Lipa – Approved!?

It was Father Jaime Moran who thought “that Teresita should not have been guided in these affairs by the M. Prioress, rather should have been by a competent director.”  Father Blas wholeheartedly agreed, adding “This whole affair suffers from this defect.”²¹

Significantly, Father Blas’ own solution was flawed: “Monsignor Obviar knew everything and the prioress would have done better to have allowed him to have been the guide instead of following her private auditions.”²²  Alfredo Obviar was the Auxiliary Bishop as well as the chaplain of the Carmel Convent.  To be Teresita’s director, he would in effect have judged Mother Cecilia’s locutions to be false, something outside his authority as Auxiliary.  But worse, it would have been a meddling in the events, a corrupting of their natural development.

Father Moran proposed exactly that meddling, which inherently entails judging said locutions.  However, what occurred in this concrete situation has an escapable internal logic.  The Prioress was Teresita’s superior, and thus her ordinary guide.  As Chaplain, Bishop Obviar’s primary role was supervision, not giving daily guidance to Teresita.  Additionally, Mother Cecilia reported everything to Monsignor Obviar, thus submitting to his judgment the appropriateness of the instructions from the voice.

This was the natural chain of command for the situation.  But Father Moran was a bit of a moron here.  Lipa was unusual wherein the Prioress had a secondary supernatural role.  While potentially unprecedented, it is inherently rational and thus admissible.  The commission errored greatly by not observing this as a legitimate possibility.

To elaborate, the initial fifteen Lipa apparitions were not public: they were directed to the Sisters of Lipa Carmel.  In this context, the messages to the unbelieving nuns, which sound odd, becomes appropriate.  Lipa only acquired a public dimension after these apparitions.

In the preparation stage, Mother Cecilia was instructed to care for Teresita, on an hourly basis at times.  This was a commitment that went far beyond the duties of an ordinary director, who would have effectively needed to move in, and thus essentially usurping the role of the Mother Superior.  Moreover, the Prioress’s actions were largely to care for her – not to give Teresita spiritual direction.

While not the visionary, the Prioress did have a role during apparitions, such as arranging the blessing of the grounds by Monsignor Obviar in conjunction with the fourth apparition, which she “received instructions”²³ for.  This was the structure of the events, primary/secondary recipients of the supernatural graces.  This ordering made perfect sense for the enclosed Convent at Lipa.

Father Moran said a “competent director” was called for.  But did he also propound that the dual recipient scenario is theologically prohibited?  Nothing suggests he did.  Indeed, any such argument would fall apart.  But in essence, his director theory implicitly denied the validity of it.  Indeed, no quarter was given to the possibility the Prioress was receiving messages.

While apparently unaware of the implicit judgments his position entailed, Father Moran destroyed Lipa’s underpinnings.  To the great detriment of the commission, without theology reflection, his destructive view became pervasive.

This undoubtedly impacted Father Angel’s perspective of the Prioress, which appears in his conclusion that “M. Cecilia convinced herself to believe she had been chosen to direct and advise the fortunate young woman.”²⁴  How could it be anything else?  For surely, the Prioress shouldn’t be the guide!  This error is further expanded with Father Angel’s assertion:

“It is incomprehensible for us to think that the Blessed Virgin would not know of the dangers or at least of the great inconvenience for a religious community to have its superior personally taking care of one particular member no matter how well informed the rest of the community is about the motives behind this care. M. Cecilia tries to settle this matter as she narrates it in her account.”²⁵

This is true but extremely false.  The Virgin would indeed know.  But this situation doesn’t grant license to those vowed to obedience to grumble.  Though “great inconvenience” betrays lack of reflection/understanding on how these things work.  For example, Lucia suffered greatly from her own mother as the apparitions unfolded at Fatima.  More generally, a prophet being martyred is nothing unusual.

Father Angel de Blas was not party to Mother Cecilia’s confession, nor was he aware of it.  This follows because he stated the Prioress “certainly believed that with the celebrated voice so often repeated they would save the day,” and after declaring them fiction ends with “nor does she herself seem to be very convinced of their existence.”²⁶    To paraphrase, he thought she believed though with some reservation.  This, however, is very different from lying.

Father Blas was a member of the investigation team with the Journal providing a glimpse into that commission, which was established by the CDF.  One item is that Father Jaime Moran and others seemed “to be [of] the opinion” that Lipa was “diabolical.”  But it was also Father Moran (see Appendix A) who made the error regarding the Prioress should not have been the guide.

Father Angel’s criticisms of Mother Cecilia’s faults, such as corrupting the messages, is well founded.  But he seems to have joined that with Father Moran’s error resulting in an overly harsh view of the Prioress.  For example, he writes: “In Jaro, I pointed out that as it was in her account, the most important person in all those events was her and not Teresita.”²⁷

Mother Cecilia’s account does describe the events from her vantage point.  But documenting what she knew firsthand was simply proper.  It is easy to read her account without getting the impression that “the most important person” was the Prioress.

Rather, it seems Father Blas was bordering on badgering, which elicited the non-defensive response: “She shrugged and with a very weak voice answered that she did not know.”  This correlates with Mother Cecilia’s words to Teresita during their encounter at University of Santo Tomas (UST) in Manila: “My desire was to be a silent sufferer for Mama Mary.”²⁸

But after all the Prioress was put through, Father Angel doesn’t report she was lying.  So what happened?  The investigation began in the spring/summer of 1949.  This was about six months before February 27th, 1950, the day Mother Cecilia was removed as Prioress.  The Journal isn’t dated, but was written after April 4th, 1950.

From available documents, it is impossible to deduce an exact timetable from when Teresita was interrogated (apparently early on) to when she saw Mother Cecilia at UST.  But Teresita did say the negative decision came (April of 1951) only “a few weeks” after she had met with the Prioress.  This implies Mother Cecilia had already “confessed” via “a series of letters” with the recipient (her superior?) being left to the imagination by CDF-2015.

From what June Keithley best “determined,”²⁹ the “local” commission (everyone believed it was local until around CDF-2015), was comprised of Father Angel de Blas, Doctor Leopoldo Pardo, Father Juan Ortega, Monsignor Casas and Monsignor Santos.  The Journal indicates Father Moran was also a member, and that they shared their views.  This indicates the commission was unaware of Mother Cecilia’s confession, or at least some of the members.  Finally, the Journal was presumably written after the commission submitted their report, or was the Journal Father Angel’s report to the CDF?

CDF-2015 states “After nearly two years evaluating all of the relevant testimony and opinions of theological experts, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office determined…”³⁰  As the CDF decree was signed in March of 1951, their involvement may initially have been direct before creating a formal commission, say six months later.

CDF-2015 also mentions “the experts sent by the Vatican to investigate the phenomenon.”³¹  Was Father Moran one of these experts, or was he a member of the commission?  The whole affair was shadowy, but evidently the commission reported to the CDF, with the CDF possibly working independently in parallel. 

Regarding Mother Cecilia, CDF-2015 records: “In one of these letters, she sought the forgiveness of the Holy Father…”³²  Father Angel’s tactics, with little doubt, left the Prioress shaken.  But the prior is a rather telltale sign of whose handy work it was that actually extracted the confession.  On the other hand, there is another suspect: “the director general of the Carmelite order.”³³  For a month or two, he daily visited the Convent, sending his progress reports to Rome.

But the testimony from the Carmel Sisters, and all other information related to Mother Cecilia’s character and the events, renders this confession unbelievable.  Rather, everything points to Mother Cecilia being “demolished,” as the respected Mariologist Father René Laurentin once phrased it:

“For a long time, people had thought that the most normal attitude with respect to visionaries was to contradict them, and to put them on trial, for ‘contradiction obtains the best proof that God is there.’

Such a principle is dangerous.  At times it has demolished or caused deviation in those who were its victims.  Even an authentic visionary does not necessarily have a charisma of stability and solidity.  They can be fragile.

The Church should help them in this difficult task, and not lead them into temptation.  It is to tempt God then, to place them in an impossible situation, for we defy the Creator in order to produce His trials.  God does not perform His miracles on request.  He acts in life.  Life is important then.  One must cultivate it, above all.³⁴

The Journal contains several mistakes regarding the dating of the blindness events.  It is confusing since there were two occasions of blindness with the same day of the month occurring in the start and end dates, and also with the start date and next start date prediction date…

The first blindness began on August 22nd and continued to September 7th.  This is correctly reported in the Journal on page 5.  But on page 6, both the month and day are wrong: “the voice indicated that Teresita would heal from blindness on October 2.”  The correct date of September 7th can be found on page 189 of Mother Cecilia’s Account.

The second blindness began on October 7th and ended on October 13th.  The Journal (page 5) reports the correct month, but incorrectly says it began on the 2nd and ended on the 10th.  Finally, on page 12 there are two additional errors: 1) “when speaking of the mass which was said on October 2” should be October 7th and 2) “The date of the 2nd, I believe was added to the message after verifying the blindness of the 22nd” should be the date of the 7th wherein September 22nd was when the second blindness was predicted.

There are two main possible sources for these errors, and it could be of combination of both.  Firstly, Father Blas may have transcribed the dates incorrectly or sloppily.  Secondly, and more probably, the translator read it incorrectly.  The translator had to leave several phrases of the Journal untranslated because the manuscript was illegible in spots.  One main discrepancy is between 2 and 7, numerals which are graphically close.  Hence, 7’s coming across as 2’s because of smudges or being indistinguishable from styling would be no surprise.

There is another difference between the Journal and Mother Cecilia’s Account: between 1 and 2, but now within the context of time.  The Journal reports the Account saying  “At one fifty-five the next day the voice indicated that Teresita would heal from blindness on October 2.”³⁵.  The June Keithley version of the Account goes: “At 2:55 in the afternoon of the same day, the voice said to the Mother that Sister Teresita would recover her sight on September 7.”³⁶ 

The time difference is 1:55 verses 2:55, the former having two versions.  Manolo González, the translator of the Journal, rendered this as “one and fifty-five” which was subsequently edited to “one fifty-five.”  If the Account is correct, the 2 was seen as a 1.  This is consistent: 7 is seen as 2, whereas 2 is seen as 1.  Of note, this single sentence has three differences: time, month and day – suggesting the Journal manuscript was barely readable here.

However, there are other considerations.  Mother Cecilia wrote her account in English, but this was “translated into Spanish”³⁷ for Bishop Alfredo Verzosa, the Ordinary of Lipa.  Now, Father Angel de Blas was a Spaniard who wrote the Journal in Spanish.  As such, he might have been working with the Spanish version of Mother Cecilia’s account.  Was there a mistake in that translation?  Is the Spanish version still extant?  Its translation back to English was still available to Keithley back in 1990.  It would be interesting to know if the English and Spanish versions coincide on these points.

Another possibility is the “original” account per Keithley was actually an edited version with October 2 corrected to September 7.  Moreover, without enumerating all possibilities, the Spanish version could have been wrong regarding 1:55.  In any case, while the correct time is less certain, the correct dating is definite as the narrative makes clear; except for the 2nd blindness healing on October 13th.  Both the Prioress and Teresita gave that date whereas the Journal stated it was the 10th.  The narrative here is less certain, and 3 becoming 0 is a new error form, yet the 13th seems more authoritative.

The original version of this appendix presented the dating difference as being non-conclusive per author’s befuddlement from the multiple errors.  But for the most part, it is fairly simple.  That version also began with the section that comes next, which originally provided another possibility for the discrepancies.  While that purpose is now mostly moot, the section was retained as it still provides useful information.

There is the question of whether the locutions were interior or exterior.  Father Blas stated that Teresita repeatedly said that the voices always came in front of her.  In other words, her “auditions” were exterior locutions.  This is collaborated by “these would cease with the voice disappearing and without experiencing anything special or sensation of any kind.”³⁸  Interior mystical experiences generally leave the soul in an elevated state of grace, an effect absent for Teresita’s auditions, which Father Blas duly ascertained.

Exterior locutions are consistent with individuals being introduced to the mystical life, where phenomenon initially is at the sensory level.  As preparation for the apparitions, this makes sense.  Particularly, as Teresita was also subjected to the demonic.  That was trial enough without having it being induced from within as well.

But regarding Mother Cecilia, the Journal doesn’t indicate if the voice was exterior or not.  Father Blas used the term “auditions” when discussing the Prioress, though he employed “locutions” two times as well.  But as he believed her auditions were false, he either didn’t investigate that aspect or didn’t bother to report it.  June Keithley did report these as being interior locutions, although without substantiation for that classification.

The classification is significant because exterior locutions are more dangerous: they can more readily be counterfeited by the enemy.  Furthermore, without touching the interior, they can leave virtually no fingerprint as to their origin.  But regardless, visionaries are not infallible.  A message from Fatima illustrates this – a prophecy from no less the October 13th apparition.

Both Lucia and Jacinta persistently testified that the Lady said the war would end “today.”  As this is patently false, and cannot be reconciled with words coming from the Virgin, the best explanation is they simply heard wrong, even within that major apparition.  Apparitions are exterior which are presented to the senses.  However they also penetrate within and instill some measure of ecstasy.  But as both heard wrong (or at least remembered wrong), this leaves an external disturbance as the most probable suspect.

Interior locutions are known to have their share of errors, which stem from inattention, demonic interference or other disruptions.  This could have been a factor with Mother Cecilia’s locutions, especially with all the 7’s and 22’s involved.  But the explanation is much more likely to be among the possibilities given above.

The suppression of those involved has made discovering what transpired difficult.  All six Bishops had already died when June Keithley started her investigation.  The “six hour meeting” was based on an interview with Mr. Dychangco.  In 1982, he talked with Bishop Vicente Reyes, the only one then still alive.

Dychangco states Bishop Reyes said “I was a young bishop then.  I was called to the Arzobispado in Intramuros at nine o’clock in the morning.  We had a conference there.  At around three o’ clock, we signed the document that it was not true.”³⁹

Bishop Reyes further stated it was “a commission who investigated.”  These six Bishops may have been given the investigation results.  Nevertheless, taking Dychangco’s testimony at face value, the timeframe is ridiculous, even for simply reading and comprehending the material.

As a prelude, Saint Thomas Aquinas will be cited: “Wherefore promulgation is necessary for the law to obtain its force.”  Promulgation is thus a vital component for validity.  It is said the essence of law is the intent of the legislator.  But that intent must include the intention to promulgate, even if that entails a separate act.  The question here is whether disclosing who made the law is also an essential component.

As a historical note, Church law is often custom.  Promulgation wasn’t codified until 1908 when Pope Pius X issued Promulgandi pontificias.  This apostolic constitution “determined the ordinary method of promulgating pontifical laws” is inserting the text into the AAS.  But handling exceptional cases in another manner is permitted.  Canon 8 (1917 Code) is a restatement of this constitution.

Now, to provide a more detailed (and colorful) argument said decree was not promulgated, let us begin by renaming CDF-1951 to Decree 51, which is not to be confused with Area 51 albeit Decree 51 to date has been more secretive.

Decree 51 has at least three elements and possibly four, which correspond to: Who, Why, What and maybe Therefore.  Who is unquestionably known: it was the CDF whose actions had papal approval.  Why is more murky.  But with high confidence, it summaries to the alleged apparitions were purely natural in origin with the main reason being the Prioress’ confession (both points are elucidated in CDF-2015).  What is the declaration of non-supernatural.  Therefore could be 1) restrictions on the statue, 2) orders to destroy everything.

Of these elements, what is the minimal set required for valid promulgation?  Who was not published, Why was partly published, What was fully published, and Therefore (as stated) was 1) published and 2) duly executed.  Was that sufficient?  Let’s examine the practical effects, first for the laity.

A decree provides guidance on what to believe and prescriptions on how to act.  Here, Why was mostly redundant per What: nothing supernatural was found so it was declared non-supernatural.  But the missing Who diminishes its credibility.  Several apparitions rejected by the Local Ordinary were later approved.  But for papal decisions, such a reversal has never occurred, though it remains possible.  Therefore, of course, must be followed.

The same applies to the clergy, but for Bishops, Who had a nondisclosed restriction.  The Ordinary or national hierarchy could reverse the published Who but not the “promulgated” Who.  This first surfaced with the 2009 incident, resulting in closure of the commission charged with compiling documents.  Exactly what (though apparently not all What) the CDF told Archbishop Ramón Argüelles is unknown, though the lack of transparency evidently left him with doubts.

However, things can be simplified as two of the elements can be resolved as being nonessential.  While generally useful, Why strictly is secondary.  Though here, charity was a motivation not to fully disclose Why.  And this remains one of the reasons for the CDF’s reluctance to publish Decree 51.  The other non-essential element is Therefore because that could be handled separately.  This leaves Who and What, which intuitively are the essential elements of a decree.  Let’s try excluding them, one by one.

Say there is Who but no What, or rather some What.  For example, a Local Ordinary decrees an apparition is either non-supernatural or not established, but decided not to say which.  Or perhaps the Holy See proclaims that.  This is decidedly loopy, though curiously it somewhat serves the purpose (per some What) since an apparition decree is not binding in conscious.  But a decree without definitely decreeing something is definitely loopy.

Now consider the converse: What is proclaimed but Who is left ambiguous.  Here, a negative decree is plainly issued though with Who only revealed as either the Local Ordinary, the national hierarchy, the CDF or the Supreme Pontiff.  Is this case confined to the realm of preposterous academic possibilities?  But preposterously enough, with minor nuance, this is Lipa.  The difference is the former would be truthful, while Lipa was an outright lie: the Nuncio lied that the decree had local authority.  Here, we have a purported law without definite authority.

The above indicates that both elements are necessary.  For how can there be a papal law without known papal authority, and well, an actual law?  Decree 51’s papal authority was only made public in 2010 (existence in 2016, verbatim contents slated for 2251).  The question if the moderator in 1951 was given special faculties to handle promulgation is evidently moot.  The Nuncio’s action effectively prohibited correction, outside of creating an international spectacle.  Only in 2015 did the CDF act without equivocation.  But already in 1983, the 1917 Code was abrogated.

In the current code, Canon 4 states “acquired rights and privileges… remain intact if they are in use.”  But this differs from faculties, which is not mentioned in the pertinent section.  Faculties is a power and CDF-2015 made no indication of it.  Furthermore, the moderator has long been deceased, and transference of faculties wasn’t found in the 1917 code.

This conclusion is collaborated by basic delegation principles.  Specifically, delegation “ceases if the work assigned to the delegate has been completed.”  Additionally, delegation ceases is if the delegation is revoked or if the delegate dies.  As the Pope/CDF apparently believed the Nuncio had completed his task, the special faculties would have ended.

If they believed otherwise, propagation faculties would have ended with the moderator’s death.  And as noted in the main article, without promulgation, Decree 51 would be invalid with the CDF by itself powerless to promulgate it with papal authority.

Furthermore, after 1958, Decree 51 was reduced from a potential decree to a historical document for only Pope Pius XII could authorize the promulgation of his own decision.  Granted, a subsequent Pope could make the decree his own, but Pope Pius XII’s signature, per se, evidently lost its value with his decease.

The question of what (What plus Who?) constitutes valid promulgation boils down to its definition.  Promulgation is not defined in either code of Canon Law.  It is such a basic concept that, unsurprisingly, it was not explicitly defined.  While this has an implicit definition per usage, it also can be gleaned from logic, which was already stated in the main article in conjunction with a valid promulgation definition must be reasonable.  CDF-2015 implies a papal law can be promulgated without saying it is a papal law, which in itself is a fairly good definition of unreasonableness.

And it is not as if CDF-2015 didn’t contain mistakes.  Decree 51 made the determination of “constat de non supernaturalitate.”  This was characterized by CDF-2015 as “a definitive formulation in the applicable law, indicating that the events were unambiguously natural in their character and origin.”⁴⁰  This is incorrect.  The formulation means nothing supernatural occurred, which leaves natural and/or preternatural.

The promulgation question here concerns the foundation of law.  Knowing who made the law has been presented as an obvious requirement for a valid law.  The concept of God revealing being the basis of Divine Law’s authority comes to mind.  Yet, it is for the Church to decide, though the Church may already know the answer.

To recap, within the Nuncio’s created parallel universe, the puppet show was the simulated reality.  This was a bubble that only the Supreme Pontiff could burst.  So after his death, as argued, the CDF was left empty handed, and handed down a void decree from an era with bad practices for investigating apparitions.  It also removes the good name of Pope Pius XII from this injustice.  It thus seems appropriate that Decree 51 be issued a death certificate with its tombstone engraved with the following epitaph: Decree 51 - the only papal decree that never was a papal decree.  (optional: Who is on First)