respect, and defamation, amongst other things, should especially not be encouraged by those in positions of pastoral authority. Where there are definite signs of injustice in such matters there simply cannot be an obligation to follow what appear to be negative recommendations or restrictions. No one is above the law, and with regard to so-called "visionaries" no one should be regarded as being beneath it.
Sadly, the lack of proper investigations leaves many followers of such things confused and even deeply discouraged. One of the problems in recent years has been the vast number of reported events and proposed messages. It is true, no doubt, that many - if not most - are false, but what of those that are not? Those charged with the pastoral care of people, and especially those directly involved in investigating such matters have an awesome responsibility. It is clear that, in not a few cases, for one reason or another, this responsibility has, apparently, been poorly exercised.
Thank you Father--it is indeed a fascinating topic and one which can be somewhat "tricky"--it is indeed a real box office winner since The Exorcist thought up the potential of such dramatic goings -on ( though I believe this is based on a tue story). There are indeed a wide range of possibilities ranging from mental illness--re the Ossett case--- to unscrupulous publicists muddying the clear waters of the real thing. Which leads me almost inevitably to ask for your views on Medjugorje, though please do not feel obliged to reply as it could cause you a massive headache! I only know that it hasn't been recognised by the Holy Father, yet people still flock there and says its wonderful. There is a post in the Remnant--sorry I haven't got the link handy--- but it is very interesting. As for myself, with all the u tube stuff about it, I can't make head nor tail. I haven't been there so unless I went and felt the "atmosphere" etc and saw a vision myself, I cannot truly comment. It would be devastating to say after all this time its not genuine---well I could ramble on forever thinking about these things. Today I have been to an Anglican Mas which did not differ in any way hardly from our own, on behalf of a deceased f riend of mine who belonged there. I am sure our prayers for her soul--and others---were recognised, though I do have masses said for her also, and she was buried by the Baptists who she ended up with! God bless her!
ReplyDeleteBarbara
Yes, I do not want just yet to get into Medjurgorje - for the reasons you guess. The waters have certainly been muddied by numerous accusations and suggestions. I do know that some of the earlier accusations were false. Mary Craig showed this in her book of a few years ago after some independent investigation had been done. What has been thrown at the visionaries since then is another matter and I am not competent to deal with all that because I have not done the research. I am pleased that the Vatican took it over.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post Fr..
ReplyDelete