Church Status of the Bayside Apparitions Part 2
 

end days there will come among you false teachers, one who lives with pride and arrogance, using their rank to lead others down the road to Hell.

Therefore, stand forth in the Faith. Prayer, atonement, and sacrifice, more now than ever, for those who have been taken by satan and are being used as tools of the Prince of Darkness. Obedience is always first and foremost to God!"

Official Shrine Letter in response to the Brooklyn Chancery's negative judgment on the Bayside Apparitions

March 19, 1987 —Dear Friends of Our Lady of the Roses:

Concerning Bishop Francis J. Mugavero's official statement of November 4, 1986, reiterating the Brooklyn Chancery's negative judgment on the Apparitions of Our Lady and Our Lord to Veronica Lueken, we wish to state that this new declaration mandates no change in policy vis-à-vis the promotion and dissemination of the Bayside Message throughout the world. This latest pronouncement of the Diocese of Brooklyn on the Virgin Mary's Appearances at Bayside remains completely null and void (as

 

were all the previous ones), as far as Our Lady of the Roses Shrine is concerned, for the following reasons:

    1. Veronica and the Shrine have never been approached in truth and justice by the local Bishop or by any representative of his, in person, or even by telephone. Therefore,

     


    No evidence of an investigation

    there could not have been any investigation, as the principal witness, the seer herself, was not allowed to even defend herself. Being tried, in absentia, without a hearing would not hold up in any court of law, and can only be termed an utter travesty of justice. None of Veronica's workers, not even her personal secretary, Ann Ferguson, has ever been questioned or interrogated. No written document has even been produced factually showing that even the most rudimentary form of an investigation was conducted. It is impossible to obtain the names of the investigative committee, or even an accurate date when the said inquiry occurred; even the year of this event

 

    has not been established. Was it 1973? 1975? Or perhaps someother date? What is an objective onlooker to conclude when presented with slovenly-concocted and self-contradictory evidence? Or shall we say such a lack of evidence? How difficult it is to maintain the appearance of truth when one peddles the wares of deception and falsehood!

    2. The fact that the Bishop of Brooklyn has personally affixed his name to the declaration on the Apparition (the first time in sixteen years!) does not bind Catholics under obedience to disbelieve in, or remain away from the Prayer Vigils, or the Apparition Site.

    The diocesan statement maintains that it is issuing the said letter in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith, that the said Congregation confirms that the publication of religious materials still governed by principles that “maintain authoritative moral value prohibiting the endangering of faith and morals.” If the prohibition has only “authoritative moral value,” then the Diocesan authorities do not have legal and disciplinary powers over the offender.