Booklet & Leaflet

Small Informational Card

Click on and download this PNG to be shared via social media:

Additional details to explain each point:

1. Non-conformity with Church teaching. The basic test of validity of private revelation, according to Catholic sources is theological correctness. The contents of the private revelation now called the Divine Mercy (DM) to Sr. Faustina shows numerous theological mistakes. Some examples: 1. the novena cites Creation as a work of mercy—yet it is a work of love. 2. “Jesus” in the diary says “Mercy is My greatest attribute”—yet God is unified with no one greatest attribute. Other errors.

2. Opinions of local bishops, 1958 opinion of Holy Office. The local bishop (Ordinary) of the diocese in which the revelation occurred is the Church’s delegated judge. The verdict of the bishop is that of the Church. Optionally, the Holy Office in Rome may decide. In the case of the revelation to Sr. Faustina, the Ordinary’s conclusion was negative, in 1958 the Holy Office’s negative. The devotion was banned until Card. Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) in 1978 took unconventional steps to lift it.¹

¹ Did a “bad translation” lead to the Church ban? No, changes are shown to be superficial. The Holy Office based its decision on the negative opinion of the Polish bishops. No official statement cites the diary as the cause of the prohibition. It is the private opinion circulated by DM supporters beginning with Fr. Michael Sopocko.

3. Church law. The canon law of the Catholic Church (the 1917 Code) prohibited any publicity of unapproved private revelation. Additionally, a decree in 1937 by the Holy Office strongly reiterated the prohibition. In defiance of and disobedience to the laws and decrees of the Church, the proponents of the Divine Mercy devotion in the 1930s and 40s (especially Fr. Sopocko and Fr. Andrasz) publicized the devotion. The bishop of Vilnius, superior of Fr. Sopocko, tried and was unable to stop his activities. The Holy Office ban in 1958 stopped his promoting the devotion by name—he continued to publish books to advance all aspects of the devotion.

4. Contrary to established devotions. Logically, and according to Church sources, no alleged private revelation is credible if contradicting established and approved revelations. The DM devotion contradicts both the Sacred Heart and Fatima revelations and devotions. The painting of the DM shows mercy coming out of the hidden heart of Jesus, whereas the exposed Sacred Heart shows injury to and love of Jesus with pleas for penance. The DM painting has replaced the Sacred Heart overall in churches. Fatima says the last hope for humanity in our age is Our Lady, the Rosary and penance―the DM says the last hope is mercy.

5. Lack of humility, presence of pride. The mark of false revelation according to Catholic sources is pride in the person of the visionary. In the case of Sr. Faustina, she showed many instances of pride. This is recorded in her diary and letters written about her. As she says in her diary, “Little matter that often I hear people say that I am proud . . .,” and “. . . I see my principal fault; it is pride . . .” “As regards matters pertaining to the Divine Mercy, it was very difficult for her to renounce her self-will,” says a Mother Superior. It is obviously shown in the grandiose flattery she accepted from the visiting spirit she took to be Jesus Christ.²

² Flattery from “Jesus:” “I see your love, so pure and true that I give you first place among the virgins.” “With no other soul do I unite Myself as closely and in such a way as I do with you.” “My gaze rests kindly upon you before any other creature.” Multiple other examples.

6. Impatience and discouragement. “I frequently noted that she was upset because the Feast and worship of the Divine Mercy progressed slowly. For that reason it could be seen that that her disposition was frequently unbalanced . . .” says a Mother Superior. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “The visionary should be perfectly calm and patient if his superiors do not allow him to carry out the enterprises that he deems inspired by Heaven or revealed. One who, when confronted with this opposition, becomes impatient or discouraged, shows that he has very little confidence in the power of God and is but little conformed to His will.”

7. Temperament and health in question. Considering the visionary, if character, balance and health mentally and physically is known to be unsound, their visions are considered doubtful. Sr. Faustina was in poor health because of excessive fasting, and was said by superiors to be hysterical, temperamental, highly sensitive, unstable. She had a medical diagnosis of hysteria, showed a nervous disorder and was constantly ill.

8. Spiritual direction was lacking. The spiritual direction of a priest is critical to discern the validity of voices and visions on the part of anyone claiming such phenomena. It is a long, careful process. Sr. Faustina had no spiritual direction. Her occasional confessor, Fr. Michael Sopocko, forbid her to speak in confession of visions. Immediately, in the first meeting she told him she was convinced of the revelation. He tested her and she left to find a new confessor. She came back and soon after, instead of speaking in confession he asked her to keep a diary and accepted its contents uncritically. Therefore, there was no discernment process.

9. Credibility of the diary. Credibility of sources is necessary in private revelation.³ Says Fr. Sopocko, “She often could not distinguish between the work of her imagination and the supernatural one, especially when it concerned memories of the past. . . . I pointed it out to her and told her to underline in her diary only what she could swear was not a product of her imagination—she left out quite a few of her old memories.”

10. Lack of discussion. Private revelation is tested by a long process of criticism and discussion.⁴ Compared with examples of private revelation in the Church, the DM shows an overall lack of support. Several healings are noted—unimpressive considering miracles confirming the Sacred Heart devotion, the Corpus Christi devotion, or the Miracle of the Sun of Fatima. Likewise almost no criticism and careful discussion in Church circles is yet applied. In 1978 its ban was lifted—the work of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), an early advocate of the DM and one of the few in the Polish Church. It is currently accepted on this basis.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Private Revelation outlines this criteria:
³ Is there an authentic account, in which nothing has been added, suppressed, or corrected?
⁴ Have the revelations been subjected to the tests of time and discussion?

Back to top