Our pastor likes to include
inserts with our Sunday bulletin. These
are usually downloads from the Internet that he considers worthy of
sharing. Recently the insert came from a
website that listed prophecies purported to be from the Blessed Mother as given
to a woman named Veronica Lueken in New York.
Known as the Bayside Prophecies, the apparitions supposedly began in
1968 and continued until her death in 1995.
I have always been skeptical
of private revelations, especially those that claim to warn of future
events. A cursory perusal of her
messages might view them as plausible considering the sad state of the world
today. Some of her dire warnings seemed
questionable in light of what we know about God and His Church.
My first reaction was to see
whether these apparitions had been approved by the local Bishop. On the EWTN website, I found the following
declaration dated November 4, 1986, from Bishop Francis Mugavero, the Bishop of
the Brooklyn diocese where the apparitions were claimed to have taken place:
Therefore, in consultation
with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I hereby declare that:
1. No credibility can be given
to the so-called "apparitions" reported by Veronica Lueken and her
followers.
2. The "messages"
and other related propaganda contain statements which, among other things, are
contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, undermine the legitimate
authority of bishops and councils and instill doubts in the minds of the
faithful, for example, by claiming that, for years, an "imposter (sic)
Pope" governed the Catholic Church in place of Paul VI.
3. Those who persistently
maintain that "no ecclesiastical permission is required for the
publication or dissemination" of information concerning "revelations,
visions or miracles," are erroneously interpreting the directives of the
Holy See when they attempt to justify the publication of the propaganda
literature on the "Bayside Messages."
In view of my declaration
concerning the authenticity of the "visions of Bayside," the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has confirmed that the principles
governing the publication of such religious material still maintain
authoritative moral value prohibiting the endangering of faith and good morals
(Cf. Response of SCDF of June 14, 1966, in AAS 58, 1186).
As a result, those publishing
or disseminating this propaganda literature are acting against the judgment of
legitimate Church authority.
4. Because of my concern for
their spiritual welfare, members of Christ's faithful are hereby directed to
refrain from participating in the "vigils" and from disseminating any
propaganda related to the "Bayside apparitions." They are also
discouraged from reading any such literature.
5. Anyone promoting this
devotion in any way, be it by participating in the "vigils,"
organizing pilgrimages, publishing or disseminating the literature related to
it, is contributing to the confusion which is being created in the faith of
God's people, as well as encouraging them to act against the determinations
made by the legitimate pastor of this particular Church (c.212, para. 1).
It remains my constant hope
that all the faithful spend their time and energies in promoting devotion to
our Blessed Lady, in the many forms which have been approved by the Catholic
Church.
+Bishop Francis Mugavero,
Bishop of Brooklyn
I realize that
even apparitions that are eventually approved may be initially downplayed when
veneration takes place prematurely. Even
the Medjugorje apparition, although initially
invalidated by the local Bishop, seems to be uncertain at this point. I believe prophecies discerned in a private
revelation should not be propagated without Church approval. So, how do these old discounted prophecies
end up in our Sunday bulletin?
Our pastor tends to stress the negativity of our
world. If there is joy to be found in
the light of Christ, it is difficult to see when one dwells in the
darkness. The Bayside Prophecies fell in
line with his world view. I confronted him with a copy of Bishop Mugarvero’s
statement prior to the first weekend Mass so the inserts could have been
pulled. While he acknowledged that he
was unknowingly propagating a message that was not approved, the inserts stayed
in the bulletin without qualification.
Hoping the insert would be ignored by the
majority of the congregation, I dropped the subject with our priest’s promise
not to source from that particular site in the future. The only problem arose when a not-yet
Catholic in our RCIA class copied the insert to her social media. Try explaining to a potential future Catholic
that prophecies distributed by your priest are not to be believed.
Father William Most writes about persons desiring
to receive visions and personal revelations.
He refers to Interior Castle, the writings of Saint Teresa of Avila,
where she warns of the danger of auto-suggestion. Saint Teresa says, “When a person has a great
desire for something, he convinces himself that he is seeing or hearing what he
desires.”
As part of my Lenten devotion,
our pastor gave me a book to read by an anonymous Benedictine Monk. The book is basically a diary of
conversations the monk had with Our Lord during prayer time. In it, Jesus repeatedly expresses
disappointment in His priests and their lack of devotion to His Eucharistic Face, a
term used repeatedly throughout the writing. The words attributed to Our Lord
do not always sound like the Jesus I know from the Gospels. I am not naming the book here because of my
skepticism.
Could these conversations may
be the type Saint Teresa cautions us about?
The book has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, meaning it is free from
doctrinal error, but that does not mean the content is worthy of belief. If
these are truly the words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, am I questioning them
unjustly? In this case, it is simply best to
acknowledge the visionary as a Benedictine Monk who is undoubtedly holier than
I, and glean what benefit I can from his writings regardless of their true
origin.
