How the Church Judges Marian Apparitions

Apparition Discernment

A guide to the authority, verdicts, and evaluation criteria the Catholic Church uses when a reported Marian apparition is investigated.

The Catholic Church does not judge an alleged apparition by popular devotion or media attention. Under the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2024 norms, the local diocesan bishop investigates a reported phenomenon, weighs it against a defined set of positive and negative criteria, and, acting in agreement with the Dicastery, issues one of six possible verdicts, ranging from encouragement to outright prohibition. Only in rare cases, and only with the Pope’s own authorization, does the Church go further and declare an event supernatural in origin.

Who Has the Authority to Judge an Apparition?

When Catholics ask whether the Church has approved a reported apparition, they are usually asking about a specific, canonical process rather than a matter of popular opinion. That process begins with the diocesan bishop, the authority the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2024 norms name as competent to investigate an alleged supernatural phenomenon occurring within his own diocese. A bishop does not typically work alone. He normally convenes a commission of experts, theologians, canonists, and, where relevant, psychologists or physicians, to examine the reported events, interview the visionary or visionaries, and assess the fruits the phenomenon has produced among the faithful.

The bishop does not have the final word on his own, however. Once his investigation is complete, he formulates his conclusion in a formal opinion called a votum and submits it to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. The Dicastery reviews that opinion and must give its approval before the bishop is permitted to make any public statement about the case. When the bishop finally does announce a verdict, his statement explicitly notes that he is acting “in agreement with the Dicastery”. This two-tier structure, local investigation paired with Roman review, is meant to protect against both premature enthusiasm on the ground and remote, disconnected judgments from a distance. It also means that no single reported vision, weeping statue, or private message carries any ecclesial weight at all until this process has run its course.

The Six Possible Verdicts Under the 2024 Norms

On 17 May 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued new “Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena”, replacing the norms that had governed such cases since 1978. Rather than the older, narrower choice between declaring an event “worthy of belief” or not, the 2024 norms give the Dicastery six distinct verdicts a bishop’s investigation can arrive at, allowing a much more nuanced response to phenomena that are rarely all good or all bad.

Nihil obstat (“nothing stands in the way”) — no particularly critical elements are found, and signs of the Holy Spirit’s action are recognized. The bishop is encouraged to appreciate and promote the phenomenon’s spiritual value. Importantly, this verdict does not declare the phenomenon supernatural in origin; see our dedicated explainer on what Nihil obstat actually means for a full treatment.
Prae oculis habeatur (“let it be kept in mind”) — positive signs are present, but some confusion or risk factors call for careful episcopal vigilance and possibly further doctrinal clarification, without any prohibition being issued.
Curatur (“it is being handled”) — significant critical elements are present, yet the phenomenon has already spread widely and shown verifiable spiritual fruit. The bishop neither bans it nor actively promotes it, but works to steer it toward a healthier expression.
Sub mandato (“under mandate”) — the difficulties trace back not to the phenomenon itself but to how particular individuals are exploiting it, financially, morally, or through unauthorized pastoral activity, so the bishop takes direct pastoral oversight of it.
Prohibetur et obstruatur (“it is prohibited and obstructed”) — serious risks or critical issues lead the bishop to publicly prohibit the phenomenon, paired with clear catechesis explaining the reasons why.
Declaratio de non supernaturalitate (“declaration of non-supernaturality”) — based on concrete evidence, such as an admitted fabrication or documented proof of deception, the Church declares that the phenomenon is not supernatural.

These six outcomes are not necessarily permanent. A case can move between categories as new evidence emerges, as the visionary’s or the community’s fruits mature or sour, or as a bishop’s ongoing vigilance under a Curatur or Sub mandato verdict produces a clearer picture over time.

What the Church Weighs in Its Judgment

Articles 14 through 16 of the 2024 norms lay out, in some detail, the kinds of evidence a bishop’s commission is expected to weigh on both sides of the ledger. None of these factors is decisive by itself; the Church looks at the whole pattern formed by all of them together.

Signs That Favor a Phenomenon

The personal credibility of those involved: mental equilibrium, honesty, moral uprightness, sincerity, and humility, together with a genuine willingness to cooperate with, rather than resist, Church authority.
Doctrinal soundness: any messages or content associated with the phenomenon contain nothing contrary to Catholic faith or morals.
An absence of staging: a credible sense that the events were not orchestrated or manufactured by those involved.
Genuine spiritual fruit: conversions, an increase in prayer and sacramental life, vocations, works of charity, and a deepening of communion with the Church rather than division from it.

Signs That Raise Concern

Clear factual errors connected to the reported event, or doctrinal errors mixed into what is claimed to be revealed.
A sectarian spirit that produces division within the Church rather than communion.
An evident pursuit of profit, power, fame, or social recognition by those involved with the phenomenon.
Gravely immoral conduct on the part of the person reporting the events, or of those who have gathered around the phenomenon.
Psychological disturbances or pathological conditions affecting the person reporting the events.
Use of the phenomenon as a means, or a pretext, for exercising control over people or committing abuses, a concern the norms single out for special attention in Article 16.

The Rare Exception: A Papal Declaration of Supernatural Origin

None of the six verdicts above, including Nihil obstat, amounts to the Church formally declaring that an apparition definitely happened as a supernatural event. That is a deliberate feature of the 2024 norms, not an oversight. The Pope himself retains the authority to authorize a separate, special procedure that could conclude in an actual declaration of supernatural origin, but the norms’ own presentation describes this as “an exception that has been made only rarely in recent centuries”. Catholics should not expect this outcome for most cases, even well-regarded ones, and should be cautious of devotional material that implies an ordinary Nihil obstat or diocesan recognition is the equivalent of this rare papal act.

Why Some of the Church’s Oldest Shrines Have No Formal Declaration

It can surprise Catholics to learn that many of the Church’s oldest and most beloved Marian shrines never received a formal declaration of supernatural origin at all, a point the 2024 norms themselves acknowledge. Their devotion instead rests on the sensus fidelium, the long, lived sense of the faithful, sustained and tested across many generations, rather than on a single technical decree issued at one moment in history. This is a helpful corrective to the instinct to treat a formal verdict as the only legitimate basis for devotion: the Church’s discernment process exists mainly to protect the faithful in newer, still-open cases, not to retroactively certify every shrine that has quietly nourished Catholic piety for centuries.

It is also worth being clear about what the 2024 norms do not do. They govern how new and still-open cases are discerned going forward; they were not applied retroactively to reopen cases that had already received a definitive judgment under earlier practice, whether that judgment came from the nineteenth or twentieth century, or under the 1978 norms that the 2024 document replaced. Well-known nineteenth and twentieth-century apparitions such as those at Lourdes, Fatima, Beauraing, and Banneux were settled by the bishops of their own dioceses well before the current framework existed, and those settled judgments were not reopened by the 2024 reform.

Seeing the Framework Applied

Since the 2024 norms took effect, the Dicastery has already applied the new six-verdict system to a number of open cases, issuing a Nihil obstat for the Medjugorje spiritual experience in September 2024, a Nihil obstat for the Marian devotion at Montichiari, also known as Rosa Mystica, in July 2024, and a Declaratio de non supernaturalitate for the alleged 1945 to 1959 Amsterdam apparitions known as Our Lady of All Nations, also in July 2024. These brief examples illustrate the real range the six verdicts cover in practice, from encouragement to formal rejection, though a full account of any one of these cases is beyond the scope of this overview. For a case where the Church’s process unfolded under the older, pre-2024 norms and produced a comparatively strong, though still contested, local judgment, see our page on Akita and Catholic devotion.