National Catholic Register Takes a Swipe at Bayside

David Martin | The Daily Knight

Rosary procession at Our Lady of the Roses Shrine in Flushing Meadows Park, NY

On June 4, the National Catholic Register took a swipe at the Virgin Mary’s apparitions in Bayside Queens, New York, that occurred from 1970-1995. An article they published, titled, “No Mary: When Alleged Apparitions Get Rejected — and Why People Still Believe Them,” suggests that people who believe in rejected apparitions are foolish.

Well, that all depends. The Pharisees rejected Christ and his miracles so were the apostles foolish for continuing to believe in him? Did the Jews’ rejection of Christ mean we should reject him too?

The article states that the apparitions to the late seer Veronica Lueken “have been officially rejected by Church authorities,” but this isn’t true.  Their rejection was highly subjective and was neither official nor legitimate. We need to distinguish between a legitimate and illegitimate denunciation.

The article states:

“In 1986, Bishop Francis John Mugavero of Brooklyn found that the Bayside apparitions ‘completely lacked authenticity’ in part because the related ‘messages’ are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, undermine the legitimate authority of bishops and councils, and instill doubts in the minds of the faithful.”

On the contrary, the messages are in complete harmony with traditional Catholic teaching, which was the very thing the Brooklyn diocese protested. The message neither undermines legitimate Church authority nor instills doubts about the Catholic Faith but rather instills doubts about the negligence and wayward direction of today’s modernist clergy who have cast aside sacred tradition for worldly gain and acclaim.

The above quote is in reference to a statement of denunciation that was issued by Bishop Francis Mugavero on November 4, 1986, in which he said that he and the diocese had done a "thorough investigation" of Bayside, but this is a lie that rendered his statement null and void. The following is taken from the Bayside “Facts Revealed” statement that was published by St. Michaels World Apostolate concerning Mugavero’s “thorough investigation.”

“It never happened. Webster’s defines thorough as “omitting nothing; complete; very exact, accurate, or painstaking, especially with regard to details.” If it were a “thorough investigation” then it certainly would have followed the Vatican norms for judging apparitions, but they completely blew them off. No investigative commission was ever publicly named. Who was on the commission? What was their expertise? When did the investigation begin and how long did it last? What were their findings, etc. etc. There are no answers, there is no official report. (We asked to see it many times.) How could there be a thorough investigation when the principal witness, Veronica, was never even questioned? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) is named twice in the bishop’s statement, yet the CDF norms were ignored!”

Suffice it to say, the Church has never conducted a canonical investigation of Bayside. And whereas the Church has the option to declare that an alleged apparition doesn't warrant an investigation, the fact is that the bishop said he did a thorough investigation. But where's the evidence? What were the "errors" they found in the Bayside message? The bishop four times in his letter warns that the message of Bayside is contrary to or endangers faith and morals, yet not one example is given.

What is deplorable is the audacity with which the Brooklyn Diocese judged Veronica without first questioning her. The 1983 code of Canon Law made it clear that the local bishop must question and examine the principal witness of an alleged apparition before issuing a verdict.

“Before issuing a singular decree, an authority [bishop] is to seek out the necessary information and proofs and, insofar as possible, to hear those whose rights can be injured.”

The diocese broke the law (Canon 50, 1983 code). Even when Veronica went to the Brooklyn Chancery to lay her books open for them she was turned away and told to go home, making it clear that they had no interest in investigating Bayside. 

But they certainly had a keen interest in issuing their defamatory statement against Veronica and Bayside. The bishop's statement constituted a gross travesty of justice. Veronica was tried in absentia, which violated Canon Law.

The Perverse Judges Who Condemned Susanna

Dignifying the perverse judgment of a corrupt bishop against an innocent soul without first examining her calls to mind how the people of Daniel’s time dignified the corrupt judgment of the two perverse elders who falsely accused the virtuous Susanna of adultery without the people first giving her a chance to defend herself.

Thereupon, the young Daniel stood up in the midst and said: “Are ye so foolish, ye children of Israel, that without examination or knowledge of the truth, you have condemned a daughter of Israel? Return to judgment, for they have borne false witness against her.” (Daniel 13: 48,49)

This is what the Church today should say to the Brooklyn Diocese. The bishop labelled Veronica taboo and turned many against her, but the faithful shouldn’t listen.

Bishop’s Statement Has Generated Disinformation

The word has since spread that that Bayside was "condemned” by the Church, but even the then auxiliary bishop of the Brooklyn Diocese and former chancellor Anthony Bevilacqua (retired cardinal of Philadelphia) stated in a 1982 interview: “Condemned is a very strong word. I’m not hesitant to use it, but it doesn’t belong in something like this.” He also said that it is not morally wrong to attend the Bayside Rosary vigils at the apparition site.

Nay, Bayside was never condemned and the Church should make this known to spare the reputation of “those whose rights can be injured.” Anyone can go to Bayside in good conscience.

The late Fr. Robert Skurla, the former chaplain of the International Fatima Blue Army said: "If they're going to condemn Bayside, they might as well condemn the whole Catholic Church with it, and sadly, that's what many of today's bishops and priests are doing!"

The late Fr. Malachi Martin, exorcist, theologian, Vatican insider and advisor to three popes, stated in summer of 1998: “I believe that Bayside is a true apparition…. Certain circumstances now have led me to believe that in fact it is a true apparition.”

Fr. Skurla echoed this same conviction, saying, “I will stake my reputation on the doctrine contained in the messages.” Even the late chancellor of the Brooklyn Diocese, Msgr. Anthony Bevilacqua, stated for the Boston Herald American in 1980: “She’s not saying anything contrary to the Faith.” 

The Ripple Effect from Rome

The National Catholic Register’s article on apparitions was seemingly prompted by the Vatican’s May 19th decree that Rome will no longer authenticate apparitions and miracles. This in turn has enhanced the widespread error that Marian apparitions are not important.

This contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council, which says:

God has willed that external proofs of his revelation, namely divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies, should be added to the internal aids given the Holy Spirit. Since these proofs so excellently display God’s omnipotence and limitless knowledge, they constitute the surest signs of divine revelation, signs that are suitable to everyone’s understanding.

When Church authorities start downplaying Marian apparitions it’s a sure sign that ulterior motives are at work – motives that have nothing to do with ‘guarding the faithful from error.’ Simple common sense should tell us that when Christ sends his Mother to bring a message to the world our duty is to listen. The apparitions of Fatima and La Salette were necessary for our salvation, which is why they were so viciously attacked by the enemies of the Church.

Bishop Mugavero Supported “New Ways Ministry”

We should also point out that the late Bishop Mugavero of Brooklyn was an LGBT sympathizer who supported the gay-lesbian "New Ways Ministry" and who kept regular touch with them.  He had a reputation of coddling homosexuals so naturally he wasn't about to approve a heavenly message that says: "All who become part of or condone homosexuality shall be destroyed." (Jesus, June 2, 1979)

Jesus told the people, “Amen I say to you, that no prophet is accepted in his own country.” (St. Luke 4:24) This certainly hits home, for while Veronica has been accepted in other countries she is rejected at home. Yea, she has been dragged through the mud of the media and has born every insult that the mind of Satan could produce. This type of rejection is grounded in malice, not justice. She received the same treatment that Trump is now receiving.

Latter-Day Pharisees

People who reject Bayside are easily compared to the Pharisees who rejected Christ. For just as the Pharisees mocked Jesus and stirred up the people against him, we have latter-day Pharisees [modern bishops] who mock Jesus’ message at Bayside and who stir the people up against him. And why? Because the message doesn't suit their worldly palate.

When the Brooklyn bishop said that the Bayside messages “are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church,” he meant contrary to Modernism, not to Catholicism. Bayside’s call to return to tradition is the very thing the modernist clergy resent. Believing in Bayside means having to admit that much of what they've done since Vatican II has been morally unacceptable and rather than having the humility to efface themselves they lash out against the Bayside message.  They see Bayside as an interference into their worldly innovations. They've been so intent on bowing to their golden calf of change that the truth now seems foreign to them. They are truly latter-day Pharisees who condemn the miracles of Christ but with nothing to back their claims. Jesus today is truly being recrucified by his own priests. 

The Bayside message of July 15, 1978, had this to say:

“Many pastors have buried their heads in the sand. They are blind of spirit, and why? Because they do not pray. They have given themselves over to worldly pursuits. They do not pray. They do not stay in the spirit but have become of the world, seeking gold and silver and honor and power among men, until in their pursuits they are handing over My Son's Church to the enemies of God.”

On June 18, 1986, Jesus gave us the gist of the Third Secret of Fatima and it was this message that prompted Bishop Mugavero to issue his negative statement five months later.

"I say this evening, as your God, that on that date, as promised at Fatima, satan entered My Church upon earth. He brought with him his agents. And satan himself, the deceiver of all mankind, sat in on Vatican II and maneuvered all the outsiders to come in and distort My doctrines and distort the truth.”