Is
Marie-Julie Jahenny approved by the Church?
Yes,
she is regarded as an authentic mystic, at least tacitly, since the first local
bishop who was reviewed her case, Bishop Fournier of Nantes, was
favourable to her cause and believed all that was occurring to her
was of supernatural origin.
Bishop
Fournier wrote to Dr. Imbert-Gourbeyre, the physician who examined
her stigmata and her complete fasts while living on Communion alone,
and declared them to be genuine:
“The
reports that I receive daily on Marie-Julie show me more and more the
action of God on this soul. He grants her graces of an obvious
supernatural order. At the same time she grows in virtue and noble
sentiments. The natural and human disappear in her, and she often
speaks to people she sees or who are referred to her giving
instructions which are not in keeping with her normal state.
Therefore be confident, dear Doctor, the time will come when
Marie-Julie herself will be the proof... . She is sincere: what she
manifests is supernatural. I see nothing but good, edifying and in
conformity with the principles of spirituality. Therefore it is God
who favours her; you may be sure it will turn out well.” (Bishop
Fournier, July 6, 1875)
True, this was a private letter, but, the bishop's observations are coming to pass, the prophecies of Marie-Julie Jahenny are coming to pass, and she herself has been the proof - can anyone find any proof she was not a soul filled with heroic virtue?
Furthermore,
a cardinal who was on the Vatican Commission reviewing her case,
Cardinal Rampolla, performed an exorcism over her and had to agree
that everything happening to her such as the stigmata and suffering
the Passion was supernatural and not preternatural. Again a tacit approval.
Until
a mystic and their message is openly and publicly declared 'not supernatural' by the diocese they came from or from the Holy See, they are NOT officially
condemned by the Church.
Marie-Julie
Jahenny herself and the events happening
to her have never
been officially declared 'not supernatural' - there is not even the lesser form of caution of the 'non-constant' issued against her - she
is considered an authentic mystic, despite the different reactions of the later
local bishops over the years, which ranged from personal approval to
indifference then back to personal approval.
:::::::::::::
Can we Safely Believe in a temporary 'Tacit' Approval that is not an 'Official Public Declaration'?
Note: the most important thing regarding approval is to see if
the Church has condemned and ruled against a mystic or set of
apparitions, then we know they are fake and not to spread their
message on pain of the sin of disobedience.
However,
not receiving official approval i.e, an outright official
declaration, does not equal official condemnation from the
Church until it officially rules 'non constant', that is, no proof of
supernatural occurrence, or, not enough proof of it.
In
Marie-Julie's case, the diocese has enough witness accounts even
conducted by its own office to show 1) the events happened, and 2)
even the private opinions of the first bishop Fournier who opened the
first instigation, they had evidence of the supernatural occurring,
that is, it was from Heaven. He even took her case personally to
Rome to report on it, and he was praised on how he was handling
everything from I can find on French sites. The cardinal sent by the
Vatican to investigate her, Cardinal Rampolla, performed an exorcism
over her and had to agree that everything happening to her such as
the stigmata and suffering the Passion was supernatural and not
preternatural. Her life was also one long victim-soul martyrdom, a
life of heroic virtue.
Frankly,
of what we do know of her, there is too much in her favour already
regarding a supernatural ruling I personally cannot see how they
could give a condemnation of her or her mystic experiences, and, if
they cannot do that, they eventually will have to officially
admit in a formal declaration her experiences were supernatural, and
her messages must also be from Heaven.
Why
they haven't done so yet may seem a mystery, but I can surmise for
the present a reticence in that to approve her would also be to admit
her messages about a corrupt Church are true, hence possibly a reason
for slipping her under the carpet – and, she did predict her cause
for canonization will not happen until the Great Monarch comes, who
will demand her case be opened the same time he requests Louis XVI be
raised up as a saint. There have been efforts already to get Louis
XVI's case going.
Stalled
and hindered cases of mystics and their works usually show they do
come from God. St. Louis-Marie de Monfort foretold his book 'True
Devotion to Mary' would be hidden in a chest nearly for 100 years,
which happened. It was found in a chest and finally published about
100 years after he wrote it. The Lord said to St. Faustina the work
of Mercy entrusted to her would be hidden and almost gone, then
suddenly blaze forth to show it was from Heaven, and look how even
the Church silenced that for a time before it was approved. The same
was said to Marie-Julie – the true works of God are persecuted,
even by the Church itself, so when they are suddenly raised up it is
proof this is from God. And if I recall, Marie-Julie was told she
and and her visions would be discovered at the 11th hour
so to speak before the real troubles break out. The 'secret' would
eventually be discovered as Our Lord said.
So,
her case is still open, and with quite a bit of weight of proof
showing her to be authentic.
Note: we are free to promote anything
not yet condemned by the Church and which does not go against Church
teaching.
Confusion about 'approval' persists as people keep asserting that the private letter of Bishop Fournier is
not 'official public approval' announcement, but, even a private
opinion from the local bishop and the Vatican cardinal leaning to a
supernatural declaration carries some weight and points out we are
not dealing with a fake either. There is such a thing as an
'informal' approval when the Church has not made a full public
declaration.
For
example, we have the case of the mystic Pere Jean Edouard Lamy of
France who saw Our Lord, Our Lady, the angels, and also Satan. Our
Lady directed him to found an order, which still exists to to this
day. He could read souls, and even had the mystic gift of light to
where he could see perfectly in the dark, thanks to the angels. He
also had the gift of prophecy, and foretold both world wars, and
hinted about what would come after another war i.e. the Age of Peace.
He has not received “official” Church approval, but there was no
question as to his holiness and mystic experiences being supernatural
to where even the Archbishop of Paris, his local bishop, declared he
had 'another holy Curé of Ars' in his parish as he called him.
Therefore, Pere Lamy had only 'private' informal approval from his local
arch-diocesan bishop. And, yet, no one dares to claim Pere Lamy was
fake or not an authentic mystic simply because of a lack of formal
approval as far as I know. So, there are precedents of this 'open'
and rather 'tacit' approval from the Church without a mystic
receiving a full public approval from a diocese office plastered on a
piece of paper.
Again, we cannot help but note her case has this tacit approval, and, is heavily leaning towards an eventual official approval.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Good Fruit Begets more Good Fruit
Also, here is an interesting thing to observe: fake mystics and their false messages beget more fake mystics and frauds, while real saints and mystics inspire pious people and beget more saints. In Marie-Julie's case, her visions inspired Ven. Madre Teresea of Peru who witnessed one of her ecstasies and received spiritual advice from Marie-Julie regarding her vocation to found an order dedicated to the Cross in her home country. As her title suggests, Venerable Madre Teresa is just that, declared a Venerable and on her way to canonisation. As Our Lord said, by their fruits you shall know them. Click here to read Ven. Madre Teresa's story.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Confusion as to why People Think she is 'condemned' When She is Not.
First: people seem to think that if there is no 'public official declaration' this means the mystic in question must be a fake, or completely unapproved, which is not the case as we can see from the points listed above.
In fact people are ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION: instead of asking if a mystic is 'approved' they need to find out if a mystic or set of apparitions have been OFFICIALLY CONDEMNED.
If not, then, it is the onus of the layperson to make sure that what they are spreading does not go against the teachings of the Church until further notice is issued.
Second: The
problem that is currently happening that is causing people think Marie-Julie
is not approved in any sense and 'should not be promoted as real' is that the 'Friends of Marie-Julie Jahenny
Association' in Brittany, who are the promoters of her texts and her
work, are acting without the approval of the Diocese of Nantes.
They
are running pilgrimages and various services with priests have not been officially granted
permission to work in the diocese, and, they are publishing her texts
without sending them first to be inspected by the diocese for the
'Imprimatur' and 'Nihil Obstat', and so, the diocese has said the Association is in no way connected with the Church, and is issuing a
'caution' with regards to the printed texts of her prophecies as the
diocese has not reviewed the publications beforehand and they are only 'attributed' to Marie-Julie as they were written by others– so this is
what is causing the problem.
According
to a press release c. January 2019 signed by Father Benoit
Bertrand,
Vicar General and Father Serge
Leray
, Chancellor of the diocese,
the diocese of Nantes warns:
“Catholic
people want to know what are the links between the diocese of Nantes
and the Association of Friends of Marie-Julie Jahenny present at La
Fraudais in the town of Blain.
This association
carries out its activities and meetings without any link with the
diocese. Publications and writings are not validated by the diocese
of Nantes. A review of the accounts attributed to Marie-Julie Jahenny
by a theologian calls for caution.
The priest who
exercises a ministry for the members of this association, has not
received any mission from the bishop of Nantes for this.
Consequently, he does not celebrate Mass in communion with the
bishop. Neither did he grant him the power to confess on the
diocese.”
In other words, it is the activities of
the Association that are not approved, but notice the texts or
prophecies themselves are not condemned – only a 'caution' is
issued in their regard.
Basically, as mentioned, because they are 'attributed' to her - she didn't actually write them herself similar to Bl Anne Catherine Emmerick, which also have a caution issued against them and were not included in her beatification / canonization process. There is also a 'caution' attached to Marie-Julie's texts as they are published by the Association, which is not approved by the diocese.
So, it is simply a case of the Association not being approved, but, the texts are not condemned, and neither is Marie-Julie. She has not been officially condemned.
What is further causing confusion is people online declaring her fake when they have no authority to do so. There has been a scathing online attack issued against her in a Sedevacantist blog called 'CatholicMessages.org' - which is also putting out the message she is a fake prophet. That blog post contains false and misleading information, the blogger obviously has not read all her texts and is ignorant of the situation.
Lately, another online 'attack' has come from a video by Dr. Mark Miravalle which is claiming she is 'not approved', but his observations were obviously made from some unfortunate mis-reading of the texts, and, he even misrepresents some of the texts, (hopefully, not done on purpose.)
It is unfortunate that these online attacks are confusing the issue.
In all, Marie-Julie Jahenny herself is NOT
condemned, and, we are to simply be 'cautious' with regards to the
texts published by the Association, also because Marie-Julie did not write them herself. The texts are not officially condemned either! That is all.
Personally, I have not found anything
contrary to faith or doctrine in the published texts of the
revelations / ecstasies of Marie-Julie Jahenny the Association has
released.
I have yet to find someone with the ecclesial authority to make an official declaration saying they have found
something contrary to faith or doctrine in the published texts. So, nothing officially negative has yet been proclaimed. Looking through the diocese of Nantes site again (during July 2023)
- I still cannot find any official public decree of condemnation
against her.
Even
the 'Miracle Hunters' Website has her listed as approved. Ron
Conte, who has a theology degree, runs the site 'Catholic Planet' and
is skilled at finding fake mystics, agrees she is authentic.
Sadly though, "The Friends of Marie-Julie Jahenny Association" is not helping her cause by their disobedience to the local diocese, and the Sedevacantist attack by Catholicmessages.org also Dr. Miravalle's misrepresentation of the texts and taking things out of context is also not helping.
Are
there any signs a formal investigation into her case for Beatification is forthcoming?
The
closest evidence I had that something was starting in this regard is
that Bishop Emile Marcus, (Bishop of Nantes from 1982 to 1996), made
the parish priest of Sainte-Croix in Nantes, Fr. Gérard
Lefeuvre (b. 1931- d. 2016), responsible for the historical archives
of the diocese in 1995 and particularly requested he work on the
documents of her case. Of interest, Bishop Marcus was vice-president
of the Bishop's Conference in France, so this is a sign that at last, a
serious start into an investigation into Marie-Julie had commenced.
Fr. Lefeuvre worked at
this position for ten years compiling the various documents according to the diocese records,
although the documents he compiled also show he worked at it until 2010,
making it fifteen years of work, not ten.
Then, he left the post of
head archivist. I have not found a reason why other than making a personal
guess it was due to health reasons or he simply retired as the work
becoming too much as he was 79 years old in 2010. He grew ill and
died in 2016.
Sadly though, he left is
post as archivist at Nantes without leaving a summary work on his
research into Marie-Julie.
He
did collect many documents together however according to the diocese
archives as you can see from the graphic below.
Then, we actually do have an answer into this 'abandonment' of the investigation and why her cause has not been opened yet - Heaven has already foretold her cause will not be opened except by the Great Monarch himself who will ask the Church she be raised to the altar the same time he asks his ancestor Louis XVI to be placed on the altars (i.e beatified / canonized). See post #226, click here.
So, we will not see this happen until the Age of Peace, it will be one of the glories of that time to come. Still, we may pray for it to happen as Heaven wants us to pray for the coming of the King who will restore all!
