Concerning the Latest Document from Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernández
– Read the Primary Document: “Norms of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith for proceeding in the discernment of alleged supernatural phenomena” [hereafter, Norms of the Dicastery].
– Read a Summary: “Vatican releases new norms on alleged supernatural phenomena” [hereafter, Vatican summary] on the Vatican News website.
In the first part, I addressed the grave problem that according to these new norms no Church authority will be allowed to judge any event to be of supernatural origin. The second part discussed the grave problem of taking authority in this matter away from the local bishop.
The Third Grave Problem: The Use of Ambiguous Language.
Under the heading of “General guidelines,” the Vatican summary states: “According to the new norms, the Church will exercise her duties of discernment [of alleged phenomena], based on the following:
“‘… (c) whether it is permissible to appreciate their spiritual fruits, whether they need to be purified from problematic elements, or whether the faithful should be warned about potential risks; (d) whether it is advisable for the competent ecclesiastical authority to realize their pastoral value’ (I, 10).” [Norms of the Dicastery, emphasis added.]’
According to these norms, the “problematic elements” referred to above may include: “doctrinal errors, an oversimplification of the Gospel message, or the spread of a sectarian mentality. [See the cover letter and Article 15, emphasis added].”
As with all “modern” Church documents, scholastic precision is avoided in favor of nice-sounding platitudes that appear to reflect Catholic fidelity. Yet key terms are always so ambiguous that they can be variously interpreted to suit any ideological preference or partisan advantage. In fact, they are so elastic that their interpretations can even be contradictory from one moment to the next.
For example, consider the following loaded terms used in the norms: “pastoral value,” “potential risks,” “problematic elements,” and “sectarian mentality.”
There are no objective criteria for how to evaluate pastoral value. Its meaning is left to the subjective whim of the one who has the power to impose his will upon others (i.e., a dictator). The same can be said of potential risks. The very term used indicates there need be no actual risk, only a ‘potential’ risk that the dictator claims may possibly arise. And what are we to make of the term “problematic elements”? Frankly, anything the dictator disagrees with can be labeled as “problematic.”
Doctrinal Errors?
The new norms will render a negative judgment on any phenomenon that has “doctrinal errors.” In better days, this would be an objective and necessary criterion. However, in these times of grave doctrinal crisis, that standard is as changeable as the modernists’ new theology, which constantly evolves. If those making these judgments believe that hell is empty, or that souls can be annihilated, or that homosexuality is morally good, or that those in mortal sin can receive Holy Communion, or that Church Doctors erred in permitting the death penalty, or that God can err by placing a “woman” in a man’s body and His ‘error’ may be corrected by genital mutilation, then how will they rightly evaluate doctrinal errors?[i]
The new norms also oppose any phenomena that “oversimplify” the Gospel Message. Taken at face value this norm is indeed right and proper. However, it begs the question of “who” is interpreting the Gospel so as to render a judgment of ‘oversimplification’? We all know a terrible one-sided problem currently in vogue is an excessive emphasis on God’s “mercy” at the expense of never considering His justice. Conversion and repentance are downplayed as we are told God loves and accepts everyone as they are. The Gospel is certainly ‘oversimplified’ to the point of gross error if one thinks that God is a “God of surprises” Who contradicts His own infallible and divinely inspired Scriptures.
Given the current theological climate in the Vatican, it’s easy to see how these new norms can be used, not to root out phenomena with real doctrinal errors or oversimplifications of the Gospel, but rather to undermine any past or future heavenly messages that correct the false ideologies favored by those in positions of ecclesial power. Quite frankly, these criteria really turn into “If the apparition’s message disagrees with what the current Vatican authority thinks,” then it will be labeled as false. The authors of the document seem to forget that God speaks to man in order to correct us. Across the centuries, God has especially had to correct the authority figures who represent Him before His people.
A Sectarian Mentality?
By far, the worst of this document’s ambiguous norms insists that a phenomenon will be judged false if it fosters a “sectarian mentality.” Even with bona fide apparitions, which the Church has judged supernatural in origin, such as Lourdes and Fatima, there are faithful who embrace these devotions and some who do not. Such a division is inevitable. And just such a division can be judged by the dictator as “sectarian.” And note, all that is needed is that such a mentality be perceived. In other words, the internal dispositions of the faithful will be judged. It is hard to think of a more subjective criterion that could be more easily manipulated.
Far too often I have heard of Catholics who favor reverence for the Holy Eucharist being labeled as divisive by heterodox pastors. Laymen who believe “rock and roll” Masses have no place in Catholic worship can readily be labeled as “opposed to a spirit of unity.” Devotees of Our Lady who want to pray a Rosary in Latin, the universal language of the Church, can be called “sectarian,” with the argument that such prayer makes some people uncomfortable. And we are already hearing of faithful Catholics being told they are “hateful” because they oppose the “blessing” of two men who want to pretend they are “married,” or because they refuse to enter a church where a “rainbow flag” is proudly displayed.
What we have seen within our own parishes is that those who wish to be faithful to Christ are being accused of being divisive, acting against unity, and having a “sectarian mentality.” This problem is so severe, that many good priests have been “cancelled” precisely under such false pretexts. Using these norms, heterodox officials will now likewise be able to “cancel” any message from Our Lord and Our Lady that doesn’t suit them.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
ENDNOTE:
[i] If you are unaware of these errors – and many others – which amply demonstrate a grave doctrinal crisis currently in the Vatican, then you may be interested in reading the Denziger-Bergoglio. This work is a compilation of many errors publicly endorsed by Pope Francis. The authors are priests who chose to remain anonymous, most likely to avoid vengeful retaliation.