Frederick News-Post Sunday, December 8th, 2002)


(Page 1)
Church takes neutral stance on apparitions
EMMITSBURG -- A Catholic church commission studying claims by a
Pennsylvania woman that she had visions of the Virgin Mary, recently
said it did not believe the claims, sparking debate about how the woman
was portrayed in the findings and how the commission conducted its
investigation.
(Next Page)
Church takes neutral stance on apparitions
By Tom Lobianco
News-Post Staff
EMMITSBURG -- A Catholic church commission studying claims by a
Pennsylvania woman that she had visions of the Virgin Mary, recently
said it did not believe the claims, sparking debate about how the woman
was portrayed in the findings and how the commission conducted its
investigation.
Dr. Michael Sullivan, medical director of the nonprofit health care
provider Mission of Mercy and husband of the alleged visionary, Gianna
Talone-Sullivan, said he is concerned about the negative image the
commission painted of his wife and inaccuracies in news stories about
the findings.
Baltimore Cardinal William Keeler convened the commission, composed of
three experts on church law, in May 2001. Cardinal Keeler accepted the
group's findings in September 2002.
The commission could have taken one of three stances: Approve the
visions, neither approve nor condemn the visions or condemn the visions
as false. Although the commission chose the neutral stance, Dr. Sullivan
and some theologians believe the group negatively portrayed Ms.
Talone-Sullivan, blurring the line between disinterest and condemnation.

The commission did not find the evidence it needed to verify or condemn
the visions and thus stated that it did not believe in the claim.
"The key word here is the cardinal 'accepts' the recommendation of the
commission and leaves himself some wiggle room," Dr. Sullivan said. "He
doesn't agree; he doesn't disagree. For now he just accepts" what the
commission says.
"Basically they have sort of taken a really middle of the road approach,
but have tried to brush a real negative element over it. There's no
restriction on further distribution of public messages."
Ms. Talone-Sullivan drew large crowds to weekly prayer meetings at St.
Joseph's Catholic Church in Emmitsburg for 7 years, until Sept. 8, 2000,
when the Baltimore archdiocese forbid her from using church property.
The weekly messages have curtailed since then and the Sullivans await a
final decision from the church, which may take years.
Ms. Talone-Sullivan claims she began seeing apparitions of the Virgin
Mary in Arizona in the late 1980s. In 1993, she and her husband moved to
Carroll Valley, Pa., and began delivering messages, allegedly from the
Virgin Mary, at weekly prayer meetings in Emmitsburg. The messages
encouraged prayer and reconciliation, but became more "apocalyptic" and
"prophetic" in 1999, Dr. Sullivan said.
One message that Ms. Talone-Sullivan delivered on Oct. 21, 1999, said:
"You are about to enter an era of cleansing which will lead to peace,
true peace in My Son."
In a letter to a pastor at St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church in
Emmitsburg, Cardinal Keeler quoted the commission as saying: "While the
commission gladly recognizes the workings of God's grace, even in
somewhat strange circumstances, it must note, however, that no necessary
connection has been demonstrated between Gianna Talone-Sullivan's
alleged apparitions and the reported benefits."
Dr. Sullivan said he was disheartened by some of the wording the
commission used and thought it was condescending. He pointed to the
church's findings on his wife's claim of having also seen Jesus as a
child. The commission maintained that Jesus would not be seen as a child
but as a "crucified and risen Lord who leads us in thanksgiving to His
Father."
"But the church does not look forward to the return of this child,
lovable though he was," the commission reported in the letter from
Cardinal Keeler. "It may well be a comforting devotion for the
visionary, but it cannot claim to be a private revelation of divine
inspiration, to be presented as a divine message for the public."
Dr. Sullivan has not seen the complete findings of the commission, but
said he is discouraged by the coverage of the findings, particularly a
headline in The Catholic Review, a newspaper that covers the area
Catholic community. The headline read: "We do not believe in the
apparitions."
"Much of this information is not understood or known by the lay public
out there," Dr. Sullivan said. "They basically read something ... and
they take it as the gospel truth and don't even really know what
questions to ask or how to even discern what's going on."
An article in another area newspaper included some factual inaccuracies
about why she stopped delivering messages, he said.
Ms. Talone-Sullivan did not release any messages between Sept. 8, 2000,
and Aug. 5, 2002, because she did not receive any messages, Dr. Sullivan
said, not in deference to the church. He also said the church only
restricted using church property to deliver the messages and that the
commission did not specifically condemn or approve the messages.
Other scholars and theologians have backed the Sullivans' claims and
criticized the commission's findings.
The Rev. Courteney Bartholomew, a theologian, responded to the
commission's findings with disdain.
"Not only was" the commission "adversely critical on frivolous grounds,
even interpretively distorting in the process certain aspects of the
messages of Our Lady of Emmitsburg, but it was also most derogatory of
the 'visionary,'" he said.
The Rev. John B. Wang, a scholar of the Virgin Mary, said in response to
the commission's findings, "I personally believe that Gianna is a chosen
soul of our Lord." He emphasized that the findings were neutral and
encouraged Cardinal Keeler to appoint a new commission to re-examine Ms.
Talone-Sullivan's claims.
"The Sullivans, the parishioners and the church all have the same
obligation, that is, to seek the truth," the Rev. Wang said in an
e-mail. He did not roundly criticize the commission, as the Rev.
Bartholemew did.
"In its investigative work, the church is extremely cautious and leaves
no stone unturned. In the case of Emmitsburg, I believe the commission
investigated the apparitions less than two years. To approve an
apparition, evidence of supernaturality, beyond any doubt, is necessary.
To condemn an apparition, irrefutable proofs of falsehood are needed.
The commission in Emmitsburg did not find such evidence. In addition,
the apparitions are still on-going, therefore, the most logical, safest
decision for the commission to make is that of neutrality.
The Sullivans are unsure how long it will take before the church reaches
a final conclusion, typically a final conclusion is not reached until
the apparitions stop. The most recent reported apparition was Nov. 1,
meanwhile the Sullivans continue waiting.
"The key to this, from our point of view, is" Gianna and I "have to be
obedient; whether the church is right or wrong, we have to be obedient,"
Dr. Sullivan said. "We are at the mercy of the church right now."

*********************************
Father Wang's Response to Interview Questions

1. What kind of effect does a neutral stance (non constat supernaturalitas) have on the Sullivans and the people who believe in Dr. Sullivan's visions?
Neutral stance means the apparitions are neither approved nor condemned. People are free to believe or disbelieve, accept or reject. It usually means the Church needs more time to study.

2. Why would the church, the Baltimore Archdiocese specifically, not affirm the apparitions?
Normally, it takes several years for a Church authority to reach its conclusions in the work of investigating an apparition. For example, the investigation of the famous apparitions of Fatima lasted thirteen years. The latest approved apparitions, at Amsterdam, were investigated for almost a half century. In its investigative work, the Church is extremely cautious and leaves no stone unturned. In the case of Emmitsburg, I believe the Commission investigated the apparitions less than two years. To approve an apparition, evidence of supernaturality, beyond any doubt, is necessary. To condemn an apparition, irrefutable proofs of falsehood are needed. The Commission in Emmitsburg did not find such evidence. In addition, the apparitions are still on-going, therefore, the most logical, safest decision for the Commission to make is that of neutrality.

3. Do these apparitions, with the recent, slightly more apocalyptic messages, pose a threat to the church?
Not at all. The Emmitsburg messages do not announce the end of the world, only the end of this era in which we live. The messages speak of the birth of a new society, a peaceful, happy and truly religious one. This is not a threat, but a great hope. The life of mankind will continue on earth until the end of time.

4. Do the commission's letters to Fr. O'Brien and Dr. Sullivan, paint a negative view of Dr. Sullivan's claims?
I am not aware that the Commision has written such letters.

5. How important are the messages from the apparitions and does the church's approach -- specificaly forbidding the Thursday prayer services -- hinder these messages?
Are these Marian messages important? They are very important, in my opinion. They offer invaluable spiritual guidance; they lead us closer to Jesus; they teach Christian virtues; they encourage us to follow Gospel teachings.
Concerning the Thursday prayer gathering, I understand much grace was flowing from Heaven through the religious services there. It is a pity that these religious services and the accompanying flow of grace were blocked through the ban to gather. Perhaps, humble requests from the faithful should be made to Cardinal Keeler asking for the Thursday prayer gathering to resume, with or without the presence of the Sullivans. Of course, as parishoners of St. Joseph Parish, the Sullivans may participate, if they so choose.
6. How should the Sullivans approach this dilemma? What should other parishioners do? What should the church do?
The Sullivans, the parishoners and the Church all have the same obligation, that is, to seek the Truth. We must pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. We must pray that the Will of God be done