Well reported, Mike! I have taught mariology at my seminary for thirty-seven years and you show a great command of the issues in apparitions. I'm saving this!
Thanks. I recently gave a presentation on how the Church discerns apparitions, and during my preparation, I kept returning to the Akita rabbit hole. This article was the result.
I like your assessment Mike. I will not deny that a lot of these apocalyptic private revelations always terrified me, and kind of made me scared of Mary--to this day I still have a block not wanting to get to know her on account of Akita, Garabandal, etc. etc. I admit that I rather don't want any of the plethora of private revelations to be true.
I rather appreciated Jimmy Akin's breakdown of these phenomena. I find that his walk through of them typically makes them less scary than they had been before. I am curious what you think about the theory (assuming for a minute that Akita is authentic) that the "chastisement" that was coming was not so much a supernatural event, but rather that the world was headed for nuclear war sometime in the 80s or 90s, which was then adverted (in the theory that I heard, specifically due to St. John Paul II's consecration of the world to Mary's Immaculate Heart). To me, that would explain the fire and smoke raining down from the sky and the dead envying the living bit. Either way, it seems like the timeline of events warned is in the past now. Thoughts?
I listened to Jimmy's podcast yesterday and although I generally appreciate his analysis of this sort of thing, I think he tended to give too much benefit of the doubt to the official narrative and to Bishop Ito's judgement.
Additionally, he never mentioned The Lady of All Nations. Granted it was a few years ago so the final judgement on the Amsterdam apparitions hadn't been published, but the ties between the two also can't be ignored.
Also, pre-internet and before the year 2000, the Neues Europa text was very much "in play" as genuine in Fatima conspiracy circles. That's the obvious "link" between Fatima and Akita, and I saw his theory (relying on the 2nd secret and JP2's consecration of Russia) as a bit far fetched.
Since posting this, I've dug deeper into Bishop Ito's involvement. I don't think he was necessarily malicious, but his involvement in the phenomenon has his fingerprints all over it. Pro-Akita sources say he founded Sr Agnes's order a few years prior, and he composed their prayer (then Mary specifically told Sr Agnes that they must pray it). Much of the 2nd message had to do with obedience to Bishop Ito as well.
I need to double check on the history of the statue a little more. There's no question that it is based on the Amsterdam apparitions (Akita supporters say it frequently), but I am fairly certain that I read that Bishop Ito commissioned it himself - giving credence to the idea that he was likely an "apparition chaser." It's safe to say that he's not an unbiased observer in any of this.
We may have averted something, but I think it's obvious to say the world is worse off now than it was then. We'll see...Sister only died a few days ago.
Say your Rosary Karli! Mama Mary is the most tender of mothers.
I've followed these things since my youth and have encountered many extremists over the decades - I agree with your assessment and have said as much in the past. Which is why I consider the apparition pipeline so dangerous to the faith and discipline of the sacraments. These falsehoods have a way of embedding in the collective consciousness and influencing popular piety. Medjugorje has spawned a series of locutionists and visionaries that not a few take seriously. Anyway - good work.
Medjugorje is a complicated one. I get the feeling it will be on one of the middle levels of approval under the new guidelines because it is so big. But some of its spinoffs have been frightening, I agree.
Your article caught my attention even though I had never heard of Our Lady of Akita. I have read it through and find it well written and well researched. It has helped me understand the new guidelines for apparitions coming from the Vatican. Thanks for writing it and sharing it.
Bishop Ito was very carefull. He did certainly not do everything on his own judgement.
He went to Rome 2 times at least .
And in 1988 he spoke with card. Ratzinger . The cardinal did not approve Akita , that is what is being said . .. But, he accepted the approval of mgr. Ito . That is to say, Ratzinger acknowledged that it was within his rights - mgr Ito - to pronounce judgement as bishop of the diocees, and Ratzinger didnt have a problem with his statement.
Card. Ratzinger did not also "judge " it himself , because he was not in a position to investigate, he was in Rome . He left it over to the bishop, who could investigate everything because it apparition was in his diocees. As also was normal according to the norms for apparitions of that time.
The judgement was left to the bishop of the diocees where the apparition was.
The discussion about the Lady of all Nations is mostly about arguments of authority and about procedures.
Unfortunately not much about the content.
What is the content? Well, the request for a fifth marian dogma.
In continuation of Fatima , so to say.
Our Lady warns for disaster , war and a comming "world- catastohpy"
The remedy is : a fifth dogma. Remember, in fatima the warning was WWII and remedy was first saturdays and consecration Russia.
The fifth dogma is on itself the logical conclusion of the development in Mariology ( although not everybody sees it like that )
But is is certainly not against the doktrine of Faith . And , moreover, is the situation in church and worlds not such as to warrant an apparition as Amsterdam is ?
40 cardinals and 700 bishops have already - in past 25 years - signed a pettition for the dogma.
I am Mathé from Amsterdam and I want to give some clarification.
In '74 a notification was issued by vatican which stated the the supernatural caracter could not be established and the devotion was prohibited. ( published in Osservatore Romana)
The devotion spread anyway ..
So in 1980 they - the CDF - said ; lets look into the matter again, they send letetrs to the bishop of Amsterdam asking him to look into the matter again and , if he saw fit, to approve the devotion.
So they - CDF- reversed their initial "judgement" and wanted a new assesment.
It took til 1995/96 that a new judgement was made.
In 1995 the bishop of Amsterdam of that time , visited Vatican and spoke with kardinal Ratzinger .
The conclusion of card. Ratzinger was: this is not against the faith , lets release the devotion, and the final approval ( supernatural) we leave - possibly - to later date . ( Ratzinger left the possibillity open) . Consequentely in '96 the devotion was approved and thus with explicit approvel of Rome in the person of Card. Ratzinger .
( one will ask how come Rome of today seems not aware of this? Well it was not put down in the form of an official document, ..but the bishop - mgr Punt - who talked with ratzinger is still alive and has spoken of it publicly many times. ) Also they do know a bit of it , because they do refer to it in some documents , but the twist they put on it is that it was "just" a approval for a devotion completely separate from the alledged apparition. Which is with all due respect nonsense . the devotion comes direct from the apparition , it is impossible to - logically - state that the devotion is ok, but the apparition from which it direct comes is false. And card Ratzinger left the possibility of approval of supernaturality expressly open, so it was all about the alledged but possible apparition.
But back to the developments ; in 2002 the bishop - mgr Punt- approved the supernaturality .
Which was according to the norms for apparitions of that time, perfectly whitin his rights !
He was not reeled in , called back on his decission . Not by card, Ratzinger , who was still Prefect of CDF at that time. Also later when Ratzinger had become Benedict XVI he didnt reverse the decission ( and he did speak with the bishop of Amsterdam and others on the matter after 2005)
So , thats the story . I have spoken with the previous bishop - mgr Punt- and with currend bishop, mgr Hendriks . often about this .
What happened now? , that is to say in dec 2020, ..well the CDF ( now DDF) , reverted back to the 1974 decission . Why? nobody knows , maybe because they just didnt know the facts ?
What is sure is that they did not investigate anything! They didnt ask the bishops opinion about the developments of the past 25 years . They just came with the statement that the 1974 decision was still valid . They didnt give any explanaition.
They did also come suddently with a statement - last year - that a constat the non was mentioned by cardinal consultors in 1974. Ok, but that was not what is in the official 1974 dokument, nobody ever new of that ...
And if constat the non, on what grounds then?
They are - acording to there own procedures - oblighed to give concreet reasons .
How come nobody of bishops and also card. Ratzinger saw ,for the past 50 years, that it was false?
And Ratzinger had even explicitely said in '95 that it didnt go against the doktrine of Faith.
The "constat the non" was just a way of saying that they didnt think it was supernatural, not persé to say that it was false in the sense of a going against the faith false .
The dokument they issued in 1974 - still on website of vatican ( "the notification " lady of all nations , google it) . That dokument doesnt formulate the disaproval of devotion like that .
I agree with the Fatima Centre about the non-consecration - you will observe the errors of Russia (we can talk about the type of communism but the immoral effects are increasing certainly against the family) tightening around the world. However, I was discussing the 'fire' mentioned in the Akita message with someone and even though I've assumed its authenticity over the years, found this day I could not reconcile that scenario with the Fatima consecration of Russia, the needed bishops, a stable communication platform from the Pope etc. with few survivors after an unprecedented punishment this hardly seems possible.
I found your arguments interesting to the point of compelling but I'm not sure but given my questions v Fatima play out you could be correct. Many priests don't follow the Fatima Centre but many agree with their non-consecration contention - orthodox priests that is. You will know from 10 December 2025 to 13 June 2029 who is right but reading the signs of the times favours the Fatima Centre and therefore the true exposition of the Fatima message is a live event to be fulfilled. The consecration will produce supernatural effects particularly an obvious Heaven sent worldwide peace and achieve the heavenly desire for devotion to the Sacred Hearts as yet unfulfilled.
Was a vision chaser. Then I was awakened. Don't believe in Medjugorje though I share a birthday with the anniversary of the alleged apparition. So it would flatter me to believe it was real. The fact that the Akita statue is modeled after a discredited apparition means that too is discredited for me. If I had a vision of an angel, Saint or the Virgin Mary & they told me something contrary to my beliefs I would believe that the apparition in front of me was the deceiver. In this case I would say their was something a miss about the so called 'miraculous healing' that I am unaware or or hasn't been known. But I wouldn't have to know. Usually apparition sites have more then one story of someone reportedly been healed as a sign from heaven.
I'm wary of apparition-chasing as well Mike, but I'm surprised you gave no coverage of the scientific rigor this particular apparition received, such as the 101 tears, the blood & sweat of the statue, Sister's stigmata & healing etc. It baffled all involved. If these were real, (and they were) then we have a hard either/or...demonic or Divine.
Hi Joe - As I mentioned, I had no intention to do a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon in this article, just to pull together three things that cause me to doubt its authenticity. Because of the time I spent discussing the history of its status, it turned out to be much longer than I thought it would. (The UCA News article was a new discovery for me -- I was unable to track down original sources for the 30 DAYS and Christian Order articles.)
My article is by no means the final word on the subject but I hope it can be useful for others in their own discernment.
I did link to the bishop's letter and to other sources favorable to the apparition.
As for the scientific tests on the blood and tears, my understanding is that two different blood types were detected. But that wasn't the focus of the article. A comprehensive analysis of that would probably require a whole article of its own. I do know that bleeding/crying statues have been faked, and I know that sometimes it's caused by condensation or other environmental factors. I also believe it can be genuine. If you know of an objective or authoritative source that reports on the testing of the blood and tears, I'd be interested to read it.
Thanks for the reply Mike; I've only seen a few online documentaries (secular and Catholic) with testimonies from various medical personnel. I don't know where one could find the official report(s).
Anyways, I reread your intent to offer your modest appraisal w/o doing a real deep dive, so my bad.
Can't cover everything all the time!
I think Akita is credible, but reserve and caution are always commendable.
Well reported, Mike! I have taught mariology at my seminary for thirty-seven years and you show a great command of the issues in apparitions. I'm saving this!
Paul F. Ford, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology and Liturgy
St. John Seminary
5012 Seminary Road
Camarillo, CA 93012-2598
Thanks. I recently gave a presentation on how the Church discerns apparitions, and during my preparation, I kept returning to the Akita rabbit hole. This article was the result.
I like your assessment Mike. I will not deny that a lot of these apocalyptic private revelations always terrified me, and kind of made me scared of Mary--to this day I still have a block not wanting to get to know her on account of Akita, Garabandal, etc. etc. I admit that I rather don't want any of the plethora of private revelations to be true.
I rather appreciated Jimmy Akin's breakdown of these phenomena. I find that his walk through of them typically makes them less scary than they had been before. I am curious what you think about the theory (assuming for a minute that Akita is authentic) that the "chastisement" that was coming was not so much a supernatural event, but rather that the world was headed for nuclear war sometime in the 80s or 90s, which was then adverted (in the theory that I heard, specifically due to St. John Paul II's consecration of the world to Mary's Immaculate Heart). To me, that would explain the fire and smoke raining down from the sky and the dead envying the living bit. Either way, it seems like the timeline of events warned is in the past now. Thoughts?
I listened to Jimmy's podcast yesterday and although I generally appreciate his analysis of this sort of thing, I think he tended to give too much benefit of the doubt to the official narrative and to Bishop Ito's judgement.
Additionally, he never mentioned The Lady of All Nations. Granted it was a few years ago so the final judgement on the Amsterdam apparitions hadn't been published, but the ties between the two also can't be ignored.
Also, pre-internet and before the year 2000, the Neues Europa text was very much "in play" as genuine in Fatima conspiracy circles. That's the obvious "link" between Fatima and Akita, and I saw his theory (relying on the 2nd secret and JP2's consecration of Russia) as a bit far fetched.
Since posting this, I've dug deeper into Bishop Ito's involvement. I don't think he was necessarily malicious, but his involvement in the phenomenon has his fingerprints all over it. Pro-Akita sources say he founded Sr Agnes's order a few years prior, and he composed their prayer (then Mary specifically told Sr Agnes that they must pray it). Much of the 2nd message had to do with obedience to Bishop Ito as well.
I need to double check on the history of the statue a little more. There's no question that it is based on the Amsterdam apparitions (Akita supporters say it frequently), but I am fairly certain that I read that Bishop Ito commissioned it himself - giving credence to the idea that he was likely an "apparition chaser." It's safe to say that he's not an unbiased observer in any of this.
We may have averted something, but I think it's obvious to say the world is worse off now than it was then. We'll see...Sister only died a few days ago.
Say your Rosary Karli! Mama Mary is the most tender of mothers.
God bless you
I've followed these things since my youth and have encountered many extremists over the decades - I agree with your assessment and have said as much in the past. Which is why I consider the apparition pipeline so dangerous to the faith and discipline of the sacraments. These falsehoods have a way of embedding in the collective consciousness and influencing popular piety. Medjugorje has spawned a series of locutionists and visionaries that not a few take seriously. Anyway - good work.
Medjugorje is a complicated one. I get the feeling it will be on one of the middle levels of approval under the new guidelines because it is so big. But some of its spinoffs have been frightening, I agree.
Your article caught my attention even though I had never heard of Our Lady of Akita. I have read it through and find it well written and well researched. It has helped me understand the new guidelines for apparitions coming from the Vatican. Thanks for writing it and sharing it.
Thank you Elena!
See also my elaborate comment on the developments in Amsterdam, lady of all Nations, several comment sbelow.
I live in Amsterdam and follow the developments close by for already 40 years , and spoke to the bishops many times.
Bishop Ito was very carefull. He did certainly not do everything on his own judgement.
He went to Rome 2 times at least .
And in 1988 he spoke with card. Ratzinger . The cardinal did not approve Akita , that is what is being said . .. But, he accepted the approval of mgr. Ito . That is to say, Ratzinger acknowledged that it was within his rights - mgr Ito - to pronounce judgement as bishop of the diocees, and Ratzinger didnt have a problem with his statement.
Card. Ratzinger did not also "judge " it himself , because he was not in a position to investigate, he was in Rome . He left it over to the bishop, who could investigate everything because it apparition was in his diocees. As also was normal according to the norms for apparitions of that time.
The judgement was left to the bishop of the diocees where the apparition was.
In continuation of my previous post;
The discussion about the Lady of all Nations is mostly about arguments of authority and about procedures.
Unfortunately not much about the content.
What is the content? Well, the request for a fifth marian dogma.
In continuation of Fatima , so to say.
Our Lady warns for disaster , war and a comming "world- catastohpy"
The remedy is : a fifth dogma. Remember, in fatima the warning was WWII and remedy was first saturdays and consecration Russia.
The fifth dogma is on itself the logical conclusion of the development in Mariology ( although not everybody sees it like that )
But is is certainly not against the doktrine of Faith . And , moreover, is the situation in church and worlds not such as to warrant an apparition as Amsterdam is ?
40 cardinals and 700 bishops have already - in past 25 years - signed a pettition for the dogma.
I am Mathé from Amsterdam and I want to give some clarification.
In '74 a notification was issued by vatican which stated the the supernatural caracter could not be established and the devotion was prohibited. ( published in Osservatore Romana)
The devotion spread anyway ..
So in 1980 they - the CDF - said ; lets look into the matter again, they send letetrs to the bishop of Amsterdam asking him to look into the matter again and , if he saw fit, to approve the devotion.
So they - CDF- reversed their initial "judgement" and wanted a new assesment.
It took til 1995/96 that a new judgement was made.
In 1995 the bishop of Amsterdam of that time , visited Vatican and spoke with kardinal Ratzinger .
The conclusion of card. Ratzinger was: this is not against the faith , lets release the devotion, and the final approval ( supernatural) we leave - possibly - to later date . ( Ratzinger left the possibillity open) . Consequentely in '96 the devotion was approved and thus with explicit approvel of Rome in the person of Card. Ratzinger .
( one will ask how come Rome of today seems not aware of this? Well it was not put down in the form of an official document, ..but the bishop - mgr Punt - who talked with ratzinger is still alive and has spoken of it publicly many times. ) Also they do know a bit of it , because they do refer to it in some documents , but the twist they put on it is that it was "just" a approval for a devotion completely separate from the alledged apparition. Which is with all due respect nonsense . the devotion comes direct from the apparition , it is impossible to - logically - state that the devotion is ok, but the apparition from which it direct comes is false. And card Ratzinger left the possibility of approval of supernaturality expressly open, so it was all about the alledged but possible apparition.
But back to the developments ; in 2002 the bishop - mgr Punt- approved the supernaturality .
Which was according to the norms for apparitions of that time, perfectly whitin his rights !
He was not reeled in , called back on his decission . Not by card, Ratzinger , who was still Prefect of CDF at that time. Also later when Ratzinger had become Benedict XVI he didnt reverse the decission ( and he did speak with the bishop of Amsterdam and others on the matter after 2005)
So , thats the story . I have spoken with the previous bishop - mgr Punt- and with currend bishop, mgr Hendriks . often about this .
What happened now? , that is to say in dec 2020, ..well the CDF ( now DDF) , reverted back to the 1974 decission . Why? nobody knows , maybe because they just didnt know the facts ?
What is sure is that they did not investigate anything! They didnt ask the bishops opinion about the developments of the past 25 years . They just came with the statement that the 1974 decision was still valid . They didnt give any explanaition.
They did also come suddently with a statement - last year - that a constat the non was mentioned by cardinal consultors in 1974. Ok, but that was not what is in the official 1974 dokument, nobody ever new of that ...
And if constat the non, on what grounds then?
They are - acording to there own procedures - oblighed to give concreet reasons .
How come nobody of bishops and also card. Ratzinger saw ,for the past 50 years, that it was false?
And Ratzinger had even explicitely said in '95 that it didnt go against the doktrine of Faith.
The "constat the non" was just a way of saying that they didnt think it was supernatural, not persé to say that it was false in the sense of a going against the faith false .
The dokument they issued in 1974 - still on website of vatican ( "the notification " lady of all nations , google it) . That dokument doesnt formulate the disaproval of devotion like that .
( appologies for spellings errors )
I agree with the Fatima Centre about the non-consecration - you will observe the errors of Russia (we can talk about the type of communism but the immoral effects are increasing certainly against the family) tightening around the world. However, I was discussing the 'fire' mentioned in the Akita message with someone and even though I've assumed its authenticity over the years, found this day I could not reconcile that scenario with the Fatima consecration of Russia, the needed bishops, a stable communication platform from the Pope etc. with few survivors after an unprecedented punishment this hardly seems possible.
I found your arguments interesting to the point of compelling but I'm not sure but given my questions v Fatima play out you could be correct. Many priests don't follow the Fatima Centre but many agree with their non-consecration contention - orthodox priests that is. You will know from 10 December 2025 to 13 June 2029 who is right but reading the signs of the times favours the Fatima Centre and therefore the true exposition of the Fatima message is a live event to be fulfilled. The consecration will produce supernatural effects particularly an obvious Heaven sent worldwide peace and achieve the heavenly desire for devotion to the Sacred Hearts as yet unfulfilled.
Was a vision chaser. Then I was awakened. Don't believe in Medjugorje though I share a birthday with the anniversary of the alleged apparition. So it would flatter me to believe it was real. The fact that the Akita statue is modeled after a discredited apparition means that too is discredited for me. If I had a vision of an angel, Saint or the Virgin Mary & they told me something contrary to my beliefs I would believe that the apparition in front of me was the deceiver. In this case I would say their was something a miss about the so called 'miraculous healing' that I am unaware or or hasn't been known. But I wouldn't have to know. Usually apparition sites have more then one story of someone reportedly been healed as a sign from heaven.
I'm wary of apparition-chasing as well Mike, but I'm surprised you gave no coverage of the scientific rigor this particular apparition received, such as the 101 tears, the blood & sweat of the statue, Sister's stigmata & healing etc. It baffled all involved. If these were real, (and they were) then we have a hard either/or...demonic or Divine.
Hi Joe - As I mentioned, I had no intention to do a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon in this article, just to pull together three things that cause me to doubt its authenticity. Because of the time I spent discussing the history of its status, it turned out to be much longer than I thought it would. (The UCA News article was a new discovery for me -- I was unable to track down original sources for the 30 DAYS and Christian Order articles.)
My article is by no means the final word on the subject but I hope it can be useful for others in their own discernment.
I did link to the bishop's letter and to other sources favorable to the apparition.
As for the scientific tests on the blood and tears, my understanding is that two different blood types were detected. But that wasn't the focus of the article. A comprehensive analysis of that would probably require a whole article of its own. I do know that bleeding/crying statues have been faked, and I know that sometimes it's caused by condensation or other environmental factors. I also believe it can be genuine. If you know of an objective or authoritative source that reports on the testing of the blood and tears, I'd be interested to read it.
Thanks for the reply Mike; I've only seen a few online documentaries (secular and Catholic) with testimonies from various medical personnel. I don't know where one could find the official report(s).
Anyways, I reread your intent to offer your modest appraisal w/o doing a real deep dive, so my bad.
Can't cover everything all the time!
I think Akita is credible, but reserve and caution are always commendable.
God bless