How the Church Discerns Marian Apparitions

The Church discerns alleged Marian apparitions to protect the integrity of the Catholic faith, recognize genuine spiritual fruit, correct confusion, prevent abuse, and guide the faithful prudently. She does not begin by assuming that every extraordinary claim is divine or fraudulent.

The governing law is the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, promulgated on May 17, AD 2024 and effective since May 19, AD 2024. These norms entirely replaced the procedural norms of AD 1978.

Discernment begins with the diocesan bishop. He gathers the facts, consults the Dicastery from the beginning, and, when a full evaluation is warranted, establishes an investigatory commission. After examining the complete record, he prepares a personal judgment called a Votum and proposes one of six determinations. The acts are then sent to the Dicastery, which confirms or does not confirm the proposed determination. The bishop ordinarily announces the final judgment in agreement with the Dicastery.

As a rule, the current process does not declare that an alleged apparition is supernatural. Even a nihil obstat does not certify that Mary appeared. It recognizes signs of the Holy Ghost’s action “in the midst of” the spiritual experience, finds no especially critical or risky elements at that time, and permits prudent pastoral appreciation. Only the Holy Father may authorize a special procedure directed toward a positive declaration of supernatural origin.

The six possible determinations are:

1. Nihil obstat
2. Prae oculis habeatur
3. Curatur
4. Sub mandato
5. Prohibetur et obstruatur
6. Declaratio de non supernaturalitate

No private revelation becomes part of the deposit of faith. No Catholic must accept an apparition with the divine faith owed to Scripture and dogma. Every spiritually sound devotion remains subordinate to Jesus Christ, public Revelation, the sacred liturgy, the sacraments, and the authority of the Church.

The Church’s caution is not disbelief in God’s power. It is obedience to Scripture.

Saint Paul gives the complementary command:

Catholic discernment therefore rejects two errors:

• Credulity: accepting an extraordinary claim because it appears religious, emotional, popular, or miraculous.
• Cynicism: dismissing every extraordinary claim because supernatural action is considered impossible.

The Church tests claims because God is truthful, human perception is limited, psychological and social influences are real, and deception is possible. Genuine openness to the Holy Ghost includes willingness to submit experiences to the Church Christ founded.

The Church cannot discern apparitions correctly unless the two categories are distinguished.

Public Revelation

God’s definitive Revelation is Jesus Christ. The deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles is transmitted in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and authentically interpreted by the Magisterium. No new public Revelation is expected before Christ’s glorious return (Dei Verbum, 4; CCC 65–66).

Private Revelation

A reported apparition, locution, vision, message, dream, image phenomenon, or other extraordinary spiritual experience belongs to the category commonly called private revelation. Its proper role is not to improve or complete Christ’s Revelation but to help people live it more faithfully in a particular historical situation (CCC 67).

No alleged private revelation may:

• correct Scripture or Apostolic Tradition;
• change dogma, morality, or the sacraments;
• establish a new universal obligation;
• make obedience to a visionary necessary for salvation;
• replace the Church’s pastors;
• offer a new Gospel or an independent path of grace.

This distinction remains true even when the Church grants a nihil obstat. The phenomenon does not become an object of faith, and the faithful are not required to give it the assent owed to divine Revelation.

The AD 2024 norms identify four principal goals of discernment:

1. to consider whether signs of divine action can be recognized in a phenomenon alleged to be supernatural;
2. to determine whether writings or messages contain anything contrary to faith or morals;
3. to judge whether spiritual fruits may be appreciated, require purification, or are accompanied by risks about which the faithful should be warned;
4. to decide whether competent authority should recognize the phenomenon’s pastoral value.

The question is therefore broader than “Did Mary appear?” The Church must also ask:

• What is happening among the faithful?
• What is being taught?
• Who is exercising power?
• Are persons being healed spiritually or harmed?
• Are money, fame, sexuality, fear, or institutional influence being exploited?
• Can a sound devotion be separated from confused or abusive elements?
• What public guidance best serves faith and the salvation of souls?

The Church may recognize the action of the Holy Ghost within a complex human experience without authenticating every reported detail.

The diocesan bishop has the initial responsibility for alleged phenomena occurring within his territory. He proceeds in dialogue with the national episcopal conference and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The diocesan bishop:

• receives and initially evaluates reports;
• takes immediate pastoral precautions when necessary;
• decides whether a formal investigation should begin;
• establishes and supervises the investigatory commission;
• prepares his personal Votum;
• proposes a final determination to the Dicastery;
• announces the approved judgment in agreement with the Dicastery;
• continues to watch over the phenomenon afterward.

The Dicastery:

• is consulted from the beginning;
• evaluates the bishop’s procedure and proposed determination;
• may request further information or expert opinions;
• may conduct a separate examination in rare cases;
• confirms or does not confirm the bishop’s proposal;
• may intervene on its own initiative at any stage;
• may intervene again if later developments require it.

If multiple dioceses are involved, an interdiocesan commission may be established in consultation with the Dicastery. Under the conditions set by the norms, a metropolitan or another regional ecclesiastical authority may receive a special mandate.

A visionary, spiritual director, priest, religious superior, shrine administrator, media creator, private association, theologian, or website cannot issue the Church’s binding judgment by personal authority.

1. A report is received: the diocesan bishop gathers enough information for an initial assessment.
2. Immediate prudential measures are considered: he may secure objects, restrict uncontrolled devotion, preserve the Blessed Sacrament reverently, or address public-order concerns.
3. The Dicastery is consulted: consultation is not reserved to the end of the case.
4. A commission is established when warranted: it includes at least a theologian, a canon lawyer, and an expert suited to the phenomenon.
5. Evidence is gathered: witnesses, documents, messages, finances, medical information, physical objects, digital media, and pastoral fruits are examined.
6. Positive and negative criteria are applied cumulatively: no single favorable sign proves supernatural origin.
7. The bishop prepares a report and personal Votum: he proposes one of the six determinations.
8. The Dicastery reviews the acts: it confirms or does not confirm the proposal and may request more work.
9. The approved determination is announced: the bishop communicates it clearly and ordinarily explains its doctrinal and pastoral basis.
10. Vigilance continues: every determination may be revisited in light of later developments.

The process is pastoral, doctrinal, canonical, historical, psychological, medical, scientific, financial, and administrative according to the needs of the case. No single discipline can answer every question.

When a report has at least the appearance of truth and concerns an alleged supernatural event connected with the Catholic faith, the bishop prudently informs himself about the circumstances, personally or through a delegate.

The first task is not public promotion. It is preservation of facts and protection of persons.

The initial assessment may include:

• the identity and contact information of witnesses;
• the date, place, duration, and chronology of events;
• the earliest written or recorded accounts;
• original messages, notebooks, files, photographs, audio, and video;
• medical, psychological, scientific, or technical information;
• the development of prayer groups, pilgrimages, donations, sales, or media channels;
• possible risks to minors, vulnerable adults, public order, or Church unity;
• whether the claim is continuing and changing.

If the matter can be managed among those directly involved and no danger to the community is perceived, the bishop may, after consulting the Dicastery, decide not to proceed further. His duty of vigilance remains.

The bishop need not wait for a final judgment before protecting the faithful.

He may act to:

• prevent uncontrolled public displays of devotion;
• stop sensational dissemination of unverified material;
• secure physical objects connected with the claim;
• protect alleged Eucharistic species with proper reverence;
• clarify that no supernatural judgment has been made;
• restrict fundraising, events, publications, or ministry when necessary;
• protect witnesses from pressure or harassment;
• cooperate with civil authorities concerning public order or possible crime;
• require compliance with diocesan safeguarding policies.

A temporary restriction is not necessarily a declaration that the phenomenon is false. It may be an act of prudent governance preserving evidence, preventing scandal, and protecting the freedom of the investigation.

When a formal evaluation is needed, the diocesan bishop establishes an investigatory commission.

Under the norms, the commission must include at least:

• one theologian;
• one canon lawyer;
• one expert selected according to the nature of the phenomenon.

Depending upon the case, additional expertise may be required:

• Sacred Scripture and Mariology;
• history and archival research;
• medicine, psychiatry, psychology, or neurology;
• chemistry, biology, physics, or materials analysis;
• digital forensics and artificial-intelligence detection;
• accounting and financial governance;
• safeguarding, coercive control, and spiritual abuse;
• translation and linguistic analysis.

Commission members must possess good reputation, sound faith, reliable doctrine, and proven prudence. They must be independent of the persons and events under investigation.

The bishop appoints a delegate to coordinate the commission and a notary to record testimony, preserve signed minutes, organize the acts, and maintain the diocesan archive. Members are bound by the secrecy of office.

Witnesses should be interviewed as close to the event as possible. Their sworn testimony should distinguish:

• what they personally perceived;
• what another person told them;
• what they inferred;
• what they learned later through media or group discussion.

Investigators compare independent accounts, chronology, vocabulary, later revisions, and possible influence among witnesses.

Relevant records may include:

• original diaries and correspondence;
• unedited recordings and metadata;
• medical records obtained lawfully and with proper authorization;
• financial statements and donation records;
• organizational bylaws and ownership documents;
• publication histories and translations;
• social-media archives and deleted-content records when lawfully available.

Confessors may not testify about anything known through sacramental Confession. The sacramental seal is inviolable (canon 983). No apparition investigation, safeguarding process, or civil inquiry can authorize its violation.

Information learned outside Confession may be governed by different duties. Investigators must distinguish the sacramental seal from professional confidentiality, privacy, legal reporting obligations, and the secrecy of office.

Extraordinary claims require careful preservation rather than uncontrolled handling.

Physical objects should be:

• photographed and documented before movement;
• secured with a clear chain of custody;
• protected from contamination, tampering, decay, and devotional handling;
• examined only by qualified and independent experts;
• tested through methods proportionate to the claim and respectful of sacred character.

If the claim concerns consecrated Eucharistic species, every examination must preserve reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. Scientific curiosity does not override sacramental dignity.

Digital evidence should preserve:

• original files rather than screenshots alone;
• metadata and creation dates;
• full-length audio and video rather than edited clips;
• device and account provenance;
• records of compression, enhancement, translation, or AI assistance;
• secure backups and access logs.

A viral image, unexplained recording, or laboratory claim is not self-authenticating evidence.

Article 14 of the AD 2024 norms lists positive criteria to be considered cumulatively.

Credibility and Good Reputation

The Church considers the mental equilibrium, honesty, moral integrity, sincerity, humility, habitual docility toward ecclesiastical authority, willingness to cooperate, and promotion of authentic ecclesial communion among the alleged recipients and witnesses.

Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The event and every associated message must conform to Catholic faith and morals.

Unpredictable Character

The event should not appear to result from the initiative, planning, invention, or manipulation of the persons involved.

Fruits of Christian Life

The Church considers prayer, conversions, priestly and religious vocations, charity, sound devotion, enduring spiritual fruits, and growth in ecclesial communion.

These criteria are signs for evaluation, not mathematical proof. A person’s apparent humility does not establish supernatural origin. Orthodox content can be composed without revelation. Good fruit may arise even amid confusion. The full record must be judged together.

Article 15 identifies serious negative criteria.

Manifest Error concerning the Event

The basic report may be factually mistaken, misidentified, exaggerated, or contradicted by reliable evidence.

Doctrinal Error

Messages may contradict the faith or contain confused expressions. The norms recognize that a sincere person may unconsciously add subjective perceptions or natural errors without deliberate fraud.

Sectarian Division

A movement may produce hostility toward the bishop, parish, clergy, family, critics, or the wider Church.

Profit, Power, Fame, or Personal Interest

The claim may be linked to money, authority, social recognition, political leverage, or control.

Gravely Immoral Conduct

Serious misconduct by the alleged recipient or followers at or near the time of the events may be relevant.

Psychological or Pathological Factors

Psychological alteration, psychosis, collective hysteria, or another pathological condition may have influenced the reported phenomenon.

A diagnosis does not erase human dignity, prove dishonesty, or automatically settle every spiritual question. It must be interpreted by qualified professionals within the whole body of evidence.

Article 16 states that using purported supernatural experiences or recognized mystical elements as a means or pretext for controlling people or carrying out abuse is of particular moral gravity.

Examples include:

• claiming divine revelation about another person’s sins, marriage, vocation, health, or finances;
• demanding absolute obedience to a visionary or leader;
• threatening divine punishment for questioning the movement;
• isolating followers from family, parish, physicians, or lawful authority;
• using alleged messages to obtain sex, money, labor, property, or silence;
• pressuring victims to withdraw reports or forgive without safety and justice;
• presenting criticism as blasphemy against Mary or the Holy Ghost;
• imitating sacramental Confession or claiming power to bind consciences without authority.

The expression “false mysticism” is not itself the name of a canonical crime. Possible crimes and delicts must be identified according to applicable civil and canon law. The use of mystical claims to facilitate abuse can aggravate the moral and canonical seriousness of the conduct.

An apparition inquiry does not replace safeguarding action, a canonical penal process, medical care, or civil investigation. Immediate danger and suspected crime must be addressed through the proper channels without waiting for the apparition case to conclude.

Medical and psychological evaluation asks whether a physical or mental condition can explain or influence the reported experience. It should be competent, ethical, proportionate, and respectful.

Professionals may examine:

• neurological or sensory conditions;
• sleep disorders and altered states;
• trauma, dissociation, grief, or suggestion;
• psychosis, mania, severe depression, or other illness;
• medications or substances;
• group reinforcement and collective behavior;
• the alleged recipient’s functional stability over time.

Several conclusions must be avoided:

• “No diagnosis was found, therefore the event was supernatural.”
• “A diagnosis exists, therefore every religious experience was false.”
• “The person is sincere, therefore the claim is objectively true.”
• “The person was mistaken, therefore the person was malicious.”

Medicine and psychology assess questions within their competence. They do not define doctrine or pronounce a supernatural judgment.

Every message attributed to Mary, Christ, an angel, or a saint must be tested against the complete Catholic faith.

Investigators should examine:

• the original language and earliest text;
• later edits, expansions, translations, and compilations;
• whether words of the alleged recipient and words attributed to heaven are clearly distinguished;
• Scriptural interpretation and doctrinal accuracy;
• claims about the Trinity, Christ, Mary, grace, the Church, sacraments, morality, and the last things;
• whether predictions are precise, vague, conditional, altered, or published after events;
• whether later messages contradict earlier ones;
• whether the message fosters ecclesial communion or a parallel authority.

Grave warning signs include messages claiming:

• that Mary is divine or a redeemer independent of Christ;
• that the Church has universally defected;
• that a new sacrament or doctrine has been revealed;
• that suicide, violence, hatred, or vengeance is commanded;
• that necessary medical care must be abandoned;
• that a particular date for the end of the world is certain;
• that an object or formula guarantees salvation automatically.

An orthodox message is not automatically supernatural. It may simply repeat truths already available in Scripture, catechesis, preaching, or devotional literature.

Money does not prove fraud, but secrecy and exploitation require scrutiny.

The investigation may examine:

• donations and restricted gifts;
• book, medal, image, pilgrimage, and merchandise sales;
• ownership of land, trademarks, media channels, and intellectual property;
• payments to the visionary, family, leaders, or associated businesses;
• fundraising claims and emergency appeals;
• audited accounts and internal controls;
• whether financial dependence encourages continuing messages;
• whether donors are promised miracles, protection, or spiritual privilege.

A genuine religious movement should welcome reasonable accountability. Spiritual language must not be used to prevent audits, avoid taxes or law, conceal conflicts of interest, or intimidate donors.

1. Nihil obstat

Many signs of the action of the Holy Ghost are recognized “in the midst of” the spiritual experience, and no especially critical or risky elements have been detected at that time. No certainty is expressed about supernatural authenticity. The bishop may appreciate and even promote the pastoral value, including pilgrimages.

2. Prae oculis habeatur

Important positive signs are present, but confusion or possible risks require continued attention, dialogue, monitoring, and perhaps doctrinal clarification of writings or messages.

3. Curatur

Significant critical elements exist, but the phenomenon has spread widely and is connected with verifiable spiritual fruits. A prohibition might harm the faithful. The bishop is not to encourage the phenomenon itself but should provide alternative devotions and reorient its pastoral expression.

4. Sub mandato

The central problem lies especially in a person, family, or group misusing a phenomenon rich in positive elements—for example through financial exploitation, immoral conduct, unauthorized ministry, or refusal of episcopal direction. Pastoral leadership is placed under the bishop or a delegate of the Holy See.

5. Prohibetur et obstruatur

Although some legitimate requests or positive elements may exist, the critical issues and risks are very serious. The bishop is directed to declare publicly that adherence is not permitted and to offer catechesis explaining the decision.

6. Declaratio de non supernaturalitate

Concrete and proven evidence establishes that the phenomenon is not supernatural—for example, an admission of lying or credible evidence of fabrication, erroneous intention, or mythomania.

The first four are positive or precautionary pastoral determinations of differing kinds. The final two are negative. None should be translated into a simpler label that changes its actual meaning.

A nihil obstat is often misunderstood as “the apparition is approved.” That statement is too broad.

It means:

• no certainty is expressed that the phenomenon itself is supernatural;
• signs of the Holy Ghost’s action are recognized within the spiritual experience;
• no especially critical or risky elements have been detected at that time;
• the bishop may authorize and foster prudent pastoral activity;
• the faithful may adhere prudently within the limits established by the bishop.

It does not mean:

• Mary certainly appeared;
• every message is exact in every detail;
• every associated miracle has been authenticated;
• the visionary is incapable of error or sin;
• the devotion is obligatory;
• the determination can never be revisited.

The bishop’s decree should state the nature and limits of the authorization and make clear that the determination is not approval of supernatural origin.

The AD 2024 norms ordinarily do not envision the diocesan bishop, an episcopal conference, or the Dicastery declaring that a phenomenon is supernatural, even after a nihil obstat.

This approach:

• allows faster pastoral guidance;
• reduces pressure for an unnecessarily absolute conclusion;
• recognizes positive fruits without certifying every detail;
• permits correction of human confusion within a spiritually fruitful experience;
• protects the freedom of Catholics who do not adopt the devotion;
• allows later intervention as circumstances develop.

The Holy Father may authorize a special procedure concerning supernatural origin. Without such authorization, no local statement should be inflated into a declaration that the event has been proved supernatural.

After the investigation, the bishop prepares a full report and a personal Votum. This is not a public opinion poll or a conclusion delegated entirely to experts. Experts provide evidence and analysis; the bishop exercises pastoral judgment according to his office.

The acts sent to the Dicastery ordinarily include:

• the historical and factual record;
• commission reports;
• testimony and documentary evidence;
• doctrinal, canonical, medical, psychological, scientific, financial, and pastoral evaluations;
• positive and negative criteria;
• the impact upon the People of God;
• the bishop’s reasons for proposing one of the six determinations.

The Dicastery may confirm or decline to confirm the proposal, request additional information, consult other experts, or conduct a separate examination. Only after its response does the bishop ordinarily announce the determination publicly.

A final announcement should use clear language that ordinary Catholics can understand.

It should identify:

• the competent bishop and the Dicastery’s involvement;
• the exact determination;
• what object was judged: event, messages, devotion, shrine, movement, publication, or leadership;
• what activities are permitted, discouraged, supervised, or prohibited;
• whether any doctrinal corrections are required;
• whether supernatural origin remains unjudged;
• where the official decree can be read.

For precautionary or negative determinations, the bishop should consider explaining the reasons and doctrinal basis so that the faithful can grow in healthy spirituality. Information that would cause unjust harm to persons may be omitted.

Media summaries should not replace the decree. Words such as “approved,” “recognized,” “condemned,” and “Vatican-backed” should not be used unless the exact object and meaning are explained.

No determination ends the Church’s pastoral responsibility.

The bishop must continue to watch over:

• new messages or claimed phenomena;
• changes in leadership;
• fundraising and commercial activity;
• doctrinal publications and translations;
• treatment of pilgrims and vulnerable persons;
• possible abuse, scandal, division, or disobedience;
• whether permitted devotion remains within the decree’s limits.

The Dicastery reserves the right to intervene again. A determination can require clarification or revision when substantial new evidence or later misconduct changes the pastoral situation.

A nihil obstat is therefore not a permanent immunity from oversight.

Older cases were judged under earlier procedures and vocabulary. Their documents must be interpreted historically rather than rewritten as though the AD 2024 terms had been used.

For an older apparition or devotion, determine:

• who issued the original decree;
• the date and exact language;
• which norms or customs governed the case;
• whether the judgment concerned the event, devotion, shrine, public worship, miracle, or publication;
• whether the Holy See later confirmed, limited, clarified, or altered the judgment;
• whether later messages or organizations are distinct from the original case.

A historically recognized devotion may remain legitimate even when later legends, unofficial messages, commercial claims, or unauthorized groups require correction.

An apparition discernment may uncover matters requiring other processes.

• Safeguarding inquiry: examines risks or harm to minors and vulnerable adults.
• Civil investigation: addresses possible crime, fraud, violence, coercion, or public-order concerns.
• Canonical penal process: examines possible delicts under Church law.
• Medical evaluation: considers illness, treatment, healing, and physical causes.
• Scientific examination: studies physical objects or measurable phenomena.
• Financial audit: examines ownership, donations, transactions, and controls.
• Doctrinal review: judges conformity with faith and morals.

One process cannot be used to delay or suppress another. A positive spiritual fruit does not excuse crime. A medical explanation does not itself decide the morality of leaders. An ecclesiastical determination does not replace civil justice.

While a case is unresolved, Catholics should:

• remain rooted in Sunday Mass, Confession, Scripture, prayer, and charity;
• use the term “alleged” or “reported” rather than announcing certainty;
• obey diocesan directives concerning gatherings, messages, and devotions;
• avoid harassment of the alleged visionary, critics, investigators, or clergy;
• avoid fundraising or public promotion without authorization;
• preserve evidence rather than edit or sensationalize it;
• report abuse, threats, fraud, or danger through proper channels;
• pray for truth, justice, healing, and ecclesial unity.

No one is deprived of necessary grace while an investigation remains incomplete. Christ is fully present in His Church, word, sacraments, and ordinary means of holiness.

A reliable case summary should contain a visible status box with:

• Reported phenomenon: what is alleged to have occurred.
• Location and dates: where and when.
• Competent authority: the bishop, Dicastery, or other authority responsible.
• Official document: title and date.
• Exact determination: quoted without simplification.
• Object of the judgment: event, devotion, shrine, messages, movement, or leadership.
• Permitted activity: pilgrimages, public worship, publications, or pastoral care.
• Restrictions: disputed messages, unauthorized groups, fundraising, or public claims.
• Supernatural origin: whether unjudged, not declared, or exceptionally addressed.
• Later developments: subsequent clarification or intervention.

Headlines should not say “Vatican approves apparition” when the document grants only a nihil obstat for pastoral devotion. Accuracy is part of the Eighth Commandment.

Before trusting, promoting, or publishing an apparition claim, ask:

• Can I locate the original ecclesiastical decree?
• Who had authority to issue it?
• What exact determination was made?
• What precisely was judged?
• Does the message conform to Catholic faith and morals?
• Are original texts and reliable translations available?
• Are financial interests transparent?
• Are leaders accountable and obedient?
• Are minors and vulnerable persons protected?
• Are medical and scientific claims accurately described?
• Have digital materials been checked for editing or fabrication?
• Does the devotion lead to Christ, the sacraments, charity, and ecclesial communion?
• Would my Catholic faith remain intact if the claim were restricted or rejected?

• Have I treated a private revelation as equal to Scripture or dogma?
• Have I used “approved” without knowing the exact judgment?
• Have I shared unverified messages, miracles, images, or predictions?
• Have I attacked bishops or investigators for proceeding cautiously?
• Have I dismissed sincere people with contempt?
• Have I ignored abuse or financial exploitation because a movement produced good feelings?
• Have I pressured another Catholic to accept a voluntary devotion?
• Would I obey a legitimate restriction concerning a devotion I love?
• Does my interest in extraordinary phenomena distract me from ordinary holiness?