Private revelation involves some communication to an individual or individuals from God or some messenger of divine origin.[1] When this occurs, it is obviously a dramatic and probably life-changing experience for the one to whom God gives the communication. Furthermore, private revelation has the potential to affect those around the recipient, and perhaps many other people. Something that purports to be a revelation from God calls for a response, in a deep way that most things do not, from each individual who hears of it. If any individual decides that he or she is certain that a given message is in fact from God, then that person may, if necessary, overturn anything and everything in his or her life based on that message. This is not an illogical way of proceeding for any religious person, including a Roman Catholic. In comparison to conforming oneself to the revelation of God, nothing else matters. However, precisely because of the enormous consequence that a claim of private revelation may involve, one should approach such claims with extreme care. Therefore, it is always important in such cases to examine and remember what private revelation is, and what place it should have in the broader picture of the faith and spiritual life of members of the Roman Catholic Church.

In order to study the subject of private revelation in an organized way, it is first necessary to look carefully at the general category of revelation. In revelation, God communicates truths about Himself and His divine plan to man. This is necessary, because God wills man to a supernatural end. The knowledge about God that we can obtain naturally would not suffice for such a supernatural end.[2]

Given that it is only through divine revelation that human beings can reach the goal that God intends for them, it is clearly very important to know what is contained in this divine revelation. In the Catholic Church specific limits are set which determine the answer to this question in an unchangeable way. The revelation from God to man is contained in Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition. As the Second Vatican Council says in Dei Verbum:

The apostles . . . handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received--whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit; . . . those apostles and other men associated with the apostles . . . , under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.[3]

The necessity of revelation to man for the attainment of his supernatural end leads to the necessity for a definitive specification of divine revelation such as this, and the acceptance of the specification as authoritative, because without such a specification man would not know what body of truths was necessary to reach his end.

A few words should be said at this point about the exact authority of divine revelation as given through the Church. The authority of such divine revelation is absolute, because it is from God, and because it is declared to be so by a body, namely the Catholic Church, which is authorized to make that declaration. The arguments supporting this authorization belong to another topic. It suffices to say here that the absoluteness of the authority of the divine revelation passed on by the Church arises from this revelation being divine according to the testimony of the Church.[4]

It is clear from what has been said so far that revelation, in the sense in which it has been described so far, is subject to a time restriction in history. The Canon of Scripture is set, and contains only writings from the Apostolic period. Furthermore, the Tradition by which revelation is transmitted is specifically Apostolic in nature, so it also must originate in the time of the Apostles. Therefore, it appears that this revelation necessarily must be complete. There is no new data input from God, so to speak, although new conclusions can be and are drawn from the truths that God has already given. Anything that appears to be the result of a new revelation from God either is not in reality from God, or is a conclusion or truth only newly drawn from the original revelation. This seems explicit in Dei Verbum: "No new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ."[5]

Although the Church teaches that revelation ends with the death of the last Apostle, in some ways it seems evident that such is not the case. People can observe for themselves that God reveals Himself and His will to human beings constantly, in a variety of ways. In prayer, for example, people frequently believe that they are receiving guidance from God. This is a kind of revelation, is it not? On another level, many people in history have claimed to see apparitions from God, and these certainly seem as if they would fall into the category of revelation. Obviously, it is possible that the individual recipients in such cases might sometimes be deceived, or deceiving for that matter, and that there is nothing from God in the situation. However, it can hardly be the case, and the Church certainly would never wish to claim that it is the case, that all of the people are deceived who believe that God is revealing Himself to them in some way. This is why the Church, in her teaching on revelation, distinguishes from public revelation the category of private revelation. The Catechism speaks of these revelations as follows:

Throughout the ages, there have been so called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes and authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.[6]

Probably the most important characteristic of private revelation is, not surprisingly, that it is private. This does not necessarily mean that it is given to only one person, or only to a few, although that may often be the case. Rather, this refers to the audience for whom God intends this revelation, and the way in which He intends it for them. In both these respects, private revelation differs from public revelation. First, private revelations are not always intended for all men, and indeed on some occasions may be intended only for the direct recipient or recipients.[7] Second, these revelations are not intended to be received as necessary in the way that public revelation is, but only as helps along the way to salvation.[8]

Private revelation, then, is not part of "Revelation," in the most specific and proper sense of the term. This naturally has implications for the attitude with which Catholics should approach instances of private revelation. First of all, since there is no authoritative declaration on the private revelation from a body authorized to make such a declaration (the Church), there is an initial decision to be made concerning whether a given case of supposed private revelation is in fact from God. This is a very important decision, because of the seriousness of the point in question, and even a tentative judgment should only be made with great care. Particularly, a favorable judgment generally should not be given unless all other possibilities have been exhausted, including deception by the supposed recipient, hallucination or other naturally occurring mistake of the senses and intellect of the recipient, or even a demonic origin of the phenomena. This may seem like a method of decision-making that is unfair to the recipient, and it may sometimes create difficulties and unpleasantness even for true recipients of private revelation. However, this way of proceeding is only realistic and prudent. First of all, the consequences can be very serious if one judges a supposed private revelation to be authentically from God, so it is best to be as certain as possible of that authenticity before accepting those consequences, even if that may mean mistakenly judging a real case of private revelation as not authentic.[9] If it is important for such a private revelation to be widely accepted, God is obviously capable of providing additional proof that He is at work in that situation. If, on the other hand, people prematurely judge a false claim of divine revelation as true, then they put themselves in the hands, not of God's truth, but of intentional or unintentional human deception, or possibly even demonic deception.[10]

In particular, the possibility of a demonic origin for the unnatural phenomena in apparitions is one that is often overlooked or dismissed. Perhaps it is more easily overlooked in the present time than ever, because the only being who seems more disregarded than God may be the devil. However, the reality of demonic deception is not something that should be taken lightly. Although demonic use of apparently heavenly visions may not be common, it is particularly dangerous because demons really are capable of producing phenomena which do not fit into the normal realm of the natural experience of human beings, and their intelligence may easily enable them to mix truth and falsehood in such a way as to appear good even to devout and religious people. Thus, the very claims of private revelation that seem most immediately plausible to most people should still be approached with the greatest care. As Saint Thomas writes: "The teaching of the demons, with which they instruct their prophets, contains some truths whereby it is rendered acceptable. For the intellect is led astray to falsehood by the semblance of truth, even as the will is seduced to evil by the semblance of goodness."[11] Furthermore, if the deception attempted in the false private revelation is successful, then in such a case the people deceived will be the victims of a demonic malice, rather than only a human hoax or mistake.

Apart from watching for negative signs in a possible case of private revelation, the primary positive standard for discernment in such cases is compatibility with the public divine revelation. As a minimum, of course, this means an absence of any contradictions of Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted through the teachings of the Catholic Church. This aspect belongs largely to a discussion, which will follow, of the relative authority of private revelation. From a more positive perspective, though, the general direction of the private revelation should be the same as that of the public revelation. This implies that the clear goal of a true private revelation should ultimately be to bring the recipient, and any others who are affected by this revelation, closer to Jesus Christ, the summit of all of God's revelation of Himself to us. John Paul II writes in Redemptoris Missio: "God's revelation becomes definitive and complete through his only-begotten Son . . . . In this definitive Word of his revelation, God has made himself known in the fullest possible way. He has revealed to mankind who he is."[12] Thus, any "revelation" that does not lead to Jesus Christ cannot be said to be in compatibility with the true revelation, which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is why the Catechism teaches that "Christian faith cannot accept 'revelations' that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment."[13]

After the question of legitimacy has been decided, at least tentatively, for a particular case of private revelation, the question of the general authority to be given to private revelations arises. It seems at first that perhaps the authority of such revelations is absolute, because they come from God, and the absolute authority of public revelation ultimately derives from its divine origin, as was stated earlier. However, the trouble with this reasoning is that it fails to take into account the difference in the guarantors of the divine origin of public revelation and private revelation. In the case of public revelation, the Catholic Church, having the authority to decide what is universally revealed and what is not, declares to be universally revealed the body of what she considers public revelation. In the case of private revelations, on the other hand, all that is under consideration at this point is the belief of individuals that a supposed private revelation is from God. The private individual has no power by himself to make authoritative and final statements about the authenticity of revelation, even for himself. Thus, there is always a degree of uncertainty in such private judgments, and the authority of private revelations thus becomes relativized. Something that is only judged to be from God in a tentative way cannot be absolutely authoritative. This becomes slightly more complicated when it is applied to the recipient himself, since God may give him greater certainty than that which is accessible to other people.[14] However, ultimately the same principle still holds true, and even the recipient should be prepared to admit that he is being deceived, if the "revelation" is leading him away from the established truths of the Faith.

If the authority of private revelation is not absolute, than what is it? This essentially reduces to two questions. First, what must people believe? Second, what may people believe? The answer to the first question is simple: nothing. Since private revelation is not part of the public revelation necessary for the salvation of men, there is no place for a real obligation to believe any of it, and neither the Church nor anyone else can demand such belief. The second question, concerning what one may believe, is more complex. In matters of private revelation, as in almost anything else, one may believe nearly anything one chooses to believe, as long as it is not in contradiction to the Church and what is known absolutely from public revelation. This does not speak to the issue of the prudence of belief, which is dealt with in the consideration of judging the authenticity of private revelations, but only the permissibility of belief for Catholics.[15] In this area, as in many others, it is very possible to be quite foolish and still remain in obedience to the Church. However, if one does choose to believe in a private revelation, it is important to remain aware of the distinctions between public and private revelation, and thus avoid an equation of the faith given to private revelation with the faith given to public revelation. Pope Benedict XIV explains the difference as follows: "Even though many of these revelations have been approved, we cannot and we ought not to give them the assent of divine faith, but only that of human faith, according to the dictates of prudence whenever these dictates enable us to decide that they are probable and worthy of pious credence."[16]

This statement from Pope Benedict XIV raises another issue concerning private revelations, namely that of ecclesiastical approval. The Catholic Church naturally has an interest in claims of private revelations, and the Church often investigates those that come to public attention, at least on a local level. This obviously may result in either a favorable or an unfavorable judgment. If the judgment is unfavorable, then the faithful should not pursue the claim of revelation further, since clearly the ecclesiastical authority believes that it may be harmful. A favorable judgment, on the other hand, is not a definitive endorsement of a private revelation by the Church. This area is outside the bounds of public revelation, so the Church will never definitively endorse a private revelation. A favorable ecclesiastical judgment generally means that the ecclesiastical investigation has found that there is nothing contrary to Church teaching in the private revelation, and the evidence that this revelation is from God is convincing. Given the thoroughness that almost always characterizes these investigations, it is safe to assume from this that the case in question is one of authentic private revelation. However, there is still no obligation for anyone to believe in it.[17]

After studying the basic character of revelation in general, and then using that study as the basis for examining various aspects of private revelation, it is to be hoped that some understanding has been gained of the appropriate place of private revelation for Catholics. Much of the analysis of private revelation here has had a cautionary note in it, which might give a negative impression of the whole area. This is in no way the intention, but emphasizing the necessity of caution is almost an inevitable part of dealing with the topic of private revelation. It is probably self-evident to anyone who understands the basic nature of divine revelation that a true private revelation is a profound and wonderful event. This does not require any explanation beyond pointing out that it is an instance of divine revelation. Therefore, an analysis of private revelation in general is not unbalanced when it focuses on the limitations of private revelation. It is easy to see that private revelation is a great blessing. It may not always be as easy for everyone to see that such blessings are best and most properly appreciated for what they truly are, when their importance is relativized by placing them in the context of the greater public revelation which culminates in Christ and is passed on by the Catholic Church.

Bibliography

Atwater, Donald. Editor. A Catholic Dictionary. Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1997.

Aumann, Jordan. "Private Revelation." In Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine. Edited by Russell Shaw. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994.

Flannery, Austin. Editor. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1975.

John Paul II. The Encyclicals of John Paul II. Edited by J. Michael Miller. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996.

Neuner, Jacques and Depuis, Jacques. The Christian Faith. Edited by Jacques Depuis. New York: Alba House, 1996.

Poulain, Augustin. Revelations and Visions: Discerning the True and the Certain from the False or the Doubtful. Edited by Frank Sadowski. Translated by Leonara Smith. New York: Alba House, 1998.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948.

Notes

[1] Donald Atwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1997), 431.

[2] Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 1; J. Neuner and J. Depuis, The Christian Faith, ed. J. Depuis (New York: Alba House, 1996), 43.

[3] Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 7; Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Northport, Y: Costello Publishing Company, 1975), 753.

[4] Paul VI, Profession of Faith; Neuner and Depuis, 28.

[5] Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 4; Flannery, 752.

[6] Catechism of the Catholic Church(Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), 67.

[7] Atwater, 431.

[8] CCC67.

[9] Augustin Poulain, Revelations and Visions: Discerning the True and the Certain from the False or the Doubtful, ed. Frank Sadowski, trans. Leonara Smith (New York: Alba House, 1998), 107.

[10] Jordan Aumann, "Private Revelation," in Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, ed. Russell Shaw (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997), 533.

[11] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948), II-II, q. 172, a. 6.

[12] John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio 5; John Paul II, The Encyclicals of John Paul II, ed. J. Michael Miller (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996), 498.

[13] CCC67.

[14] Aumann, 533.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Atwater, 431.

[17] Aumann, 533.