杏MAP导航

By Vatican News

The spiritual experience associated with the alleged supernatural phenomena centered especially around Mount S. Onofrio in Agnone, in the Molise region of Italy, has received from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith the determination of “prae oculis habeatur”. This was communicated by the Prefect of the Dicastery, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, in a , Camillo Cibotti, confirming the assessment proposed by the diocesan ordinary.

According to the Cardinal, this means that “although important positive signs are recognized, some aspects of confusion or potential risks are also perceived that require the Diocesan Bishop to engage in a careful discernment and dialogue with the recipients of a given spiritual experience. If there were writings or messages, doctrinal clarification might be necessary” (Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, no. 18).

The case concerns the alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary, which since 2010 have centered on Mount Sant’Onofrio.

“From reading the extensive material provided” to the Dicastery, Cardinal Fernández emphasizes, “we can conclude that there are several positive aspects and signs of the action of the Holy Spirit in the midst of this alleged supernatural phenomenon.”

In the purported messages from the Virgin, there is a consistent reminder of the fundamental means of sanctification: the Word of God, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Reconciliation, along with an invitation to solidarity with the world in which we live. The Virgin encourages collaboration with God for the good of humanity and calls for concrete acts of charity toward those who suffer. “It is important,” the Prefect notes, “to emphasize how Our Lady always directs us to Jesus Christ.” The messages also contain a frequent appeal to the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, the cardinal adds, “there are two aspects to be considered with particular care.”

The first is that the previous Bishop of Trivento, Claudio Palumbo, pointed to a “failure to observe the prescriptions imposed by the local Ordinary regarding the prohibition of any form of public or private worship.” This observation, however, did not refer directly to the conduct of the alleged visionary, “but to those members of the clergy who want to encourage non-compliance with ‘whatever the judgment of the Church may be,’ thus constituting ‘a de facto parallel magisterium’” and thereby causing “a wound in ecclesial communion that is certainly not a positive sign.” On the other hand, Cardinal Fernández notes, the same purported messages contain a call to obedience.

The second aspect requiring careful consideration is the fact that in the letter containing the opinion of the former Bishop of Trivento regarding the alleged phenomena, there was also a reference to possible confusion “‘about the nature of the relationships between the souls of the deceased’ and the Church journeying through history”. “Although this ‘confusion’ does not emerge from explicit and specific statements or from the practice of the alleged visionary,” the letter reads, “it is equally true that there are ‘possible risks’ which, together with the evaluation of the positive signs, justify the need for a period of vigilance

In this way, Cardinal Fernández clarifies the nature of the determination “prae oculis habeatur”. First and foremost, it does not yet permit public worship, where “public worship” refers “to those liturgical acts performed ‘in the name of the Church by persons lawfully deputed and through acts approved by the authority of the Church’ (Code of Canon Law, can. 834 §2)”.

Consequently, the letter continues, “this judgment excludes [emphasis in the original] the following elements

“1) the celebration of liturgical rites in places linked to the phenomenon without the explicit approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority;

“2) pilgrimages or other pastoral events of public importance organized by parishes or other ecclesiastical structures;

“3) the possibility of disseminating, without the approval of the ecclesiastical authority, the phenomenon and its alleged messages;

“4) the accommodation of people to share this experience.”

However, the Prefect specifies, “given that no serious concerns have emerged that would require further intervention, private worship is permitted: personal visits, in pairs or very small groups, in this case to the site of the cross erected on Mount S. Onofrio in a period prior to the beginning of the alleged phenomena, or along the Via Crucis route set up to accompany the ascent of the mountain with prayer.

“This implies that those involved in the phenomenon maintain an attitude of humility and openness to dialogue with ecclesiastical authority, which is called to do everything possible to evaluate the progress of the experience and correct any confusing aspects.”

In the second part of the letter, Cardinal Fernández offers a brief catechesis on the topic of the relationship between the deceased and the pilgrim Church, recalling the distinction between prayer for the dead—which is an expression of the mystery of the communion of saints—and the evocation of the dead through spiritualistic practices, which is condemned by the Church.

In this case, the singular fact is that some souls of the deceased would allegedly manifest themselves to the supposed seer through the work of the guardian angel. “It seems clear,” states the Prefect, “that, by emphasizing the mediation of angels (present in various texts of Scripture, such as, for example: Gen 16:7-11; 21:17-18; Exod 23:20,21; 1 Kings 19:5-7; Tob 5:4; Dan 3:49; 6:23; Matt 1:20-24; 2:13; Luke 1:19, 26; 2:9-10), on the one hand, there is a desire to exclude any ‘mediumistic’ or ‘contact’ phenomenon in the manifestation of these souls, attributing such events rather to God’s merciful initiative; on the other hand, there is an explicit rejection of any technique of evocation, as well as of any indiscreet curiosity about the ‘afterlife,’ referring all relations with the deceased to intercessory prayer,” in accordance with the practice of the Church.

Therefore, “bearing in mind that the line between lawful and risky practices is rather thin”, Cardinal Fernández invites the Bishop of Trivento “to confirm that within the group that follows and promotes the spiritual experience linked to the alleged apparitions, there is no doubt on this point.”

And he concludes: “The maturation regarding the two critical points mentioned above, namely the restoration of full ecclesial peace and a clarification of the ambiguities present in the messages, may perhaps allow us to move towards a ‘nulla osta’ in the future, if and when you deem it appropriate.”