Discerning Private Revelation: A Particular Pitfall
Kevin Symonds • January 16, AD201
Over the course of my now fourteen years of studying and working with the Catholic Church’s theology of private revelation, I have come to understand a particular pitfall in discernment. This pitfall concerns the dissemination of alleged private revelations. Unfortunately, there appears to be many different ideas and opinions as to how this dissemination works. This difference is part of the reason why I wrote the book Refractions of Light. In the article, I would like to discuss this particular pitfall in order to shed some light on the confusion that today continues unabated in the Church.
Private Revelation—Discernment & History
To begin, it is important to note that the key word before us is “discernment.” Fairly knowledgeable Catholics have at least a working understanding of this term. At its core, the word means to figure out what is and what is not coming from God. It is a spiritual term, one deeply rooted in the Church’s history and theology. How well do we know this history in order to help us discern the voice of God? This question is imperative with respect to the Church’s theology of private revelation.
Beginning with the New Testament, we see a consistent pattern of discernment through the nascent and early Church. The Fathers and Doctors (both earlier and later) expounded upon the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ and established firm tenets that assist us in later generations to know better our Divine and Catholic Faith. Frequently, these things happened by way of defeating heresies that had arisen and which were condemned. It should also be observed that various processes that facilitate the Faith have changed over the years, usually in accordance with a growing understanding of said Faith and to reflect it better.
By the 15th Century, the Faith had been fairly well established in Western Civilization. A common Faith had united Europe, though this Faith had been challenged by and was faltering from the scandal of the Western Schism and many heresies that abounded around this time. In the midst of this milieu came Gutenberg’s printing press whereby a louder voice was now afforded for people to express their views and opinions. This ability created a new dimension to the perennial problem for the Church on teaching the Faith clearly. Anyone and everyone could now say what they wanted regardless of whether he or she was qualified.
What effect would this ability have on faith, good morals and good order in the Church? Legislation was enacted by Popes Innocent VIII and Alexander VI that began to address the new dimension that the printing press proposed. We know this legislation through popular secular history as “censorship.” Often seen negatively in a society that values free speech, “censorship” to the Catholic Church is simply an extension of her mission to “guard that which has been entrusted” to her (cf. 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14).
Private Revelation & Censorship
“Censorship” undeservedly enjoys the negative connotation of major “crackdowns” or “inquisitions.” I make no excuse for excesses and abuses that have occurred, but one must, however, also remember that abusus non tollit usum—the abuse of a thing does not take away its use. The intention of censorship in the Catholic Church is both to ensure good order and proper facilitation of faith and good morals. For its part, the printing press—a blessing—could easily be abused, and such was done for the purposes of wild private revelations that disturbed the general populace.
Beginning with Innocent VIII and Alexander VI, a long list of Popes down to the present have justly upheld the Church’s right of censorship. Refractions of Light traces some of the highlights of this development. I focused on the Council of Trent through Pope Urban VIII to Pope St. Pius X and to Paul VI (from there to the more recent Popes, let me add). Even if they modified certain processes and legislations, they believed that there has to be good order in the Church respecting private revelation (alleged or authentic). It is clear that Papal legislation, strictly speaking, did not want such revelations to run freely in the Church unchallenged and unchecked.
Reform of Censorship & Its Effect on Private Revelation
By and large, the Church’s system of censorship manifested itself concretely in the Index of Forbidden Books as well as the processes for canonization and beatification, as demonstrated in Refractions of Light. Pope Paul VI made the decision to reform the Church’s system of censorship. This decision, regretfully, was horrifically misunderstood by private revelation enthusiasts, and this misunderstanding is at the heart of the reason for the present article. Prior legislation to 1966 ensured that material on alleged private revelations was properly examined by the competent Ecclesiastical Authority (usually one’s local Bishop).
Paul VI, desirous for the faithful to act out of love and not legal precept, wanted legislative reform to censorship that saw the faithful working with—yet submissively to—the Pastors of the Church. In the Pope’s vision, he saw a catechized faithful who understood and obeyed the precepts of the Church. What he did not foresee, one can argue, is the devastation of the vineyard that would manifest more powerfully after the Second Vatican Council. He saw it, perhaps, a bit too late as evidenced by many remarks of his from 1967 onwards, especially his June, 1972 famous remark on the “smoke of Satan” entering the Church through a “crack.”
God alone judges the uprightness of Paul VI’s intention in reforming the Church’s legislation on censorship. For our part, what is important to know is that Paul VI never intended private revelation to go unchecked in the Church. Perhaps this can be demonstrated by the fact that about six months prior to his death he ordered promulgated the famous 1978 Vatican norms for discerning alleged private revelations. Sadly, this document never made it into the 1983 Code of Canon Law and quickly began collecting dust in Diocesan archives around the world.
Instead, what arose was a hideous mischaracterization of what Paul VI intended for the reform of ecclesiastical censorship. After Paul VI abrogated canons 1399 and 2318 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a claim quickly arose that Catholics could now disseminate alleged private revelations without having them first reviewed by the competent Ecclesiastical Authority (i.e. be “censored” by the Church). Sometimes there was a caveat put to this claim that went, “so long as the writing(s) do not contain anything contrary to faith and morals.”
Just how an alleged private revelation came to be judged as contrary or not to faith and morals without having them submitted to the proper Authority was never mentioned.
Private Revelation & Truth
Misunderstanding and pride arose in the hearts of men. A popular message that was reaching people’s ears in the 1950s was that it was now “the hour of the laity.” After historical events of the 1960s, an otherwise authentic point might very well have been misunderstood (and abused). A call went out that it was time for the laity to rise up and take their “rightful” place(s) in the Church. After all, they are baptized members of the Body of Christ and “have the Holy Spirit.” As James Davidson is said to have remarked, the days when the faithful simply “pray, pay and obey” were over. Why can they not decide for themselves what is and what is not faithful to the Deposit of Faith with alleged private revelations?
Concerning our topic at hand, it was not an authentic “hour of the laity” (one that worked with the Pastors of the Church as God established) that had struck. It was a veritable revolution, one that Paul VI is said to have remarked upon as the Church being in an “auto-demolition” and it has gravely devastated good order in the Church. This devastation continues today every time people write about alleged private revelations and their dissemination through such popular slogans as “We report, you discern.” Such slogans are inherently flawed as they are disruptive to the Natural Law, which forbids allowing disorder into our hearts and lives.
Moreover, such slogans aggregate/presume authority to the writer that he or she simply does not have. It is the Church, the Magisterium, which discerns alleged private revelations. She will either, after due examination, propose/permit them for the belief of the faithful, or will disallow them for the sake of faith, good morals and good order in the Church. To think otherwise is nothing other than an arrogant misappropriation of a function proper to the Magisterium. Simply put, it is the sin of pride, even if rooted in ignorance of the Church’s doctrine, precepts and legislative processes.
In conclusion, private revelation is not a subject with which one can trifle. It has a bearing upon one’s eternal salvation and we must be wary not to fall into particular pitfalls of discerning it. Such discernment belongs properly to the Church and the lay faithful do have a role in this process, but we must look to the guidelines that Holy Mother Church has established for guidance. That role is largely one of submission and requires study and humility. Finally, an awareness on the part of Catholic writers and publishing houses of their moral responsibilities must also be instilled for the sake of good order in the Church.
Discerning Private Revelation: A Particular Pitfall
Discerning Private Revelation: A Particular Pitfall
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales
Discerning Private Revelation: Part Two
by Keven Symonds
In the light of my previous article, Discerning Private Revelation: A Particular Pitfall, it seems right and just to offer another discussion on a particular area of private revelation that is also often in dispute. I am speaking of what I will here call “belief and unbelief” and it is to this theme that the present article is devoted.
In my travels and work with the Church’s theology of private revelation, I often hear the various reasons why people believe or do not believe in a claim of private revelation. From these reasons I argue that Catholics generally fall into various categories. I will, however, only refer to two: “believers” and “non-believers.” The “believers” are people who believe in a claim of private revelation. “Non-believers,” generally speaking, are people who do not believe in a particular private revelation.[1]
Private Revelation: Believers
“Believers” can be generally described as people who are simply desirous to serve God and are possessed of a simple faith. This fact is a very noble reality, amiable and worthy of emulation. To be truthful, many times I have been blessed to be around such people and be edified by them. Based more often than not on piety and devotion, their disposition toward private revelation is usually one of openness (if not straightforward acceptance). Their understanding and discernment of private revelation will vary in accordance with the catechesis they have received.
Within this category of “believers” is a sub-section of people with, as a friend once described, “an intellectual habit of consistent credulity that is motivated by a problematic spiritual attitude. This attitude is a weak faith in the Public Revelation of God and a difficulty in living a normal life of faith.[2] That faith life is characterized by a kind of ‘darkness’ in which we rely on faith as the ‘substance of things unseen’ (Hebrews 11).” Concerning these people, one will often hear them referred to in slang as “apparition-chasers,” “thrill-seekers” and “sensationalists” (terms which are generally considered derogatory in almost all quarters).[3]
Private Revelation: Non-Believers
The “non-believers” category may surprise the reader because in some ways it is not altogether dissimilar to “believers.” As I said above, people in this category do not believe in a particular private revelation. The question of how non-believers arrived at this conclusion varies. The conclusion may be reached by good and faithful Catholics who have looked into the matter and found something contrary to Divine and Catholic Faith. The conclusion may even be reached before the competent Ecclesiastical Authority has rendered a formal judgment on the claim.[4]
As with the “believers” there is also a sub-section of non-believers with different reasons for not believing. This group can be characterized (again as a friend once put it) as having an “intellectual habit of consistent skepticism that is motivated by a problematic spiritual attitude—namely, a lack of openness to what God may do in relation to our times.” This consistent skepticism may be a species of unbelief, perhaps even rooted in a form of atheism. It is at the very least a noteworthy error for two reasons. The first is because it appears to disregard the Church’s teaching that states God assists people to live the Gospel in a particular moment of history, i.e. private revelation (CCC 67). Secondly, it can be used to support heresy.
Consistent skeptics often cite in their defense another tenet of Catholic teaching on private revelation, namely that such revelations do not belong to the Deposit of Faith (CCC 67). Therefore, it is not necessary to believe in a specific private revelation to be a Catholic in good standing. We only give our assent of Divine and Catholic Faith to the Public Revelation of God. Private revelations require human faith, as was discussed by Cardinal Lambertini (later Pope Benedict XIV).[5] Finally, they argue, if we simply adhere to Public Revelation, we will be alright.
Disregard and Obligation
While the defense given above is accurate in that these points are, in fact, also Catholic teaching, there is more to that teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote on the matter, “Such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use.” The dynamic here presented by Cardinal Ratzinger concerning disregard and obligation forms the basis for a debate that is currently taking place in the Church over the direction in which she is going. Some may even say the contention concerns the very soul of the Church.
This debate is very difficult to describe without going into a long description. I will instead keep my remarks brief and say that the debate is viewed as being fought between two sides. The first side is comprised of those who believe that we are going through extraordinary times. Commensurate with this belief is that we are receiving special assistance from heaven which ought not to be disregarded. The second side is said to be those who do reject this assistance and are marching to the national anthem of hell (i.e. “I did it my way,” to modify an expression from Peter Kreeft) by disregarding a help offered by God.
For our purposes, various believers accuse consistent skeptics of disparaging private revelation. By disparaging it, believers say, and any warnings or indications from heaven, we are running headlong into ruin. Such disparaging raises questions over piety and devotion to God. In other words, why, so the argument goes, would we reject assistance offered by God our Father? Would we slap our father’s hand away when he picks us up after falling? Of course not, so why would we do such to the Eternal Father whom we profess to love?
Moreover, believers take umbrage with the claim that all we need to do is adhere to Public Revelation and all will be well. Believers accept this argument as it is representative of Church teaching at face value, but they disagree with its application. They believe it presents a myopic view of the contemporary state of affairs. The fact is, believers argue, that not everyone is adhering to Public Revelation, hence the assistance offered by God precisely in order to get mankind back on track.
Appearances of the Debate
What both sides, I would argue, appear to have missed is that the devil and his angels are in the details and working both sides. On the side of the “believers,” the devil is wreaking havoc by distilling false doctrine and false hopes through false private revelations. These are disseminated especially by those who do not live a normal life of faith.[6]
To the consistent skeptics, the above course of action appears to look like superstition or piety gone awry. It then promptly confirms (at least to their mind) their rejection of private revelation. This confirmation scandalously reinforces the skeptics’ rejection of the authentic helps that God has offered at this time in human history. Thus the devil and his angels succeed in cutting off such salvific and timely aid to these people, to say nothing of confirming them in error (and thereby questioning their eternal salvation).
In all of the above, there are many finer shades of distinctions and I have summarized various points of view in my own words. It is truly a vicious cycle and my nightmare to watch it unfold before my eyes these past 14 or so years. I am a passionate writer and do my best to use that passion to be an impassioned observer and objective writer of the facts. Where I have failed, I ask pardon. Where I have done right, may God be praised.
[1] These categories are, admittedly, debatable. There are many finer shades of meaning that astute scholars could point out. I accept this fact, but, for the purposes of the present discussion, the above categories are helpful and intended to be tools for discussion. The details will emerge as we continue.
[2] As a friend once put it, “It is also possible that people are simply looking for a gratification of curiosity or are simply prideful. This latter possibility is rooted in the quasi-gnostic temptation of wanting to ‘know the secret’ of what God is doing.”
[3] I have heard this phenomenon spoken of in terms of people turning an otherwise beautiful gift from God into spiritual “crack” and each time a person seeks it, he or she is seeking a “fix.”
[4] It should here be noted that if anyone has found such contrary matter to faith and good morals, he or she should report it to the competent Ecclesiastical Authority. I argue that he or she is bound by canon law to do so (cf. canons 209-213, 222, 225, 228 §2).
[5] Concerning this teaching, the Church has stated that one is not obliged by Divine and Catholic Faith to accept an authentic private revelation. What does not appear to be addressed, however, is whether we are obliged by human faith to believe in an authentic private revelation. While Cardinal Lambertini/Pope Benedict XIV clearly gave the norm on the rule with Divine and Catholic Faith, he also wrote without disputation about a comment made by Cardinal Cajetan. This comment indicates that Catholics also “cling to the revelations made to the saints, whose doctrine the church accepts as probable; so S. Augustine and S. Thomas have written, and experience continually testifies.” This comment, it seems to this author, touches upon the point made later in the present article about the role of piety and devotion.
[6] These falsehoods, arguably, are less prominent among “believers” who possess more theological training and catechesis, though this fact should not make them any less vigilant. In fact, it is meant to provide them with opportunities to practice humility and charity.
2

Share

Tweet

Pin

Mail

Share

Share
by Keven Symonds
In the light of my previous article, Discerning Private Revelation: A Particular Pitfall, it seems right and just to offer another discussion on a particular area of private revelation that is also often in dispute. I am speaking of what I will here call “belief and unbelief” and it is to this theme that the present article is devoted.
In my travels and work with the Church’s theology of private revelation, I often hear the various reasons why people believe or do not believe in a claim of private revelation. From these reasons I argue that Catholics generally fall into various categories. I will, however, only refer to two: “believers” and “non-believers.” The “believers” are people who believe in a claim of private revelation. “Non-believers,” generally speaking, are people who do not believe in a particular private revelation.[1]
Private Revelation: Believers
“Believers” can be generally described as people who are simply desirous to serve God and are possessed of a simple faith. This fact is a very noble reality, amiable and worthy of emulation. To be truthful, many times I have been blessed to be around such people and be edified by them. Based more often than not on piety and devotion, their disposition toward private revelation is usually one of openness (if not straightforward acceptance). Their understanding and discernment of private revelation will vary in accordance with the catechesis they have received.
Within this category of “believers” is a sub-section of people with, as a friend once described, “an intellectual habit of consistent credulity that is motivated by a problematic spiritual attitude. This attitude is a weak faith in the Public Revelation of God and a difficulty in living a normal life of faith.[2] That faith life is characterized by a kind of ‘darkness’ in which we rely on faith as the ‘substance of things unseen’ (Hebrews 11).” Concerning these people, one will often hear them referred to in slang as “apparition-chasers,” “thrill-seekers” and “sensationalists” (terms which are generally considered derogatory in almost all quarters).[3]
Private Revelation: Non-Believers
The “non-believers” category may surprise the reader because in some ways it is not altogether dissimilar to “believers.” As I said above, people in this category do not believe in a particular private revelation. The question of how non-believers arrived at this conclusion varies. The conclusion may be reached by good and faithful Catholics who have looked into the matter and found something contrary to Divine and Catholic Faith. The conclusion may even be reached before the competent Ecclesiastical Authority has rendered a formal judgment on the claim.[4]
As with the “believers” there is also a sub-section of non-believers with different reasons for not believing. This group can be characterized (again as a friend once put it) as having an “intellectual habit of consistent skepticism that is motivated by a problematic spiritual attitude—namely, a lack of openness to what God may do in relation to our times.” This consistent skepticism may be a species of unbelief, perhaps even rooted in a form of atheism. It is at the very least a noteworthy error for two reasons. The first is because it appears to disregard the Church’s teaching that states God assists people to live the Gospel in a particular moment of history, i.e. private revelation (CCC 67). Secondly, it can be used to support heresy.
Consistent skeptics often cite in their defense another tenet of Catholic teaching on private revelation, namely that such revelations do not belong to the Deposit of Faith (CCC 67). Therefore, it is not necessary to believe in a specific private revelation to be a Catholic in good standing. We only give our assent of Divine and Catholic Faith to the Public Revelation of God. Private revelations require human faith, as was discussed by Cardinal Lambertini (later Pope Benedict XIV).[5] Finally, they argue, if we simply adhere to Public Revelation, we will be alright.
Disregard and Obligation
While the defense given above is accurate in that these points are, in fact, also Catholic teaching, there is more to that teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote on the matter, “Such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use.” The dynamic here presented by Cardinal Ratzinger concerning disregard and obligation forms the basis for a debate that is currently taking place in the Church over the direction in which she is going. Some may even say the contention concerns the very soul of the Church.
This debate is very difficult to describe without going into a long description. I will instead keep my remarks brief and say that the debate is viewed as being fought between two sides. The first side is comprised of those who believe that we are going through extraordinary times. Commensurate with this belief is that we are receiving special assistance from heaven which ought not to be disregarded. The second side is said to be those who do reject this assistance and are marching to the national anthem of hell (i.e. “I did it my way,” to modify an expression from Peter Kreeft) by disregarding a help offered by God.
For our purposes, various believers accuse consistent skeptics of disparaging private revelation. By disparaging it, believers say, and any warnings or indications from heaven, we are running headlong into ruin. Such disparaging raises questions over piety and devotion to God. In other words, why, so the argument goes, would we reject assistance offered by God our Father? Would we slap our father’s hand away when he picks us up after falling? Of course not, so why would we do such to the Eternal Father whom we profess to love?
Moreover, believers take umbrage with the claim that all we need to do is adhere to Public Revelation and all will be well. Believers accept this argument as it is representative of Church teaching at face value, but they disagree with its application. They believe it presents a myopic view of the contemporary state of affairs. The fact is, believers argue, that not everyone is adhering to Public Revelation, hence the assistance offered by God precisely in order to get mankind back on track.
Appearances of the Debate
What both sides, I would argue, appear to have missed is that the devil and his angels are in the details and working both sides. On the side of the “believers,” the devil is wreaking havoc by distilling false doctrine and false hopes through false private revelations. These are disseminated especially by those who do not live a normal life of faith.[6]
To the consistent skeptics, the above course of action appears to look like superstition or piety gone awry. It then promptly confirms (at least to their mind) their rejection of private revelation. This confirmation scandalously reinforces the skeptics’ rejection of the authentic helps that God has offered at this time in human history. Thus the devil and his angels succeed in cutting off such salvific and timely aid to these people, to say nothing of confirming them in error (and thereby questioning their eternal salvation).
In all of the above, there are many finer shades of distinctions and I have summarized various points of view in my own words. It is truly a vicious cycle and my nightmare to watch it unfold before my eyes these past 14 or so years. I am a passionate writer and do my best to use that passion to be an impassioned observer and objective writer of the facts. Where I have failed, I ask pardon. Where I have done right, may God be praised.
[1] These categories are, admittedly, debatable. There are many finer shades of meaning that astute scholars could point out. I accept this fact, but, for the purposes of the present discussion, the above categories are helpful and intended to be tools for discussion. The details will emerge as we continue.
[2] As a friend once put it, “It is also possible that people are simply looking for a gratification of curiosity or are simply prideful. This latter possibility is rooted in the quasi-gnostic temptation of wanting to ‘know the secret’ of what God is doing.”
[3] I have heard this phenomenon spoken of in terms of people turning an otherwise beautiful gift from God into spiritual “crack” and each time a person seeks it, he or she is seeking a “fix.”
[4] It should here be noted that if anyone has found such contrary matter to faith and good morals, he or she should report it to the competent Ecclesiastical Authority. I argue that he or she is bound by canon law to do so (cf. canons 209-213, 222, 225, 228 §2).
[5] Concerning this teaching, the Church has stated that one is not obliged by Divine and Catholic Faith to accept an authentic private revelation. What does not appear to be addressed, however, is whether we are obliged by human faith to believe in an authentic private revelation. While Cardinal Lambertini/Pope Benedict XIV clearly gave the norm on the rule with Divine and Catholic Faith, he also wrote without disputation about a comment made by Cardinal Cajetan. This comment indicates that Catholics also “cling to the revelations made to the saints, whose doctrine the church accepts as probable; so S. Augustine and S. Thomas have written, and experience continually testifies.” This comment, it seems to this author, touches upon the point made later in the present article about the role of piety and devotion.
[6] These falsehoods, arguably, are less prominent among “believers” who possess more theological training and catechesis, though this fact should not make them any less vigilant. In fact, it is meant to provide them with opportunities to practice humility and charity.
2

Share

Tweet

Pin


Share

Share
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales