Question On Belief In Apparitions

[GraceUk]

This has been worrying me for a while now so I thought I would ask. Am I as a Catholic required to believe in the apparitions of our Lady at Lourdes Fatima and other places. I did once believe but now I'm not sure. And especially I don't believe in Medjugorje. But I know that one is not yet approved by the church. So am I committing a grave sin if I do not believe in the apparitions that are approved. Thanks very much.

[Cherie]

From EWTN's article on "Apparitions" ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm"]Link here[/url])

[quote] [size="3"] [font="Arial"][size="2"]Approved private revelations ([b]my addition: such as Lourdes, Fatima, etc.) [/b]are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i] notes,[/size][/font][/size] [font="Arial"][size="2"][i]

Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. (CCC 67)

[/i][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As [/size][/font]Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text,

[i][font="Arial"][size="2"]it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [/size][/font][/i][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="2"][i]([/i][i]De Serv. Dei Beatif.) [/i][/quote]
[/size][/font][/size][size="3"][font="Arial"][size="2"]
It is not required that you believe in the approved apparitions of the Church; however, as Pope Benedict stated, if you do not believe them you should do so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of "setting yourself up as a superior," meaning, that you somehow know "better" than the Church on such matters.

As the EWTN article states, when the Church declares an apparition [i]constat de supernaturalitate [/i](that is, they give evidence of a supernatural intervention) they are not saying the apparition adds or corrects anything to the Public Revelation given by Jesus Christ. However, they do add a deeper understanding to the Faith, provide new lines of theological investigation (for example, the revelations to St. Margaret Mary of the Sacred Heart), or recall mankind to the living of the Gospel. No private apparition can ever be necessary for salvation, but these apparitions often serve to increase the faith, piety, and devotion of the faithful, which is always a good thing.

In regard to those apparitions that have not been approved by the Church, such as Medjugorje and others, let me reproduce here the section in that article, as it is very well put:

[quote] [/size][/font][/size][font="Arial"][size="2"]Since most private revelations and alleged apparitions never receive the approval of the Holy See Catholics must often judge for themselves whether they are credible. If the person (whether living or dead) has a reputation for sanctity (such as Padre Pio had), then clearly any mystical revelations have considerable credibility prior to any formal evaluation by the Church. The witness of prudent priests, especially the spiritual director of the person, is a key element in determining credibility. However, even here care must be taken. The spiritual director himself must be competent in mystical theology, credible as a person and in good standing with the Church. False mystics have been known to "shop" for gullible, extremely aged or incompetent directors. Ideally, a bishop upon hearing of an alleged mystic would assign a competent director, thus insuring the authenticity of the evaluation. [/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"]

In the case of apparitions, however, they often occur to obscure individuals with little or no reputation. Their human credibility may rest initially on the attitude of the local clergy and the personal experience of observers. There may or may not be phenomena which suggest something out of the ordinary. The message may or may not be appear to be consistent with Church teaching. The person or persons may or may not have a competent spiritual director. Finally they may or may not be investigated by the local bishop to determine if they are credible. In the end the faithful are often left to fend for themselves in a perplexing sea of information. If the message is orthodox, the seer(s) of good reputation, the clergy favorable, the signs supportive, even without an official investigation the faithful can make a prudent judgment that it is credible. Certainly those who were present at the apparitions of Lourdes and Fátima, as well as those who believed in them prior to Church approval, had to have made such a judgment.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="2"]Certainly, however, the faithful benefit the most from the judgment of the bishop of the diocese in which the apparition occurs. He has the authority to assemble a commission of scientific and theological experts, to judge the case, as well as the grace of vocation to carry out this pastoral service. While his decision is not infallible, it has the presumption of being correct and should receive the respectfully adherence of the faithful (Canon 753). Thus, such decisions should generally be decisive in the prudential judgment of the faithful. It would require very weighty and sound theological reasons ([u]not[/u] feelings or mere agreement with the content of the alleged apparition) to find defect in such a decision. Such intellectual disagreement, however, does not permit acting out of communion with the bishop. [/size][/font]

[size="3"][font="Arial"][size="2"]With respect to any disciplinary precepts the bishop makes concerning the apparition and its site, they should be followed faithfully (e.g. what sacraments, if any, may be celebrated there). No Catholic should ever violate the practical norms laid down by the local bishop with respect to an alleged apparition, even if intellectually they disagree with his conclusion regarding the alleged apparition. Such disobedience would be sinful, and if it characterized the attitude of the followers of the alleged apparition it would be a sign of its inauthenticity, i.e. by producing bad fruit. [/quote][/size][/font]
[/size]
Approved apparitions, like Lourdes and Fatima, can do wonderful things for one's devotion and piety. Unfortunately, many people can speak the message of an approved apparition and take it out of context or add their own embellishments, and thus can leave others disedified or even led astray by what they falsely believe the apparition to teach. This is why it's important for us to learn about such things on our own, and not always take others' word for it. Please do reconsider your thoughts on approved apparitions; while you are certainly not required to believe in them, nor are you committing a grave sin by not believing in them, they are part of the beautiful tapestry of Catholicism, and many good lessons can be taken from them.

There are often zealous followers of an unapproved apparition who may add their own embellishments or take the message out of context (or even spread the message in its proper context, which, in the case of something that sounds contrary to the Faith, can give evidence of its lack of supernatural origin!) and this also can be disedifying or lead people astray. Try not to apply these unfortunate situations with unapproved apparitions to those that are approved; they really are very different! It is often a good idea and prudent to look at an unapproved apparition with a cautiously skeptical eye; in regard to those that are approved, however, you can rest assured that what is taught there is not contrary to faith or morals.

I hope that helps!