Here are the latest
standards (1978) on Marian apparitions. They contain only two
formulas: one which acknowledges the supernatural and one which
rejects it
Andrea Tornielli
Vatican City
In addition to the positive
formula (“constat de supernaturalitate”, established as
supernatural) and the decidedly negative one ("constat de non
supernaturalitate, “It is established that there is nothing
supernatural here”), there is also an intermediate formula (“non
constat de supernaturalitate”, there is nothing supernatural
here). In fact, the latest available standards published by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1978, the result
of a decision by the former Holy Office discussed four years
previously, only covers the first and third formulations set out
above. The first case gives an affirmative answer to the
question of supernatural events. In the second case ("no constat
de ...") the answer is negative.
It was recalled that on the eve of his appointment as
prefect of the Congregation of Saints in 2008, the then
secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Archbishop Angelo Amato, gave an interview on the subject to the
Catholic newspaper Avvenire. And when asked if the "no
constat de ..." could be considered to be awaiting judgment,
while the "de constat non ..." represents a decidedly negative
opinion, Amato said: “In the rules we are referring to, mention
is only made to "constat de" and not "constat de". No mention is
made to "constat de non”.”
From the standards issued in 1978, according to Amato’s
explanation, it follows that the only negative formula provided
is the “non constat de” one. It therefore seems inappropriate
to present it as a sort of judgment on appeal. It is, instead,
the negative answer to the question on whether the alleged
apparition is supernatural or not.
It must be clear, however, that one cannot believe the
“constat de non supernaturalitate” formula (the one that
strongly backed the evidence against the existence supernatural
element), to have disappeared just because it makes no reference
to the rules of 1978 – which were never published. Although
it is true that it is not taken into consideration (even though
it was up until the last draft), it is still forms part of
Church practice. It was used for example in the case of
Heroldsbach in Germany: the statement “constare de non
supernaturalitate” of July 18, 1951 was then approved by Pius
XII and published by L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s
daily broadsheet newspaper. Another problematic case in which
the formula was used is that concerning the apparitions and
revelations of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam. On April 5,
1974 Paul VI approved the Congregation's decision to publish the
negative judgment “constat de non supernaturalitate”. The
notification of 1974 was proposed again in the collection
“Documenta Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei” published in
2006 (Document 22, p. 90). It is interesting to note that the
apparitions in Amsterdam will be approved later by the local
bishop.
But now the only negative formula
cited in the standards of 1978 is “non constat de…”which is the
answer to the question of whether the appearance has a
supernatural element. The “non constat de…” may thus indicate a
lack of moral certainty in the judges called upon to rule, or
the lack of convincing evidence for a negative judgment. If
however there is evidence that excludes the supernatural nature,
this could again affirm the formula “constat de non
supranaturalitate”, as explained to Vatican Insider by
the authoritative experts that work in the Holy See.
As for the pronouncement on
Medjugorje, the work of the commission headed by Ruini will
conclude before the end of 2012. The committee will produce a
document, a confidential opinion, which will be examined by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will be a
reasoned and documented opinion - not a decision - that after
the screening of the former Holy Office will be submitted to
Pope Benedict XVI who will decide what to do; namely, whether to
publish it, having the doctrinal ministry pronounce itself on
Medjugorje or whether to wait a bit longer given the fact that
the apparition phenomenon is not over yet.
However, it seems difficult to
imagine the conclusions of a committee that was appointed to
examine the case and express itself on the issue being locked
away in a drawer. Many devotees of Medjugorje, as well as many
individuals who do not believe in the authenticity of these
apparitions, are waiting for the Church to make a statement in
regard to this.
email: