USCCB bishops' committee deems Our Lady of America apparitions "not objective private revelation"

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tis_Bearself

Patron
With all the COVID business going on, I missed this story from May till recently. A USCCB committee reviewed the Rome, Indiana/ Fostoria, Ohio “Our Lady of America” apparitions to the late Sister Mary Ephrem aka Sister Mildred Neuzil, and while they didn’t find anything wrong with the sister’s character or sincerity and noted positive effects (good fruit), they decided not to approve it because of St. Joseph being called “co-redeemer” along with Jesus and Mary.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...merica-not-objective-private-revelation-33977

This investigation was done after apparently many inquiries by the faithful, no doubt stemming from Cardinal Burke’s support of the apparition, and its being discussed positively in Fr Calloway’s “Consecration to St Joseph” book, as well as on Mystics of the Church website and other places.

My thoughts:
  1. The bishops didn’t forbid private devotion, which was already authorized decades ago by Archbishop Leibold of Cincinnati, so that’s great, I’ll just carry on with my First Wednesdays .
  2. Although they don’t seem to base this on the canonical status of Sister Mildred’s eventual order, which is suppressed nowadays although it doesn’t affect Sister herself who died age 83 in 2000 and was buried from the Basilica of Our Lady of Consolation in Ohio, I am sure the current canonical status of the order doesn’t help matters.
  3. I also bet the bishops weren’t keen on the idea of publicly processing an Our Lady of America statue through the National Shrine. Probably think it would look too nationaliistic
  4. I have a feeling we have not heard the last of this.
Anyone wishing to discuss on the thread, please do not post material from the unapproved private revelation itself unless it’s part of the news story or related articles, so we stay within forum guidelines. We can talk about the private devotions as the “approval for faith expression” from Archbishop Leibold was not overruled.
 
Last edited:
What authority has been imputed to a … committee, which is not the local ordinary or the Roman Pontiff? Has the Holy See delegated them this as a final decision?
 
The committee is made up of the bishops of all the dioceses where Sister Mildred Mary said she had private revelations. Her order transferred her around to different locations. Her spiritual advisor during her life, Archbishop Leibold of Cincinnati, reportedly said he would have approved the revelations, but because she was not located in his diocese he didn’t think he had the authority. The local bishop where the revelations happen is the one with authority to approve.

It looks like Bishop Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend Indiana did the initial investigation and issued his own statement last year. I’m guessing he was maybe approached first because the current Catholic owners of the Rome City IN/ Kneipp Springs historic property where the original appariions were said to take place are trying to fix it up and turn it into a shrine/ pilgrimage destination, and it’s in his diocese. Sister Mildred’s order, the Sisters of the Precious Blood, had sold the property in the 60s or 70s to a Protestant group (some say a cult) called The Way International, who more or less wrecked it and destroyed much of the Catholic chapel that was the original apparition site. A Catholic group was finally able to buy it back, renamed it Our Mother of Mercy Center, and is working on rehabbing it. Obviously an approved apparition would draw crowds.

Bishop Rhoades apparently decided not to approve the apparition, then went around getting bishops of all the other dioceses where Sister reported having private revelations to read his report and agree with it, and got the USCCB to give the stamp of approval to this process. Obviously their conclusion is at odds with Cardinal Burke and would seem to contradict Archbishop Leibold and his successor as well. I presume the Vatican could be asked to review, but I doubt that will happen under Pope Francis.

I hope one day they can find new evidence and revisit this. This Sister suffered a lot during her life and her diary and such were mishandled after her death and became the subject of legal action. I also tend to agree that most US bishops today have little knowledge of the supernatural and are not comfortable with it. Unlike Cardinal Burke.
 
Last edited:
Well if Cardinal Burke was approving of the supposed apparitions that must make them true, right?
 
They’re not being called untrue. They’re being called subjective spiritual experiences.

The issue isn’t just Cardinal Burke, it’s that a previous Archbishop authorized devotions which remain authorized, and according to these bishops there’s nothing wrong with the character or motives of the seer, or with the fruit of the apparition, and no possibility of future questionable messages as the seer is dead for 20 years. It’s that this decision leaves the revelations in the weird position of still being approved for private devotion while not being approved for public devotion, but not being disapproved or suppressed.

I’m not aware of any other apparitions that have ended up in this position (usually the bishops would just approve for faith expression and decline to investigate further) and like I said I think it’s because the bishops don’t want to process the Mary statue and are sick of getting petitions and inquiries, but also don’t want to discourage people living a pure life and praying to Mother Mary in her role as US patroness.

If anyone else is aware of apparitions being in this unusual state, please post.
 
Last edited:
Here’s a good one: Michael O’Neill who runs miraclehunter.com on Relevant Radio claiming this is “case closed, final judgment” when his own website still lists it in the “approved” category because it’s still “approved for faith expression”. Although to his credit his website does note that the apparition itself is not approved and links both documents by Bishop Rhoades.

These categories of “approvals” are an all-day task to figure out sometimes.

https://relevantradio.com/2020/05/w...t-approve-the-our-lady-of-america-apparition/

I also re-checked Fr. Calloway’s “Consecration to St. Joseph” book and he’s got 5 whole pages on the alleged appariions of St. Joseph to Sister Mildred Mary in there. (It’s in the “Wonder 8” chapter for those who have the book.) I wonder if the next edition of his book is going to have to take that out or just add a footnote. If I get a chance I will ask him.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
These categories of “approvals” are an all-day task to figure out sometimes.
Click to expand...
This one got the shoulder shrug.

Apparently enough people were bothering the bishops about it that the bishops had to make their “we don’t know yet” into an official “we don’t know”. Glad that’s cleared up. Now, on to Medjugorje.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Her spiritual advisor during her life, Archbishop Leibold of Cincinnati, reportedly said he would have approved the revelations
Click to expand...
the article says he didn’t approve of the revelations for public devotion. He did approve of a prayer attached to the devotion.
Tis_Bearself said:
Bishop Rhoades apparently decided not to approve the apparition,
Click to expand...
and he made this decision after his commission couldn’t find any objective evidence to lead him to believe these revelations supernatural:

"“Looking at the nature and quality of the experiences themselves, we find that they are more to be described as subjective inner religious experiences rather than objective external visions and revelations,” Bishop Rhoades wrote.

Without objective evidence, there was no other conclusion for the Bishops to make. Claiming that 6 Bishops don’t know what they are doing strikes me as odd.
 
vsedriver said:
the article says he didn’t approve of the revelations for public devotion. He did approve of a prayer attached to the devotion.
Click to expand...
Correct, he didn’t approve the revelations because she wasn’t in his diocese and he didn’t have the authority. Then he got sick and died.
As I wrote, he said he would have approved them if he could. He was her longtime spiritual advisor.
vsedriver said:
Claiming that 6 Bishops don’t know what they are doing strikes me as odd.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting statement to make on this forum where people second-guess whole groups of bishops all day and all night on all kinds of matters.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
As I wrote, he said he would have approved them if he could. He was her longtime spiritual advisor.
Click to expand...
according to what the Bishops wrote they claim he never approved of the supernatural origin of the messages but only approved that they weren’t against church teaching. The report doesn’t mention anywhere that Archbishop Leibold believed the messages had supernatural origin. But it would be a moot point if he lacked the authority to make that designation.
Tis_Bearself said:
That’s an interesting statement to make on this forum where people second-guess whole groups of bishops all day and all night on all kinds of matters.
Click to expand...
True for this group. And I have noticed that when bishops don’t do or say what someone thinks they should be doing or saying they often insinuate some nefarious reason that the bishop doesn’t get it right as they see it.

I think the case was brought before the bishop who included any other bishops that were in authority where Sister Mildred had lived. Reviewed the materials and concluded there was insufficient evidence to determine that her messages were of a supernatural origin. I don’t think they reached their conclusion with any malice toward Sister Mildred.
 
vsedriver said:
The report doesn’t mention anywhere that Archbishop Leibold believed the messages had supernatural origin.
Click to expand...
It’s not in the bishops’ report, but in another article. Not sure if it’s mentioned in the Relevant Radio article I posted or a different one as I have read a lot on this apparition for the last couple years.

As spiritual advisor, his (name removed by moderator)ut to the investigation would have been most helpful to this process, although no guarantee of an outcome. It’s too bad it wasn’t investigated while he was alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top