What criteria do theologians use to authenticate private revelations like those attributed to Roumie?
Executive summary
Catholic theologians and Church authorities use a mix of theological, moral, psychological and pastoral criteria — applied in stages from the local bishop to the Vatican dicastery — to judge private revelations; key tests include conformity to doctrine, the personal qualities and fruits in the visionary’s life, absence of psychological or moral pathology, and clear spiritual benefit to the faithful [1][2][3]. The Church stresses that private revelations never add to public Revelation and that approval means “probable” supernatural origin, not infallible truth, so even approved visions are not binding on Catholics [4][5].
1. The ecclesial process: local bishop first, then Rome
The standard procedure begins with the local bishop’s discernment and may escalate to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith; guidelines published in 2025 and longstanding practice set out a three‑stage process and make clear that the ordinary judgment begins at the diocesan level [6][1][7]. Catholic commentators and parish guides reiterate that the bishop “ordinarily” decides authenticity and that Rome provides norms and a private dossier for bishops evaluating apparitions [7][8].
2. Positive and negative criteria: doctrine, fruits, and personal virtue
The Vatican’s guidelines and commentators require that alleged revelations teach “true theological and spiritual doctrine and [be] immune from error,” and that they produce “healthy devotion and abundant and constant spiritual fruit” such as prayer, conversion, and charity [1]. The Church also looks at the visionary’s virtues and moral life before and after the events — humility, prudence, consistency of virtue — as signs supporting authenticity [9][2].
3. Psychological and scientific examination: ruling out natural causes
Discernment teams routinely include experts beyond theologians — psychologists, medical doctors and other scientists — to exclude mental illness, intoxication, deception, or natural explanations; the Church explicitly distinguishes supernatural events from psychological disorders and demonic influence [4][2]. Practical guides emphasize sound judgment about the seer’s psychological equilibrium and whether behavior is driven by reason rather than enthusiasm [2].
4. Doctrinal conformity is decisive
No private revelation may contradict the “single revelation” already handed down in Scripture and Tradition; any doctrinal error attributed to God, Mary or the saints is a decisive negative sign [10][3]. The Dicastery’s recent rejections of phenomena it judged inconsistent with established teachings underscore that doctrinal incoherence can produce a formal declaration of “not of supernatural origin” [11][1].
5. The standard of certainty: probable, not infallible
When the Church approves a private revelation it normally states constat de supernaturalitate — that it is probable and free from doctrinal error — but this is not an infallible, binding addition to deposit of faith; Catholics remain free not to believe and public Revelation remains complete [5][4]. Commentators trace this to a long theological tradition that treats private revelations as aids to piety, not new articles of faith [12].
6. Pastoral prudence and the risk calculus
Guidelines include negative pastoral criteria: if an apparition risks doctrinal confusion or unhealthy devotion, bishops can prohibit promotion or even suppress the phenomenon; norms range from encouragement (nihil obstat) to outright prohibition when risks outweigh benefits [11][1]. Catholic writers stress prudence because even a single false private revelation can be spiritually damaging to individuals or communities [2][10].
7. Competing perspectives and historical nuance
Theologians differ over how binding approval should feel in practice: some argue approved visions can impose obligations on certain recipients under clear proof, while others emphasize that ecclesiastical approval is pastoral and prudential rather than definitive [13][14]. Historical cases — from approved shrines like Fatima to contested figures whose visions were later questioned — illustrate the diversity of outcomes and ongoing debate among scholars and pastors [8][15].
8. What the sources do not say about “Roumie”
Available sources do not mention Roumie or any specific criteria applied to a person by that name; they outline general norms and recent Vatican practice but do not discuss a Roumie case or its outcome (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this summary synthesizes Church documents and Catholic commentators in the provided set of sources; it does not include private or diocesan files beyond published Vatican guidelines, and it cannot assert facts about any individual case (including Roumie) unless those appear in the supplied reporting [1][6].