Our obligation toward private revelations

By Thomas V. Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Dec 20, 2023

Last year, I wrote an article against the dismissive attitude some Catholics have toward private revelation, exemplified in the common statement, “Private revelation is optional; you don’t have to believe it”. At the time, I wrote that people who say this often “do not necessarily mean that they think the revelation is false. It is something more like: mere private revelation cannot be very important for the Church and the world, and it cannot be said to place any obligation on us; perhaps it is even a matter of indifference whether we pay attention to it.”

This claim is often made with great confidence as though this were the official position of the Church. So I began my article with a close reading of the Catechism’s paragraph on what it calls “so-called ‘private revelation’”, showing that it does not support the above position.

I also made general arguments based on the nature of truth and its claim on our intellect and conscience. In reality, there can be no division between “required truths” and “optional truths”. The statement that “you don’t have to believe it” is true only insofar as disbelieving it will not make you a heretic (a low bar to set); nonetheless, as rational human beings we are obligated to believe anything that is true. Thus, if a private revelation has been sufficiently confirmed by evidence, we are obligated to accept it just as we are obligated to accept anything that is real, regardless of whether it is a criterion of religious orthodoxy. One may in good conscience be unconvinced by a particular claimed revelation, but to use the word “optional” totally misconceives the relationship of the mind with truth.

Finally, I made an argument about the category of private revelation, which is best understood as a form of prophecy. St. Paul enjoins, “Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good” (1Thessalonians 5:19-21). The gift of prophecy has not ceased with the end of the Old Testament; it still serves, as the Catechism says of private revelation, “to help [us] live more fully by [public revelation] in a certain period of history”. St. Thomas Aquinas goes so far as to say that “Prophecy is requisite for the government of a people, especially in relation to Divine worship.”

To consider private revelation dispensable, then, is certainly to despise prophecy. As the Old Testament and the history of the Church amply show, God expects us not only to obey His universal laws, but to follow His counsels for the conversion of our particular time and place, counsels transmitted through our superiors in the Church and through the saints and prophets He raises up in our own time. If we ignore these, it is because our love has grown cold and we are resisting conversion.

The above does not exhaust the arguments I made in the original essay, but the reason I bring all this up again is that a reader of that article, Gene Zannetti, recently sent me a whole collection of passages from various Catholic authorities commenting on our obligations toward private revelations. Now when I wrote my article, I was largely ignorant of what theologians had already written on this topic; I relied mainly on the Catechism, Scripture and reason. For that reason, it was fascinating to see that many esteemed theologians of the past not only made similar arguments, but went even further than I did in their claims that private revelations can impose obligations on the faithful.

So as a supplement to the original article, and with thanks to Gene Zannetti, I present here this series of citations from theological authorities. A word on the nature of these authorities: many of the citations are from classic theological manuals. While those manuals are not magisterial, each of them was given an imprimatur and approved by the Church for use in teaching seminarians. So while no one of them can be used as a proof text, what I wish to emphasize is that after reading these quotes, no one can honestly present “private revelation is optional” as though it were the indisputable Catholic position.

The charisms of the Spirit in the Church

In order to understand our obligation toward private revelation, we need to see it in the wider context of the gifts of the Spirit operating in the life of the Church. To set the stage, here are three longer passages, two from ecumenical councils and one from St. Thomas Aquinas.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 12:

“It is not only through the sacraments and the ministries of the Church that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God and enriches it with virtues, but, ‘allotting his gifts to everyone according as He wills, He distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts He makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: ‘The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit’. These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church. Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after, nor are the fruits of apostolic labor to be presumptuously expected from their use; but judgment as to their genuinity and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.”

Lateran V (1516), Session 11a:

“If the Lord reveals to certain of them, by some inspiration, some future events in the church of God, as he promises by the prophet Amos and as the apostle Paul, the chief of preachers, says, Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, we have no wish for them to be counted with the other group of story-tellers and liars or to be otherwise hindered. For, as Ambrose bears witness, the grace of the Spirit himself is being extinguished if fervour in those beginning to speak is quietened by contradiction. In that case, a wrong is certainly done to the holy Spirit. The matter is important inasmuch as credence must not be easily given to every spirit and, as the Apostle states, the spirits have to be tested to see whether they come from God. It is therefore our will that as from now, by common law, alleged inspirations of this kind, before they are published, or preached to the people, are to be understood as reserved for examination by the apostolic see. If it is impossible to do this without danger of delay, or some pressing need suggests other action, then, keeping the same arrangement, notice is to be given to the local ordinary so that, after he has summoned three or four knowledgeable and serious men and carefully examined the matter with them, they may grant permission if this seems to them to be appropriate. We lay the responsibility for this decision on their consciences.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 174, Art.6:

“Prophecy is directed to the knowledge of Divine truth, by the contemplation of which we are not only instructed in faith, but also guided in our actions, according to Ps. xlii. 3, Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me. …As regards the guidance of human acts, the prophetic revelation varied not according to the course of time, but according as circumstances required, because as it is written (Prov. xxix. 18), When prophecy shall fail, the people shall be scattered abroad. Wherefore at all times men were divinely instructed about what they were to do, according as it was expedient for the spiritual welfare of the elect… As Jerome says on this passage, This does not mean that there were no more prophets after John. For we read in the Acts of the apostles that Agabus and the four maidens, daughters of Philip, prophesied. John, too, wrote a prophetic book about the end of the Church; and at all times there have not been lacking persons having the spirit of prophecy, not in deed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts. Thus Augustine says (De Ci. Dei, v. 26) that the emperor Theodosius sent to John who dwelt in the Egyptian desert, and whom he knew by his ever-increasing fame to be endowed with the prophetic spirit: and from him he received a message assuring him of victory.”

Theologians on private revelation

Now for some passages from Church-approved theology texts which deal specifically with our obligation towards private revelation. Some of these passages concern the obligation laid upon the person who is the direct and immediate recipient of the revelation, but others apply to anyone to whom that revelation has been proposed with convincing evidence. I have occasionally added commentary in brackets.

Cardinal Lambertini (Pope Benedict XIV), Heroic Virtue, Vol. 3 (1738), p.394:

“What is to be said of those to whom the revelations are directed…he to whom that private revelation is proposed and announced, ought to believe and obey the command or message of God, if it be proposed to him on sufficient evidence; for God speaks to him, at least by means of another, and therefore requires him to believe; hence it is, that he is bound to believe God, Who requires him to do so.”

Thomas Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. 1 (1925), p.111:

“It is not heresy, though sinful, to reject what is known to have been revealed by God in a private revelation.”

John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology, Vol. 1 (1929), p.307:

“Heresy is ‘opposed to faith.’ By faith here is understood divine faith, especially divine and Catholic faith (see 755). Hence, an error opposed to what one held to be a genuine private revelation, or to the public revelation, especially when dogmatically defined by the Church, is heretical. On the contrary, an error opposed to ecclesiastical faith alone, to human faith, or to human science, is not of itself heretical. Examples: The Saints who received special private revelations from Christ with proofs of their genuineness would have been guilty of heresy, had they refused to believe.”

Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S.,D.D., Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology (1930), p. 701:

“Many theologians are of the opinion that the persons themselves to whom such revelations are made and those for whom they are destined may believe in them with real Faith, provided they have had clear proof of their authenticity.” [Note the inclusion not only of the original recipient but on those to whom the visionary has been tasked with conveying the message—the message could be “destined” for another private person, some Churchman, the Pope, a specific community, or the whole people of God.]

Francis J. Connell, Outlines of Moral Theology (1952), p.67:

“A private revelation must be believed by those individuals for whom it is intended. However, no one is obliged to believe the statement of another that a private revelation has been made for him unless good assurance has been given that it is really from God. Usually such assurance is given through evident miracles. Persons for whom the revelation is not intended are not bound to accept it as a divine message, although they would do wrong if they positively denied it or derided it when there is good evidence that it came from God.” [Note again that the revelation could be intended for someone else in addition to the immediate recipient, and the obligation for the former to believe, given sufficient assurance.]

Fr. Antonio Royo Marin, O.P., The Theology of Christian Perfection (1954), p.661:

“If, after a prudent judgment, it is determined that a given revelation is authentic, the one who has received the revelation should accept it in the spirit of faith. It is disputed among the theologians whether this act of faith is an act of divine faith; it seems to us that it is. Moreover, if a private revelation contains a message for others and it has been accepted as an authentic revelation, those persons also have an obligation to accept the truth of the revelation and act upon it.”

Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 3, Sources of Revelation (1961), p.215:

“It seems indisputable that even a private revelation—at least if it is concerned with matters bearing some relationship to God as our goal—can be believed by the same virtue of faith by which we believe a truth publicly revealed…Granting that the divine origin of the revelation can be established with certainty, the question arises whether such revelations not only can be believed but ought to be believed. Briefly we think the answer is this: such a revelation ought to be believed both by the one who receives it and by those for whom it is destined: the rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin.”

Jordan Auman, O.P., Spiritual Theology (1980), p.429:

“If a private revelation contains a message for others and it has been accepted as an authentic revelation, those persons also have an obligation to accept the truth of the revelation and act upon it.“