Marian Apparitions, the Bible, and the Modern World, by Donal Anthony Foley

---

Subscribe to the new Theotokos and Foyer Friends Newsletters keep up to date with all the lastest news

---

True and False apparitions in the Modern Church

By Donal Anthony Foley

The modern Marian "movement" is characterized by a large number of alleged apparitions, many of which bear little resemblance to the historical series of major approved apparitions, those between Guadalupe, in 1531, and Banneux in 1933. This article looks at the actual mechanism of the modern alleged apparitions, and compares it with that of the genuine apparitions: when this is done, the shortcomings of the former become very clear.

The topicality of all this is evident from the recent statement of Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo, who, speaking at the Synod of Bishops in Rome, on the subject of religious and secular divisions in society and the world, complained that aspects of the alleged visions at Medjugorje have become a source of strife in the Church. Despite some reports to the contrary, it seems that he did indeed express concern about the activities of the Franciscans serving at Medjugorje, who "impose their own points of view" with the aid of "Pseudo-charisms." [1]

Clearly, this is a not a ringing endorsement of Medjugorje, and the same can be said for the book by the French writer, Joachim Bouflet, Les Faussaires de Dieu —"The Forgers of God"—(Presses de la Renaissance, Paris, 2000), which contains very strong criticisms of Medjugorje, and has an imprimatur from the Archdiocese of Paris. Similarly, in 1998, E. Michael Jones' The Medjugorje Deception: Queen of Peace, Ethnic Cleansing, Ruined Lives, (Fidelity Press, South Bend), exposed the serious problems involved in all aspects of both Medjugorje itself and the activities of the legion of camp followers who have grown up in its train.

Thus, there seems to a growing awareness that largely uncritical acceptance of many of the modern alleged apparitions—and particularly Medjugorje—may well have been a mistake, and that a radical rethink is necessary before even more damage is done to the Church.

Apart from Guadalupe and Banneux, the other major approved apparitions worthy of note are: Rue du Bac in Paris, in 1830; the apparition at La Salette, also in France, in 1846; the apparitions to St Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858; the apparition at Pontmain, in northern France, in 1871; the apparition at Knock, in Ireland, in 1879; the apparitions at Fatima, in Portugal, in 1917; and finally, the apparitions at Beauraing, in Belgium, in 1932-33. All of these have been approved by the Church. This acceptance has involved not only the approbation of the local bishop, but also wider acceptance in the Church as a whole, including such factors as a papal visit, permissions for special liturgies, and the building of a basilica. [2]

Obviously, in any matter, it makes sense to make decisions on the basis of taking what is approved and genuine as the norm, and judging novelties in the light of this. Thus, in order to really evaluate the reports of alleged apparitions we need to take the characteristics of genuine apparitions as the benchmark. In this, the sincerity of those who believe in unapproved apparitions is not being questioned, rather this article is an attempt to lay down some solid criteria by which we can judge them.

The large number of alleged apparitions seem to fall into two general categories. Firstly, we have those false apparitions which came at more or less the same time as the genuine Marian apparitions, and often in great numbers. These have been recognized as false and not accepted by the Church. While a nuisance at the time, they have not generally had any great long term effect. Their purpose seems to have been to sow confusion in the minds of the faithful by making people believe that it is impossible to tell the true from the false, and that perhaps everything was false. Examples of this are the reports of false apparitions which occurred after the true apparitions at Lourdes, Knock, and Beauraing. [3]

Secondly—and these are the events we are essentially concerned with in this article—we have the large number of modern alleged apparitions which have occurred some time after the recognized apparitions and whose purpose, it is argued here, is apparently to obscure the true message which has come from apparitions such as Lourdes and Fatima. These do present a grave and ongoing problem for the Church.

It can be argued that God is actually obliged, in a certain sense, not to give more than a certain number of prophecies, writings, apparitions, etc., if he is not to confuse people. If there are a continual stream of alleged supernatural events there is a danger of disorder and indeed trivialisation, which, it can certainly be argued, is the case today. Familiarity is said to breed contempt, and if Mary is supposed to be appearing to certain visionaries on a daily basis, often with quite repetitive "messages," then it is easy to see how contempt for genuine Marian devotion can arise.

That true revelations from God may well be followed by false imitations is clear from the Bible. If we look at the biblical pattern of prophecy it is apparent that true prophets had to face opposition from false prophets, both in the sense of fellow Israelites and foreigners. In Deuteronomy we find strict condemnations of the false prophetic activities of the inhabitants of Canaan (Deut 18:9-13), while Elijah had to face the false prophets of Baal, in his struggle against the paganism encouraged by the wicked king of Israel, Ahab, and his wife, Jezebel. It is significant that there were four hundred prophets of Baal ranged against the solitary Elijah (1 Ki 18). In fact, one of the main problems faced by genuine prophets was dealing with false prophets, who often did not protest against wrongdoing while falsely attempting to predict future events.

Jeremiah later spoke against prophetic deceivers, whose immoral lives led them to condone wickedness such that the whole land was affected. He proclaimed that God had not sent them and that they made up visions themselves, promising a peace which would not come. He accused them of taking their made-up prophecies from each other and warned of dire punishments for such lies (Jer 23:9-40). Similar condemnations are found in Ezekiel (Ez 13) against both male and female false prophets. [4]

Thus, we can draw some important conclusions from the history of biblical prophecy in relation to the modern Marian apparitions. It is evident that true biblical prophets had to contend with false prophets, often whole swarms of them, and so likewise we should expect genuine apparitions to be subject to imitation by false ones.

Having established this point, then, we can go on to examine the practical criteria which will enable us to tell true revelations, in this case apparitions, from false. Probably the most important of these is the fact that in the case of the approved apparitions, they normally took place over quite a short period of time and were relatively few in number. In contrast many of the alleged modern apparitions are characterized by large numbers of appearances over long periods of time.

At Guadalupe Mary appeared only four times to Juan Diego, while at Rue du Bac, Catherine Labouré was privileged with only three major apparitions. At La Salette Mary appeared only once to the two children, while at Lourdes she appeared eighteen times to Bernadette. Both Pontmain and Knock involved only a single apparition lasting a matter of hours, and at Fatima Mary appeared on six occasions. The number of apparitions at Beauraing was thirty-three, and at Banneux, eight. Thus the average number of apparitions was only just over eight, and their longest duration was less than six months, in the case of Fatima. (Although it is true that Mary appeared to Sr. Lucia of Fatima on a number of occasions in later years, it is clear that these apparitions were of a different order from her previous experiences and thus were not a part of the original series of apparitions—although they are linked to them and represent important developments of the message of Fatima).

Thus the "model" for approved apparitions is one which has, for each particular place, a number for apparitions usually in single figures, and a duration in weeks, or possibly months, but not years.

Contrast this with Garabandal and Medjugorje. At Garabandal in Spain, in the early sixties, it is alleged that Mary appeared more than 2,000 times to the visionary children, and likewise it is claimed that she has been appearing daily at Medjugorje for twenty years—that is, over 6,000 times. [5] What this means in practice is that, if these events are genuine, for some reason Mary has abandoned the approach she has previously taken, of appearing only a relatively small number of times and over a short period, for what amount to "appearances on demand." As detailed above, the average number of appearances for genuine Marian apparitions has been in single figures—but if Garabandal and Medjugorje are authentic then suddenly this average has been boosted by a factor, in the case of the latter, approaching one thousand!

Does this seem probable? Would God change, in such a dramatic fashion, a method of approaching humanity which has been in place for hundreds of years? Is it not rather evidence, as in the case of the large numbers of false prophets who contended with God's spokesmen in the Old Testament, of an attempt by the devil to drown out the genuine with a flood of falsity?

In addition, as the prophet Isaiah indicated (59:1), "God's hand is not shortened," that is, he does not have to struggle or shout to get his message across: he is omnipotent. This point is emphatically made in another passage from Isaiah:

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:10-11)

God's "Word," in the form of the approved Marian apparitions, has been extraordinarily fruitful, and with a minimum of words and appearances: Mary appears once, and for a few hours, at Pontmain and Knock—and probably for no more than half an hour at La Salette—and three great pilgrimage sites spring up: she allegedly appears thousands of times at places like Garabandal and Medjugorje and the official spokesmen of the Church, the local bishops, are not convinced.

Why are there all these repetitions then, which don't tell us anything new? The simplest reason would appear to be that, since these alleged apparitions do not apparently come from God, unless there was this element of repetition they would quickly be forgotten. Would people still be going to Medjugorje, for example, if the apparitions had stopped very quickly—as was supposed to have happened, according to Mirjana, one of the visionaries? [6]

Another important characteristic of the approved Marian apparitions is how, in most cases, very little was said by Mary. In this her reticence seems to match that reported in the Gospels, where likewise, she said very little. In addition her words are to the point, concerned with her mission as the spiritual mother of mankind, and not with generalities or matters not related to salvation: she says nothing unseemly or contrary to the Faith. [7]

Indeed, it is fair to say that if all the reported words of Mary between Guadalupe and Banneux, a period of over four hundred years, were put together, we would only have a document of 10 or 11 sides. At Knock and Pontmain she said absolutely nothing (although a few words did appear on a banner at her feet during the latter apparition) and, for example, what follows is all that she said at Banneux, and this could easily be written on the back of a postcard:

"This stream is reserved for me, Good evening."

"Push your hands into the water."

"I am the Virgin of the poor."

"This spring is reserved for all the nations - to relieve the sick."

"I shall pray for you. Au Revoir."

"I come to relieve suffering."

"Believe in me, I will believe in you. Pray much. Au Revoir."

"My dear child, pray much. Au Revoir."

"I am the Mother of the Saviour, Mother of God, Pray much. Adieu." [8]

If we compare this brevity and spiritual "common sense" with the utterances and activities attributed to Mary by some modern alleged visionaries it is quite illuminating. For example, Ida Peerdeman's "Lady of All Nations" apparently dictated the following prayer in 1951: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, send Your Spirit over the earth. Let the Holy Spirit live the hearts of all nations, that they may be preserved from degeneration, disaster and war. May the Lady of all Nations, who once was Mary, be our advocate. Amen." [9]

What has happened to the name "Mary," as in the Hail Mary, which Catholics say every day? Why would Mary come up with a prayer which seems to push her own name into the background? When these rather strange words were questioned by the ecclesiastical authorities, "Mary" apparently responded by saying, "No change must be made in the text of the prayer, the words 'who once was Mary' must remain. Tell the theologians that I am not satisfied with the change in the prayer." [10]

"Tell the theologians"—surely rather a strange way for the Blessed Virgin to apparently speak? When Jesus appeared to Sr. Faustina, recently canonized as St Faustina, he was very careful to ensure that nothing he did would seem to override the authority of her superiors. [11] But the "Lady of All Nations" is apparently of a different mind.

The local bishop, Bishop Huibers, was resolutely opposed to these alleged apparitions, and his disapproval of them, and that of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, were expressed in a notification in the 27 June 1974 edition of L'Osservatore Romano. This can be seen at:

http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/amsterda/amsterda.pdf

More recently, the late bishop of Haarlem, Bishop Bomers, and his auxiliary, Bishop Punt, allowed veneration of Mary under the title of "The Lady of All Peoples (Nations)," but distinguished, at that time, between this title and the idea that they were approving of the alleged apparitions.

Mgr Punt, the present bishop of Haarlem has just issued (May 31, 2002) a new statement on these alleged apparitions in which he apparently regards them as having a "supernatural origin" - this can be seen at:

The above are just a few examples from one particular series of questionable apparitions, but such examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely from the great number of alleged apparitions now being reported. In fact, their primary characteristic seems to be verbosity, that is they often feature a "Mary" who speaks at excessive length, or who gives regular and repetitive "messages," and since these attributes are, generally speaking, at variance with those of the approved apparitions, then it must mean that they are highly suspect.

A further important characteristic of the approved Marian apparitions is that they have been mainly, though not exclusively, to children, often quite poor and humble children. Some might argue that the fact that young children were involved makes these apparitions suspect, that their testimony is less trustworthy than that of adults; but in reality, in matters such as this, the fact that they were young innocent children is an advantage since they were uncorrupted by the world, and generally speaking, were more likely to be telling the truth than some adults who may have had all sorts of motives for deception, or be subject to delusion or diabolical influence. In fact, the acknowledged general mental stability and moral probity of the seers of the approved Marian apparitions makes it intrinsically unlikely that they were the victims of illusion or hallucination, or that they were lying.

It is true that both Juan Diego, the seer of Guadalupe, (1531) who was 57, and Catherine Labouré, the seer of Rue du Bac, (1830), who was 24, were adults, but they were adults of a very childlike nature. Juan Diego had only been baptised a few years before 1531, and Catherine was an extremely pure soul. She was canonized in 1947, while he was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1990 and is due to be canonized in July 2002 . At Knock (1879) more adults than children saw the apparition, but they too had a simple and childlike quality, largely untainted, as they were, by modern society. For the other main apparitions, La Salette, (1846), Lourdes, (1858), Pontmain, (1871), Fatima, (1917), and Beauraing and Banneux, (1932-33), we are dealing with adolescent or even younger children. At La Salette, Mélanie was 14 and Maximin 11; at Lourdes, Bernadette was only 14, while at Pontmain the Barbedette brothers were only 10 and 12, while the two girls with them were 9 and 11. At Fatima Lucia at 10 was the eldest, while Francisco and Jacinta were only 9 and 7 respectively. At Beauraing the children ranged from 9 to 15, and at Banneux Mariette Beco was only 11. Thus of the six apparitions where Mary appeared exclusively to children, their average age was only just over eleven. [12]

Obviously, children of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, living mainly in rural areas, were largely uncontaminated, if affected at all, by modern thinking. Only the children of Beauraing and Banneux would have been acquainted with the cinema, and clearly 1930s cinema is nothing in comparison with modern television in terms of its corrupting influence. This is not to say that children can automatically be believed if they allege they have seen something supernatural, and indeed there have been many unapproved "apparitions" involving children. In the main, though, these have not sustained any great following, and patently a sensitive process of discernment is necessary to separate the true from the false.

Be that as it may, it is surely significant that Mary should have chosen almost exclusively to appear to children rather than adults, and this point indicates that any modern alleged apparitions involving adults, unless they show very evident signs of sanctity, and above all humility, and the Church as a whole, supports them, must come under suspicion.

These criteria seem to indicate that many of these alleged events are highly questionable. Certainly, some of the more important of these since the Second World War, those which have had the greatest long term effects, have involved adults. These include Amsterdam, which was mentioned above (1945-59), where the visionary Ida Peerdeman was a middle aged woman, and Montchiari in Italy (1947), where Pierina Gilli, a woman in her thirties claimed apparitions. Similarly, the events at Necedah in the US from 1949 onwards, involved Mary Ann Van Hoof, an adult woman, as did those at San Damiano in the sixties, involving Rosa Quattrini. We could also speak of Bayside in the US in this respect, and indeed all of the above were judged negatively by their respective local ordinaries.[13]

However, it may well be objected that there have been a number of more recent alleged apparitions involving adults, which have apparently gained support from their local bishops, and that this point negates the above argument. To deal with these occurrences properly would take an article in itself, but suffice to say that approval by the local bishop is not equivalent to approval by the Church as a whole, particularly where these alleged apparitions apparently have many of the features which have been characteristic of false apparitions in the past, such as excessive repetition—and obviously, too, local bishops are not infallible in these matters.

The main point is that even these types of alleged apparitions are still under "probation" and thus they cannot be used as a standard. And despite local episcopal approval for Betania and Akita, for example, the universal Church has not really taken them up in any serious way. There are definite problems with even the "best" of these modern alleged apparitions—and indeed in the majority of them there seem to be evidence of fraud, or at least there is strong possibility of some demonic element or of mental instability as a major factor.

Overall then, there is a real danger that the writings emanating from all the visionaries now flourishing could further develop into an alternative "Magisterium," and thus cause even more problems for the Church. At present it seems that people can more or less believe in any "apparition" which takes their fancy, regardless of the ground-rules that have been developed by the Church for the discernment of the approved Marian apparitions. That is, such matters as local Episcopal approval, conformity with the general faith and teaching of the Church, genuine signs of conversion and religious progress in the locality and elsewhere, and, of course, Papal support.

It could be argued, too, that there should be a lot more emphasis on the sorts of points discussed in this article, that is, any genuine process of discernment needs to look at the actual characteristics of the approved apparitions, such as their low average number, about half a dozen generally, the predominantly young age of the seers, and the fewness of the words spoken by Mary, and use these as yardsticks by which to assess alleged apparitions. These would seem to be more objective than the process of judging these matters by their alleged "fruits."

Experience shows that those who promote almost certainly false "apparitions" are quite capable of getting people to say the rosary, and engage in activities which are themselves good, but with the ulterior motive of making it seem as though they are really orthodox. This is the tragedy really: large numbers of people supporting these alleged apparitions in good faith, and being cynically manipulated by those who see in them only the opportunity to make money out of books, pilgrimages, flights, hotels, and so on.

And this, or course, was the point of Cardinal Puljic's dramatic intervention at the Bishop's Synod—far from the fruits of Medjugorje being good, the Cardinal felt compelled, in the presence of the Pope and his fellow bishops, to speak of the problems associated with the apparitions.

To counter this, and the danger from other alleged apparitions, it seems that the Church needs to place much more emphasis on the major approved apparitions of the "modern" era, from Guadalupe in 1531 to Banneux and Beauraing in the early 1930s, with particular stress being put on Fatima. There is more than enough material there for edification and instruction, and if people were more aware of those apparitions which have been approved they would be less likely to go astray regarding alleged new apparitions.

This seems to be the attitude encouraged by the present pope in particular through his strong support for Fatima, but in this he is only building on the work of his predecessors from the time of Pius XII onwards. The recent beatification of the seers of Fatima, Jacinta and Francisco, and the release of the Third Part of the Secret, have given a new boost to Fatima.

Thus the Holy Spirit is firmly pointing the Church towards Fatima—resolute action, and guidance, from the Church authorities are needed, so that more individuals aren't lost in the uncharted waters of false apparitions, where, sadly, too many souls have already been shipwrecked.

© 2002, Donal Anthony Foley, All Rights Reserved

Endnotes

[1] CWNews.com - Vatican, Oct 10, 2001
[2] For example, see, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 2nd ed., s.v. "Apparitions," by Michael O'Carroll, CSSp; Rev. Eamon R. Carroll, O. Carm, "Must Catholics believe in Fatima? The place of Private Revelation in the Church," in Exploring Fatima, (AMI Press, New Jersey, 1989), p. 3; and John Delaney, ed., A Woman clothed with the Sun, (Doubleday, New York, 1961), which deals with all but Pontmain.
[3] Details of these can be found at http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/unapprov.html - follow the links for false apparitions which followed genuine ones.
[4] Cf. J. Steinmueller & K. Sullivan, Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia, Old Testament, (Wagner, New York, 1959), pp. 890-91.
[5] Janice T. Connell, Meetings with Mary: Visions of the Blessed Mother, (Virgin Books, London, 1995), pp. 120, 206.
[6] E. Michael Jones, Medjugorje: The Untold Story, (Fidelity Press, 1993), p. 78.
[7] There is not space to illustrate this point properly in an article such as this, but this can be verified by going to http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/approved.html and following the links to the pages which show the actual words used by Mary in her various approved apparitions.
[8] Maloy, "The Virgin of the Poor," in A Woman clothed with the Sun; Wuillaume, Banneux: a message for our time (Banneux Shrine, 1995).
[9] Courtenay Bartholomew, A Scientist Researches Mary Mother of All Nations, (Queenship Publishing Company, Goleta, 1999), p. 177.
[10] Ibid., p. 178.
[11] See, for example, Mercy my Mission, by Sr. Sophia Michalenko, (Divine Mercy Publications, Dublin, 1987), p. 137.
[12] Apart from these, the two apparitions which show the most likelihood of authenticity, although they have not been officially approved, are those which occurred at L'Ile Bouchard in France in December 1947, and at Tre Fontane, on the outskirts of Rome, in April 1947. The former involved young children exclusively, but the latter also had an adult participant, Bruno Cornacchiola, who saw Mary in a grotto with his three young children—although he was the only one who heard her speak.
[13] See Yves Chiron, Enquête sur les Apparitions de La Vierge, (Éditions J'Ai Lu, Perrin/Mame Paris, 1995), pp. 458-62.

---

Marian Apparitions, the Bible, and the Modern World, by Donal Anthony Foley

Published by Gracewing Publishers - Foreword by Fr Aidan Nichols OP
Imprimatur from Bishop McMahon of Nottingham Diocese, England

This is an in depth investigation into the major Marian apparitions that have occured during the last five centuries. It relates them to secular happenings and important revolutionary events in Western history including the Reformation and the French and Russian Revolutions.